You can’t send firearms via U.S. mail, and you shouldn’t try to transport explosives with your carry-on luggage on a commercial flight. But it is possible to transport the components, and then assemble them later.

In the same way, some mainstream science writers avoid delivering HBD (human bio-diversity), in its recognizable form, to their readers – but they can get away with including its basic components in their articles, and allowing intelligent readers to assemble it themselves.

We know that average brain size varies between races; there is no longer any dispute about this. Therefore, it is generally verboten to concede that there is a correlation between brain size and IQ. Happily, it appears that one can get away with it if it’s buried deep inside an article that deals with the overall reduction in human brain size in recent history.

I recently read Kathleen McAuliffe’s excellent essay “If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?” After mulling over some fascinating theories, McAuliffe eventually writes (toward the very end):

Whatever the reason for the recent uptick in cranial size, Jantz believes it is having an effect on how we think. Recent MRI studies, according to Jantz and other scientists, show that brain volume really does correlate with intelligence—at least as measured by that oft-celebrated but widely criticized metric, the IQ test.

The middle part of McAuliff’s article elaborates on the human domestication theory, that the reason our brains have been getting smaller is that we’ve been domesticated. She writes:

A TAMER BREED

Other researchers think many of their colleagues are barking up the wrong tree with their focus on intelligence as the key to the riddle of our disappearing gray matter. What may have caused the trend instead, they argue, is selection against aggression. In essence, we domesticated ourselves, according to Richard Wrangham, a primatologist at Harvard University and a leading proponent of this view. Some 30 animals have been domesticated, he notes, and in the process every one of them has lost brain volume—typically a 10 to 15 percent reduction compared with their wild progenitors. Domesticated animals also have more gracile builds, smaller teeth, flatter faces, a more striking range of coloration and hair types—and, in many breeds, floppy ears and curly tails. Except for those last two traits, the domesticated breeds sound a lot like us… To illustrate how this could happen, Wrang­ham refers to an experiment that began half a century ago in Siberia. In 1958 the Russian geneticist Dmitri Belyaev started raising silver foxes in captivity, initially selecting to breed only the animals that were the slowest to snarl when a human approached their cage. After about 12 generations, the animals evidenced the first appearance of physical traits associated with domestication, notably a white patch on the forehead. Their tameness increased over time, and a few generations later they were much more like domesticated dogs…

I find it interesting that one of the “domestication traits” listed is “a more striking range or coloration and hair types.” This trait, along with more gracile build and smaller teeth, seems to imply that Caucasians are more domesticated than Negroes. Caucasians have larger ears than do Negroes or Asians.

Of course, none of this proves anything by itself. However, when we compare behavioral patterns in places such as Ferguson, Missouri and Portland, Oregon, a clear picture begins to emerge.

Being domesticated is a mixed blessing at best. I fear that, as the rule of the jungle spreads, domesticated humans will be fully replaced by the more wild varieties.