Recently Gavin McInnes made a video for Rebel Media explaining that he isn't happy about certain racist ideas that are popular among some people who are advancing the label "cuckservative." Since I am a "racist" (I prefer racialist or race realist) who uses the term "cuckservative," the video was of interest to me. I think McInnes gets an awful lot wrong in this video, but I also like Gavin McInnes. I think he is funny and makes reasonably intelligent political commentary. So in this post I am going to, respectfully, explain what is wrong with his viewpoint.
First, let's get some easy misunderstandings out of the way. When commenting on Matt Forney's article about cuckservatives, McInnes accuses Forney of being anti-Israel because he said that we should care more about our own borders than Israel's. I'm no fan of Forney, but what he said is not anti-Israel. The US should care more about its own borders than the borders of China, Russia, England, or any other country. That doesn't mean that we should be anti-the rest of the world. It just means that the American government should be run in the interest of Americans.
Setting Israel aside (for a moment), McInnes also says that "not being ashamed of being White is a good thing, but excluding races because of their race is a bad thing." This assertion poses the question: exclude from what? We certainly don't need to exclude non-Whites from conservatism. However, we should exclude non-Whites, to a degree, from White nations. This isn't because we should hate non-Whites. It's simply because people tend to get along better with people who look and act like themselves and society tends to run smoother when people get along. This was demonstrated by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam when he analyzed data from 40 regions across the United States and found that, even after controlling for differences in age, poverty, crime, etc., the more ethnically diverse an area was, the less people trusted their neighbors, the fewer friends they had, and the less satisfied they were with their lives (Putnam 2007). It's worth taking special note of the statistical controls for differences in poverty and crime. This analysis shows that racial diversity damages social cohesion even when the relevant minorities don't bring crime or poverty into the neighborhood.
This fact is relevant to McInnes, who reads off a list of Black conservatives who he likes. I don't have anything against these people. I have read more books by Thomas Sowell than any other author. I'm a fan of his. Nonetheless, like most people, I prefer to live in areas where most people look like me and act like me. That doesn't mean I don't think any non-Whites should be allowed in White nations. Exceptional ones that can help the nation should be let in. But their numbers should remain small so that we can preserve a sense of racial homogeneity that bolsters social cohesion.
It is worth noting the contradiction in McInnes attacking the idea of excluding non-Whites right after praising Israel. Israel, of course, excludes non-Jews. And yet I somehow doubt that McInnes spends much time objecting to Zionist racism.
If you reject racial nationalism but accept the evidence offered by Putnam's work, then you are left with two opinions. On the one hand, you could say that White nations should let non-Whites in even though it will hurt our societies because doing so might help non-Whites. In other words, you can be a "cuckservative" and deny the obvious truth that White people founded our nations, we pay for our nations, and so our nations should work in our interest. On the other hand, you can suggest, as Putnam himself does, that society will someday learn to overcome racial bias and, at that point, diversity will finally become the strength liberals have always pretended that it is. There is no evidence to suggest that this will ever happen. It is a utopian fantasy totally detached from what we know about human nature and is no more likely to succeed than any of the other utopian fantasies that leftists have pushed over the years.
Black Pathology and the Welfare State
Moving on from racial nationalism, at several points in his video McInnes supports the idea that Black pathology (a term I am borrowing from an article by Allen West (linked below to describe the high crime rates, high out-of-wedlock birth rates, high poverty rates, etc., of Black populations) has been caused by liberals via the welfare state and other liberal policies. There may be some truth to this. Though the causes aren't totally clear, Blacks act more pathological today than they did before the 1960s. But the truth is that Blacks have always been more pathological than Whites.
McInnes refers to an article by Allen West in which West claims that Blacks had a much lower illegitimacy rate in the 1940s than they do today. This is accurate, but Whites also had a much lower illegitimacy rate back then. According to the U.S. Census, in 1940-1944 19% of black births were conceived outside of marriage. That's a hell of a lot lower than the 72% of Black births that are conceived out of marriage today. But, according to the same Census data, it is also over 3 times greater than the White out-of-wedlock birth rate during that period (6%).
A similar story can be told about crime. Today, Blacks make up about 13% of the US population and about 40% of the prison population. So they are imprisoned at roughly 3 times the rate you would expect given their population size. Like the Black illegitimacy rate, the Black crime rate has become far worse since the welfare state came into existence. But racial crime gaps are nothing new. Data from the Department of Justice shows that in the 1920s Blacks were roughly 21% of the prison population. During this time Blacks were 9.8% of the general population and so were in prison at a little more than twice the rate that their population size would predict.
Clearly then, while the welfare state may have made Black pathology worse, it was not the initial cause of it. As far back as our records go, Blacks exhibit greater levels of pathology than Whites.
Out of Wedlock Births and Crime
Moreover, it isn't clear why Blacks are more pathological today than they were in the past. Conservatives typically say that Blacks are more likely to commit crime now than they used to be because the number of single-parent Black homes is much higher today than it was in the past. To demonstrate that single-parent homes cause crime, conservatives usually cite data showing that children from broken homes are more likely than children from two-parent homes to be criminals.
The heritable nature of human psychology poses a big problem for this line of reasoning. Basically all human traits, including psychological traits, are partly heritable (Bouchard 2004). This has been demonstrated by twin studies utilizing millions of participants over several decades (Polderman et al. 2015). This finding is so well supported that it has literally been called the first law of behavioral genetics (Turckheimer 2000). Now, think about the personality traits that might cause people to end up divorced. Some of them, such as aggression and impulsivity, would also predispose someone to be a criminal. Given this, it may be that parents who get divorced simply pass on their personalities to their kids which in turn make them more likely to be criminals. There is no obvious way to decide between these alternative (though not mutually exclusive) explanations for the association between single-parent homes and crime.
Back in the 1980s the broken-homes-cause-crime theory looked a lot more plausible because the illegitimacy rate had been climbing at the same time that crime had. But since the 1990s the crime rate has plummeted while the frequency of single-parent homes has continued to rise.
Typically, the psychological theory behind this narrative is that without two parents children will lack role models, be disciplined less, and, as a result, be more likely to misbehave. This is intuitively plausible, but not well supported by the evidence. In one recent study researchers interviewed the same families multiple times over several years and found that, in most families, the children didn't become any more aggressive (based on parents' ratings of their children's behavior) following a divorce (Ryan et al. 2015).
Of course, no single piece of evidence is definitive. But the totality of evidence does not support the idea that broken homes cause crime. Furthermore, even if broken homes do cause crime, they certainly don't explain much about why some people are more criminal than others. Meta-analyses of dozens of studies suggest that even if the association between single-parent homes and crime is causal it can't explain more than 5% of the variation in criminality between people (Petrosino et al. 2009).
Liberal Economics and Black Pathology
Broken homes aren't the only liberal policy that conservatives say causes Black pathology. Many also argue that liberal economic policies create poverty and crime and, as evidence, point to Detroit. According to the previously mentioned Matt Forney article, thinking that liberal economic policies are what has ruined Detroit is a sure sign that someone is a "cuckservative". McInnes responds by saying that liberals have done the same thing in Glasgow as they have in Detroit and, since Glasgow isn't full of Blacks, this shows that liberal economic policies, rather than race, explain the failure of these cities.
Saying that Glasgow is like Detroit is, at best, hyperbolic. The average income in Glasgow is £14,161 pounds or $22,091 dollars. This is much lower than the average income in the United States, but is far higher than the average income of Detroit: $14,870 dollars. Similarly, Glasgow's murder rate is 18 per 100,000. Detroit's rate of 45 per 100,000 is over 2 times that. So no, liberals have not turned Glasgow into Detroit. And by the way, Glasgow is actually pretty "vibrant" for Scotland. If we look at the racial demographics of Scotland's 32 council areas (their rough equivalent of states) we see that Glasgow is by far the most non-White council area in the whole country. Given that Glasgow isn't nearly as shitty as Detroit, and it is very non-White for Scotland (which is admittedly still very White compared to the US), Glasgow is far from proof that liberalism, rather than racial differences, leads to the deconstruction of civilized society.
This is really a false dichotomy though. We can easily expand our worldview to allow for the possibility that both can ruin a place.
That being said, race and economic liberalism are not equally important. This is shown by the UN's Human Development Report in conjunction with the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. The Heritage foundation has pointed out that, using their measure of economic freedom, people living in unfree and repressed nations are 3.6 times more likely to be living in poverty than people living in mostly free nations. Clearly then, economic freedom matters. But the UN report that Heritage got its numbers on world poverty from also shows that people living in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa are 29.7 and 33.1 times more likely, respectively, to be living in poverty than people living in Europe and Central Asia are (Table 3.1 on page 73). (The differences between East Asians and these groups are also very large.) Thus, if you had to chose between living in a random free country as opposed to a random unfree country or a random White country as opposed to a random non-White country you would be a lot less likely to be poor choosing the White country. So yes, race and economic freedom both matter. But race matters a lot more.
Thomas Sowell and Black Rednecks
Yet another explanation of Black pathology that McInnes points to is the one offered by Thomas Sowell in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals. In brief, Sowell's argument begins with various pieces of evidence suggesting that the areas of England, Scotland, and Ireland that White Southerners came from were relatively violent and primitive. Then he cites various accounts of the early South which remarked on how lazy and aggressive the Whites there were. With this as his background, Sowell tries to make the case that African Americans initially learned Ghetto culture, and the associated pathological behaviors, from White Southerners during slavery.
To an extent, this is true. For instance, a moment of reflection makes it obvious that Ebonics is an adaptation of Southern American English. But the idea that behavior like Black crime is to blame on Southern White culture is completely untenable. After all, Black crime is an international phenomenon. In his book Race and Crime: a Biosocial Analysis, the criminologist Anthony Walsh reports that Blacks have higher crime rates than Whites in every nation he could find data for. And, of course, Africa has far higher crime rates than Europe, America, or Asia. Clearly then, something limited to one country, such as White southern culture, cannot explain the bulk of Black crime (or any other major pathology).
Social Pathology, Race, and Genes
So if neither Democrats nor Southern Whites can be blamed for Black behavior, then what can? Genetics. (Note: saying that genes are one reason that Blacks act pathologically does not mean that genes are the only reason that Blacks act pathologically.) To begin with, let me state the obvious: members of the same race are not identical twins. They are more genetically similar than people of different races, but they do not have all the same gene variants. So yes, there are Blacks who, because of their genetics, have done very well in life. That doesn't change the fact that there are average genetic differences between the races and these differences don't tend to favor Blacks when it comes to traits that determine how successful people end up being.
Strong evidence of this was provided by an analysis of 31 studies which found associations between genomic ancestry (how much of your genome is of African, European, Asian, etc. descent) and measures of success (mostly income and education) (Chuck 2014A). It's important to realize that these studies focused on slight variations in genetic ancestry rather than large differences like actually being Black as opposed to White or biracial. Such slight differences aren't easily discernible by eye and so probably don't lead to differential treatment by society. This review found that across 14 studies that measured African ancestry 13 found that the more African a person's genome was the lower their socioeconomic status tended to be. The 14th study found no association. Across 13 studies that measured European ancestry 11 found a positive association between how European a person's genome was and how high their socioeconomic status was. The other two studies found no association. There was only 1 study which looked at East Asian ancestry and it was found to be positively associated with how educated someone is. There were also 15 studies which looked at how Native American ancestry correlated with success among Hispanics. 13 found a negative association. The other 2 found no association. Clearly then, the totality of the evidence shows that the more genetically White (and possibly East Asian) you are, the more successful you will tend to be; and the more genetically Black or Native American you are, the less successful you will tend to be.
A similar analysis looked at how differences in the average genome of people in 30 different districts of Mexico (roughly equivalent to states) predicted district-level differences in average math scores, intelligence test scores, and how districts scored on the Human Development Index, which measures differences in educational attainment, health, and income (Chuck 2014B). It found that the Whiter the average genome in a district was, the higher that district tended to score on all three measures. The opposite trend was found between these measures of success and how Native American the average person's genome was.
Race, Intelligence, and Genes
One major reason why African genes predispose people towards lower socioeconomic status is that the races differ in their genetic potential for intelligence. Reviews of studies including millions of participants across many decades show that, on average, East Asians score higher on intelligence tests than Whites who score higher than Blacks (Roth et al. 2001). IQ scores are known to correlate with wealth, education, and crime, and if you control for IQ differences, most of the racial differences in income, education, and crime disappear (Strenze 2006) (Deary et al. 2007) (Herrnstein and Murray 1994) (Ellis et al. 2009) (Beaver and Wright 2011). (Note: the fact that IQ scores predict grades, crime rates, and income, show that they clearly matter even if they don't measure intelligence perfectly.)
There is pretty good evidence that racial differences in intelligence are partly caused by genetics. For starters, the IQ gap is found all over the world, making a cultural explanation less likely (Lynn 2006). Secondly, the IQ gap has barely changed at all in the 100 years that we have been measuring it (Chuck 2013) (Rushton and Jensen 2006).
Unfortunately, there are no good studies (that I know of) on how genomic ancestry relates to IQ scores. But skin color can be used as a proxy for European ancestry, and several studies have found that the lighter a Black person's skin is, the better they tend to score on IQ tests (Lynn 2002) (Chuck 2008).
Finally, there are many known gene variants which are associated with being smarter than average and which are more common among Europeans and East Asians than Africans. For instance, using publicly available data from the International HapMap Project and ALFRED, two well-known storehouses of genetic data, the psychologist Byron Roth showed that the DTNBP1 gene variant, which other studies have found predicts intelligence scores, was found in the genomes of 93% of Chinese and Japanese people, 82% of Europeans, and 63% of Africans. Similarly, an allele of the CHRM2 gene ,which has also been associated with intelligence, was found in the genomes of 100% of Chinese and Japanese people, 80% of Europeans, and 45% of Africans. (Roth 2010 pages 157-158). Other research has found that the "Met" variant of the COMT gene, which has been repeatedly associated with intelligence, is present in the genomes of 51% of Europeans and 24% of Africans. And the T allele of the SNP rs236330, which has been associated with having low intelligence, is found in the genomes of 64% of Africans, 20% of Europeans, 15% of East Asians (Piffer 2013).
Reading off gene names probably isn't very interesting, so I'll speed things up by describing two studies published in Open Behavioral Genetics (Piffer and Kirkegaard 2014) (Piffer 2013B) . These studies looked at population differences in a combined total of 14 gene variants which were previously associated with intelligence, and found that these genes followed the racial pattern that you would predict based on the IQ differences between Blacks and Whites. If racial differences in gene frequencies were random you would expect that a given gene linked to intelligence would have a 50% chance of existing at a higher frequency in either race. But this is not what researchers have found so far. Instead, there appears to be a systematic bias such that gene variants associated with intelligence are much more likely to exist at a higher frequency among Whites than among Blacks and this strongly supports the idea that genetics explains part of why Black people are less intelligent than White people.
Race, Crime, and Genetics
The evidence about race, genetics, and crime is pretty compelling as well. To begin with, the situation generally looks like a genetic phenomenon. As I have already noted, Blacks commit more crime than Whites all around the world and have been doing so for as far back as our records go. And a report issued by the Department of Education shows that even as early as pre-school (ages 2-5), Black students are 2.7 times more likely to be suspended than what their (pre-school-aged) population size would predict. So whatever explains why Black people get in trouble more than White people do, it's something, or some set of things, which Blacks all over the world have, which Blacks have had for at least 100 years, and which they have by the time they start preschool. That sounds an awful lot like genes to me.
On top of this, as is the case with intelligence, there are genes that are known to cause people to be more impulsive and violent, and therefore more likely to be a criminal, which several studies have found are more common in the genomes of Blacks than Whites (Byrd and Manuck 2014) (Ficks and Waldman 2014) (NoOffenseBut2011).
Testosterone is another factor at play here. Lots of studies have shown that aggressive males and criminals have higher levels of testosterone than average (Book 2001). And experiments which raise men's testosterone levels have found that doing so causes men to become more aggressive (Burnham 2007) (Kouri et al. 1995) . Add to this the fact that multiple studies have shown that Blacks have more testosterone than Whites and that, because of genetic differences, the androgen receptors that testosterone binds with to impact the body are more sensitive among Blacks than among Whites, and you have another genetic cause for higher Black crime (Ross et al. 1986) (Ellis and Nyborg 1992) (Irvine et al. 1995) (Wang. et al 2013) (Bennett et al. 2002) (Shibalev et al. 2013).
Lastly, there is a link between the hormones that produce dark skin and aggression (Rushton and Templer 2012). Across many species it has been found that darker skin is associated with aggression (Ducrest et al. 2008). And among humans, nations with lighter skin have lower crime rates (Rushton and Templer 2009). More importantly, injecting these hormones into turtles is known to make them become more aggressive (Ducrest et al. 2008). The simplest explanation for the association between melanin producing hormones and aggression across the animal kingdom is that these hormones cause aggression in most animals just as they cause aggression in turtles. And there is no good reason to exclude humanity from this explanation.
Race and Political Ideology
Hopefully, readers are by now convinced that it is reasonable to think that part of why Blacks don't do well in society is because of their genes. This fact has some important political implications. In several different nations it has been shown that conservatives tend to think that people are responsible for where they end up in life whereas liberals tend to blame society for how our lives turn out (Pandey et al. 1982) (Rubin 1975) (Zucker and Weiner 1993). The poorer you are, the more likely you are to take the liberal stance (Kraus et al 2012). This makes sense: if you are poor then saying that you are responsible for your situation will reflect badly on you, whereas blaming it on others will not only alleviate you of responsibility but will also justify you demanding that the state redistribute wealth via welfare programs.
The human mind is designed for people to think this way. Psychological experiments have shown that you can openly give players advantages in games and they will still attribute their victory to merit. Other research in which study participants were forced to either do an easy task or a hard task have found that when players are made to do the easy task they think that the rewards for the study should be divided evenly among participants, whereas those who do the hard tasks think that payment should reflect merit (DeScioli et al. 2014). Both of these experiments suggest that how people think about what determines how well people do in life, and how wealth should be distributed, is more impacted by what would benefit them personally than by any objective analysis of the situation.
Combining what I've gone over so far then, we see that unsuccessful people will naturally tend to be liberal and Blacks/Hispanics are naturally, relative to Whites, unsuccessful. Thus Blacks and Hispanics will naturally be more liberal than Whites. (Being unsuccessful isn't the only genetically influenced reason that Blacks and Hispanics vote Democrat, but the other reasons are beyond the scope of this post.) This prediction is borne out in the United States: Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than Whites to support welfare policies and are more likely to vote Democrat, and this has been true for decades.
Returning to the idea of cuckservatism: what this tells us is that Blacks and Hispanics are naturally predisposed to be liberals. As a result, trying to pander to them with small concessions will be generally ineffective. This is what "cuckservatives" do: they try to appease the non-Whites (and White liberal moralizers) by coming off as anti-racist as they can, and by violating conservative principles left and right—and as a result, they allow minorities to fuck over their own country. This strategy is doomed to fail for many reasons, one of which is that Blacks and Hispanics are liberals and, as a result, the only way you are going to win their votes is by being a liberal yourself.
The most direct evidence showing that this strategy fails is a study carried out by the Center for Immigration Studies which showed that a Republican congressman being pro-immigration did not, on average, increase their proportion of the Hispanic vote (Hawley 2013). But it did decrease their share of the White vote.
Finally, a few things should be said about race-mixing. McInnes doesn't understand why someone would have a problem with race-mixing and claims that mixed-race children are often cute. That may or may not be true; I don't know how cute the average mixed-race person is. But I do know a few other things about them.
For one, according to a study of 80 US schools, mixed-race children are worse off than single-race children in terms of physical health, school performance and discipline, drug use, and suicide rates (Udry et al. 2003). And for most variables this was true no matter what combination of races the children were. Another study of biracial Asian Americans found that they are at a heightened risk for psychological disorders like depression and anxiety. And the problems with race-mixing don't end with the children. Research shows that interracial marriages are 40% more likely than same-race marriages to end in divorce—even after controlling for differences between single- and multi-race couples in the number of past marriages they have had, whether or not the marriage produces kids, how religious the spouses are, whether or not the spouses come from two-parent homes, and whether or not they cohabited before marriage (Kreider 2000).
Opposition to race-mixing is normally characterized as a position based on nothing but hate. But the facts suggest that race-mixing is bad for families. This doesn't mean that there are no successful mixed-race families. There are many. But this does mean that there would probably be even more successful families if society had less race-mixing. Given this, opposing race-mixing is a perfectly rational thing to do from the standpoint of what is good for society.
In summary, liberals may have made Black behavior worse, but they aren't the root cause of why Blacks, relative to Whites, are criminal and poor. Neither are Southern Whites. The root cause is genes related to traits like (but not limited to) intelligence and aggression. These behavioral differences lead Blacks and Hispanics to be less successful in life and that, in turn, leads them to take liberal political views. Because of this, trying to turn them into conservatives is ultimately a battle against human nature and one that could cost White people control of our own nations. Even setting these differences aside, people still naturally prefer to be surrounded by people of their own race and there's nothing wrong with that. Recognizing this fact, and the empirical problems associated with race-mixing, doesn't mean that you hate non-Whites. It just means that you are accepting reality for what it is.