So our good Russian friend Anatoly Karlin had this take on his blog
I paste the complete link because the URL is quite ominous, "climate bioleninism". Imagine that. Karlin there makes a point that ideas that flatter the upper-class, like global warming, become entrenched, while ideas that they find inconvenient, like the genetic load of IQ or HBD more generally get killed or ostracized, no matter how solid the science behind them.
Seems Karlin thought I wouldn't like talk of Class Struggle, but he's wrong. I'm a great fan of the idea. The perhaps most basic part of my thinking is that whatever exists, exists for a reason. It follows that whatever is popular must have something going on for it. I'm certainly no Marxist, but there is much wisdom in Marxist theory, and I personally think that Class Struggle was a conceptual bomb which was so good and so powerful at the time that it basically destroyed and replaced Christianity all by itself. Well, I exaggerate, but not by much.
Incidentally, and I only learned of this recently, apparently in China, the idea that “everything exists for a reason", 存在即合理, is taught in high-schools and universities across the country, and is part of the official Communist Orthodoxy there. Apparently they took it from Hegel, I guess through Marx being a Hegelian and all that. The original being was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig. It more accurately translates to "if it exists, it is reasonable". Pretty much half of Chinese websites frequented by college students are a debate on this one clause, mostly because college students there as everywhere else are all obsessed with morality and they interpret the word "reasonable" as meaning "good". Yes, it's all so tiresome.
Anyway, I wrote many, many years ago, that Class Struggle is the reason that things like HBD will never in a million years become widely accepted. Check this 2012 post. The idea is: the most powerful force in the world is the drive for upward status mobility. People crave more status. The second most powerful force in the world is the need for status conservation. If you can't raise in status, you want at least to keep what you have, and you want to keep the status of your whole family; ideally your whole Dunbar circle. That's what Social Class is, a big fat fence to make sure your family never ever drops in status. Given that actual performance is mostly genetic, social class tends to persist over centuries, (as Karlin mentions quoting Gregory Clark's The Son Also Rises), but there's some randomness to genetics too, and upper classes tend to do strange things to their mating practices in order to aid their status-conservation plans, like having too few children or marrying late, so some degree of social class movement does still happen.
Unless you take the Status Conservation Drive to its final logical conclusion, and go full-Hindu on it. Indians went full-retard on social class, and divided their society in 30,000 jatis, ranked more or less in castes, and never ever shall they mix or change their rank. They made social classes into full-fledged ethnic groups. That's what happens when the upper-class gets what they want. Complete and Eternal Status Conservation. Of course that's in the end just a psychological thing, if inter-subjective. Brahmins are high-status but they're not necessarily rich or handsome, and those are sources of real-world status too, at least today in capitalist society. But Indians seem over all to be quite happy with their system, and everybody knows their place.
All other societies failed to codify social class, and Abrahamic religions went out of their way to demonize the idea and preach universalism. Everybody is valuable, it's all about the individual. That has its advantages, as it allows high-performers to rise in status no matter their pedigree. It is not by chance that Muslims have lorded over India for 1,000 years and not the other way around. But no amount of preaching by Christians or Muslims is able to cancel that fundamental mental drive of humans: we all want our children to inherit our social standing, or improve it if possible.
That's what I mentioned in that old post of mine, and I still stand by it. I think a big part of the motivation for foreign immigration into Western countries is that white people like that their social inferiors are visibly so. Canada has (had?) this funny way of talking about non-white people, Visible Minorities. White proles are just as white as White Aristocrats. But a Guatemalan or Pakistani maid is just obviously made of a different stock than her master. And she likes that. Her son won't fool around with the maid. She can talk differently with her, be ruder or more annoying than a native prole, who knows more of local manners, would tolerate. The way I put it back then is: Prole co-ethnics are the personification of downward mobility. And everybody hates downward mobility, so the physical replacement of proles who look like you is actually a very good proposition for most people. Call this the Housewife Theory of the Great Replacement. Somebody put it in French please.
The same applies for the male business owner. If I had a dollar for everytime a white business owner has praised their brown employees over the native kids, I'd be a billionaire. "They work harder, they're hungrier, they're just better and more honest people". Nah, they just take more shit, mostly because they can't really understand what you're saying. And you love giving it to them, because half the reason you started a business is because you just enjoy giving people shit.
And indeed, the reason why IQ-realism, which is the most obvious of all obvious aspects of human nature, will never get anywhere, is because we have a "meritocracy". Access to the ruling class today is mediated by "education", i.e. by schools and universities, in which supposedly some magical things are said, and students there listen to a lot of those magical things, read some others, then re-write them into "papers", and suddenly they become smarter, so that's why they deserve the highest status that our society allots. It's all designed so that every piece of status gained can be traced to some piece of "work", i.e. "merit", so if you don't have high status, well, you should have worked harder! This moral logic only works if the output per unit of work (i.e. intelligence, or 'performance' if you will) is assumed to be equal among all humans,.
If intelligence is not equally distributed, then social status is not about work (merit), but about whatever it is that intelligence comes from. If it's genes, bad, because then everyone and their dog (remember, *everyone*'s paramount interest in life is social status) will try to interfere in genetics and mating, most likely through the power of the state. If it's random, that's somewhat better in that the likely government intervention wouldn't be as jarring (no interfering in who mates with whom), but still not good enough, as it deprives high-status people of the satisfaction of their status being "earned". Aristocrats didn't think their status was earned, and they were perfectly happy, but our modern liberal ruling class, as good Puritans has taken their Christian universalism to heart, and must believe that they not only get to rule over you, but that they earned the right to rule over you. This relates with the much greater willingness of liberal elites to interfere in the lives of their subjects.
Note the hysterical reaction against genetic determinism is in no small part motivated by fear of public interference in mating. Or to put it plainly, in sex. It is rather odd that liberals, not really leftists but pretty much 90% of modern white people go batshit crazy at hearing the word "eugenics". Why? Eugenics is the science of improving the population's genes. What is wrong with that? "Aggh!! Evil!!" Evil? How so?
Because it would entail breaking up couples and having a cold, rational appraisal of who should be fucking whom. And people hate that idea. For good reason, to be fair. You like who you like. Attraction is not a choice. Men often like their sluts, or grow fond of the plain Janes that the so painstakingly were able to attract, but they don't want to talk about it. And women all too often get carried away by their hybristophilia and decide to mate with dumb, evil, violent men. All of which would not just be disapproved of, but actively impeded by a society and a state with eugenics in its mind. So in order that people can keep having sex with the bad partners of their choice, the word "eugenics" must be made a taboo, and the mere concept must be erased from the minds of all the good-thinking.
That won't change until either liberal society dies, replaced by whichever traditional society outbreeds it (Islam if we're lucky, Black Africa if we're not, some brand of Christianity if there's a miracle). Or until somebody develops a viable means of ectogenesis, i.e. artificial wombs. That would mean procreation is completely divorced from sex. An optimistic take on that possibility is Aldous Huxley's masterpiece, Brave New World. In these days of feminism and Globohomo, I fear it wouldn't be as pleasant. That said, it could be here soon.