Contingency Plan: Adapting Relevant Human Rights Principles to Admit the Possibility of Meaningful Variation Between Human Populations
We therefore intend to draft a petition to be directed to UNESCO (as well as certain sub-agencies and related NGOs) urging it to create a commission to explore the implications of potentially adapting the spirit (and as much of the letter as possible) of its foundational post-war “Universal Declarations on Human Rights (1948) and its “Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice” (1978) to a decidedly agnostic position with regards to the possibility that meaningful, biological variation does indeed exist between races – in behavioral, psychosocial, and neurocognitive traits – such that absolute socioeconomic equality between peoples ought no longer be strived toward at any cost.
Such a commission would explore the ethical implications for the hypothetical case that the Boasian, culturist explanation of racial gaps in, for example, intelligence must be abandoned due to its intractability, and to therefore compatibilize the UNESCO declarations of human rights with the ‘alternative hypothesis”, being guided in doing so as much as possible by the original spirit of post-war humanism. It would produce a report to serve as a contingency plan – or at least a guidestone – for the event that widespread confidence in the Boasian culturist premise – upon which universal human rights (as they currently exist) are predicated – collapses and the position becomes untenable.
Importantly, such a commission would not be informed by any positive claims as to how behavioral, psychosocial, neurocognitive traits vary across racial categories – only that there is enough room to argue that such variation exists – and that racial bias emerges largely in response to this variation rather than the reverse – such that the war on racism may well be an unwinnable war.
Furthermore, we do not by any means see a potential for the erosion of the Boasian culturist premise as the ‘less wrong’ theory for human behavior to signal a commensurate erosion of our shared belief that all humanity is entitled to the same human rights.
Transhumanism and genetic engineering should also be explored as possible solutions to the problem of biological equality, although the writers of this petition are skeptical that either can be taken to be cure-alls.
We understand that in the past 60 years vast industries have popped up around this premise of Boasian interchangeability, as well as a general sense of hopefulness and perhaps the basis for the mutual respect of peoples. Nevertheless, we feel that too much is at risk to not have an exit strategy.
The petition will be sent at to the following agencies (among others):
UN Secretary General’s Scientific Advisory Board
The Open Society Policy Center
If it were the case that zero differences existed between human populations, then social/political double standards and social engineering would be morally laudable and necessary in our pursuit of an equitable, just, and harmonious society. However, if biases that exist in our society are /not/ caused by baseless racial hatred and unfounded biases, but by real, meaningful variations between human populations – variations that persist in spite of education and acculturation – then this ‘war on white racism’ would not only be futile, but would constitute egregious injustices on a massive, racially-motivated scale.
By double standards, I’m referring to racial discrimination in employment/academics, the one-way enforcement of laws regarding hate speech and hate crimes, the denigration, ostracization, and violence aimed at “r*cists”, the denial of white identity politics in spite of it existing for others, the two-tiered standards for basically all social etiquette–et cetera. This might also include all of the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ double standards such as ‘white flight is an evil–but so is re-gentrification’ and ‘cultural appropriation is evil–but you’re racist if you don’t like black music’.
By social engineering, I’m talking about the morality that says that all white people are basically born with an original sin, their denigration for possessing ‘privilege’, the moral claim that it’s good if fewer white people are reproducing, the idea that it’s somehow morally laudable to have mixed-race children, all initiatives done for the express purpose of ‘increasing diversity’–et cetera.
Importantly, I am not against interracial dating/marriage or against multiculturalism. I am not for a white ethnostate or apartheid. I just think that the case for socioeconomic disparities between human populations (“races”) being caused by ‘a climate of pervasive racial bias’ is much, much weaker than the case for such disparities being rooted in biological variation. This is why I am arguing that whites should have the same rights that other ethnic groups do. I am essentially arguing for racial equality, and that our era of ‘soft racism’ (to use Thomas Sowell’s language) be brought to a close. Antiracism is just as bad for people of color as it is for whites. I would be happy for either a fully colorblind society, or a society where white people are entitled to identity politics just like everybody else is. Equal rights and equal protection of the law for white people – and especially for “racist” white people – are non-negotiable.
Many people who realize that there are stubborn differences between human populations are quick to write off the importance of ending the war on racism on the grounds that a) intermarriage will hybridize us all into a monolithic race or that b) transhumanism and genetic engineering will solve the problem of genetic differences. I am skeptical on both of theses accounts for reasons that I would be happy to explain if asked.
Ideological ‘white racists’ must not be discriminated against. It is a ‘creed’, to use language that frequently appears in anti-discrimination legislation. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human rights – the foundation of all human rights ethics – guarantees the protection of all peoples’ rights and freedoms, regardless of “political or other opinion”; they have the right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. Thus, people should have sovereignty over their own faculties of cognition, inductive logic.
Meanwhile, the 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity states:
“The defense of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples. No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope.”
Don’t antiracists celebrate whites becoming a minority? Guess what, this means it’s time for whites to get minority privileges. But I’ll tell you what: I’ll settle for equality.
Source: A Human Rights Contingency Plan