Taleeb Starkes' The Un-Civil War: BLACKS vs NIGGERS and Colin Flaherty's White Girl Bleed a Lot bolster the neoreactionary case that whites really are superior, and are being held back by violent blacks.
But we don't really have the data to tell. No quantity of data from inside the system can provide us with the means to draw a data-based conclusion applicable outside the system. Consider:
1) Would African-Americans be more likely to care about, and excel in, formal education in a system not based on the thoughtless deference to distant authorities who want you to memorize trivia in order to get a job in order to buy a thirty year mortgage and two car loans in order that your children can memorize trivia in order to get jobs in order to buy thirty year mortgages and two car loans each?
2) Would African-Americans be more likely to consider, pursue, or succeed in careers in engineering if such careers were not either (a) 30 years of making the cheapest possible marginal improvements to branded domestic toys, like single-dish cooking trinkets, slightly lighter tablet computers, or slightly faster coffee grinders, or (b) 20 years of developing the cheapest possible guidance missile systems to kill a bunch of who-knows-who living six thousand miles away in some country that has a name that sounds like the Russian language put through a blender?
3) Would African-Americans be more likely to obey the law and cooperate with law enforcement officers if the law were fair, just, non-intrusive, and reasonable, and if law enforcement officers didn't have the random discretionary power to violate human dignity, privacy, and physical intimacy?
Ironically, African-Americans ("blacks") are already the superior neoreactionaries, pursuant to the neoreactionaries' own terms. Plus, blacks act rather than merely talk. In every conceivable way, illiterate black looters are the vanguard of social change, while retro-colonialist white internet bloggers are just another crystalline chamber within the Cathedral. When they write about the problems of modern society, they're really writing about themselves.
Neoreactionaries critique the Cathedral for providing a horrible educational system, then criticize blacks for not taking their educations seriously. Neoreactionaries critique the Cathedral for maintaining an unfair, make-work, ridiculously inefficient economic system, then criticize blacks for not participating well within that system.
Neoreactionaries complain about government drug laws, demand that they be changed, then whine about it on their blogs, or occasionally vote for regulated, taxed, medical usage of a tiny number of controlled substances. Neoreactionaries complain about the Cathedral trying to take away their guns, complain that peaceful change is impossible, then docilely follow regulations, and advocate for peaceful change by voting. Then, when blacks deal drugs and protect their freedoms through gunfights with police, neoreactionaries criticize blacks for being genetically predisposed to violence and failure.
There's a lot of envy in play, here: a nation dotted with white neoreactionaries who complain that blacks are doing everything that the neoreactionary whites wish they had the courage to do for themselves--resisting the academic-industrial complex and the human resources department; engaging in libertarian entrepreneurship by starting their own businesses in contravention of cathedral society; defying state agents in defense of their constitutional right to privacy and free association...the list goes on and on. Even to the point of birth rates, all of the "lesser races" that the neoreactionaries hate--blacks, "latinos," etc.--are not only refusing to conform to mind-numbing Cathedral education and career plans, but also out-breeding the white nationalists. How can you criticize someone who has already accomplished all of your goals?