Ann Coulter’s race-realism in “Godless”

I just finished reading Ann Coulter’s “Godless“. Though I find her style to be abrasive and sometimes difficult to read, there are a lot of gems to be found in “Godless”. For the time being, however, I want to focus on Coulter’s particular brand of race-realism. Racial differences in I.Q. is a subject that she is willing to broach – but only with a ten-foot pole. On page 175 she writes, regarding “The Bell Curve“:

Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God’s image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don’t think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what’s the point? After Hitler carried the secularists’ philosophy to its bloody conclusion, liberals became terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people – especially racial groups. It’s difficult to have a simple conversation, much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry, when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

Apparently, it’s difficult for Coulter as well; for she leaves this (obviously important) IQ issue at that one paragraph and then launches into a seven and a half page tirade about AIDS and homosexuals. Though she’s willing to mention racial IQ differences, she clearly wants to keep such talk to a minimum. Coulter does bring up race and IQ once more toward the end of her book (pgs. 277,278):

This is why liberals have panic attacks in response to any science that reveals differences in humans – differences in acquiring AIDS, IQ, mathematical abilities, and so on. If there really is a genetic component to IQ, what arguments do atheists have against sterilizing, enslaving, or killing the stupid among us?…

But with the secular crowd, their political ideology keeps shutting off open scientific inquiry. Over and over again, they can only accept one answer: AIDS doesn’t discriminate, IQ is an artificially contrived social construct with no genetic component, there are no innate differences between the sexes, and the human soul was created by random mutation and natural selection. Their religion prevents them from engaging in honest discussion because science without God leaves them with no arguments against barbarism – like bestiality, abortion, slavery, and eugenics.

The only lesson liberals learned from Hitler is: Don’t discriminate! Not that human life is sacred, but that we must never say people are different. Girls are the same as boys, and homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, and blacks are the same as whites. That’s their plan for nipping any aspiring Hitlers in the bud…

If race-realism is the hard liquor of controversial conservatism, then attacks on homosexuality/AIDS would be the mixer that makes it more palatable for Coulter. Without bringing up homosexuality, bestiality, AIDS etc., Coulter is unable to discuss racial differences*. AIDS is her aid in dealing with this issue. It’s her crutch.

It’s easy to see why, despite her knowledge of racial differences, she’s loath to dwell on them: When it comes to race, she is a liberal. She has fallen for the same racism phobia that has infected the Left. According to Coulter, racists are among the most evil people on Earth. She writes (pg. 271):

In a 1939 manifesto titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” she noted that “the poorer areas, particularly in the South… are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.” Sanger recommended birth control to lessen the financial burden of caring for such weeds, “destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.” Undoubtedly, she would be delighted to know that today (1) Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortions in the United States, and (2) about 36 percent of our aborted babies are black, almost three times their percentage in the American population. Mission accomplished, Margaret!

In fact, the last chapter of “Godless” can just about be summed up by saying that liberalism (via Darwinism) was responsible for the greatest evils mankind has ever known: Nazism and eugenics/racism. It’s no wonder Coulter fears expounding on race/IQ differences too much. She doesn’t want to sound like a “racist” herself. Not that her AIDS/race-realism mix has protected her from accusations of “racism”. She should have known that even the slightest hint of acknowledging racial differences is all it takes to be labeled a “Hitler” these days.

Since couching race-realism within the folds of homosexuality/AIDS is futile, and since open recognition of racial differences is crucial to the preservation of civilized society, she might as well just come out and state the facts without compunction.

*This is the only book of hers I’ve read. Also, it’s been six years since it came out and I’m sure she’s said/written much since then. So my comments only apply to the contents of “Godless”.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Ann Coulter’s race-realism in “Godless”

  1. countenance says:

    That’s our Ann. Getting it annoyingly half right and half wrong at the same time.

    I officially threw in the towel on her when she got it so wrong about Todd. Other than maybe book tours in St. Louis and Kansas City, she has only ever been to most of this state by flying over it at 30,000 feet, yet Miss Priss from a thousand miles away is going to tell us what what we should do with our own elections.

  2. WMarkW says:

    Coulter’s writing and debating style is not conducive to open discussion of issues I consider important, even when I agree with her position. She talks about liberals being stupid all the time for holding their beliefs. That doesn’t help, because most liberals, like most people, are not stupid. The fact that people are smart enough to make their own decisions, is in my opinion an important component of a conservative political philosophy.

    The diversitarians call belief in HBD stupid and ignorant, even though they’ve never spent one minute honestly considering the possibility. Almost every controversial issue today has decent arguments on both sides. Holding a political philosophy is not an indictment of inetellect.

  3. Jehu says:

    Coulter recognizes that ridicule trumps reason. She has that realization in common with most liberals. This is why they hate her so.
    There’s only one trump to ridicule, which is violence. Therefore if you want to win, and you’re outmatched in ridicule, there are really only two options—either improve and expand your efforts at ridicule, or use legally sanctioned or unsanctioned violence to trump it.

    I hate the fact that the above statement is true, which makes it an entirely different sort of ‘hate fact’ than the usuals.

  4. Apopkian says:

    I don’t blame her for not being more direct on race realism. It would be like criticizing Soviet dissidents for not being direct enough when attacking the state.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Except that she’s already written the naked truth on the matter; all she needs to do is stop trying (futilely) to hide it between the folds of AIDS etc.

      • Apopkian says:

        Are you sure it is futile? There are some people who can deal with these ideas directly, and there are others who need it in small doses.

        Leftists will call her a racist but they say that about everyone. The idea is to be able to appeal to her audience which are Republicans. Most Republicans still think that welfare and socialism is the only cause of statistical inequality among the races and they will avoid reading anything that contradicts this.

  5. I read something she wrote recently, pointing out that most civil rights programs were created to pay American Blacks back for slavery. So why are they applied to immigrants? We didn’t do anything to them.

    Basically, it sounds like she is fairly mainstream but with the anti-White bias of the mainstream toned down or eliminated. Her actual beliefs (not anti-anybody, but anti-exploitation and pro-fairness for everybody) are what liberals say their beliefs are.

    That, to me, may be why they hate her so much. If you’re not anti-citizen, you’ll be in favor of big reductions in immigration if you’re at all aware of unemployment. If you’re not anti-White, you’ll be anti-affirmative action once you realize that Whites are not uniformly beastly to Blacks. If you’re not anti-middle class, you’ll want reforms in the tax code that will make the Robin Hoods angry. Etc. etc. Her mere existence is pretty strong evidence that leftists are hypocrites and bigots, and they can’t stand it.

    If anti-White and pro-White forces were equally balanced in this country, the likes of Ms. Coulter would make a perfectly valid center position. Imagine Clinton/Bush/Obama in office one third of the time, Jared Taylor and Merlin Miller in office one third of the time, and Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh in office one third of the time. Doesn’t sound so bad.

    But they control everything so completely they can make it look like she is somehow pro-White or even anti-Black.

    • It looks like she didn’t write it, she said it while she was on ABC.

      Having said “Civil rights are for blacks” she was quickly misquoted as saying “Civil rights are for blacks only”. Big surprise, huh? AFAIK the only person who thinks that civil rights are only for Blacks is the currently attorney general of the USA.

  6. jewamongyou says:

    Re; Apopkian,

    I meant it’s a futile attempt to avoid being called “racist”, not that it’s a futile attempt to open some people’s eyes. I should have been more clear on that.

  7. Spyhopper says:

    Coulter is uninformed if she believes Christian faith precludes eugenic beliefs. Look at the Christian Kinism movement, or R.J. Rushdoony’s writings on the matter (Google his name and “insanity in the name of Christ” to get his take on Christians adopting poor children).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s