I am not “woke,” but I have been “awakened” to a new norm and concept of everyday life which denies biological diversity and the unequal results of competition. In today’s culture, from early childhood there can be no “losers”: all those who compete must earn a “trophy” of sorts to be placed on a shelf with other participation awards. Only the physical presence of young participants is required. Differences in skill levels are ignored and equal outcomes are mandatory. However, in later years (post-pubescent) competition in high school sports belie the “equity” fallacy. At this level, elimination of the less competent goes unopposed; no more compassionate gestures trying to protect “sensitive souls” or equalize competition in all facets of life. The hierarchy of values and meaningful success becomes more and more important. Team victories are celebrated with collective delight. Players who perform poorly are replaced by the more competent. Meritocracy once again is dominant and victory is the ultimate sign of success.
What is even more significant these days is the tendency to eliminate competitive entrance exams to colleges or universities in the name of racial “equity” or justice (whatever that truly means)…dumbing down to the most suitable denominator. Everyone, in the long run, becomes average because normality is the goal, not striving to be “the best of the best”.
As I mentioned, this quest for equality is only possible in the pre-pubescent years. Later on, especially in the sports arena, competition becomes all important and there are winners and losers. But why can’t this acceptance of difference be taught early on so the very young can adjust to what life will demand? Traumatisms? Depression? Parental objections? It is interesting and somewhat disconcerting that differences are acceptable in competitive sports events but not in the classroom.
Psychometricians have long concluded that being gifted is partially genetic and partially the product of environment. Athletic prowess is a gift which we all admire and even laud. If so why not intellectual accomplishments? This slippery slope is fraught with social and genetic landmines: if little Johnny (very White) is consistently better than Ja’honta (very Black) in all academic subject matters then what is the cause of this disparity? There are scholarly books devoted to the West African origins of Black athletes, their muscular configuration, stride length, lung capacity, etc. In a word, they are better than Whites or other ethnic groups because of morphology or inherited physical traits. The dominance of Black athletes, especially in football and basketball, is an undisputed fact. No White sprinter has won the gold medal in Olympic competition since 1980. Native Kenyans have dominated long-distance running for a number of years.
However, one must be very careful in analyzing the root causes of intellectual differences. Racism rears its omnipresent head if you conclude that genetic factors play a determinant role in these matters. Biology (at least 50% if not more) determines how well we reason; environment has a significant albeit not as compelling role in our cognitive development. At birth we are predetermined to be talented (or less so) in logic, science, language use, and a number of thought processes. If that is the case, then there is very little that compensatory programs can do to level the playing field. This is the conclusion that Arthur Jensen reached in his seminal article that appeared in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969. Because he gave credence to innate ethnic differences in reasoning, his life was never the same afterwards. He became a focal point for leftist hatred and contempt.
How well or how poorly we think is primarily the result of genetic structuring and not systemic oppression as the liberals have concluded. Their demands were categorical: simply remove the barriers to success (segregation, anticipated failure syndrome, poor schools, lack of opportunity, inadequate nutrition during early childhood, etc.) and the two “races” would be co-equal. Indeed, it was not a lack of talent, but bigotry and ill-founded claims of underachievement that nourished the concept of “superiority” between Whites and Blacks. Decades later, however, with some reluctance, even the most liberal scholars have to admit that the intellectual gap in testing remains no matter how aggressive and creative the methods were that attempted to force equality of outcomes in the classroom.
After years of depressing results in trying to reduce the gap between Whites and Blacks on intelligence tests, the leftist movement and “experts” have come to the conclusion that testing and psychometrics are in themselves deeply flawed. What truly matters is the whole individual not just the ability to reason. Among other traits, sociability, interpersonal skills, rhythmic movements, and athleticism are equally as important for success as effective reasoning. This has resulted in very different acceptance rates by race for the same level of performance on standardized tests.
From a brief filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against Harvard University
We are led to believe by woke logic that the current barriers to Black achievement are White-constructed and not in keeping with the true strengths of the minority communities. Competence in mathematics is not endemic to the Black experience; as a result, its importance has to be downplayed in evaluating the worth of high school or college students. The same conclusions apply to other disciplines in which Blacks traditionally do not succeed. Not only must entrance exams be radically modified or even abolished, but outcomes must also be re-examined in light of woke psychology. If all races/ethnicities are “equal” in abilities then outcomes must reflect this reality. Advanced subject matter courses can no longer be exclusionary: minority students with above average grades must be included in their ranks. The new world of equality will be just that: equal outcomes for all or “equity.” The Black experience of the ghetto or inner city will be taken into account in selecting and training its underprivileged youth. Dialectical English will be viewed on an equal footing with standard English. Societal expectations and racial sensitivity must supersede accepted norms of excellence.
How will this artificial selection process benefit society? How will scientific disciplines choose with any certainty or accuracy the best-trained candidates for positions of responsibility? Airplane pilots are now being assigned on the basis of racial characteristics, not necessarily technical competence—a policy advocated by the current Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who thinks that Blacks are genetically superior to Whites and that skin color should be a criterion for airline pilots. This insanity has very serious ramifications at all levels of social achievement and public safety.
The “progressive” narrative and its beliefs are now ever-present in the corporate world. Racially integrated couples are very common in pharmaceutical commercials on TV. It has become almost faddish to promote equity in corporate advertisements by displaying equality in interracial relationships. In this respect, it is interesting that one never sees an Asian male with an African-American spouse in commercials. Rarely does an Asian appear in corporate advertising except in financial or home products commercials. It is also significant that Asians are never made the “fall guy” or buffoon in TV advertisements; this ignominious characterization is exclusively reserved for the hapless White male.
For any middle-class Asian to be associated with a Black partner would be a sign of downward mobility. Advertising agencies are keenly aware of these disparities that would alienate their Asian clients. The preferred coupling on television is “Black male-White female”; this serves the woke purpose of dispelling the segregationist myth of White supremacy. White women are portrayed as subservient to dominant Black males, thus underscoring the equality of diverse ethnic groups. Marriage is the “sacred” symbol of blending races on an equal footing. Although interracial unions are still frowned upon by the majority of Americans, wokeism has planted its roots into the corporate world and its quest for general acceptance and greater profits.
America continues to “brown” her skin tones and the proponents of diversity see victory in their grasp. The lone enemy that remains is the White majority or “Trump voters,” the latter a pejorative term among the woke. Once that obstacle is overcome, a new and more socially sensitive world will arise. To ensure compliance, no critical voice will be permitted to speak out freely in promoting the contributions of White citizens of European descent. Cancel culture will impose its restrictions on opponents from the Right. Penalties for disagreement will be swift and devastating.
All things being equal, China continues its relentless march towards world dominance, unhampered by anti-hereditarian bias that dominates the West. America is embroiled in internal social conflicts and fails to acknowledge that an authoritarian system of governance is spreading its tentacles far and wide. Media sources refuse to dwell on or fully acknowledge this imminent threat to our national security. We live from week to week, month to month, absorbed by diversionary or domestic issues, while the Chinese are committed to the long-term strategy of victory through infinite patience. Defeat will eventually come from within our boundaries, not from the Asian continent. The American public will grow indifferent to such an indeterminate threat from a growing economic power with which we have close trading ties. China will not be viewed in military terms but as a giant corporation facing off against its American counterpart in the battle for world trade dominance, not a country seeking political conquest.
Patience on the part of the Chinese will prevail in the end. As America browns and concentrates on issues of social diversity and equity, the Chinese are carefully plotting their inevitable dominance of world economies and establishing political hegemony in targeted countries in Asia. Both President Biden and his family have vested (likely corrupt) interests in China’s economic progress and have publicly supported its importance to American success. Corporate America willfully endorses Black Lives Matter and woke ideologies (Critical Race Theory), but will not openly criticize China’s continuing abuse of human rights or theft of intellectual property. Being denied access to Chinese markets would inflict serious harm to bottom line profits; in times of moral crisis, silence is assent and lack of protest is a form of complicity.
Thousands of miles away from Beijing, our civilization gradually wanes in the face of this focused and highly talented emerging power. The winds of destiny are favoring China’s rise to global eminence. Even our European allies are indebted to the Chinese; as a result, they would be reluctant to support American intervention in areas of Chinese influence such as the autonomy of Taiwan and military expansionism in the South China Sea.
A declaration of war or the use of nuclear weapons would be inconceivable in any future conflict with the Chinese. As a means of protest and resistance, we are relegated to the imposition of economic sanctions and other indirect and ineffectual measures (boycotting Chinese-made products at home, publicly denouncing Chinese policy, etc.). A full-scale military confrontation would bring about the destruction of our societies and the death of millions of innocent civilians. Unfortunately, our political strategies are not future-oriented but inner-focused.
Unless we are faced with a massive threat from abroad, Americans prefer to rectify supposed moral and domestic injustices at home above all other concerns. The past decades have demonstrated that we cannot remake authoritarian regimes in our image. Without the protective shield of our military presence, foreign autocracies or dictatorships will more than likely revert to a form of government in keeping with their cultural heritage. This is painfully obvious as American troops are now being withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban have begun to reassert their Islamic authoritarianism. Massive expenditures have been devoted to stabilizing our enemies from past wars (Germany and Japan in particular), preventing them from embracing once again despotic regimes of governance.
Our obsession with diversity, critical race theory, and other internal conflicts are weakening our ability to act as a unified nation in times of severe international crises. The progressive demonization and condemnation of White majority rule (“systemic racism”, “White privilege”) has called into question its efficacy in the minds of impressionable youth. Where there is continuous doubt about the moral basis of authority, there will be a hesitancy to act with decisiveness. The Chinese face no such impediment to their decisions in domestic and foreign affairs. No matter how we assess our political future as Americans, the twenty-first century belongs to the ever-expanding and emboldened autocracy from the Far East.