Unpleasant Facts about Race

[MacTheKnife]

Got dat boyo?

Fortunately for some, grammatical skills (as in the proper use of the comma) isn't part of the standard test.

Let us cut to the chase...................

In 1969, Arthur Jensen resurrected the scientific study of racial differences in IQ, which had fallen into disrepute after the Second World War. His 120-page article in Harvard Educational Review created a controversy that shook the country. It was the beginning of Prof. Jensen’s career as perhaps the most feared and hated — but deeply respected — scientist of our time. Since then, there has been tremendous progress in the study of race and intelligence, and Prof. Jensen has been joined by a score of other scholars willing to endure persecution for studying a subject their colleagues have declared beyond the pale.

The Race-IQ Non-Controversy - American Renaissance

 

[fncceo]

but deeply respected

By all the folks from Stormfront.

 

[MacTheKnife]

but deeply respected

By all the folks from Stormfront.

I know this grates on you boyo but a wise man never runs from the truth.






Found: more than 500 genes that are linked to intelligence

Intelligence may be 80 per cent genetic


By New Scientist staff and Press Association

More than 500 genes associated with intelligence have been identified in the largest study of its kind.

Researchers used data from the UK Biobank, comparing DNA variants from more than 240,000 people. Their analysis identified 538 genes linked to intellectual ability, and 187 regions of the human genome that are associated with thinking skills. Some of these genes are also linked to other biological processes, including living longer.

However, even with all these genes, it’s still difficult to predict a person’s intelligence from their genomes. When they analysed the DNA of a group of different people, the team were only able to predict 7 per cent of the intelligence differences between those people.





It is thought that around 50 to 80 per cent of variation in general intelligence between people is down to genetics.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Is Judaism Racist?

Just recently, Thomas Lopez-Pierre, who is bidding for a seat in the NYC council, said, “Greedy Jewish Landlords are at the forefront of ethnic cleansing/pushing Black/Hispanic tenants out of their apartments.” Zionism has already been accused of racism, but today we are seeing the argument that Jews favor only their coreligionists gaining more and more turf.

It makes sense to think of Judaism as a racist religion. After all, we are regarded as “a people who dwells apart, and will not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9). Throughout the ages, we have been defined as “the chosen people,” “a light unto nations,” and other depictions that set us apart from the rest of humanity. But is Judaism itself racist? Does it aspire to subordinate other nations? Does it demand to convert non-Jews to Judaism? Does Judaism assert that being Jewish grants prerogatives that are not to be given to people of other faiths?

Israel online news | The Jerusalem Post

 

[MacTheKnife]

This week’s reading (and the parallel passage in Leviticus 25) forecasts all that has happened to our people since they went into exile: dispersal among the nations, anti-Semitic attacks, persecution, annihilation, yet ultimately also survival.

It is fitting to devote a few words to the concept of a “treasured people” that appears in this week’s reading (Deut. 26:18-19):

And the Lord has affirmed this day that you are, as He promised you, His treasured people who shall observe all His commandments, and that He will set you, in fame and renown and glory, high above all the nations that He has made; and that you shall be, as He promised, a holy people to the Lord your G-d.

Great Jewish thinkers, including Yehudah Halevi, Shadal, and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, have attempted to clarify what it means to be chosen. With the rise of modern racism in recent years, clarifying what is meant by this concept has become of greater current interest. Various forces in the gentile world claim that the idea of being “chosen” or “treasured” reflects an extremist racist attitude. Liberal Jews and Zionists also find these notions an embarrassment. The idea that the Lord “chose us out of all the nations,” and certain discriminatory practices of the Halakhah regarding non-Jews, appear to them to contradict the fundamental rationalist notion that all human beings are born equal.

Is Judaism indeed founded on a nationalist-racist attitude? Much evidence can be cited to show that Judaism’s world outlook is no less universalist (striving to improve all of mankind) than nationalist. We present a sampling of these arguments here.

A. The Torah stresses that the father of all mankind was created in the image of G-d. In other words, the Torah is not confined to a nationalist approach, but sees the entire world, the human race in general, as the forerunners of our ancestors. The Holy One, blessed be He, aspired to confer the Torah on all peoples, except that they rejected it. In the end the Creator’s desire to bestow the Torah on the nations was fulfilled by the Jews accepting the responsibility to spread the spirit of the Torah to the entire world. To this end the Torah was also given in seventy tongues. The gentiles were obliged to observe only seven commandments, known as the “seven commandments of the descendants of Noah.” Observing these seven precepts sufficed for those who upheld them to be called “righteous gentiles” and to be assured a place in the World to Come. If gentiles should happen to transgress, they may benefit from the Lord’s mercy, since He is compassionate towards His creatures. According to legend, the ministering angels rejoiced when they saw the Egyptians being drowned in the Red Sea. The Lord reproved them, saying, “You dare to sing praises while the creatures that I made are drowning in the sea!” The Lord commanded the prophet Jonah to warn the gentile inhabitants of Nineveh that He would imminently destroy the city if the populace did not cease their evil ways.

Nor have the Jews ever sought to rule or exploit other nations in the End of Days. All they have sought is to be a spiritual center, spreading the light of morality to the nations of the world and helping them ascend to a higher level of sanctity. “In the days to come, the Mount of the Lord’s House shall stand firm above the mountains and tower above the hills; and all the nations shall gaze on it with joy. And the many peoples shall go and say: “Come, Let us go up to the Mount of the Lord, to the House of the G-d of Jacob; that He may instruct us in His ways, and that we may walk in His paths.” For instruction shall come forth from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Is. 2:2-3).

B. Judaism is not a closed club, rather it takes into its ranks anyone who converts. The Bible commands, “There shall be one law for you and for the resident stranger [Heb. ger]” (Num. 15:16); “You too must befriend the stranger” (Deut. 10:19). This week’s reading says emphatically, “And you shall enjoy, together with the Levite and the stranger in your midst, all the bounty that the Lord your G-d has bestowed upon you and your household” (Deut. 26:11). According to the Sages, “The Holy One, blessed be He, exiled Israel to dwell among the nations for no other reason than to acquire proselytes [Heb. ger]).” Although they also said, “Proselytes are hard on the Jews as a canker,” Rabbi Abraham the Proselyte interpreted this as meaning the opposite: that since the proselytes are far more punctilious than the Jews in their observance of the commandments, therefore they arouse the Lord’s wrath towards the Jews. In the legends of the Sages, as well, we note that many great Jewish figures, including such people as Shemaiah and Avtalion, Rabbi Meir and Onkelos, actually descended from proselytes. Moreover, King David was a descendant of Ruth the Moabite.

C. Israel was chosen to be the Lord’s treasured people not in order to give the Jewish people special rights, but to impose on them special responsibilities. These responsibilities – the 613 commandments with all their accrued hedges and restrictions – reflect the Torah’s inclination towards elevating reality to the level of the divine. Hence the strictness of Jewish morality and the protective attitude toward the weak (the stranger, the orphan and the widow). According to Rav Kook, that Israel is chosen means that the Jews do not view morality as coercively imposed from the outside, but rather as an expression of their deepest aspirations, i.e., the result of matching the will of the nation to the word of G-d. In this respect the Jewish people are like a “nation of priests,” whose obligations outweigh their rights. Moreover, the behavior of the Jewish people is under constant supervision and promise of reward or punishment: “But if you do not obey the Lord your G-d to observe faithfully all His commandments and laws which I enjoin upon you this day, all these curses shall come upon you and take effect” (Deut. 28:16). Judah Halevi described the status of the Jews in relationship to other nations as the heart is to the other parts of the body. The heart, he explained, is subject to the most ailments of all the organs, yet is also the most endowed with health; in other words, it is subject to greater risks, but has more strength to withstand than do the others.

The Jewish notion of a chosen people is diametrically opposed to the racist-Darwinist approach, that drew inferences from the laws of the jungle to human society and concluded, accordingly, that the stronger have every right to trample the weaker. The Nazis implemented this rule not only with respect to other races, but also towards weaker elements within the Arian race itself.

In conclusion, the Jewish notion of a chosen people is very far from the modern concept of racism. The Torah, the teaching of the Jews, was the first to set forth the idea of the racial unity of mankind. The one-ness of mankind follows logically from the one-ness of the Creator. One can enter the Jewish people not only by being born to a Jewish mother but also by conversion. The notion of a “chosen people” means that the Jews have an obligation to serve as an example of a nation that lives by high moral values and in this respect is a light unto the nations. Nor does the Jewish belief in future Redemption have any aspirations towards subjugating other nations, nor certainly any desire to annihilate them. The essence of the collective Jewish soul is love of mankind. The Sages taught us, “Israel are regarded fondly, for they are the Lord’s children,” but at the same time, “Man is regarded fondly, for he is created in the image of G-d.” All that Judaism seeks is that the Jews be let alone and not hindered in fulfilling their obligations, and that everyone acknowledge the presence of G-d in the world and recognize His will.

 

[blastoff]

Within reason I don’t care what a black child’s IQ is relative to anyone else’s, black or otherwise. But here is something I believe is true. If every black child headed off to school on day one knowing they are expected to behave in class, pay attention to what the teacher is saying, etc. because they are there to learn and educate themselves, the results would be much different and better for them and their futures. But that influence has to come from home, from family a child knows and trusts, but it’s not happening to any degree needed to make a difference and that’s too bad because until it does subsequent generations are doomed to follow their predecessors. And the cycle will just keep rolling along...

Applies to poor white children too

All children.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Within reason I don’t care what a black child’s IQ is relative to anyone else’s, black or otherwise. But here is something I believe is true. If every black child headed off to school on day one knowing they are expected to behave in class, pay attention to what the teacher is saying, etc. because they are there to learn and educate themselves, the results would be much different and better for them and their futures. But that influence has to come from home, from family a child knows and trusts, but it’s not happening to any degree needed to make a difference and that’s too bad because until it does subsequent generations are doomed to follow their predecessors. And the cycle will just keep rolling along...

Applies to poor white children too

All children.

First of all the majority of these innercity black kids have no father...their mother lets them run loose at all hours of the night. Thus do not expect in such a situation there will ube any demand placed on the kids to behave in school.

But..........it gets worse than that......Obama put in orders to the schools not to discipline black kids....believing they were disciplined too much...thus we see once again how the feds screw up the public schools.

You may not care what these kids i.q.'s are but in the real world...i.q's indicate whether a kid can be successful in the academic setting or not. The majority of them have i.q.'s so low that no matter how disciplined or how hard they work they will still fail.

The real solution is to not place these low i.q. kids in a setting where they cannot succeed....instead give them industrial type training where they can learn a skill and thus have some ability to support themselves after they graduate....this applies to white kids with low i.q.'s also.

Simple stuff ....but when it comes to public schools there is little common sense involved....their goal is to indoctrinate the kids not to educate them or provide with the training they need to be able to earn a living.

Do not expect the public schools to get any better until those in control understand that not all kids are equal...that many simply do not have what it takes to succeed in the world of academics.


CIVICEDUCATION NEWS
Did an Obama-Era School Discipline Policy Contribute to the Parkland Shooting?
Sen. Marco Rubio says maybe.




Did Federal Guidance Make Schools Less Safe?

Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who has found himself in the maelstrom of federal and state debates over school safety and gun control, says an Obama-era civil rights law may have contributed to the massacre at a high school in his state last month, where a former student fatally shot 17 children and adults.

"Disturbing reports have indicated that federal guidance may have contributed to systemic failures to report Nikolas Cruz's dangerous behaviors to local law enforcement," Rubio wrote to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVosand Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a joint letter dated Monday.

RELATED CONTENT

At issue is a "Dear Colleague" letter and guidance from the previous administration, issued in 2014, which aimed to stem the school-to-prison pipeline by prodding schools to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions, especially for students of color and students with disabilities, both of whom receive disciplinary actions at disproportionately high rates.

According to the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, among the 2.6 million students suspended each year, black boys are three times more like than white boys to be suspended, black girls are six times more likely than white girls to be suspended, and students with disabilities are more than twice as likely as their peers to be suspended.

Broward County Public Schools in Florida, the sixth-largest school system in the country and home to Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where last month's school shooting took place, was one of the first to embrace what's known as "restorative justice" discipline programs and quickly became one of the Obama administration's darlings for its efforts to focus on equity in discipline.

In fact, the superintendent of the Broward school, Robert Runcie, who worked alongside former Education Secretary Arne Duncan in the Chicago Public Schools, was the leading force behind instituting new practices within the district for handling student behavior issues without resorting to law enforcement involvement, which quickly became a national model for ending zero-tolerance policies in schools.





But in the letter to DeVos and Sessions, Rubio posits that it may be these policies, spurred by the Obama administration's guidance, that allowed the gunman to skirt law enforcement despite a well-known history of displaying disturbing behaviors.

"The overarching goals of the 2014 directive to mitigate the school-to-prison pipeline, reduce suspensions and expulsions, and to prevent racially biased discipline are laudable and should be explored," Rubio wrote. "However, any policy seeking to achieve these goals requires basic common sense and an understanding that failure to report trouble students, like Cruz, to law enforcement can have dangerous repercussions."

Rubio writes that by asking states to set new standards for calculating what qualifies as a disproportionate amount of students when handing out disciplinary actions, the federal government actually incentivized schools to not report troubled students to law enforcement.

Rubio is not the first to make such an argument. A handful of education policy experts have similarly criticized the guidance for potentially putting students and teachers at an increased safety risk.

Max Eden, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently made that argument when testifying before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, where he blamed the guidance for creating "a school climate catastrophe and puts more students at risk."

RELATED CONTENT



"If we are willing to revise our assumptions based on better evidence, we should be utterly alarmed that our efforts to fix the school-to-prison pipelines has actually amplified it," Eden said. "We are on a very dangerous road."

The line of thinking has been rebuked by civil rights advocacy groups who say such arguments are driven purely by ideology that dismisses policies aimed at helping the most historically underserved students.

To be sure, researchers have published an onslaught of conflicting findings over the last two years on the outcomes of such disciplinary policies, leading many to cherry-pick findings in favor of their individual arguments.

DeVos, for one, has signaled her interest in reviewing the guidance – part of a larger ongoing regulatory review by the department, which is in the process ofwithdrawing nearly 600 pieces of guidance that federals officials say are "out of date."

"The 2014 directive lacked common sense," Rubio wrote, "but the guidance can be revised to strike an appropriate balance that marries school safety with students discipline and counseling."

 

[Asclepias]

It's the Bell Curve that liberals refuse to recognize. Ignore the Bell Curve and the IQ problem goes away.

Why would liberals recognize a solidly debunked claim from a racist?

 

[Asclepias]

it is an incontrovertible fact that the average IQ of "black" Africans is approximately 70. For African Americans, it is in the range of 85.

In fact, it is highly controvertible. It has been controverted many, many times.

IQ is a measure of acquired knowledge, not a test of cognitive ability. Lack of early childhood education, or access to early childhood education can greatly skew the test scores in the same cohorts.

it is an incontrovertible fact that the average IQ of "black" Africans is approximately 70. For African Americans, it is in the range of 85.

In fact, it is highly controvertible. It has been controverted many, many times.

IQ is a measure of acquired knowledge, not a test of cognitive ability. Lack of early childhood education, or access to early childhood education can greatly skew the test scores in the same cohorts.

The IQ test consists of a number of tasks measuring various measures of intelligence including short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition. Like all IQ tests it does not attempt to measure the amount of information you have learned but rather your capacity to learn

Got dat boyo?

The components of any standard IQ Test include...

1. Verbal Intelligence
2. Mathematical Ability
3. Spatial Reasoning Skills
4. Visual/Perceptual Skills
5. Classification Skills
6. Logical Reasoning Skills
7. Pattern Recognition Skills

The final score of an IQ test is derived from dividing a person's mental age by their chronological age, and then multiplying by 100

It's a measure of how much knowledge you've accumulated compared to what is average for your age cohort (the normative sample). Higher accumulation of knowledge than your chronological age results in a higher IQ score, and vice versa.

Not only that. Its a measurement of how assimilated you are into the mainstream society. No person that is credible believes an IQ test is indicative of how intelligent you are.

 

[Asclepias]

it is an incontrovertible fact that the average IQ of "black" Africans is approximately 70. For African Americans, it is in the range of 85.

In fact, it is highly controvertible. It has been controverted many, many times.

IQ is a measure of acquired knowledge, not a test of cognitive ability. Lack of early childhood education, or access to early childhood education can greatly skew the test scores in the same cohorts.

it is an incontrovertible fact that the average IQ of "black" Africans is approximately 70. For African Americans, it is in the range of 85.

In fact, it is highly controvertible. It has been controverted many, many times.

IQ is a measure of acquired knowledge, not a test of cognitive ability. Lack of early childhood education, or access to early childhood education can greatly skew the test scores in the same cohorts.

The IQ test consists of a number of tasks measuring various measures of intelligence including short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition. Like all IQ tests it does not attempt to measure the amount of information you have learned but rather your capacity to learn

Got dat boyo?

Sorry white boy. There is no white person alive smart enough to make up a test for the other races. If whites were smart enough to do that they would have been the first to invent the sciences and civilization.

IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows

""When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ -- or of you having a higher IQ than me -- is a myth," Dr. Adrian Owen, the study's senior investigator and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute said to the Toronto Star. "There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.""

 

[IM2]

I guess that's why they are discarding old IQ tests and have discovered there are at least 5 different measures of intelligence.

It is time this thread was moved to the rubber room.

 

[IM2]

'The so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong."

Brink Lindsey, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

 

[MacTheKnife]

'The so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong."

Brink Lindsey, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

My dear, you are apparantly ignorant of the latest research on genes and intelligence ....as in.............
Scientists Just Found Almost 1,000 New Genes Associated With Intelligence

Scientists Just Found Almost 1,000 New Genes Associated With Intelligence

 

[MacTheKnife]

I guess that's why they are discarding old IQ tests and have discovered there are at least 5 different measures of intelligence.

It is time this thread was moved to the rubber room.

Sweetie Pie you fear the truth and like all close minded bigots want to shut down the discussion. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I will not allow you to censor my research. Deal wid it Chump.

 

[IM2]

'The so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong."

Brink Lindsey, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

My dear, you are apparantly ignorant of the latest research on genes and intelligence ....as in.............
Scientists Just Found Almost 1,000 New Genes Associated With Intelligence

Scientists Just Found Almost 1,000 New Genes Associated With Intelligence

There is no such thing.

'The so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong."

Brink Lindsey, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

 

[Asclepias]

'The so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong."

Brink Lindsey, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

My dear, you are apparantly ignorant of the latest research on genes and intelligence ....as in.............
Scientists Just Found Almost 1,000 New Genes Associated With Intelligence

Scientists Just Found Almost 1,000 New Genes Associated With Intelligence

Typical. They only tested white people.

"Led by statistical geneticist Danielle Posthuma from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands, the researchers performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of almost 270,000 people from 14 independent cohorts of European ancestry."

 

[Asclepias]

I guess that's why they are discarding old IQ tests and have discovered there are at least 5 different measures of intelligence.

It is time this thread was moved to the rubber room.

Sweetie Pie you fear the truth and like all close minded bigots want to shut down the discussion. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I will not allow you to censor my research. Deal wid it Chump.

So you expect us to believe that white people are smart when you couldnt even develop your own alphabet?

 

[IM2]

I guess that's why they are discarding old IQ tests and have discovered there are at least 5 different measures of intelligence.

It is time this thread was moved to the rubber room.

Sweetie Pie you fear the truth and like all close minded bigots want to shut down the discussion. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I will not allow you to censor my research. Deal wid it Chump.

Your 'research' is invalid and has been debunked. That's the truth and you fear it.

'The so-called "hereditarian" interpretation of IQ - namely, that IQ scores are a reliable indicator of immutable, inborn intelligence across all groups of people, and therefore that group differences in IQ indicate group differences in native intelligence. Yes, the hereditarian view lends aid and comfort to racists and nativists. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong."

Brink Lindsey, senior fellow with the Cato Institute and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Deal wid it Chump.

 

[IM2]

Mac,

It's this simple. My IQ is higher than yours. I am more intelligent than you. Therefore your so called study is bullshit.

 

[well named]

Let us cut to the chase...................

In 1969, Arthur Jensen resurrected the scientific study of racial differences in IQ, which had fallen into disrepute after the Second World War. His 120-page article in Harvard Educational Review created a controversy that shook the country. It was the beginning of Prof. Jensen’s career as perhaps the most feared and hated — but deeply respected — scientist of our time. Since then, there has been tremendous progress in the study of race and intelligence, and Prof. Jensen has been joined by a score of other scholars willing to endure persecution for studying a subject their colleagues have declared beyond the pale.

The Race-IQ Non-Controversy - American Renaissance

You should bear in mind that American Renaissance is a white supremacist propaganda outlet, published by people with no actual expertise in the relevant fields. If you want to understand how "race realists" talk about these issues then they're a good source, but you shouldn't treat them as authoritative. Rather the opposite, you should look for independent corroboration of any and all claims they make, and you should realize they will always prefer explanations which they think confirm their racist ideology over explanations which challenge it. They tend to ignore or only weakly present evidence that challenges their claims while exaggerating the strength of the supporting evidence.

The Am. Ren. piece is mostly focused on this 2005 piece from Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, and you can see the tendency from those authors as well, as Nisbett commented on at the time. To pick a few examples, from Rushton and Jensen:

"The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) presented general readers an update of the evidence for the hereditarian position along with several policy recommendations and an original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency."
​

Elsewhere I've quoted a lengthier selection from more recent research which highlights one reason why the data used in that book is inappropriate to these questions, but obviously it would be unfair to criticize Rushton and Jensen for not having read work that wasn't published at the time of this article. But, other very relevant criticisms of The Bell Curve have been well known for a long time, for example those published in Inequality By Design: Cracking the Bell Curve. From the first chapter of that book:

"One statistic is worth noting right away because it shows that there is less to The Bell Curve than some intimidated reviewers have realized: "explained variance." Near the end of their text, Herrnstein and Murray capsulize their argument by asserting that "intelligence has a powerful bearing on how people do in life" (p. 527). However, 410 pages earlier they admit that AFQT scores, their measure of IQ, explain "usually less than ten percent and often less than five percent" of the variance in how people do in life (p. 117). What does "explained variance" mean? It refers to the amount of the variation in some outcome, like income, from zero to 100 percent, that can be explained by a particular cause or set of causes. To state that intelligence explains 10 percent of the variance in, say, people's earnings is to say that intelligence accounts for 10 percent of the differences among people in earnings, leaving 90 percent of the differences among earners unaccounted for. By Herrnstein and Murray's own statistical estimate, only 5 to 10 percent of the differences in life outcomes among respondents--the odds that they became poor, criminal, unwed mothers, and so on--can be accounted for by differences among them in AFQT scores. Put another way, if we could magically give everyone identical IQs, we would still see 90 to 95 percent of the inequality we see today."
​

Maybe Rushton and Jensen can take for granted that their audience will both be familiar with the concept of "explained variance" and the fact that The Bell Curve research supports only a fairly limited role for heritable intelligence in life outcomes, but it's a crucial detail that severely limits the relevance of this point, and the phrase "more inclined" is a pretty weaselly way of eliding that point. An effect can be statistically significant but very weak.

Similarly, with group differences in IQ both Rushton and Jensen and Am. Ren. ignore the fact that the data they are citing is now quite old. In fact, Am. Ren. insists on quoting a 15 point black-white IQ gap but we know that's not accurate and hasn't been for decades because of the differential Flynn Effect. In the study I cited earlier the gap was about 5 points for 13 year olds. Similarly, newer research on gaps in educational achievement find that the gaps have closed a lot, and are highly correlated to environmental issues (segregation and poverty). See for example this report from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality:

"What explains the racial and ethnic gaps among children of similar socioeconomic backgrounds? Residential and school segregation are key drivers of unequal educational opportunity. Even among families with the same income, black and Hispanic students live in much poorer neighborhoods than white children and attend schools with greater concentrations of poverty, a result of the long legacy of racial housing discrimination and exclusion in the U.S. High-poverty schools typically have fewer resources, poorer facilities, a harder time attracting and retaining skilled teachers, and more students in need of remediation and additional services. In addition, high-poverty schools typically have fewer students whose parents have economic, social, and political resources to invest in schools. As a result, segregation is strongly correlated with academic achievement gaps, even after accounting for racial and ethnic differences in socioeconomic family characteristics. Indeed, metropolitan-area achievement gaps are more strongly correlated with segregation than they are with racial and ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status."

​

This post is already getting too long but you can go on making these kinds of critiques. Nisbett offers a lot of evidence that the Am. Ren. author doesn't really attempt to rebut, despite the fact they pretend to do so (see the link above).

Basically, to sum things up: there's lots of evidence against a strong hereditarian position on the topic of "genotocracy" in general (cf. this post again). There's a tremendous amount of evidence that achievement gaps involving traditionally oppressed minority groups are primarily driven by social differences. There's also a dearth of research using modern genetics techniques, so a lot of these debates are just endlessly dragging up decades old research. In reality, the best argument that American Renaissance could make is much more modest than what they say: it's not possible from existing evidence to prove that none of the between group differences are the result of biological differences. But that in of itself is a claim driven by a bad premise: that biological differences are innate and fixed, when in fact we know that social/environmental factors can actually drive the creation of biological differences (cf. environmental influences on testosterone levels).

The real problem with the racist position is not that it's inconceivable that genetic differences between human sub-populations could explain some variation in different social outcomes or measures. It's very likely that such differences exist. But we also know that the genetic variation across human sub-populations does not actually correspond to simple racial categories. The simple racist explanation of inequality is immediately rendered implausible just by what we know about population genetics.

We also know that the overwhelming majority of differences in social outcome (remember that it's 90% even according to The Bell Curve) are not attributable to simple and fixed biological factors. We know a lot about how social inequalities in the present are the result of social injustices both past and present, and highly correlated to measures like concentration of poverty. We even know how social inequality contributes to measurable biological differences. Racists want to find simple justifications for not dealing with any of those social issues. They want to treat differences as the result of fixed and innate biology, but the data don't support that conclusion.