Even if Trump loses the election, this
nail-biter election reflects the rising power of the Alt Right. The loss of Trump would not reverse that rise, but a very strong political force will accelerate that rise: the science of human genetics.
- The National Institute of Health is planning the largest-ever genetic study. It will collect the genetic and biographical profiles of over a MILLION Americans, including "educational status." After this collection is completed, analysts will identify most of the alleles that code for educational success, a trait that is already known to be 75% genetically heritable through twin studies, and we already know the alleles that code for 9% of the total variance. The complete set of alleles are expected to be closely associated with IQ, only with even more practical value. These genetic variants have the greatest role in deciding whether any given person is a winner or a loser in society.
- Analysts will also discover that these alleles vary in frequency among races, predicting the existing racial hierarchy of educational success and IQ (as the aforementioned alleles coding for 9% already have so been shown). The taboo surrounding this prediction does not decrease its probability. Even without the molecular genetics, there are many good reasons in favor of it and few good reasons against it, and I won't debate those reasons in this thread, but, if you have an objection then I will direct you to an appropriate thread. Or else browse my threads in the Pseudoscience forum to learn more.
- This advance in molecular genetics will fully convince the majority of psychologists (not just intelligence researchers, who are now generally already convinced) of relevant genetic racial psychological differences. The majority of Americans will likewise be convinced, as handheld genetic-testing devices will test for genotypic "smarts," and Americans will easily see the genotypic racial differences for themselves.
- Because belief in genetic psychological racial differences is the core belief and driving political force of the Alt Right, this new broadly-accepted science will give them a powerful political position, as the science supplies the key premise for their central policy of immigration restriction (poor criminal Mexicans drain the economy).
- Very many liberals, however, will not accept the science accepted by everyone else. They now generally pride themselves on being on the side of mainstream science, but they are willing to grant key exceptions. Their opposition to genetic engineering of crops is such an exception, and that exception will be many times magnified for the sake of opposing "racist pseudoscience," as it is the core dogma that all but defines liberalism. They will first accept conspiracy theories, cherry-picked studies, fringe authorities, and a thousand fallacies before they even consider accepting the "racist" mainstream science, much like they now behave against the science of genetic engineering of crops.
- This will mean that middle Americans will tend to see such liberals as generally crazy, they will favor the Alt Right, and the liberals will remain trapped in the loony bins until they die of old age. Until then the Alt Right will have sole control of the steering wheel, and in the back seat will be their preferences for fascism, for anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, and for scorn against the concerns of darker-skinned races. In Europe, the likewise-rising Far Right will likewise take sole control.
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that 1, 2, and 3 eventually happen. Obviously, it would take a lot of time to convince psychologists, given that universities are mostly already left-committed for the most part, but let's say eventually they are convinced of the IQ stuff. Then:
ApostateAbe said:
Because belief in genetic psychological racial differences is the core belief and driving political force of the Alt Right, this new broadly-accepted science will give them a powerful political position, as the science supplies the key premise for their central policy of immigration restriction (poor criminal Mexicans drain the economy).
Points 1., 2., and 3. only say something about IQ, education, etc.
They do not say that Mexicans are criminals because of their genes. It surely does not entail that they are a drain on the economy. In fact, as I already said in the other thread, the GDP per capita of the US has largely increased from 1960 to 2016 (source:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita ).
Now, immigration and higher reproductive rates among Latinos since the 1960s (in particular, after the changes in immigration law in 1965; source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965#Long-term_impact ) have vastly increased the percentage of Latinos (especially Mexicans and their descendants), and yet GDP per capita continued to increase, not to decrease.
It's very probable that the pattern of increase will continue, barring major upheaval (e.g., war against Russia, or civil war).
Now, it might be argued that Latinos have in general lower genotypic IQ (as you call it), and that while GDP per capita would continue to grow, it would do so at a lower rate than it would grow without Latino immigration. But then, it doesn't follow that that "drains the economy". In fact, the economy will grow (as a whole) faster with more people than with fewer (as long as they're not criminals, etc.; this is not an argument against border controls, but about banning all Latinos), so that's not a problem - and no, they're not all criminals. Surely, the economy kept growing with all that immigration.-
What about the GDP per capita?
Well, IIRC you said elsewhere that IQ is a predictor of income, and the GDP per capita isn't equally distributed per capita, of course. So, it does not follow even then that people who do not have lower genotypic IQ would have a lower income if there is more immigration from Mexico than if there is less.
Now, that said, there are other difficulties with massive migration - like migrants bringing cultures that are potentially less conducive to economic growth, the rule of law, etc.
However, that's a different matter altogether, since those who aren't in the alt-right mostly do support having borders and border controls. What is at stake is banning all immigration from Mexico (and perhaps from all of Latin America).
Regarding a potential law banning all Mexican or Latino immigrants, what would be the interest, in a court case?
Allegedly in this context, to prevent lower IQ due to genetic predispositions. Let's further assume that those genes have been identified, etc., and that they are as the alt-right says (which is not at all justified based on the information I've seen, but let's say so).
If Latinos whose genes are not "low IQ" genes applied for immigration status, they'd be told they're not allowed to. Why? Because they're not pure Caucasoid? (and what if they are? Maybe because they're not Caucasoid with recent ancestors from Europe).
There is no way that law is compatible with the US Constitution. Present-day justices (all of them) would strike that law down. Any justices appointed by Clinton would do so as well. And probably any justices appointed by Trump would do so as well, since the Senate (even in the event of a Trump victory) would not accept justices who wouldn't probably reject such open racism.
But that sets the SCOTUS doctrine on the matter for several decades to come. And after several decades, the population that is Latino or partly Latino will already be a much larger percentage of the population as they are today. And then there is the Black population. And so on.
ApostateAbe said:
Very many liberals, however, will not accept the science accepted by everyone else. They now generally pride themselves on being on the side of mainstream science, but they are willing to grant key exceptions. Their opposition to genetic engineering of crops is such an exception, and that exception will be many times magnified for the sake of opposing "racist pseudoscience," as it is the core dogma that all but defines liberalism. They will first accept conspiracy theories, cherry-picked studies, fringe authorities, and a thousand fallacies before they even consider accepting the "racist" mainstream science, much like they now behave against the science of genetic engineering of crops.
First, by assumption, psychologists will be persuaded. Psychologists are usually on the left. That will persuade other leftists, and/or will likely create new forms of leftism, which would include people who do accept the science, but do not agree at all with the alt-right.
Second, other conservatives - particularly Catholics - who aren't alt-right will usually have no problem accepting the science, but will oppose that kind of policy. The Catholic Church is sure to oppose even if a more conservative pope is elected.
Third, intelligent liberal thinkers who won't accept the science due to their ideological commitments
will still have no problem seeing the inconsistency in the alt-right position of banning all Latinos and/or Mexicans, instead of accepting the results of DNA tests for example. That will likely persuade people who aren't alt-right today but are inclined to accept the findings of science: even if they happened to agree that it's a good idea to pick immigrants by genotypic IQ, they will likely at most want to restrict people on the basis of genes, not on the basis of either race of nationality.
Fourth, there are demographic factors weighing heavily against the alt-right (more below).
ApostateAbe said:
This will mean that middle Americans will tend to see such liberals as generally crazy, they will favor the Alt Right, and the liberals will remain trapped in the loony bins until they die of old age. Until then the Alt Right will have sole control of the steering wheel, and in the back seat will be their preferences for fascism, for anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, and for scorn against the concerns of darker-skinned races. In Europe, the likewise-rising Far Right will likewise take sole control.
But who are middle Americans?
First, if they're Black, they're not going to side with the alt-right. In fact, if the alt-right is rising, they're going to often register and vote to fight them. Even if banning Mexicans/Latinos wouldn't affect them directly, they're sure to see the alt-right as the enemy.
Second, if they identify as Latino/Hispanic, Mexican-American, also they will be likely to go to vote to stop the alt-right. But there are plenty of those.
Third, in fact, non-Hispanic Whites will likely be less than 50% of the population in 2050 if current trends continue. Granted, you might think the alt-right will take power sooner, banning Mexican or Latino immigration. But how will they get around the SCOTUS?
If they're going to change the composition of the SCOTUS enough to pass a law like that, they'll need decades, and by then, Hispanics/Latinos will be even more ubiquitous than they are now.
Fourth, many non-Hispanic Whites will continue to oppose the alt-right, since some leftists will remain, many conservatives will remain (of the non-alt-right variety), and because many will be the spouses, friends, etc., of people who identify as Hispanic/Latino/Mexican-American, etc., and who will likely be opposed to such an obviously biased policy - not supported by science, of course,
even granting the claims about the science.
Fifth, of course Jews will generally oppose the alt-right. They will vote against them, and some will invest a lot of money working against them. They will likely find allies among traditional conservatives.
Sixth, Arabs will also oppose the alt-right (they're Caucasoid and White, but for some reason, the alt-right seems generally against them, so they're likely to respond in kind).
Seventh, Caucasoids of recent Indian descend will also oppose the alt-right, as they (in most cases) be among the attacked "darker-skinned races".
All of those people - and more -
can actually vote.
There is, of course, the media, which will continue to be heavily against the alt-right also for the foreseeable future; they might not be decisive, but it's just one more factor that adds to the pile.
At the very least, that shows that the belief the the alt-right will take over is not warranted on the basis of the available evidence, again even granting for the sake of the argument all of those genotypic IQ claims.
