J. Peder Zane: Charles Murray On Facing Reality: Race and IQ

As I've argued many times, this topic tests our commitment to inquiry. Almost no one can look at the facts without flinching. 

   In a way, the PC left made it possible for Murray to do so by doing everything it could to destroy him. The Bell Curve came out back during the paleo-PC era, and the left turned all its guns on him. Because of about half a page of writing. Even some of the most reasonable people I knew said utterly daft things about the data and Murray himself. Since then, his name has come up every now and then on campus--in classes and committee meetings. Invariably, what was said about him was false. But by doing its worst to him, the PCs more-or-less left him nothing to lose.

   So he's just about the only person willing to state the relevant evidence clearly. 

   Zane hits one relevant nails on the head:

Given the current climate, it is not surprising that his new book, “Facing Reality,” has been largely ignored by almost every major newspaper and magazine. But this dismissal is, ironically, a validation of his premise.
If his numbers were easily debunked, legions of journalists and social commentators would be lining up to do so. If the problem he identifies were easy to fix, they would be telling us how. Their unwillingness to engage Murray (pictured) is tantamount to an acceptance of racial determinism.

   In actual fact, there is a giant pile of evidence for racial IQ differences. That conclusion could be wrong, but it probably isn't. And if this fact were openly discussed, it would knock the feet out from under contemporary progressivism, which leans crucially on a barely-warranted and probably false assumption: that all racial differences are due to oppression. Without that assumption, progressivism collapses. The neo-Marxist IdP left already deals viciously with any who honestly discuss politically incorrect facts and evidence. They deal extremely harshly with anyone who honestly discusses this particular evidence. For progressivism, almost everything rests on suppressing this science. This is a real test case for the competing--liberal/conservative vs. progressive/neo-Marxist--worldviews. Thus far the latter has been winning for related reasons: there are truths that the latter group is unwilling to even recognize and the former group is unwilling to speak; and there is no falsehood so absurd and scurrilous that the latter group is unwilling to say it. It this continues, there's no way for the former faction to win the debate.