I'd argue that people do view less intelligent people as inferior and more intelligent people as superior, they are just polite about it (a good thing, we have to live together). Abortion rates for Downs Syndrome are like 99% or whatever, so we all know what people REALLY believe.
I'm not sure Hanania's take on immigration has merit. It essentially rests on the idea that people would accept ending democracy and being ruled by a philosopher king that runs an apartheid state. Most people don't want that (because they are sane) and so if you accept IQ differences its going to have a big impact on immigration policy. And education policy. And XYZ policy...
All of that being said, its probably an improvement so inconsistently accept the implications of genetic differences then to completely reject them. Obviously the low hanging fruit you're getting at is to get people to stop assuming statistical gaps imply a problem that needs to be fixed (the fix typically being a disaster). If the only way to get people to stop doing crazy race shit it for them to accept enough genetic truth to reject DEI while not accepting its implications for say immigration that would be an (imperfect and potentially impactful) improvement versus "full retard" progressivism.
I think your technical point about people's revealed preference with regard to abortion is fair, and yes in terms of preference it is certainly the case that people tend to prefer higher intelligence in their children and in society all else equal. I think that there's a colloquial way in which terms such as superiority or inferiority are generally used, which generally implies anti-social attitudes towards others which I was trying to get at in the article, although using a technical and literalistic definition of those terms could get you to the conclusion that more intelligent people are "superior". I agree that this should not be said publicly generally due to impoliteness.
With regards to immigration and Hanania's views, firstly Hanania has said before that he's pro-democracy, even if many of his ideas tend to have elitist and Nietzschean sentiments:
But beyond that, it's not clear to me that an IQ-conscious immigration policy would necessarily significantly differ from what many countries presently have today. For example, in Canada there's a points system which takes into account things like human capital, which are strong proxies for IQ even if you're not sitting people down to take IQ tests. There's been a big debate going on in the US over how much high-skilled immigration we should have, which is also implicitly an IQ-conscious immigration policy. These policies, which do not directly deal with race but can have implications on the racial composition of immigrants, are largely argued about without appealing to population IQ stats. The point is not that population IQ stats could never be used in an argument about immigration policy, but that a particular immigration policy doesn't necessarily follow from accepting such statistics.
I'd argue that people do view less intelligent people as inferior and more intelligent people as superior, they are just polite about it (a good thing, we have to live together). Abortion rates for Downs Syndrome are like 99% or whatever, so we all know what people REALLY believe.
I'm not sure Hanania's take on immigration has merit. It essentially rests on the idea that people would accept ending democracy and being ruled by a philosopher king that runs an apartheid state. Most people don't want that (because they are sane) and so if you accept IQ differences its going to have a big impact on immigration policy. And education policy. And XYZ policy...
All of that being said, its probably an improvement so inconsistently accept the implications of genetic differences then to completely reject them. Obviously the low hanging fruit you're getting at is to get people to stop assuming statistical gaps imply a problem that needs to be fixed (the fix typically being a disaster). If the only way to get people to stop doing crazy race shit it for them to accept enough genetic truth to reject DEI while not accepting its implications for say immigration that would be an (imperfect and potentially impactful) improvement versus "full retard" progressivism.
I think your technical point about people's revealed preference with regard to abortion is fair, and yes in terms of preference it is certainly the case that people tend to prefer higher intelligence in their children and in society all else equal. I think that there's a colloquial way in which terms such as superiority or inferiority are generally used, which generally implies anti-social attitudes towards others which I was trying to get at in the article, although using a technical and literalistic definition of those terms could get you to the conclusion that more intelligent people are "superior". I agree that this should not be said publicly generally due to impoliteness.
With regards to immigration and Hanania's views, firstly Hanania has said before that he's pro-democracy, even if many of his ideas tend to have elitist and Nietzschean sentiments:
https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-reactionary-case-for-democracy
But beyond that, it's not clear to me that an IQ-conscious immigration policy would necessarily significantly differ from what many countries presently have today. For example, in Canada there's a points system which takes into account things like human capital, which are strong proxies for IQ even if you're not sitting people down to take IQ tests. There's been a big debate going on in the US over how much high-skilled immigration we should have, which is also implicitly an IQ-conscious immigration policy. These policies, which do not directly deal with race but can have implications on the racial composition of immigrants, are largely argued about without appealing to population IQ stats. The point is not that population IQ stats could never be used in an argument about immigration policy, but that a particular immigration policy doesn't necessarily follow from accepting such statistics.