What Will The World Look Like When (Not If) Equalists Accept HBD?

I say when, not if, because equalists WILL accept the premises of HBD (human biodiversity), whether their acceptance comes willingly or at the behest of the smoking ruins which will be the eventual consequence of studiously avoiding the truth and wallowing in lies for personal profit.

Hot on the heels of leftoids having another satisfying public hate session (do they ever tire of their self-grooming hysterics?) over Jason Richwine’s (UPDATE: Jason Richwine has resigned from the Heritage Foundation. Score a win for the lying filth) mortal sin of observing the world and reporting the facts, GLPiggy commenter “lords of lies” wonders what America would look like if the Cathedral finally realized the truth of HBD, openly admitted its descriptive and predictive power, and began to tailor their policies accordingly. Would policy tilt more left-wing or more right-wing? The answer is not as obvious as might appear.

a case could be made for either outcome: more left-wing or right-wing policies.
regarding the former, the thinking by leftoids would go like this:

1. ok, people are genetically different, and unequally able to succeed in a modern, information- and abstract symbolism-heavy economy. therefore, we need to make life as comfy as possible for the left side of the bell curve (which we now believe in).
2. it’s not FAIR that people and groups are born with better or worse abilities and temperaments. ergo: massive redistribution.
3. this redistribution will take the form of direct payout (really, bribery to abstain from rioting), rather than feelgood policies like NCLB intended to close the gap, (which we now know can’t be closed).
4. we must encourage miscegenation so that the good genes filter down into the populations with the bad genes. (this is already happening. see any cathedral agit-prop)

regarding the latter, the thinking by rightists would go like this:

1. ok, group differences in IQ and other important traits are finally understood to be real by those in power. therefore, we need to end quotas, set-asides and affirmative action now because they only punish people who, through no fault of their own, were blessed with the right recombinatorial soup at conception.
2. it might not be FAIR, but no one said life was fair. children demand fairness to the exclusion of every other consideration; adults accept that unfairness is a part of living in the natural world. we should do our best to avoid deliberate unfairness, but accept that organic unfairness isn’t going anywhere, and that efforts to ameliorate organic unfairness will often lead to worse, intentional unfairness.
3. any redistribution (as a form of danegeld or preventative so that bleeding heart liberals won’t have to witness the poor dying in the streets from starvation and chaotic violence) should be coupled with eugenic social planning. e.g., any amount in govt largesse received over X would require the recipient consent to his or her reproductive incapacitation.
4. nominal rightists like Charles Murray could also make a case for encouraging miscegenation so as to avoid inequality boosting and culture severing cognitive stratification. but the more likely response would probably be active anti-dysgenics policies. i could see the widespread emergence of shaming campaigns against lower class white women dating outside their race.

“Of course, the iron rule of Progressivism is that if you never, ever say anything bad about minorities and women you can get them to vote for you no matter what your actual policies are. Therefore the reaction is political rather than policy-based and certainly few people who matter are actually interested in the truth.”

it’s a dangerous game, to run as one thing and govern as another. but in a riven society like ours, it makes some sense, because competing tribes will vote more on emotion than on rationality or interest for the common good. you tacitly suggest the right could take a pointer from the left and mouth all the anti-racist platitudes, but then govern like realists. however, that is exactly what the right has been doing for a long time, minus the governing like realists part. and what has it gotten them? nothing but their capitulation and kow-towing.

no, if the right assumes the tactics and mantel of the left to win votes through subterfuge, all that will happen is that the teat-sucklers will demand more promised concessions, and the real left will give it to them. playing perpetual catch-up is no way to win this war. and a war it is, let there be no doubt of that.

If CH had a son, he would sound like “lords of lies”.

It’s possible that, given open HBD acceptance, the leftoids may double down on their anti-white male animus by clinging ever more bitterly to their “institutional racism” shibboleth, on grounds that humans evolved dysgenic traits under discriminatory pressures. (Of course, this argument, like most equalist arguments, is easily refuted.)

If that were to happen, all bets are off. A healthy civilization can only sustain so much delusion, weaseling, sophistry and lies from its ruling class before the whole thing implodes as the rickety foundation gives under the weight of its prettifying ornamentation.

So… either the status whoring, sermonizing Cathedral is going to WAKE THE FUCK UP and do an about face as they discard their cherished pretty lies, or the ropes are going to grow in number and creak ever louder as they swing from the gallows waiting for justice.