Early in May there was a minor firestorm over Jason Richwine, at that time a researcher and scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington D.C. think tank. Mr. Richwine had committed one of the cardinal sins guaranteed to end a career, even for those who work for “conservative” organizations: he had discussed the scientific evidence for a correlation between race and intelligence, as measured by IQ.
In a sane world, of course, what he said would be unexceptionable. He simply cited the numerous studies that demonstrate the differential distribution of mean IQ as correlated with what are commonly known as “racial differences”. If the same level of evidence were to indicate, say, the correlation between smoking and the incidence of lung cancer, or CO2 emissions and global temperature increases, there would be no problem. The general consensus would be: “The science is settled.”
I don’t have to tell you that the rules are different when discussing scientific data about race. And it goes without saying that Mr. Richwine was forced to resign his position at Heritage. But what precisely was the heresy which caused him to be excommunicated from the Church of All-Inclusive Multicultural Harmony?
… [liberal Washington Post blogger Dylan Matthews] wrote that Richwine, who earned a doctorate from Harvard University in 2009, had written a dissertation, “IQ and Immigration Policy,” which argued that on average immigrants to the U.S., particularly Hispanic immigrants, have lower IQ scores than “the white native population.” Admitting immigrants with higher IQs, Richwine argued, would be a better immigration policy than admitting low-IQ newcomers.
As the media sharks swarmed into the blood-tainted water, BuzzFeed featured a video of Mr. Richwine, headlining it with “Here’s Video Of Another Time The Heritage Analyst Said Blacks and Hispanics Have Lower IQs”:
“Decades of psychometric testing has indicated that at least in America, you have Jews with the highest average IQ, usually followed by East Asians, then you have non-Jewish whites, Hispanics, and then blacks. These are real differences, and they’re not going to go away tomorrow, and for that reason we have to address them in our immigration discussions and our debates.”
That, in a nutshell, is a summary of the scientific facts. They have been clearly established by researchers over the past four decades, and are not disputed by specialists in the field. Similar studies have revealed a genetic component for superior athletic ability among certain African groups, but this finding is uncontroversial — it doesn’t reflect negatively on black people.
The findings on intelligence are dismissed, however, accompanied by hysterical accusations of “racism”. Facts don’t matter where race-based political correctness is concerned, and that’s true in most conservative circles, not just amongst Progressives.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The current climate surrounding the question of race and intelligence had its origins back in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
During my senior year in college I wrote a term paper on the topic for a cultural anthropology course. In doing so I surveyed the relevant literature, relying extensively on studies by the late Arthur Jensen, whose pioneering work had already attracted the disapproval of the nascent politically correct establishment. By 1972 it had already been determined that all variations in behavior among the races were due to cultural influences rather than genetics. Nurture had won out over Nature as an explanation of psychological differences; therefore Dr. Jensen could only be wrong, wrong, wrong!
In those days, investigations into the genetic basis of intelligence relied primarily on studies of identical twins who were separated at an early age, with one twin being raised by his own racial group and the other by a different one. Of necessity this method relied on a relatively small dataset, and the results were not conclusive, showing a slight correlation for a genetic component of intelligence, but generally within the margin of error for such small samples.
The consensus within the field — outside of Arthur Jensen and some of his associates — was that a correlation between race and IQ was possible, but the data were too tentative to be relied on. Moreover, it was felt that the explosive social implications of such findings demanded that they not be pursued any further. This was the beginning of the politically correct prohibition of research into race and intelligence, which has now continued for more than forty years.
Researchers who decided to continue their work in the field found it hard to obtain funding, and those who persisted anyway were often vilified by their colleagues and the media. With advances in genetics in the decades since, the tools now available to researchers have improved considerably, and later results have definitively confirmed Dr. Jensen’s findings. The science is “settled”, but not in the manner that the Multicultural establishment would prefer: there is a statistical correlation between groups with genetic differences and intelligence as measured by IQ tests. The group with the highest mean score is the Ashkenazi (European Jews), followed by East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.), and then Caucasians of European descent. The “brown” races score lower, with Australian aborigines at the bottom.
It’s easy to see why these findings cause such painful heartburn to the political elite: they contradict the dominant narrative of Multiculturalism that has been regnant in the West for almost fifty years.
A sane society would simply take the information into account and adjust its educational policies accordingly, relying on standardized tests to stream students into the education that fits them best as individuals, and ignoring their skin color entirely.
But we do not live in a sane society. Our culture is at least as obsessed with race as were the racial theorists of Nazi Germany — although with a different underlying ideology. Race is now the crucial factor in almost all administrative decisions, and any evidence which violates the consensus is not welcome.
If one wishes to hold onto one’s job and retain a good reputation, certain facts must not be spoken of. If such information happens to surface publicly, one is required to denounce it as false and “racist”. Jason Richwine failed to follow these guidelines, and had to pay the price.
One of Mr. Richwine’s “crimes” was to have published his article at Alternative Right, a site where “race realist” conservatives rub shoulders with people holding unsavory opinions about non-white races. Yet there’s no mystery why the author chose this venue — if he wanted to publish at all, he was forced into the company of people with whom he did not necessarily agree, because no other sort of venue is available for those who discuss such heretical material. The Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and The Atlantic were not open to him, and I doubt he could ever have gotten past the gatekeepers at nominally conservative publications such as National Review. The PC muzzle forces dissidents to take on strange bedfellows; there is simply no other choice.
Such is the standard medieval treatment accorded to race heresiarchs in this, the second decade of the 21st century.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The above survey of the “race vs. IQ” debate is presented as background to an important question:
Is IQ a useful measure of intelligence, as expressed by an entire culture?
My contention is that it is not.
The two dominant racial groups in Western culture — Caucasians of European descent and Ashkenazi Jews — contrived the deadly ideology that is now known as Multiculturalism. They received no measurable assistance in this project from black Africans, or Arabs, or Trobriand Islanders. The Chinese and the Japanese, who seem to have put their high IQ scores to better use, have foregone the pleasures of Multiculturalism. This pernicious ideology is entirely the work of Caucasian and Jewish academics.
Through its implementation of the Multicultural ideal, the West is manifestly in the process of destroying itself. Within a few decades the European nation-states will no longer exist. We may already have passed the point of no return. With full deliberation we, the white race, prepared this cultural apocalypse. It was not the races with lesser IQs who did this to us; we did it to ourselves.
Some people have difficulty accepting this conclusion, and ascribe our current disaster to the manipulations of the Bilderberg Group, or an international Jewish conspiracy, or the Freemasons, or the Illuminati, or some other secret cabal that has somehow manipulated the well-meaning citizens of the West into signing up for their own doom.
But this only pushes the problem to a new level: how can some of the most intelligent people on the planet be so easily manipulated into doing such stupid things? The Chinese and the Japanese — who are also intelligent — have up until now failed to fall for this scam. Why have Westerners succumbed?
Constructing and promoting an ideology which destroys one’s own racial group is a stupid act. If you saw a man set his own house on fire, and then run back inside to die in the flames, you’d say, “Man, that guy must be stupid.”
Stupid is as stupid does.
Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them,” and the fruits of the Judeo-Christian West are demonstrably unintelligent.
Based on their behavior, the “brown” invaders who are pouring in to pick over the corpse of the white West are more intelligent than the people they are in the process of supplanting. Despite their lower IQs, they have managed not to embrace the folly of destroying themselves in order to serve some abstract ethical ideal.
IQ tests measure logical and mathematical reasoning, spatial abilities, and language skills. The intelligence thus represented may have been useful to our ancestors who hunted the wooly mammoth and shared living quarters with cave bears as the glaciers receded from northern Europe twelve thousand years ago. But high IQ seems to have no survival advantage for us nowadays.
This is the conundrum that should preoccupy us, rather than the lesser intelligence of those races that are moving in to replace us.
What does intelligence mean, if intelligent people deliberately and methodically collaborate in their own destruction?
Given the cataclysm currently faced by Western Civilization, the concept of intelligence as measured by IQ seems to have little remaining empirical utility.
NOTE: This essay is not about the deficiencies of races whose IQs are lower than those of whites. It is not about “brown” people at all. The problem is a “white” one, not a “brown” one. We need to look beyond the race vs. IQ debate to discover a different, more useful paradigm for what is happening today.
For this reason, commenters are requested to limit their remarks to the topic as described. There are plenty of sites where you may make vituperative comments about racial groups that have lower mean IQs. Don’t leave them here.
I checked this out for myself recently as I was puzzled by the fact that the race relations industry in Britain kept going on about racial equality and the racism of anybody who questioned it. A slavic expert at Leeds University, Dr Frank Ellis, was ousted from his post a few years ago for stating what is contained in this article. I was puzzled because – like my forefathers – I looked at the third world, i.e. countries south and east of Europe (bar China and Japan) and reached the conclusion that they could not possibly have the same levels of iq as Europeans otherwise they would have been as advanced as we are. I also worked out that the high iq of Europeans, Chinese and Japanese was down to survival in a cold climate.
Here in Britain we are going to be in a hell of a mess as is the United States. Those of African and South Asian descent are being activiely encouraged to intermarry with the indigenous Europeans or vice versa. Although, I have heard of Indians who are too “racist” to allow their children to marry whites. This will produce a country of what used to be calle the Cape Coloureds of South Africa whose iq is lower than whites there but higher than the native Africans. In essence our average iq will drop by about 20 points. So where is that going to leave us? In fact a very clever lady scientist I knew, Dr Kitty Little who was on the tail of Common Purpose the Labour Party’s infiltrators, including into the police, who are there to enforce the multicultural agenda, said that such an intermixture of the three races produced a high level of mental retardation.
As an indigenous Englishman born over 60 years ago when the country was almost 100% European I have viewed developments here with alarm and distress for the last 30 years. Firstly because I do not want to see my race subjected to Left-wing genocide and secondly I know that the race that will replace them will never be able to achieve what my ancestors and other Europeans have achieved. The Left will label me like the Nazis as mentally ill but they are the ones that must be sick for if they have the average iq of other Europeans then they must know that what this article says is correct and choose to look the other way in their aim of destroying the white race, their own, because they hate it. Was it something their white parents did to them. The clock is at five to midnight in the survival of civilisation on this planet.
The post isn’t about “race relations” though I can see why a cursory reading might give you that idea.
To an outsider, in Britain what seems foremost is a clash of classes among the indigenous Brits. It seems as though that would be going on irrespective of the PC/MC zeitgeist. The wrong accent will keep you in your place; the correct vowels will permit you to rise to the top like good cream. I have heard stories, whether true or not I don’t know, about ambitious folk who work diligently to rid themselves of their native tongue in order to get ahead. As ‘enry ‘iggins certainly caricatures.
Here in the US, a southern or hillbilly accent (two separate entities) are indicative of a lower IQ and/or possibly a quaint charm. This judgment is dependent upon the listener’s prejudices, not the speaker’s ‘native’ abilities.
Similarly, to succeed in the workplace and at home, many black people here must be able to move between the norms of the language as spoken by television news reporters (workplace or school) and ghetto speak (the looser constructions of one’s home place). Watch Barry Obama and Hillary Clinton speak in front of black groups. Creepy.
Many years ago a young black woman at my workplace offered to help me refine my poor typing skills in exchange for teaching her to “talk white”. She did learn to switch between the two, though what she saw as an exaggerated diction was hard to maintain. Mainly she wanted it for job interviews… Unfortunately, my inbred klutziness was no match for her tutorial skills with the typewriter.
You can do a search for Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend to see the differences in language. Her last name is Jeantel, so she’s probably of Haitian origin ( this is Sanford, Florida after all). Depending on which news venue you choose, her limited abilities w/ mainstream English are either a sign of our multicultural richness or a sad witness to our failure to teach black children how to read and write (at the trial, she wasn’t able to read a letter she supposedly wrote because she “can’t read cursive”, not even her own).
The deliberate assault of multi-cultic diversity is indeed suicidal. A sick joke. But who among us could have had the courage to address this injustice and thereby endure the consequences of being shunned and unemployable?
Just look at Fjordman, who dared to point to the naked emperor. He cannot live in peace in nicenice Norway, nor would he be likely to find a job there. Norway has long been one of the leading indoctrination centers for this genocide. But Norwegian policy-makers, those who aim the poison canisters at the native Norwegians, do not intend that their own children and friends will ever have to bear the brunt of their criminal manipulations and malfeasance. So again, we’re back to class distinctions.
Re Britain:here I think you are a misinformed American.For decades I’ve contended I could be a big fish [in a local pond] if I’d gone whoring and boozing and smoking dope with the comrades:if I had not innocently spoken out.And recently there are revealed cases of professionals (doctors and administaters) black-listed for having innocently spoken-out.
IQ does not take religion into account, we have ‘positive’ religion and ‘negative’ religion.
Socialism is a ‘negative’ religion and is relatively new on the block, one of its problems is that it empowers psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin Mao etc.
In the EU context, this same psychopathy has become entrenched in an unelected form that renders national governments ornimental.
It is also self preserving, carefully recruiting only thos who have a like disposition.
The EU is already a failure, but it is propped up by its psycopathic suppression of criticism within its systems.
In the USA a psychopathic administration is rapidly carving up the remains of the republic in the name of (enforced) equality and social justice. At is root is a deep belief in the gods of socialism.
Yes, this admin is overtly ‘psychopathic’ . Sadly, the ones who came before, perhaps all the way back to 1913 or so, have aspects of this same deficit.
Religion in the US the Christian religion is uniquely fragmented and splitting more all the time. Same goes for the various “Eastern” manifestations.
As for socialism, surely it first showed up in the bloody French Revolution?? The subsequent manifestations are on-going also.
Perhaps it depends on what one calls ‘religion’. Tillich defined it (more or less) as whatever claimed your attention as an “ultimate concern”. Or rather, that’s how he described faith, though for practical purposes the churched tend to conflate the two. Sadly, Tillich himself suffered from severe satyriasis, so his ultimate concern was ummm…a bodily one.
Great piece Baron. It makes no sense to complain about the politician and ignore the people that voted for him.
A question: do you get to choose the candidates who will vie for your vote? Or are the cookie-cutter politicians pre-chosen for you?
We don’t live in a republic anymore.
Yes, candidates are chosen for us, but that’s the case for all of them irrespective of their party. Even anti-establishment candidates are chosen by someone else. That said, the politician is chosen by the people; the electorate voluntarily votes for genocidal traitors, even when the genocidal traitors make it perfectly plain that they are genocidal traitors. Not too long ago the British Labour Party readily admitted to opening the nation’s gates to all-comers in order to “rub the noses of the right in diversity” – the right being anyone who questioned the policy of mass third world immigration. And whereas Labour’s (alleged) opponents the Conservatives could have made a big play of this in order to secure votes, they kind of ducked the issue, apparently not seeking to gain an advantage over their ‘adversary’. Meanwhile, the electorate continues to vote (albeit in ever decreasing numbers) for the traitorous Labour Party and the cowardly Conservatives. Nothing compels them. They could bring the whole system crashing down just by not voting.
The main problem in the West is the way “we” rule our society. In the old days we had the feudal system. Very few living on the labor of all others.
Now we have thát same elite. Plus the fact that those we call the elite expanded itself. And more so. We have the plebs living on the labor of the working class. Thanks to the “welfare” state. Even the plebs from other civilisations now live of the labor of the working class in the West.
Luckily this 21th century feudalisme has its natural bounderies. As soon as the middle class awakens the party will be over for the free riders.
It takes a lot of time and misery before the middle class in the West starts to act. With or without the support of plebs. Not always the most sensible actions and courses. But the middle class will eventually act according to their own best interests!
Intelligent? No. But the West has survived many crisis before. It will settle the dispute with the elite and their fellow travellers again.
Practicing Anglicans have an off the chart score too.
Just saying. Scots Presbyterians who take their Calvinism seriously are unusually bright.
umm…that is the stock from which our Highlanders come, and the US military still has a goodly number of them. Not a better man to have on your side in battle – or so Geo Washington said. However, life in terms we flatlanders think of as “civilized” is a bit harder to manage. Many of them still take exception to the government’s taxing of homemade alcohol.
Intelligent? Indeed. Bellicose? omg. If/when a civil war comes, they’ll be in the thick of it.
Weren’t they the theological descendants of Calvin, as were other severe sects who settled in America? Calvin certainly burned more than one straying preacher in his time in Geneva. It could be that those stern religionists sent more dissenters per capita (no pun intended) to the Seat of Judgment than the Papists managed to do in their much larger purview.
The New World’s polyglot tamed those tendencies, though. Unless’n you venture up into the Appalachians, that is.
You said:
“It could be that those stern religionists sent more dissenters per capita (no pun intended) to the Seat of Judgment than the Papists managed to do in their much larger purview”
Does your reference to ‘Papists’ denote prejudice toward Catholics? What are your ‘Papists’ guilty of?
http://isteve.blogspot.dk/2009/10/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq.html?m=1
It’s quite funny to think about this situation.
In the comments someone pointed out that Episcopalians in the South are often infested with gay pride and stuff.
Anyone who takes their religious theology and social aspects of church seriously is probably highly highly functioning and bright.
Intelligence is not wisdom, although an intelligent men can learn wisdom from the wise.
Normally, wisdom is acquired from experience, or from cultural transmission.
An older culture, with more accumulated wisdom and an effective transmission method, can teach wisdom even to its young individuals.
The unwise amongst the westerners and the Jews are those who have disconnected themselves from their own “old” culture, and have joined a “young” culture (Progressivism).
Progressivism being young, it has very little wisdom to impart, so its members will be unwise, even if they are willing to learn from it.
We all pay the horrifying price of their folly.
May G-d protect us all.
Amen! to that Lurkie. Intelligence without historical, cultural and economic understanding is worse than stupidity. It’s hard to grow when you think you know it all.
As for “IQ” testing, I’m willing to bet that standardized testing is the product of people who do well at standardized testing.
And then there’s “All religions are the same”. (Except for Christianity which is for stupid rednecks.)
Bingo. Ive also heard this referred to as the Bauhaus Year Zero Movement. Atheist Secularists wish to flush Judeo Christendom down the toilet and start from zero, using science as the organizer of society. Disregarding 2000 years of accumulated experience and wisdom, philosophical output on top of Jewish before that. Of course, Marxism and Fascism are representative of that endeavor.
Starting from Zero, the Eternal Recurrence
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/10/22/starting-from-zero-the-eternal-recurrence/
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. — G.K. Chesterson
The self-destruction by the caucasian race, I believe, is related to the confluence of the history of black slavery and the Christian religion. Guilt and shame seem to be what have and still are causing the inward civilizational attacks. They underly the embrace of the multicultural assumptions.
Other civilizations had slavery and felt no remorse. The pagan Romans and ancient Greeks had slaves and showed no sign of revulsion toward the concept. The Moslem Arabs were the largest slavers of black Africans for a very long time. They had no desire to end it and only did so when force by Christian Europeans. The Moslem civilization still exists, as opposed to the Romans and the ancient Greeks, and it has refused to acknowledge its history of slavery and has not allowed that fact to hinder it. I believe it is Christianity that is the unique factor working here. Slavery was ended due to the efforts of Christians who determined that the practice was evil, and rightly so. I am not condemning the religion; I am a Christian myself. But I believe there are those among us who take the teachings into areas not intended.
William. But it seems to me that much of our loss of the will to survive as a culture has flowed, at least in part, from our loss of belief in the Christian faith. Charles Martel, Ferdinand and Isabella, the Knights of Malta, and the defenders of Vienna(1683), were at least nominal Christians. Did we lose the Faith, but retain the guilt?
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but that it seems ironic in the extreme.
I do not believe that a loss of faith has much to do with it for the church, of all denominations, is just as culpable. They accept the current views. Those Christians of the middle ages were not encumbered with the albatross we now have around our necks and they saw and dealt with reality as presented.
Here is Chantol Delsol’s understanding of our current nihilist cultural despair….in her work Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World
Claire Berlinski reviewing… (halfway down past McGrath’s book review.)
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6470
The thing in the West is this. We have democracy, which is good but not very good. The problem with democracy is that there’s nothing better, only democracy amended, and democracy itself is not very good.
The typical politician in the West has a psychological profile: he is a borderline personality disorder, BPD. They are sociopaths. People with BPD “outsmart” everybody because they have no morals. They don’t have it. Anytime they trick us, their opinion of us human livestock sinks still lower. They thought we are stupid to begin with, because we are held back by stupid things like morals.
Another typical trait of these guys is that they despise toiling and work altogether. Look at Obama. How happy to conduct campaigning and fundraising, how sad at anything else.
Marxism is the sociopath philosophy, islam is the sociopath religion. Sociopaths of a feather plunder together. Hence the fascination of western politicians with islam, which is obvious to everybody to not work. They are fascinated notwithstanding their repudiation of religion in general, and many other evident differences. They are the same thing at the core: they are sociopaths.
Men of reason would be puzzled now, how can it be? Can’t these guys possibly get it? They too are sinking forever with it. I remind you the fable of frog and scorpion. “It is a scorpion thing, you wouldn’t understand.”
I have noticed a very encouraging phenomenon in the west. I noticed it first in the Eastern Block, where I come from. The encouraging phenomenon is… hypocrisy. The ruling class has twisted debate in a very weird way. They are actually happy to lynch dissidents and clean the pool, same like Hitler loved anti-german partisans because killing them kills dissidence. Eased his work of having to find them.
Same in the Eastern Block. There were prizes to catch enemies of the people. People were piranhas against people. This is up to a certain point. Then people became hypocrites. They agreed with the dogma more than Lenin and Stalin would agree. In public. In private they held different beliefs, wrong thoughts, and acted on them. I have vastly noticed this in the West, and this is a good place to be. From now on the work of the ruling class is useless on the propaganda level, and is being sabotaged on every practical level by people who act on their beliefs, not on their professed beliefs.
Back to the borderline profile of our politicians. That’s what borderlines do. They think of us as human cattle to be plundered, but have to be brought down first. That’s why all this buzz of Gramsci (an Albanian), Frankfurt School and the like. Everything else they say is just rationalization.
These borderlines actually do yearn for a stupider crowd managed by islam. They do think of themselves as a better species and imagine that they will again be on the top of the world that they are tailoring. They are smart after all. Not smart enough to realize that smarts won’t matter. Violence and tribal allegiance will.
Amending democracy. America really is the best experiment ever in the topic. We traditionally had central government with very limited powers. Most powers traditionally lied with the states. Typically a sociopath climbs all the way to the top and then realizes that there’s no much he can do. What did Obama say? “The Constitution is bad because it doesn’t allow me to do whatever I want.” The professor of Constitutional Right. I thought the Constitution is there exactly for that: to cool down sociopaths like him.
Very good comment Ilia. Smart won’t matter, you say, but
violence and tribal allegiance is all that matters. Agreed, but countries like Britain have been made so comfortable
that a physical resistance is very unlikely. We have been outsmarted. Only the EDL approach comes anywhere near challenging the Establishment side and their dogs
the Police. If we could get people onto the streets like what is happening in Egypt, without violence, we would
be moving in the right direction. If not, we are surely booked for a rapid slide into a continuously worsening
situation until an invisible point of no return has been reached.
The point is this: duplicity. I saw it widely applied in Serbia. Anything Albanian muslim thugs did was divinely ordained. Anything Serbs did in self-defense was chauvinism, barbary.
Same things happen today in UK, helplessly. Muslims say “kill those who insult islam”, this is free speech. We repeat “muslims want to kill all those who insult islam” and this is hate speech. EDL resists beheading of UK soldiers in London, that’s soccer hooliganism. Muslims call for further beheadings, that’s freedom.
We are already pretty deep in [ordure] without precise ideas on how to come out. Our sociopath politicians have already taken sides: islam. Look at Obama. How much he did to unseat Mubarak, how much he did to keep Morsi in power, how much he is doing to return Morsi in power. How much Obama is doing to help cutthroat thugs in Syria who are exterminating christians right now.
Do UK politicians care about the rape and sex slavery of tens of thousands of underage white girls by Pakistani muslim pedophiles? Just pointing out this fact is bigotry, racism. Those who do it, are nice cultural enrichers and get away with it.
Carlos the Jackal, 1980’s era terrorist, once said that the only way to destroy Capitalism is through an alliance between the Marxists and the Islamists. Et voila!
I am a conservative, mostly white American who argues that marriage is between a man and a woman, that Evangelical Christianity is a great thing, that limited government is best, and that people shouldn’t have to fork over half of what they earn to the “unfortunates” (although, I admire people who do that voluntarily), and that Obama is our national disgrace (well, maybe barely less a disgrace than Hillary Rodham Clinton).
But a lot of this IQ business is pure hooey. You say the Ashkenazi Jews excel in intelligence? A hundred years ago, their grandparents and great-grandparents were found to be largely “mentally retarded” by IQ tests (chiefly because so many Ashkenazim read only Yiddish and Hebrew, and didn’t know the Latin alphabet). I have taught in lower-middle class Taiwan and in a minority-majority school in the US, and while perhaps, on average, the Taiwanese teens were more study-oriented, I’ve seen enough African-American, just-off-the-plane-African, and Latino students go to college on scholarships that I refuse to see stupidity in “racial” terms.
And, yes, while living in the Far East, I met plenty of downright stupid people there.
Further, “intelligent peoples” can do some pretty dumb things. While I’m not for dismantling the modern state of Israel, and, in fact, respect it greatly, it wasn’t very intelligent of the Ashkenazi Jews to let the likes of Weill and Goldziher (the main academic architects of the myth of Islamic tolerance) bamboozle them with the idea that their Muslim Arab “brethren” could be persuaded to welcome them home. The intelligentsia of China supported Communism greatly in the period from 1919 down to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Democratic Kampuchea faction of the Khmers Rouges were all doctoral students in Paris when they learned their Marxism–and, despite what they did to their fellow Sino-Khmer later, were at the leadership level at least generally Sino-Khmer themselves. Germany, which unleashed both Marxist socialism and National Socialism on the world, had been the praeceptor mundi prior to WWII. And the most “ejjikated” and “cull-chahed” parts of the USA invariably voted for the O.
In my young manhood, when it was becoming clear that application of Marx’s theories wasn’t unleashing the promised “unheralded productive forces”, I heard people who were hair-trigger quick to charge others with “racism” rationalize that applied sicentific socialism’s failings were all the fault of the stupid Slavic Uentermenschen, the primitive Asiatics of China, and of the white middle-class Cubans who ran away to Florida, leaving poor Fidel, Raoul, and Che nothing but a bunch of supposedly stupid Mulattoes. Hmmmph.
I don’t know how European immigration laws work (or fail), but I’m of the mind that my stupid country (the USA) should really just enforce the immigration laws it has on the books rather than go for the total overhaul that we try every six or seven years. But my concern isn’t over the “dumbing down” of my country (more the fault of my own teaching profession than of any poor immigrants), but rather that a country like ours depends on a culture that respects rule of law rather than seeks advantage by scoffing at our laws.
By now I believe that Christian religion was an unmitigated disaster wholesomely. It was exactly like Islam. Burning libraries and preparing for the rewards of the Afterlife. No need to work in this earthly world.
Christianity ruined Roman empire. It only gradually became a good religion as a result of the elaborations of the Northern European man. That took a thousand years. Now we are at it again. If we ever manage to moderate Islam before it eats us, desert thugs will be there again to concoct a new religion of plunder, or a more at-the-root (=radical) interpretation of Islam.
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0101.html
IQ has nothing to do with cultural suicide. It began in August 1914 and will conclude with the end of the 100+ year World War. I think Europeans are smart enough to kill the most successful civilization known to mankind. I use to think America would avoid suicide, but after the election of Obama two times, I seriously doubt my assessment.
The French Revolution, created the monstrosity of La France or the collective, which came before the people and gave them rights.
The first world war, this war which was fought for patriotic reasons more than anything else, destroyed any sense of being patriotic as being a good thing.
The second world war, as the Nazi’s were Nationalistic Socialists they dragged even further the concept of nationalism as a good thing, but they were socialists, to me an international socialist and a national socialist is the same animal. The holocaust was also a massive guilt trip at the civilisation level, which is now used to attack people who correctly discriminate.
Slavery, is used to attack ourselves further as the bad guys.
The 60’s, what can one say, a nihlistic attitude towards life was generated from that era, for me people like Tony Blair was produced from that era and it shows.
All that together has created a cultural self loathing and what is happening now is because of that, we are as a civilisation commiting suicide.
Now I believe time is ripe to repudiate French Revolution wholesomely, though it is the founding myth of La Republique. Well, La Republique is going to dogs too.
The only thing that remains of French revolution will be SI. Even that for the most part was the work of Condorcet and other very agreeable French people.
Someone, maybe it was Richwine, said that if a country lets in enough
migrants with an IQ of 90, soon that country will be governed by people
with an IQ of 90.
One might get the idea that the US is already governed by people
with IQs of 90
One would think that those with higher IQs would at least use a portion of their noggin power to preserve themselves and their progeny. Alas, in this day and age even that is widely considered to be an act of racism if you happen to be of the fairer persuation.
Here is something I find both perplexing and informative: Whites and only whites engage in these self-hating fads such as “White Privilege” and similar such concepts. These ideas are dangerous in my view and are indicative of group-level or mass psychosis. An extreme form of pacifism?
I read Spengler’s Decline of the West about 30 years ago. It ruined my life! Drama queen? Perhaps…
I’m not engaging in self pity here – more like self-parody (:O D. But Spengler’s idea, that of the morphology of history, really did turn my life upside down.
For me it was one of those moments when you’re told something that you didn’t know but when told it was so blindingly obvious you were stunned that you’d not already worked it out yourself.
History in the sense of the lifetime of a culture is organic!
Cultures are born, out of who knows what, they grow and develop, they mature, and they die.
I suppose this quote from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is a bit cliched now, but it’s perfect for our situation; “I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo. “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
And so it is for everyone in whatever period of their culture’s lifespan they dwell. It is our fate to be here at the decline of the West and unfortunately there’s nothing we can do about it. Like a man whose time has come, the West cannot be saved.
It’s reaching a point when it can no longer answer the questions asked of it. Or rather the answers it professes, multiculturalism and miscegenation, are leading to its own demise.
Some of these topics are painfully off topic. You must have patience, Baron.
Thinking itself is dangerous (Hannah Arendt)
So racial thinking capacity equals possible volatility,
But only because the mind is misused;
Mind used correctly is safe and enlightening (Voegelin, Augustine, Christ, Buddha)
Use it right or suffer the consequences of misused mind of nihihilsm-fantacism.
This European Enlightenment thingy that’s been going on now for a while now has been one hell of a pridefully imbalanced metal tangent. Some good physical science came out of it though. Besides that, this is a true dark age.
I think we can all agree that a high, nevertheless improperly channeled, IQ is of little use in our current dilemas. And of course IQ is only part of the equation. I was looking a little deeper for answers.
“This Enlightenment thingy?” Really?
I would argue that Western IQ, as channeled through Enlightenment principles, has created the modern world! In, historically-speaking, a very short expanse of time, it has brought about the greatest increase in standard of living, the greatest improvements in health and well-being, and the greatest increase in human productivity that the world has ever known.
The Enlightenment is not our problem. Our current problems stem from the movement, led by Cultural Marxists, to discredit the Enlightenment. Our children are now taught that the search for truth is pointless since there is no such thing as objective truth. Our journalism students are taught that truthfulness is shameful and that the only honorable form of journalism is to constantly distort the truth in order to paint a favorable picture of minorities. “Equity,” which can mean whatever the left wants it to mean, has now replaced our former sane and measurable ideal of justice. Even logic and reason are now disparaged as forms of oppression! Applying logical analysis to another person’s behavior, our university students are taught, is tantamount to a rapist’s leer (the “male gaze”) It is Western rationalist oppression of Third World culture.
To end the current suicidal tendencies of the West, we need to reinstate truth and reason among our highest values. We need to make our academicians stop looking to an avowed Sado-Masochist, Michel Foucault, for moral guidance. Does it not ever occur to anyone that Foucault may have been obsessed with power differentials because he got a sick sadistic sexual buzz from thinking about every word and action in terms of power differentials? It is insanity to debunk the ideals of truth and reason simply because a world hegemon thought them up.
Brilliant comment. Excellent. Thank you and please keep writing.
I meant to say I admire your patience with commenters.
Many here mistake Intelligence with Wisdom. One has little correlation with the other. Highly intelligent people are no more immune to foolish ideas than low-intelligent ones. Machiavelli argued in his Discourses that highly intelligent people of low virtue are the ones most dangerous to a free Republic as they can do the most harm.
Indeed.
I agree with you, marsouin.
In the C18th. the Protestant Whig Ascendancy in Britain (who were much the same as the Continental British (in Nth.America) came to believe that in intellect they were QUANTITATIVELY superior to others (source:Paul Johnson:The Offshore Islanders).This is different from being QUALITATIVELY superior.
In American terms is Obama,who made himself up from a low place, any worse then Old Joe,Jack or Teddy Kennedy? (Bobby did at least destroy the power of the Klan;with the aid of that old fox LBJ.)
At the risk of getting too far off topic, the Klan was pretty much the last organised resistance to multiculturaliusm.
In crude Darwinian terms those who staid in Africa used physical means to survive.Asiatics (including Jews)used intellectual means.Europeans used a combination and came out on top [although it’s a bit more complicated].
From what I understand of the broad sweep of genetic research the Out Of Africa even occurred when 200 individuals (a tribe or clan) crossed from the Horn of Africa to Arabia. Genetic research has proven that this was a singular migration and bottleneck. This group of 200 represents the common ancestor of every European, Asian and Australasian. The Africans were quite literally left behind. It’s postulated that this human group made makeshift rafts and ferried themselves over in one go or a few smaller family groups made the same trip at separate times.
The Out Of Africa event is more akin to Columbus or Apollo than it is to do with a stroll across a land bridge. Our common ancestors were not ordinary examples of humanity. They were the equivalent of astronauts. The first boat designers were our ( soon to be non-African) ancestors.
If the theory is true it has implications for our future as a species. Only the highly technical and intrepid members of our own species have a real future. The rest are a drag and ultimately a dangerous liability.
In Australia I have worked along-side the indigenous people and know them to be our equals given a fair go.I hear an Aborigine has been elected as Chief Minister of The Northern Territory (about twice the size of Texas,you’se Yanky molly-boys).This seems to be because young Abos. have rebelled against Labour’s attempt to Ni€€erize them with it’s `multi-culturalizm.And isn’t this the problem in the USA and GB; the attempt to Ni€€erize `Blacks`by promoting as black culture the behavior of “”street-smart young black-American male gang members”? (I quote here the wording in the British press of complaints that are clearly coming from young British mothers.)
I say it’s the element of aboriginal rebellion that made that happen rather than whites finally “giv[ing anyone] a fair go.” The latter smacks too much of “we have to clean up our act,” which I reject. If one rejects thinking that keeps you down and lives by ideas that make you a winner, you succeed.
Baron, the truth is technology kills. And kills ever greater and more absolutely. The fate of say, Africans, is to be the plaything of one powerful group or another that uses technology for power. If it is not the West, it will be China. Africa has many resources, that powerful technology based nations want, and the inability even if it wanted to, to extract those resources and serve them up for profit (on all sides). Thus, there will be Blood.
What is behind Multiculturalism is an attempt, likely doomed IMHO, to stop technological progress created by White guys by flooding the West with non-Whites who have low IQs and are hostile to creating technological change.
Look say at Cleveland. Once the powerhouse of the old industrial Midwest, it is now basically an all-Black “Mistake by the Lake” and no new technology comes out of there now to disrupt the thirty percent or so of Whites who are defacto aristocrats (in government, corporate, media, and ngo-service, moving back and forth).
It is perfectly understandable, as a short-term solution. Just as the Tokugawa Shogunate sought to close off the West to preserve Samurai feudalism and their own rule. Eventually the Black Fleet of Commodore Perry forced a painful reconciliation with reality and the goal of preserving in amber feudal Japan.
No one thinks the Japanese were or are stupid. Just look at their excellent products — the sign of very high IQ people indeed. But they’ve made remarkably foolish short-term decisions over the centuries: closing off Japan and nearly losing it to Western colonization (at the time of Perry’s Black Fleet arrival, all Japan had was centuries old outdated matchlock muskets). Picking a stupid and useless fight with America in WWII. Pursuing a stupid and useless campaign of colonization in Korea, in China, in SE Asia, merely because Westerners had done it too, before them.
Look at Ashkenazi Jews. No one thinks they are stupid, yet they largely chose to believe the delusion that they would not be exterminated by Adolf Hitler and the SS. They largely obeyed the Nazis peacefully. Jews, by and large, did not use the time between say, 1918 and 1939, to arm themselves discreetly in Europe, nor to flee, nor to seek powerful protectors and allies. Self-delusion can be all the more powerful in intelligent peoples the more they truly want something.
Jews, by and large, did not use the time between say, 1918 and 1939, to arm themselves discreetly in Europe, nor to flee, nor to seek powerful protectors and allies
Nonsense. The majority of German Jews actually left Germany between 1933 and 1939. Most Jews who died in the Holocaust lived in the USSR between 1918 and 1939, and German anti-semitism was not one of their pressing concerns. Jews in other countries in Europe assumed that a weakened post Versaille Germany was no immediate threat, no matter how much Hitler ranted – which wasn’t necessarily stupid. After all Germany’s victory over France in 1940 was arguably due more to historical accident and luck than actual German skill. Certainly Britain and France held a significant material advantage over Germany, even intelligent observers had no idea the French high command would perform so badly. And what powerful protectors could Jews seek in any case? The USSR, as intelligent Jews saw, was not a better choice, and Great Britain and the US had no interest in protecting Jews. Some Jews actually made a very intelligent choice in 1919, which was to promote Zionism. Jewish promotion of multiculturalism also makes tremendous sense as a survival strategy – history shows that states with a strong sense of a dominant ethnic identity, such as Spain in the 1490s, Russia in the 1800s or Germany in the 1930s eventually turn against the Jews in their midst, usually violently. Jews thrive in multiethnic states like the Ottoman Empire, the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Habsburg Empire. No surprise that many Jews prefer a multicultural America to one dominated by Northern European protestants.
Indeed. That’s basically the root of the influx of Muslims in Europe. A blend of levelr pulling by hostile minorities embedded in situ and their useful idiots.
Agreed.
The thing is Jews dont seem to be big on multiculturalism in Israel.
Jews are however are for the disempowerment of European Christians in their nation states. Diaspora Jews are the enemy of European Christendom. They have deep seated fear and loathing of European Christians and Christendom. They are virulent political enemies of European Christendom.
This is just the plain fact of the matter. They may have good reason to be, that doesnt change the reality that European Christians need to protect themselves from hostile minorities, including Jews.
I would like to elaborate. It is argued that masses of people are the decisive balance of power. Stalin thought that — quantity has its own quality he argued. As he used mass attacks that finally, after years of futility, overwhelmed a technically superior German army. At the cost of about 20 million plus Russians and Demographic winter later. You wonder why Stalin never invaded Western Europe? Or his successors? They didn’t have the men. Literally. Nor their sons, dead men don’t sire any.
Rather, the trend over the centuries, has been that technology kills and kills absolutely, in ever greater power. Israel, a nation of about five million Jews, has the capacity if it wants to use nuclear weapons against say, Iran or Egypt which are nations at the 70 million mark or so.
The question is, in an environment suddenly and radically giving power to those most adept at oh, I dunno, building and maintaining and powering drones with everything from surveillance to missiles to nukes, how does a mass of low-IQ people serve anything but massive targets?
After all, no one but the elites believe in this stuff. “Big Brother” on CBS is in the news because a couple of White women on the show casually made slurs against Gays, Blacks, and Asians. Your average White American has not been, nor has your European either, overwhelmed with the milk of human Multiculturalism. Just cowed and beaten into submission by the elites. Who are numerous. But not invincible. They’ve been overthrown before.
What we are looking at is rivers, oceans of blood. The worse because major Western cities will burn from inside, driven by racially hostile non-Whites who by having significantly lower IQs will be excluded from the hiperati IPad-using knowledge workers and such. Such burning cities providing a convenient excuse for action overthrowing a corrupt elite who endanger property and livelihoods.
Look at Egypt. People there remain raging Islamists, to the core. But they like to eat. They ditched Morsi because they don’t like starving. Most of the Third World imports its calories (Egypt, 80 percent) and most of those calories come from the West.
Low IQ peoples generally can kill only close up, one on one. They don’t fly drones, they don’t design nukes, they don’t design bioweapons. Low IQ groups can’t even maintain weapons systems (thankfully) they inherit from others.
Look at Egypt…
Indeed, look at Egypt but also look at its history in full, not just its beggared condition today.
This is a culture that once gave us the pyramids, that devised ways to harness the Nile’s floods by creative agricultural engineering, that harvested countless reams of cheap papyrus which led to an increase in literacy and commercial trade with other groups.
In his paradigm-changing book about the harm done to the Mediterranean by the utter savagery of repeated Bedouin invasions, Emmet Scott points out that Egypt was once the breadbasket of the Med. Hard to imagine now.
The book’s title, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited, is a tad misleading. A more appropriate title might be “Read and Weep for All That Was Lost”.
The Egyptians were not a low IQ people and that intelligence remains, but without ways to channel it. What remains of the Copts – those who have been permitted to survive as dhimmis – is evidence of intelligence, ambition, and successful striving. The majority of Egyptians are illiterate and hungry; in ignorant and blind fury they turn on the Copts, who for the most part are better educated and relatively better nourished. As an example see this man, a Coptic billionaire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naguib_Sawiris
“Copts”, now ten per cent of the country, was once a term which described all Egyptians. But that was before the brutal Bedouin invasions wiped out much of Egypt’s existing wealth and cultural complexity, especially in the urban centers.
The invaders destroyed vast swathes of agricultural irrigation as they came with their sheep and goats and camels and allowed the animals to graze and trample where they would. The subject population shut up to survive, even as their subjugation included the deliberate destruction of a proud cultural history. Islam has shown repeatedly a predilection for the destruction of historical artifacts in the name of preventing “idolatry”. Of late, plans to destroy the pyramids in a final wipeout have been just rumors, but they probably have some foundation in fact among the more fundamentalist versions of Islam now unleashed in Egypt.
The breadbasket of Egypt disappeared as did the papyrus, thus ensuring future illiteracy among the plebs and insecurity about food sources.
Despite the wipeout, a whisper of race memory remains. See this recent opinion piece in the Gruniad:
An Egyptian, and an Arab
“We have thousands of years of history, culture and civilisation. They have nothing but oil barrels. Were it not for oil, they’d still be living in tents…”
What isn’t addressed is that extreme barbarism trumps culture and civilization. That infamously sadistic desert cruelty, combined with megalomaniacal sensitivity & paranoia (tribal thinking?) gives us an idea of the origins of their hostility to history.
Islam is proof that a low IQ is no obstacle to success. And Egypt is proof that a higher IQ doesn’t help a culture survive.
But the Egyptians of today aren’t the same people as the Egyptians of yesterday.
The Copts of today are _mostly_ the same people as Egyptians in historic time. They are the group of Egyptians who did not submit to Islam. If you disagree, I would appreciate links to your sources.
Wonderful insight, wonderfully said. And this phrase wraps it up so beautifully:
“Islam is proof that a low IQ is no obstacle to success. And Egypt is proof that a higher IQ doesn’t help a culture survive.”
Cacophony of symbols
Maybe intelligence compels that the multikulti equation is processed in order to calculate that the equation of interest and wonderment is a cacophony of meaningless symbols.
People emigrate for one of two reasons:
1. They are unable to support themselves in their own countries (low IQ) and go to countries with generous unemployment benefits (UK).
2. They own counry is overwelmed with underachieving immigrants and the government is taking 51% of their earnings to pay for them.
Once a government allows non-employable people into a country already suffering from unemployment, intelligent and hard-working people leave.
Note: Incest – cumulative first cousin marriage – is detremental to intelligence.
DaffersD, Whiskey, and others too numerous to list —
I generally agree with what you are saying, but it still ducks what is for me the core question:
Why are whites and Ashkenazi Jews unique in their methodical attempt to destroy their own civilization?
The Chinese are smarter than Caucasians, and almost as intelligent as European Jews. Yet they have so far proved immune to suicidal Multiculturalism. Why is this?
If IQ measures anything useful at a cultural level, all of these societies should behave similarly. Yet Western Civilization is unique in its systematic, ideologically-driven attempt to destroy itself.
Japan may be in demographic decline, but it is not accelerating its end by importing millions of barbaric foreigners. And yes, I can see that the Japanese made foolish mistakes in what they did in WW2. Yet, at the moment when it became evident that all was lost, they did what was necessary to preserve what they could of their civilization. And they succeeded.
We, the white people of European descent, show no sign of doing the same thing. Maybe we haven’t reached our “Nagasaki moment” yet. If not, we must be damned close.
There are numerous blogs and sites dedicated to the topic of Human Biodiversity, and they focus extensively on differences in mean IQ among the races.
My point is: Given all that I said above and in my essay, what utility or significance does IQ have as a society-wide metric?
It seems to me that it is less than useless. It not only fails to account for what is happening to out culture, it distracts us from the task of figuring out the deep causes, and finding a solution, before we become civilizational toast.
IQ levels of population groups is a total red herring, our problems in our white countries are not related to our
intelligence. There are many factors involved, but the
latest possibly unrecognised problem is our almost
universal fatalistic apathy which comes from the very
high standard of comfort we have achieved for almost all
citizens. In other words lack of willpower. Add to that a
continuously weakening tribal/racial bond, and a low birth rate, and you have all the ingredients for a rapidly
collapsing society. Only a massive economic collapse like
1929 but worse, will wake us from our slumber.
I agree: IQ is a red herring.
Focusing on IQ ducks the issue of why Americans, Canadians Europeans, and Australians are all simultaneously destroying their societies by importing millions of people of far lower intelligence who have deeply entrenched barbaric cultural practices.
The Chinese don’t do this. The Japanese don’t do this. Mexicans don’t do this. IQ explains nothing.
IQ is useless as a metric at a societal level. It serves a useful function at an individual level, in education and employment. But it doesn’t explain aggregate cultural behavior.
To ascribe the problems we face to a lack of “will power” begs the question.
I also disagree with your contention that IQ levels in “our” white countries is a “red herring”. That’s akin to the way the Norwegians duck the issues on questions of gender, race, and culture by saying, “no, we won’t/don’t deal with that since the question[s] is[are] inherently uninteresting”. Both responses appear to be a form of reality avoidance in favor of a priori (and sub rosa) beliefs.
IQ in and of itself is a fascinating subject; human beings are inherently competitive even though our nanny schools try to force children to ‘play nice’ and let everyone win.
I seriously doubt a massive economic collapse will cure our apathy or our “weakening tribal/racial bonds” or our plummeting birth rate. Such an event could well worsen those problems in an ugly Hobbesian war of all against all. Perceptions of scarcity tend to do that.
Besides, those issues are symptoms rather than the causes of the larger malaise we see all around us. The Baron’s propositions that high IQ turns out not to be an enhancement for survival, and that the current zeitgeist attempts to shun/shame those who are brave enough to point out differences and reflect upon what these differences portend will both continue to be realities worth discussion…how long those discussions will remain legal is another matter. IIRC, Germany does not permit the questions to be researched in its universities.
————————-
On another level, there is no issue about family formation and reproduction among people who live within a strong religious environment. Thus, orthodox Roman Catholics, Amish, orthodox Jews, Mennonites, Mormons, etc. – are cohesive subgroups within their larger secular culture, a culture from whose offerings they pick and choose carefully. Those groups have high inner community cohesion and a birth rate that is above replacement level. The crime level is low; the trust level within the group is high. Quakers were once similar but they have become increasingly secularized, thus weakening their group cohesion.
High intelligence untethered from the Greek idea of ‘virtu’ is like having a thoroughbred horse without training or a rider to control it. It remains one of the legacies of the 1930s simplistic ideas about eugenics as a ‘cure’ for Western culture’s ills. Another 30s myth, that socialism is the basis for a ‘just’ society is even now foundering on the rocks of reality.
Viktor Frankl wrote of his experience in the Holocaust camps (this is a paraphrase) that the survivors were likely to be those who lived to/with a higher purpose beyond their own mere existence. He said children could survive and thrive even in harsh conditions as long as they could ascribe a higher meaning to their lives.
IOW, hyper-rational secularism and the primacy of the individual do not bode well for survival in extremis. Unfortunately for us, robust spiritual belief is not a matter of will power, at least as that term is commonly understood.
What I mean is that it doesn’t matter one iota if the Amish or the Chinese are racially
or genetically more intelligent than Whites,
Browns or Blacks. There are too many other variables that contribute to the human mind and the human willpower. In
other words we cannot gain any relevant
knowledge on how to stop our decline, by looking at any variations of the Bell Curve.
I still see this as a religious, if not a metaphysical problem, not an IQ problem. In the sense that once one owns the education establishment, one can very carefully manipulate the propaganda, so that instead of recruiting ‘useful idiots’ one can recruit ‘useful genius’.
If we give our children to the enemy for some 13 years of their formative years, we must expect them to come off the assembly line with same manufacturer’s badge whether they be 100 cubes or 450 cubes.
MC —
So do Judaism and Christianity cause the suicidal impulse to dominate in the West?
And do Taoism, Buddhism, and Shintoism somehow suppress the Multicultural urge in the East?
Ascribing the issue to religion has no more explanatory power than IQ. Nor does ascribing it to a lack of religion — religious belief has declined in China, just as it has in the West (and yes, I know Christianity is growing rapidly in China — give them another few decades, and maybe they’ll embrace the multicult).
We are still no closer to pinpointing what makes Western behavior different.
But we have caved in to the political religion of socialism, at school, a remarkable number of my teachers were of the socialist religion, as were my parents, my oldest brother is still afflicted.
Socialism is the religion of the serpent, and the serpent was always been a liar and a murderer. We send our children into his jaws at age 4/5, and we leave them there subject to his fangs and his venom until they graduate.
Then we expect some kind of miracle of ‘right’ thinking to transform them…..
It does not work
MC, I agree entirely. But China absorbed socialism even more thoroughly than we did, and yet did not decide to destroy their own civilization as a result.
There must be an additional factor or factors to explain the difference.
You have confused Leftism with other concerns. It is the ideology of Leftism that is leading to our demise combined with the weakness on the Right to take the moral and ethical high ground. A fear on the Right to speak out and react strongly.
Race and religion have nothing to do with it.
Baron, MCinSderot, and others, please read Chantol Delsol’s Icarus Fallen….or at least Claire Berlinski’s review of it that I posted a link to up thread.
The problem in a nutshell is Nihilism. Nothing left to believe in.
Claire Berlinski reviewing Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World by Chantol Delsol
THESE, IN FACT, are precisely what we are seeing, according to Chantal Delsol, a professor of philosophy at the University of Marne-la-Vallée in Paris. (This institutional affiliation is noteworthy: It is striking that public figures in France with innovative and unorthodox ideas are no longer apt to be associated with the Grandes Ecoles or the traditional French educational elite; Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, recently elected chief of France’s ruling party, is not a graduate of the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, the traditional feeder school for the French administrative and political elite.) In her subtle, highly intelligent meditation on the moral state of modern European man, Delsol considers his profound disillusionment: European man has in recent memory suffered two great losses, first his Christian faith and then its replacement — a vision of human perfectibility absent supernatural guidance. Failed experiments in utopianism, particularly in its communist and fascist expressions, have left him, like Icarus, singed at the wing-tips and fallen, paralyzed by self-doubt.
Utopian ideologies were, as she says, “systems of reference structured like cathedrals,” and her use of this rich simile is no accident. Europe has spent the past several centuries, not just this one, in a series of struggles to find a replacement for its lost Christian faith. Until recently, for example, nationalism was a substitute for religious belief; in France, the idea of France itself and its civilizing mission lent meaning to the lives of Frenchmen, just as the mystical Aryan ideal stood in for religious belief in Germany. The nation-state, the arts, music, science, fascism, communism, even rationality itself — all of these were substitutes for Christianity, and all failed. “We have watched all the cathedrals fall into ruin,” Delsol laments, “one after another.” But where McGrath sees in this the inevitability of religious revival, Delsol discerns no such thing. She finds her contemporaries’ fear of ideological certainty fully reasonable: Rigid orthodoxy, after all, did give rise to both the Inquisition and the Holocaust. So a return to the past is impossible, and no one has the faintest idea what the future might hold.
Man continues, nonetheless, to long for utopia and for the absolute — this is a design feature, to paraphrase Delsol, not a bug — and for a means to interpret his existence. But he no longer possesses a coherent ideological vehicle by which to express this longing. Here she sees the source of the profound risk-aversion of the modern European: “In general,” she writes, “our contemporary cannot imagine for what cause he would sacrifice his life because he does not know what his life means.” Though Delsol does not explicitly say as much, this is as good an explanation as we are apt to find for Europe’s recent approach to international affairs: How better, for example, to explain the willingness of the Spanish people instantly and obediently to capitulate to the demands of the terrorists who last year slaughtered some 200 of their countrymen?
Lacking any sense of purpose, Delsol asserts, modern man enshrouds himself in technological and physical comfort, leading a life that is at once free of risk and mediocre, mouthing vapid, unexamined clichés. These she calls “the clandestine ideology of our time” — clandestine because no overt adherence to ideology is now socially permissible. Yet the banishment of the economy of ideology, she astutely remarks, has encouraged a black market to flourish in its place: “This underground moral code is saturated with sentimentality yet arbitrarily intolerant.” The code is a close cousin to the political correctness of the Americans, and it is the unspoken foundation of the modern European welfare state — a society predicated on an ever-expanding sense of entitlement:
“Anything contemporary man needs or envies, anything that seems desirable to him without reflection, becomes the object of a demanded right. Human rights are invoked as a reason for refusing to show identification, for becoming indignant against the deportation of delinquent foreigners, for forcing the state to take illegal aliens under its wing, for justifying squatting by homeless people, for questioning the active hunt for terrorists. It is not only desire or whim that leads to rights claims, but instinctive sentimentality and superficial indignation as well.”
Another principle of this code is the estimation of tolerance above all other virtues. Once defined by the absence of state prohibitions against certain ideas and behaviors, tolerance has come to be conflated with legitimization — as the state itself now actively encourages those ideas and behaviors through legal and material aid. Delsol finds this pernicious, and rightly so. One need only look at the Netherlands to see exactly where this orthodoxy leads: When an artist created a street mural with the words “Thou shalt not kill” in response to the murder — by a Muslim radical — of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, Dutch police immediately destroyed it in the name of tolerance. Deputy Prime minister Gerrit Zalm was widely criticized for declaring the Netherlands to be at war with Islamic extremism. “We fall,” said Green-left leader Femke Halsema, “too easily into an ‘us and them’ antithesis with the word war.” No more perfect example of Delsol’s thesis can be imagined. “Dominated by emotion,” she observes,
“our era overflows with treacly sentiment. It is almost as if the feelings that were once associated with a certain type of piety have contaminated the whole population. . . . Seeking the good while remaining indifferent to the truth gives rise to a morality of sentimentality.”
My only quibble: This is not just a morality of sentimentality; it is a morality of eager, collective suicide.
continued…
Baron, I would submit that what you’re observing is not a new phenomenon at all. That what you’re seeing is something that has afflicted Western society for centuries.
If you recall that centuries old tale of Dr. Faustus, he was a doctor of philosophy, an academic who exchanged his soul for the power and prestige that comes with superior knowledge. And he makes this exchange, even in the full knowledge, that in the end he will have to pay a horrible price for it!
Western culture inherited from the Greeks the notions of rational thinking. (Culturally, this is what separates us from the Asiatic cultures where pc-multiculturalism has been unable to take hold). But along with the power over the physical world that comes with the ability to think rationally/scientifically, also comes the danger of using that power for evil. I sometimes think that the story of Dr. Faustus was an unconscious recognition, on the part of Western society, of this dark side of rationality.
If one looks at the history of Western Civilization, with few exceptions, all of our great advances where the work of well above average IQ individuals; Da Vince, Galileo, Newton, and 100s more. A contributor here at GoV once estimated an IQ of 170 for Martin Luther. Intelligence is only good or bad depending on the cause to which it is devoted.
It is so very easy for someone gifted with a well above average IQ to go through life thinking that they are superior to everyone else; and in the end it is the sin of pride that they succumb to.
wildiris —
I was not focusing on how new or old this phenomenon is, but on the fact that it does not correlate with intelligence, as measured by IQ, at a societal level.
We don’t yet have a useful theoretical model to explain the manifest differences in cultural behavior between the West and the East. IQ most emphatically does not serve as an explanation.
Baron, regarding your second point, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. If you go to the field of AI you will find all of the analytical tools, theoretical models, and worked examples you need to build comprehensive models of any and all aspects of human behavior.
There are no models, not because they can’t be made, but because no one wants to admit that human behavior can be modeled. For implicit in the existence of a model of human behavior is the apparent implication that individuals are not free agents, but are simply acting out scripts (program subroutines) set by factors beyond their control. This strikes at the core of one’s sense-of-self, the weakest and most easily damaged aspect of our earthly existence.
My feeling is that the elite rulling class in Europe which is International Socialists want to create a one world system and are using Europe and the West as the one world melting pot to set an example for the rest of the world.
Japan have a cultural racial superiority attitude that still exists and they recognise Islam for what it is, they paint it at a cutural level as very very backward and any Japanese who converts is looked at as being outside their culture and despised for it. In other words they are secure in their own culture.
Our elites are playing for a one world and our cultural destruction is a means to an end.
IQ is not a reason for this, its really down to their objective, their IQ is actually an issue in that they lack any common sense.
Why are whites and Ashkenazi Jews unique in their methodical attempt to destroy their own civilization?
I have answered this why. Here is why again. In democracy, politics is the profession of sociopaths. Sociopaths repudiate work and working people. They think they are genetically a better strand of mankind. That’s what our white and ashkenazi elite think of themselves. How many times dems refer to their electorate with the endearing term “unwashed masses”? Never seen through?
So, these sociopaths adopt predatory attitude towards us inferiors. It doesn’t have to make sense, it is like in the frog and scorpion tale:
Frog — But why did you sting me if you too are going to die.
Scorpion — It’s a scorpion thing, you wouldn’t understand.
If these liberals had a button to exterminate all us inferiors, they would do it, for the greater good, to unclog history, to accelerate evolution, and what not. They don’t have that, but they do have Planned Parenthood.
That’s why their affinity with islam. Islam is the sociopath religion, marxism is the sociopath philosophy. Sociopaths of a feather plunder together. Then mangle each other together.
They are not destroying it. It is dying.
Maybe our western intelligence level is only high if you compare to others. Perhaps a civilization needs eg 115 average IQ to survive.
Certainly our chattering classes do little to improve things in this respect.
Baron, I cannot right now find where I am supposed to comment on your wonderful essay, so I’ll include it here.
Brilliant essay. Wonderful re-anchoring comment here as well. As happens periodically, it is moving to find such high quality discussion as you have offered here and as is often found in the comments. You and Dymphna have created, and continue to create, such a treasure, such an oasis of intellect, wisdom, and spiritual morality.
“Why are whites and Ashkenazi Jews unique in their methodical attempt to destroy their own civilization?”
Really, Baron. The entire question is an unproven PRESUMPTION that these two groups have the same goals, methods, ideas, culture, etc.
If you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer.
Here, the question IS the bias that leads to the wrong answer.
Mi’lud
“But China absorbed socialism even more thoroughly than we did, and yet did not decide to destroy their own civilization as a result.”
China overlaid an extremely old and mature pagan culture with the veneer of socialism, that pagan culture belonged to the serpent anyway so the result was not so destructive.
The serpent hates Judeo-Christianity and the 10 commandments hence the need to eviscerate the ‘West’. Yes it is metaphysical, it makes the assumption that out there ‘Old Nick’ is playing his game….
“IQ tests measure logical and mathematical reasoning, spatial abilities, and language skills…”
And that’s all it measures.
Important skills to be sure but why would one imagine those particular abilities would translate to much broader and different skills like survival?
Astounding intelligence in mathematics doesn’t mean you’re going to avoid making dreadful choices in marriage, abuse of alcohol or the saving of your culture. You can be the world’s best chess player and still have a mind that’s gone awry in any one of hundred other ways, e.g. Bobby Fischer.
High IQ and saving your culture – apples and oranges.
Nobody can save a culture. But high IQ’s are necessary for a culture’s development. Man’s destiny is the stars – without high IQ we are not going to get there.
High IQ is a necessary condition for a people to reach the stars, but not a sufficient condition.
A very good article, but you are very wrong about us doing this to ourselves, this process has taken well over a century, and has been very carefully planned and executed, whether you describe our destroyers as Jewish, progressive, marxist, bildenberger, illuminati, whatever (probably a combination of all of those factors), the fact is that this has been done in secret, spanning well over a century, gradually taking over every institution in what used to be termed the free world.
For every country in that free world to follow the same path, left taking over ALL of the institutions, and gradually introducing insane marxist policies, having a stalinist grip on education, media government more than implies an orchestrated effort to achieve a specific end, and it is kept in place by total brainwashing, stalinist prohibition of ‘wrong thoughts’ in those institutions, together with CONTINUOUS, ‘anti racist’ and anti white propaganda, together with a complete abandonment of objectivity, fairness and equality under the law.
There are, admittedly hordes of ‘useful idiots’ who go along with this, with varying levels of enthusiasm, from passive acceptance to outright zealotry, and for varying reasons, greed, power, ideology, just a desire for the quiet life, but the fact is, this IS all being orchestrated – and by a VERY small group of people who know what the end game is.
The wise amongst us can work this out for ourselves. We all know that all this anti racism has nothing whatsoever to do with being nice to, or even liking black people, muslims, or anyone else, our leaders (both overt and hidden) have no qualms about slaughtering them like cattle, brutally exploiting them when it suits their ends. Ditto feminism, as the recent kangaroo courts held by the British marxists demonstrated their UTTER contempt for women.
Political correctness has ONLY one purpose, and that is to destroy us as a society and stop us complaining about it.
Good as your article is, our destroyers will love it because it has been constructed within the parameters that they have laid out. You palpably have borders that you can’t cross, truths that you cant tell, you litter the article with words and phrases which silently scream out ‘LOOK, I’m trying to convey this ONE truth, but I’m really, REALLY NOT a racist, look, I comply in every other way.
We are NEVER going to win this debate by reason, because there is no reason to what they are doing (at least openly, in terms of their REAL purpose everythings going swimmingly). We will always be forced to play on their ground, with their officials, according to their rules.
And nothing’s gonna change that, they have too firm a grip on the institutions. The only game changer will be when enough of us have had enough, and have nothing left to lose, or when they have weakened us sufficiently that the feel confident in moving to finish us off FOR GOOD.
Either way it will end in great bloodshed
Phil, I don’t know if you are British but elsewhere I asked who the outside source behind the One World Movement is referred to by the writer of another recent article. It seems that you have provided us with some of the answer but these people are so good at mass manipulation and keeping the truth hidden the joe public probably has no idea what is going on. The One World movement has been pursued as the path to peace on earth and thus supported by many useful idiots here in Britain. I can’t work out whether it is followed because it is viewed to be as above and hence progressive and trendy or because the majority know it is suicidal but are too frightened and guilt-ridden to make a stand. The Olympics opening ceremony was Marxist one worldism personified but when a tory mp said as much he was made to apologise even though he was speaking the truth. This is because the assumption is that we are now all behind the Marxist Cultural Concensus and those who aren’t are the knuckle draggers of the BNP – who have always spoken the truth about ethnic cleansing and the slow genocide of the English – or the EDL.
But I sense something blowing in the wind which began with the murder of Lee Rigby. Now we are forced to eat halal meat and to have the call to prayer on television for Ramadan and I think the British are slowly realising that as I said a few years ago; England will eventually be an Afro-Asian or mixed race country probably dominated by Islam. And yet the tv mostly still portrays us as an overwhelmingly white country with thousands of years of history and culture, more white than we now actually are. There seems to be a resistance to let go of the old country. Eventually, the new Britons will complain about this in a violent and vocal way and then I believe the British will finally rise up not only against Islam but the whole multicultural experiment. Even those who have been brainwashed to or bought into accepting “vibrant” multi-culturalism will suddenly turn round and say “Where have all the cockneys gone” or “Where have all the English gone” and realise that, as Paul Weston, said the present situation is unsustainable; either we get Britain back or it is gone forever.
Let’s face it, Britain is already lost. They have passed a point of no return. They are catering to Islam and defending their right to destroy Britain. Next we will see the Moslems demanding that the the three crosses be removed from the British flag and be replaced with a crescent moon.
The sun has set on the British Empire and a crescent moon now rises over it.
Too little, too late, I say.
Only America, Canada and Australia can now be saved. The rest is lost.
Of course you would say that Aaron.
The people have had their backs against the wall many many times.
I think firstly the problem has been that probably since the act of settlement, was it 1703 ? somewhere around there, apart from the Jacobite rebellion c 1745, which was not nearly as popular north or south of the border as revisionist historians would have us believe, we have led a fairly settled, and, compared to the rest of the world, prosperous existence. We were a generally happy people, threats came from without, rather than within, which tended to unite us rather than divide us. We had had our dabble with republicanism, and found it lacking, destructive, coming up with a hereditary monarchy/peerage, with parliamentary democracy holding the balance of power, with the church/Christianity being a significant third power, one which is frequently over or underestimated in its influence on the body politic and the spiritual health of the nation, sufficient to say it provided a moral imperative on the rulers to act responsibly towards their subjects, and a moral brake on the inevitable of the excesses which inevitably infect those with a surfeit of power. It also, with it’s emphasis on morality and personal responsiblity protected the ordinary person from the consequences of their own excesses.
To what extent the three estates held sway in the balance of power and influence is anyones guess, they probably fluctuated, but that, coupled with the concept of human beings being born with inalienable, God given rights (and responsibilities), which stem directly from Christianity and were enshrined in the Magna Carta, coupled with Anglo Saxon common law, worked together to make us a relatively stable and contented people.
It wasn’t until the onset of socialism in the early twentieth century that this relative contentment began to erode, and that, not really taking hold until really the mid sixties when the three pronged attack really started to come to fruition: The infiltration of our universities, trade unions and media by marxists who were either idealogically or financially (or blackmailed) bound to the soviet union which had been steadily growing since the turn of the century. The judiciary and the body politic followed over the next two decades.
The trouble is that this, what is in comparative terms a remarkable period of stability, growing prosperity and trust between government, governed and the instruments of government (police, councils, revenue etc) has left us very vulnerable. People actually could TRUST the institutions of this country until very recently. Firstly the traducing of this country happened so slowly and secondly people are just too busy getting along with their lives to notice. That, coupled with the absolute trust people have in their country and its institutions has left them unwilling, and, to an extent emotionally unable to accept what is going on.Add to that the completely artificial (and ultimately bankrupting) consumer boom, the total propaganda (backed up with severe penalties), to accept this in the schools, the workplace in the media, then the British people cannot be blamed for ‘doing it to themselves’ This has been a very carefully calculated slow motion coup.
The only hope is that once reality inevitably does intrude, as it surely must, that they ignore the propaganda and lay the blame squarely where it belongs.
Encouragingly, the signs are that this is beginning to happen. ‘Old media’ websites are full of replies challenging the views and reporting of those outlets.
Alternative sites like this one Vlad Tepes, PJ Media, The Blaze, Info Wars, Michael Savage, are gaining in popularity.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, ALL OF YOU !
“…but you are very wrong about us doing this to ourselves, this process has taken well over a century, and has been very carefully planned and executed…”
Yes, the enemy has played the long game, infecting every bit of our culture bit by bit, decade after decade. That the Left had a goal and the will to follow it through does not excuse us for passively succumbing to it. It doesn’t matter that they used lies, propaganda or dirty tricks. A healthy society instinctively resists all that nonsense.
But we allowed it. We did it to ourselves. There’s no one else to blame.
What we need is somebody to NAME the tiny number of Globalists who are behind this demise
of White nation-states. I would assume until
corrected that it is the ‘Trillionaire Club’ of
the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers.
I’m not so sure it’s the naming our enemy, or whether he be few in number or many, that’s the most important part. I think it’s the fighting back part where we’re coming up short.
Think of your first fistfight. You don’t worry about who he is or where he came from. Right away you fight back to defend yourself. We’re not doing that.
reply above
Somebody has just posted elsewhere with shock that the number of immigrants in the UK is 13% with the number of muslims officially 5% (but doubling as Paul Weston has said every ten years). However, this excludes the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of previous immigrants so you may find that we are now close to a 20% non-ethnic British population. The figure for England may be yet higher than that. This would of course accord with the census results which put White British as only 80%. We Europeans here are rapidly heading towards minority status as is the case in the USAnd yet, as I have said above, we are still largely in denial with the newsreaders on BBC Radio 4 still having indigenous British names; my favourite is the name Alan Smith. Hearing his name was like a breath of fresh air, like arriving at border control at Heathrow and being greeted by smiling indigenous white faces, as if it is was still the 1960s. Soon there is going to be a loud bang; quite where and how it will start I do not know but the Home Secretary has said they fear an Anders Breivik style attack here. Are they looking for volunteers so as to get them out of the one world mess they have got themselves into?
I was for a short period with a white girl from Tampa. She has a PhD in… cultural anthropology and had served time in… Gaza. Anytime that she was in trouble she didn’t call good proletarian Hamas police in Gaza, she called evil police of occupying Zionist entity. Who caused her troubles all the time? Well, comrades Arabs did.
The topmost annoying thing with her was how much she hated… white people. She used to say “evil white people” all the time. I could not possibly understand why she was looking for a white boyfriend. To make some more evil white people? Or to make some nice black people with an evil white boyfriend? Whatever the case.
Anytime that we were in restaurants and the waiter was non-white she harassed me to give huge tips to the waiter because they have babies to rear. Don’t white people also have babies to rear? I certainly gave what I must: 15% if I am happy with the service.
You are working us hard on this one Baron, the susceptibility for our own destruction maybe down to intellectual laziness, the post-war power and sophistication of mass media particularly television in the West.
A media grip that is only now being partially loosened by the internet.
You write that the Multiculturalism is “the pernicious ideology is entirely the work of Caucasian and Jewish academics.” This is not accurate. What you should have written is that it is the work of Caucasian and Jewish Leftist/liberal academics. It is their Leftist ideology that dictates and overrides any other factor involved in their multicultural views.
Judaism per se espouses no ideology pertaining to “multiculturalism”. In fact, Judaism by its very nature is an exclusionary ideology which believes in the special inheritance of its progenitors which is exclusive to the Jewish people, i.e. “The Chosen People”. Jews are meant set a moral and ethical to the world by their actions not by liquidating Western civilization in a deluge of humanity.
Hence, it is Leftist ideology that should be the target of your vitriol and not Causcasians or Jews generally. It is Leftism that has been the heart out of the Western world since its conception.
Marx was the son of a rabii so there is no way he would
‘ invent ‘ a system that would sell out his own people. What is called Marxism is just a concentrated version of a collection of ideas about societies which had existed in mens’ imaginations for centuries. The differnce is that
Marx collated a system designed for use by Gentiles and
overseen by Jews.
Marx not only disliked Judaism but had very nasty things to say about Jews.
He rejected Christianity also, the other part of his heritage.
Just like Christopher Hitchens who belated “discovered” his tire ID. Indeed. That’s basically the root of the influx of Muslims in Europe. A blend of levelr pulling by hostile minorities embedded in situ and their useful idiots.
You write that the Multiculturalism is “the pernicious ideology is entirely the work of Caucasian and Jewish academics.” This is not accurate. What you should have written is that it is the work of Caucasian and Jewish Leftist/Liberal academics. It is their Leftist ideology that dictates and overrides any other factor involved in their multicultural views.
Judaism per se espouses no ideology pertaining to “multiculturalism”. In fact, Judaism by its very nature is an exclusionary ideology which believes in the special inheritance of its progenitors which is exclusive to the Jewish people, i.e. “The Chosen People”. Jews are meant to set a moral and ethical example to the world by their actions which are dictated by Torah, not by liquidating Western civilization in a deluge of humanity. This Multicultural religion is professed by followers of Leftism and not Judaism. It is Jews who have replaced Torah with Das Kapital and worship the Golden Calf Obama, who follow the spurious religion of Multiculturalism.
Hence, it is Leftist ideology that should be the target of your vitriol and not Causcasians or Jews generally. It is Leftism that has been eating the heart out of the Western world since its inception. First, they attacked the Church and God, now they are flooding the West with human beings who are antagonistic to our very existence.
I recall years ago, an IQ survey here in the UK, where children were tested pre-school, then at, I think, ten and fifteen. They started out level (sorry to blow anyone’s pet theories); by the end, ethnic East Asians were ahead, then whites, (east) Indians, Afro-Caribbeans, with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis last. The writer ascribed this to family solidity, esp presence of fathers, & educational aspiration of parents (hence Muslims last, though he didn’t say as much).
PS I’m sick of hearing socialism slagged off by (mainly) Americans. Sweden and Denmark, whatever their other problems, choose to have high taxes and welfare, and are rich enough to afford it. It’s called democracy!
Sorry bro, economic Marxism is just as poisonous as cultural Marxism.
Time to face the hard facts.
@EscapeVelocity
Of the same opinion, however the destruction of the British peoples economic security is being driven by a socialist agenda, welfare reform that was authored by the Labour Party is now being enforced by the Conservative Party.
The devil is in the intent – the socialist agenda was not to liberate the British people from welfare but to destroy social and economic security, a poisoned chalice that conservatives grasped with both hands and are now foolishly running towards their destruction with.
Pingback: People with high IQ’s are destroying Western Civilization by embracing the “deadly ideology of multiculturalism” « Refugee Resettlement Watch
Baron,
Do you have a hypothesis, however tentative, that might begin to explain the suicidality of the West?
Not a fully formed one.
I intuit that it must have something to do with the convergence of a deracinated and diluted Christianity with a combination of the Nazis and slavery/Jim Crow (an unnatural hybrid of Adolf Hitler and Bull Connor that I have previously dubbed “Bull Hitler”). The guilt generated by these latter abominations, coupled with a weakened Christianity (at least the Protestant variety, which no longer provides relief via ritual confession, repentance, absolution and redemption) must have generated a fierce unconscious sense of guilt that cannot be expiated except by collective self-destruction.
European Jews were profoundly influenced by (and influenced) Christian philosophy, so it’s no surprise that they’ve climbed into the same suicidal boat.
“A deracinated and diluted Christianity”
This is what I was thinking. The West has, since the industrial revolution, created a culture of “new”. Everything older than yesterday is garbage to be thrown out, including, especially, tradition.
“Bull Hitler” I disagree with. Jim Crow laws aren’t as despised as you might think, at least where I’m at. Lately, they’re getting more popular what with “teens” rampaging through downtowns across the US. Locally, greensboro has instituted a curfew after 400 “teens” ran amok on Elm St, the latest event in a weekly ritual that’s been goin on for a month.
As for Hitler/Nazis, I’ve never met anybody who feels guilty about what Hitler did, since we fought to stop them. Of course, I don’t know many Germans.
You refer to Protestantism as being weakened, which nobody can disagree with as all Christian denominations have been, but seem to imply that the Sacramental denominations are stronger. Orthodox may be, I don’t enough to say, but Roman Catholics are pretty liberal and multiculti, at least the official organs of the Church are. I don’t know that many Catholics, but the Catholic heavy States are Pretty blue. Protestants, especially evangelicals, are pretty outspoken against most of the lefty stupidity, though there are liberal groups of them also.
I personally don’t feel any “white guilt” and I don’t personally know anybody who does. That’s what I can’t understand, where are theses people who feel guilty? Is the West just that far left and I’m in a bubble of sanity? Of course, as a far right extremist, I don’t go where the left hangs out, so maybe I am in a bubble.
“You refer to Protestantism as being weakened, which nobody can disagree with as all Christian denominations have been, but seem to imply that the Sacramental denominations are stronger.”
Sir, you infer that I intended such a meaning, but I did not “imply” it, nor was it my intended meaning.
I qualified my statement because I am not deeply familiar with Roman Catholicism as it is widely practiced today. I am well-acquainted only with Protestant practices, and particularly those of the Anglican Church.
Unless one is fortunate to live near one of those increasingly rare “High Anglican” churches (or joins one of the Anglican splinters), there is no longer any way to be “purged and shriven” of sin. We pray for forgiveness, but I don’t think that is as spiritually or psychologically effective as receiving divine forgiveness via rituals specifically designed for that purpose.
My mistake. I know next to nothing about the Anglican Church and it doesn’t even occur to me that its an option. If “sacramental” comes up, I immediately jump to Roman Catholic or one of the Orthodoxes. Conversely, when pretestantism is mentioned, I assume “low churches” or Presbyterian and Lutheran, I’m not sure if those last two are low, high or medium. There are too many denominations, but that another discussion.
Rereading your comment, and reading it as including yourself in the protestant label, I stand by what I said, though it doesn’t apply to your comment.
As far as political correctness goes, these ideologies were not intended to make the world a better place. On the contrary, they were devised as ways to further marxism, which has the explicit purpose of destroying existing societies through endless subversion and marginalization of the existing social norms. On that account, cultural marxism is a resounding success. It did precisely what it set out to do: Destroy western civilization. The idea that there would be a stateless, classless utopia afterwards is ultimately the false premise. They set out to destroy without any clear idea of what comes after or how to bring it into being.
Really the true universal human trait is for some portions of the population to naturally be malicious and self-serving. That transcends all cultural boundaries and precepts of society. The distribution of intelligence is then a useful metric for how destructively evil tenancies manifest themselves. In the culturally enriched immigrants from Africa and the ME, that comes in the form of rape gangs, beatings, and other basal forms of violence. In intelligent societies, it manifests as ideologies capable of undoing the greatest civilizations and weapons that can destroy the entire planet many times over.
Yes, whites, i.e. those of both Christian and Jewish heritage, certainly are determined to destroy themselves. That’s why Israel is full of Somalis, Pakistanis, Jamaicans, Iraqis, Iranians, Congolese etc and why Israelophiles in the US, UK, Europe and Australasia, who fully support Israel’s open-borders policy, insist that all Western nations must let all groups in too, regardless of whether they are compatible with existing culture and history. So Israel, the US, the UK, Europe and Australasia are in the same boat: determined to destroy themselves by refusing to discriminate and keep out alien groups. There’s no difference at all between Israel and rest of the West in this insanity. There’s no difference at all in the atittudes of Israelophiles towards Israel and towards the rest of the West. None at all.
Have you ever been to Israel?
If you did, did you open your eyes?
“If you did, did you open your eyes?”
Would you please explain for those of us who have not been to Israel?
No sure if this question was for me, but I’ll assume it was:
Have you ever been to Israel?
If you did, did you open your eyes?
No, I’ve never been to Israel. If I had been, I could have opened my eyes as wide as I pleased and I would have seen v. few Somalis, Pakistanis, Jamaicans, Iraqis, Iranians, Congolese et al. If you wish to prove me wrong, please direct me to some photos or statistics. Until then, for information about Israel’s demographic policies, I’ll rely on sources like this:
Israel Builds Sinai Border Fence; Illegal Crossings Drop 99.9%
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/04/Israel-Builds-New-Border-Fence-Illegal-Crossings-Drop-99-9
My response to the border fence is simple: Bravo! I applaud Israel’s desire to remain a Jewish state that keeps its borders closed to non-Jews and that gives Jews rights not extended to non-Jews. I just wish my own nation would do the same for its native inhabitants. Unfortunately, lots of people who agree with Israel’s immigration policies do not agree that any other Western nation should be allowed to do the same.
Who would have thought, back in 1950, that we would be witnessing the voluntary, even enthusiastic suicide of the West today?
Who would have thought, as the Berlin Wall fell, that the West was already nursing nests of vipers in its finest Universities and among its political elites? That all the means of its eventual suicide were already in place?
With the fall of the Soviet Union, the adoption of limited capitalism by the Communist Chinese, and the unquestioned success of Free nations everywhere, there was only one road for the Cultural Marxists to take – to destroy the evidence. Evidence of the West’s success was destroyed by redefining all the terms we use to describe our values and beliefs.
“Human rights” no longer means the autonomy of the individual, it means the “right” of foreigners who are deeply hostile to European values to immigrate en masse and to demand special privileges. “Justice” now means wealth redistribution. “Individual rights or freedoms” now mean racism and fascism. “Excellence” in achievement is now highly suspect, unless “excellence” is defined solely in terms of achieving racial or cultural quotas, regardless of achievement. “Colonialism” is an unspeakable evil unless it is achieved by Muslims, in which case their wars of aggression against the Infidels who once dominated the Middle East, North Africa, southern Europe, central Europe, and the Indian subcontinent are to be treated respectfully by Westerners, lest we offend their religious concept of the rightfulness of their holy wars.
The Enlightenment once made the West great. The scientific method, provable and functioning truths, and a respect for reason led to the greatest expansion of knowledge and productivity that the world has ever known. So, naturally, the Cultural Marxists at our Universities have for decades now been attacking the Enlightenment (our kids are taught that it was a fraud) objective truth (our kids are taught that there is no such thing) and logic itself (merely a means of Western oppression.) Instead, our kids are taught only relativism, self-hatred, and the virtue of surrendering to some supposedly morally superior trans-national force.
If our Universities weren’t so anti-intellectual, the intellect of the West would surely rise again.
I will venture that one of the reasons that this comment thread proceeds so erratically is that there are two separate questions being discussed here that have gotten conflated together. The first concerns the survivability of a culture and the second concerns the richness of a culture.
Regarding the first question, Darwin has already settled it. The average IQ is what it is because that is the level of human intelligence that has proven to have the highest rate of survivability over time. If you accept Darwinian selection, survival-of-the-fittest, as scientific fact, then you have to concede that an IQ of 130 codes for survivability no better than an IQ of 70. What exactly those mechanisms might be, by which high IQ people select themselves out of the gene pool, would make a good topic for another post.
On the other hand, regarding the question of the richness of a culture, high IQ individuals most defiantly are a necessary contributing factor.
Regarding the first question, Darwin has already settled it. The average IQ is what it is because that is the level of human intelligence that has proven to have the highest rate of survivability over time. If you accept Darwinian selection, survival-of-the-fittest, as scientific fact, then you have to concede that an IQ of 130 codes for survivability no better than an IQ of 70.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. IQ varies by race, sub-race and “gender”, so “average IQ” is meaningless unless you specify the group you’re referring to. In certain environments (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), low average IQ seems to be selected for; in other environments (e.g. Asia), high average IQ seems to be selected for. Which is why sub-Saharan Africans and, e.g., the Chinese have highly different IQ’s. Which, in its turn, is part of why the sub-Saharan Africans don’t win Nobel Prizes for Physics and never invented either the wheel or writing.
I’m sorry that in my short four-sentence paragraph I was unable to cover all of the possible qualifications inherent in my observation. I would assume an intelligent reader, such as yourself, would appreciate that short comments only allow for very general statements and that you would therefore take the time to think through a person’s comment, filling in the missing but implied pieces on your own, before responding in such a snippy way.
Of course, those traits within a given population, that lend themselves to the highest rate of survivability over time, will be a function of the climate, geography, flora and fauna of the region in which it lives. So, of course, the absolute value for the average IQ of a sub-population will be a function of the region it has evolved in. I don’t see that my short comment above ever excluded that assumption. So just for you, so you won’t miss the point, I’ll rephrase my comment.
…Regarding the first question, Darwin has already settled it. The average IQ of a given population is what it is because that is the level of human intelligence that has proven to have the highest rate of survivability over time for the environment that that population is living in. If you accept Darwinian selection, survival-of-the-fittest, as scientific fact, then you have to concede that an IQ two standard deviations above the average for the geographic region that that population is living in codes no better for survivability than an IQ two standard deviations below the average for the geographic region that that population is living in…
I’m sure that reads much better now.
P.S. Your name fits you well.
As I said, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If you accept Darwinian selection, survival-of-the-fittest, as scientific fact, then you have to concede that an IQ two standard deviations above the average for the geographic region that that population is living in codes no better for survivability than an IQ two standard deviations below the average for the geographic region that that population is living in…
No, you don’t have to concede that. At least, not if you understand evolution. Those who do would disagree with your claim that, in a particular environment, being 2 sd above average offers no reproductive advantage:
China’s poor, however, were a population sink. As Unz (1980) points out: “In each generation, the poorest 10-15% of the population either failed to reproduce or produced only a negligible fraction of the successor generation.”
http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/east-asian-intelligence.html
…“Those who do would disagree with your claim that, in a particular environment, being 2 sd above average offers no reproductive advantage.”
“Reproductive advantage”, to borrow a quote from the character Indigo Montoya, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
If higher IQ’s truly offered a “reproductive advantage” to those possessing them, then please, please, please, explain to me why isn’t the average IQ 105, 115, 150 or more?
The concept you don’t seem to be grasping is that having a reproductive advantage and making use of it are two different things. How many “smart” people do you know that have three or more children? Recall that ZPG is around 2.5 children per couple.
Darwinian selection is not about individual survivability. Darwinian selection is about group survival. Apparently, your education on the evolution of species failed to cover this crucially important distinction. The group that wins at the game of Darwinian selection is the one that produces the greatest number of offspring that survive to reproductive adulthood.
Here you are making the same error in thinking that has The Baron stuck too, when he asks, “Why do smart people do such dumb things”. Darwinian selection is a two-part process, first, surviving to reproductive adulthood, and second, once surviving, getting on with the task of reproducing. Western societies have done an amazing job with the first step but have failed miserably in the second step. The blogger David Goldman, aka Spengler, has covered this phenomenon of the birth-rate collapse in Western societies better than anyone.
Higher IQ’s tend to code for individual success in life; I think we can both agree on that. But what seems to happen is that as people become more and more successful in life they tend to have less and less desire to sacrifice that success for the sake of having and raising children. So in the end, in turns out that the subgroup of our Western society that has had the best mix of intelligence and reproduction rates to be the winners in the game of Darwinian selection has been that population whose intelligence falls within the range we call “average”.
It is irrelevant to this discussion what happens to the poor in China. We are not talking about the lower-IQ poor here; we are talking about upper IQ populations.
In the end, it doesn’t matter how smart or successful a particular individual is in life. If, for whatever reason, they don’t have children and pass their genes on to subsequent generations, then they become just another “Darwinian” loser. In which case, their high IQ turned out, not to have been an advantage, but rather an evolutionary dead-end.
For heaven’s sake HtMtP, what part of that don’t you get?????????????????????
Pingback: The Ongoing Conversation | Gates of Vienna
Pingback: Reformation of Islam: Is it a Possibility? | Gates of Vienna
Pingback: Barbarism v. 2.0 | Gates of Vienna