Black and White IQ's in the West in Childhood and Adulthood

In the comments section, there is a discussion going on about when IQ stabilizes in humans.

David: I may be wrong, but I think that IQ scoring as early as the age of 5 or 6 remains fairly constant over the duration of an individual’s lifetime.Robert Lindsay: For non-Blacks, it’s pretty stable from age 7. For US and UK Blacks, it declines from age 5 until age 18-24, then it levels off. We don’t understand what’s going on. David: That seems kind of weird biologically speaking. Maybe there is some sort of massive underclass cultural dumbing-down effect at work here?

This is truly a bizarre phenomenon. Young Black kids are quite intelligent. I babysat for some young Black boys recently for an hour so, and I did not get the impression that they were stupid at all. In fact, I thought they were smarter than their mother! Their minds were working very quickly, almost like little pinball machines. If their IQ’s were average, then they were around 93-95. That’s not a low IQ at all. I suspect it is only occurring in the West, but I can’t prove it. I know it is happening in both the US and the UK. The Black IQ starts to decline at age 5 and continues crashing down about 10 points all the way to 18-24, when it levels off for the rest of life. Young Black kids are not dumb at all, so there seems no justification for them to do poorly in school or screw off a lot. Whatever is going on, it cannot be related to IQ. I believe that Black and White scores in school start diverging quite a bit around 5th grade or age 10. There are different ways to look at this data. James Flynn says he knows of no genetic reason why Black IQ’s would decline from age 5 to age 21. In fact, I do not believe that they do so in Africa, so it’s not genetic, and you wonder why genetics would select for something so weird anyway. The explanation here is that Black culture dumbs down Blacks intellectually, and this is why they fall as they move though childhood and young adulthood. It’s an interesting theory, but it’s not proven yet. The hereditarian response is much more frightening, and I hope it is not true. They say that the IQ’s of Blacks in the US and UK are being artificially heightened beyond their genetic set by the massively intellectually complex culture of the US and the UK. However, this effect is most pronounced in childhood, when environmental effects hit hardest, and declines as one hits adulthood, when genetic effects tend to predominate and environmental effects wear off. Anyway, this is not proven yet either. Even adult Black IQ seems to be possibly being artificially stimulated by the intellectually complex culture of the modern West. Logically speaking, on a pure hereditarian basis, the Black IQ in the US and UK should be 72.5 in the US and 71 in the UK. Instead, it is 87.8 in the US and 86 in the UK. There is a gain of 15.3 points in the US and 15 points in the UK that seems to be completely unaccountable for by a hereditarian perspective. I suggest that that 15 point boost may be due to the heightened environment in the West, including diet. Nevertheless, the 10 point drop in Black Western IQ remains unexplained and perplexing. Any theoretical comments on this mysterious matter are welcome.

The Fallacy of Hereditarian Racial IQ Gap Theory

Repost from the old site.

I am republishing this piece which I published earlier. I am including some links and some more data making the case for a 6 pt. Flynn Effect gain for US NE Asians from the 1970’s to today. They went from about 97.5 IQ to 103.5 IQ (or 100.5 IQ to 106.5 IQ renormed) over 30 years, meeting and then surpassing US Whites, a gain of approximately 6 full points, purely by the environment.

In the comments section, Alan Weiss, a very smart guy, says it is either intellectually lazy or racist to assume that the B-W IQ gap, now at 13.5 points, not 15 points, as is frequently reported, is genetic. I don’t agree that it’s automatically racist or lazy to assume that the B-W gap is genetic. The hereditarians have done some excellent work in proving their case.

I guess my argument is that the hereditarian case is not necessarily relevant. Saying that “the gap is genetic” doesn’t really mean much.

The hereditarians say that 7

Ok, look.

James Flynn points out that in the 1940’s in the US, the IQ gap between NE Asians and Whites in the US was 3.5 points. The scores were US White = 100, US NE Asian = 97.5. Now, the hereditarians say that 7

But look what happened.

In the next generation, they not only met Whites, but they surpassed them. They gained anywhere from 5.5 to 6.5 IQ points on Whites. Now, with renorming, Whites are at 103 and US NE Asians are at 108. So an “insurmountable” gap that was “7

Flynn says that US Chinese had an IQ no greater than Whites in 1949, (actually their IQ was 97.5) yet got better jobs due to extra-IQ factors such as stronger work ethic and higher motivation. They used these new jobs to provide a better environment for their kids, which raised their kids IQ’s to 109 in children, falling to 103 by adolescence as parental influence wore off.

In his book, Asian Americans, Achievement Beyond IQ (The book is available for browsing online, and you are free to look through it). Flynn notes that the average US NE Asian American IQ may have risen 10 points over 30 years. From 1943-1975, average IQ was ~97.5 for Chinese and Japanese.

Flynn also found that Chinese-Americans in earlier decades were working at occupations that suggested IQ’s fully 21 points higher than what their actual IQ’s were.

This shows right there that IQ is not destiny, and there are extra-IQ factors that figure in occupational success. Now it is 103 according to Flynn (106 renormed), and others pretty much concur. This chart shows a US Asian IQ of 106 (Reynolds and Chastain, 1987, p.330). With an IQ of 106, it appears that US Asian IQ may have risen fully 6 points relative to other scores in 20-30 years.

Flynn also suggested an Asian IQ (Chinese, Japanese and Korean) of 104 in the last few years. With renorming, that should be 107. With renorming, all scores point to a US Asian IQ of 106-107.

There is support for Flynn’s data from hardcore hereditarians. Richard Lynn reports that Japanese IQ was significantly higher than average IQ in the United States, and that Japanese IQ scores had risen over the past generation (Lynn 1982).

Herrnstein and Murray 1994, Rushton and Jensen 2005 and Lynn 2006 all find that the average IQ scores of East Asians in Asia, North America and Europe are significantly higher than 100. Lynn has US Asian IQ at 106 and rising in this article.

About the Flynn Effect, Flynn notes that our vocabularies and information are no greater than our ancestors, so we can’t do any better at reading an adult novel.

The Dickens-Flynn Model shows that all of so-called pure genetic aspects of IQ can actually be explained by the environment.

Smaller families have had an IQ effect that looks like better nutrition – they can provide a better environment for their kids.

Studies have also shown that Robert LindsayPosted on Categories Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Europeans, Flynn Effect, Intelligence, Japanese, Northeast Asians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Reposts From The Old Site, Whites5 Comments on The Fallacy of Hereditarian Racial IQ Gap Theory

Some Classic Lies the Rich Use to Justify Their Unearned Wealth

A commenter who comes from a wealthy background lists some of the nonsense that elites peddle to try to justify their typically undeserved riches:

High IQ is not always proportional to high income and success.

For instance many graduates from state universities who majored in business or those who have practical degrees from trade schools are earning as much or more than an ivy league graduate in liberal arts or fine arts.

Blacks and lesser educated whites are just more likely to spend it on materialistic things. Inner city blacks often drive fancy cars, wear designer shoes, and have the latest gadgets. They prefer to remain in the ghetto or their old neighborhoods.

These are classic lies used by the upper classes to justify their typically unearned wealth.

“IQ and wealth are not correlated.”

LOL, pull yourself by your bootstraps, eh? Horatio Alger did it, why not?

The relationship between IQ and wealth is .73. That’s as good as gold in social science. You can nearly take a correlation like that to the bank and cash it in.

Education and wealth are not correlated, or why bother going to college?

The relationship between wealth and educational level is also quite good, no matter how many dipshit, sour grapes, older businessmen who never went to college and hate education try to brainwash you otherwise. The relationship is only getting worse. When my cousin got into IT, you didn’t even need a degree. All you had to be is a good coder. Now they won’t even talk to you without an BA in Computer Science. Many entry level decent jobs nowadays are requiring a BA in anything.

“The reason the poor are poor is because they blow all their $. We are rich because we saved and did not blow our $. If the poor saved like we do, they too would be rich.”

LOL. Only an idiot would believe something as dumb as this. Do the rich think we are morons? Do the rich themselves actually believe this BS? If they do, then I’m either disappointed, or the human capacity for self-delusion is an amazing thing. Anyway, it’s not true. The poor are poor not because they spent all their riches, but because they never got any in the first place. They are poor because they made less money. The rich are rich because they made more money. Think about it.

“Niggers live in ghettos because they feel like home sweet home.”

LOL, OK, there is a certain amount of truth to this, but not a tremendous amount.

Poor people in general do not “prefer” to live in shitty neighborhoods. A lot of folks are living there because that’s the only thing they can afford. Think about it.

Liberal Race Realism: Clearing Up a Few Things

Liberal Race Realism is very much misunderstood. See the first word there? It’s liberal. We have conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, racists and White nationalists constantly trying to get us on board their ships. We’re never getting a boarding pass. Never! Ever! We will never join you!

You know why? Because we are liberals, with a capital L. Liberals don’t do conservatism, reaction, fascism, racist hate, or White Supremacism/White nationalism.

Here is the conundrum for Left-liberalism:

Just supposing that there are differences between the races that are not caused by oppression, racism, etc. This is painfully obvious to anyone who will look. The Left refuses to look, because the reality of the whole mess is bad for the Left. So we say it doesn’t exist, unscientifically. We wish the reality away.

The question of my site is, given that these differences exist, how do we build a Left response, Left theory and Left project that takes this stuff into account? The Left can respond to any reality, any truth, that exists on this Earth. If it’s fact, we can deal with it and work it into our theory somewhat. By running away from these facts, the Left says that these facts are incompatible with Left theory and practice.

Reactionary race realists (most race realists are reactionaries) are already gleefully predicting that the facts of race realism, when they become too obvious to be denied and are widely believed by the population, are going to spell the death of the Left and liberalism for the foreseeable future. Why? Because the facts of race realism tear asunder every presumption of Left theory and practice, I suppose, namely, that we all have equal abilities and temperaments.

Let’s take this one horrible step further. Let us suppose that race realism means that there are genetic differences between the races that societal intervention cannot alleviate.

That means that Blacks will always have lower intelligence than European Whites, no matter what. This means effectively that Blacks will always have, under the present capitalist regime, lower educational outcomes, lower occupational status, lower incomes, poorer housing and neighborhoods, poorer health care outcomes, less wealth accumulation, etc. than Whites, much of this deriving directly from lower intelligence.

As lower intelligence leads to lesser educational attainment, so it leads to less success in the work arena. Lower income and wealth accumulation follows from this, as does poorer housing and neighborhoods and poorer health outcomes, since we must pay for health care in capitalist America.

Ok, so how do we deal with this reality on Left? What do we do, given these facts, if they are facts?

Because the typical response to saying that Black intelligence will be lower than White intelligence for the forseeable future, with all the negativity to follow, is to move to the Right, specifically towards reaction. Most everyone who explicitly adopts this POV is White, and sooner or later they become reactionaries. Usually they start calling for dismantling civil rights protections. Often they go further into advocating a return to segregation or explicit White nationalism/White separatism. They typically become some sort of Libertarians and advocate ending all social spending.

It’s possible that they take this extreme stance because only in the arena of reactionary thought are views about race realism allowed to flourish.

Why can’t Left-liberalism incorporate these facts into its theory and practice?

People are people, no matter what. A human being is a human being, no matter their IQ.

We educate everyone here in America. No one ever said the purpose of education was to raise people’s IQ’s, and anyway, the evidence from the 3rd World is that education does in fact raise IQ via the Flynn Effect. The purpose of education need not be to remove all racial gaps in IQ and achievement, and if they are genetically mediated, which is possible, then the effort will fail anyway.

Surely a Black person with an 85 IQ benefits a lot more from a 12 years of K-12 education than if they received none at all, correct? Are the reactionaries so insane as to believe that all education is wasted on anyone with an 85 IQ? What about White people with 85 IQ’s (1

If someone is born with lower intelligence, why must this person suffer in poverty their whole life because of what God ordained? Why must they live in inferior housing and an inferior neighborhood over something that’s not their fault? Why should they have poorer health outcomes and less ability to go to the doctor simply because of how they were born? Because this is where the reactionary race realist argument leads to.

Let’s try something else.

Suppose Blacks had the same abilities as Whites, genetically. All of the problems, including low IQ, were simply due the fact that they are fucking up, often on purpose. If this were true, and strangely enough, this sort of follows from liberal beliefs about genes and environment, I would argue for a harsh response to Blacks. Not necessarily cutting them off altogether, but I would certainly be a bit less likely to help them.

But there’s no evidence that that is true.

If Blacks do have low IQ due to things they cannot control, then, as a socialist, I would argue that there is no reason that the higher IQ group ought to obtain dramatically higher income, wealth, housing, living spaces and health than the lower one.

As much as possible, socialists should try to attempt to more equalize incomes, housing, living spaces and health care access for both groups, the higher IQ and the lower.

It’s not going to be possible to equalize educational access, since that would require fudging the test scores, dumbing down the curriculum, or marking up Black scores due to their being Black and marking down White scores due to their being White.

Wealth will be hard to equalize due to the variable of spending and saving.

Why should Whites be allowed to become dramatically richer, healthier, better housed, and live in better places than Blacks, simply because of how the genetic dice got rolled?

Answer: They have no such right. If both groups were equal, and Whites got that way by simply trying harder, then we could make the argument that the White position is just.

Why should Blacks be forced to become dramatically poorer, less healthy, worse housed, and live in worse places than Whites, simply because of how they were born, a variable that they had no control over whatsoever?

Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.

If you look at the bolded statements above, you can see that far from being a reactionary or racist movement, Liberal Race Realism is actually progressive, even very progressive.

Anything on the Right Worth Supporting? Well, Yeah

A commenter notes that the Far Right and Far Left advocate similar things, at least in the US. But that’s not the case at all.

Rob, what’s wrong with taking the good out of the left and the right and mixing it up? Perhaps the far left and far right are realizing that their real enemies are not each other, but the corrupt, plutocratic ruling class?

Far Right is Tea Parties, Libertardian Party and the Republitard Party as a whole. They most certainly do not support an attack on the plutocrats!

I support the Right on some things.

  • I’m for a hard crackdown on illegals.
  • I’m also for amending the 14th amendment to get rid of the anchor baby phenomenon.
  • I want to get rid of treacherous ethnic studies programs in high schools like the ones in Arizona.
  • I’m for a judicial decision amending the Civil Rights Act on “disparate impact.” This has gone too far, and it’s just nuts.
  • I want to end the Hindu 1-B program.
  • I advocate marriage licenses for parents, though it’s not happening.
  • I agree that there are intelligence difference between the races, at the moment anyway. Maybe not forever.
  • I want IQ tests for prospective immigrants from lands that are producing large numbers of problem immigrants to the US.
  • I think that PC anti-racism has gone seriously too far to the point of insanity, and that’s it’s now little more than anti-White racism.
  • I think there are hate crimes against Whites, job discrimination against Whites and hate propaganda racism against Whites, hence Whites are at some times and places anyway a persecuted race on account of their ethnicity.
  • I think the racial makeup of a city, more than income level, explains more in terms of its crime rate and desirability as a living space.
  • I believe the high Black crime rate may be in part genetically based, but is by no means inevitable at any rate, as culture modifies genes.
  • I believe that Gypsies are a criminal race.

I’ve been told that these are all a rightwing positions. So be it.

You know what the weird thing is though? Among White liberals here in California (and I spent my whole life with these people) if you get them behind closed doors when no one is listening, they will agree with me on a large number of these “rightwing” ideas. But it’s not something they will talk about in public. And they all voted for Obama anyway.

Equality is Not a Prerequisite for Liberalism

Repost from the old site.

On a White nationalist blog that linked to me, I noted that it was possible to be a race realist and a socialist. This provoked the following objection:

…That makes no sense. A fundamental principle of liberalism is that of equality, of human beings being equal and interchangeable. It’s false of course, but take it away and all sorts of other leftist and liberal ideas crumble by implication.

I don’t see how one can be a race realist without that leading naturally to some sort of white supremacist / white nationalist / white exclusiveness position.

First of all, I would like to say some things about White Nationalism. I’ve finally concluded that White Nationalism is nothing but White racism and often White Supremacism.

It’s just White racism and White Supremacism repackaged with a fancy new name called White Nationalism to make it seem like it’s not those nasty things that we know of as White racism and White Supremacism, the latter being largely discredited. Well, if a philosophy is discredited, just invent a fancy new word for it and say it’s not the bad thing it really is.

It also explains why White Nationalists are so sensitive about the word racism and always put it in quotes like this: “racism”. Of course, they only do this when referring to White racism. Black racism, Hispanic racism, and all the other kinds are quite real; it’s only White racism that is phantasmagorical.

It’s also interesting how White Nationalists project. While they are denying their own racism, they are often fulminating about Black racism and Hispanic racism and whatnot. That’s clearly denial and projection.

There does seem to be a trend now with a lot of White Nationalists to come right out and admit that they are racists. This is to be encouraged. If you’re racist, what the Hell, just admit it. It’s not like you’re alone in the world – the world is full of racists. And it’s not like it’s the worst thing in the world to be anyway – as White Nationalists note, there are sure plenty of Hispanic and Black racists out there.

White Nationalists think they have excellent reasons to be racists – they’ve had bad experiences with Blacks and Hispanics and want nothing more to do with them. If that’s the case, then just admit it and make your case to an inquiring world.

There are a few White Nationalists who don’t seem to be racists, but I would say that 9

No, onto this fellow’s rejoinder. This is a typical White Nationalist position. To them, one is either a silly race-denying liberal or one is a White Nationalist racist.

It doesn’t work that way. I know a number of White liberals and even Leftists who feel that there are intrinsic differences between the races; they just don’t think the question is very important. They date, befriend and even marry non-Whites. You might be surprised how common this type of thinking is.

One thing that always bothered me about the race realist crowd is that they insist that there are intrinsic differences between the races, and then proceed to blame races and ethnic groups for various average shortcomings and higher rates of pathologies.

But if those shortcomings and pathology rates are indeed genetic (This is what almost all race realists insist) then it follows that those groups should not be blamed for their shortcomings or pathologies. After all, it’s genetic and nothing can be done, right?

So, first of all, they accuse a group of being the equivalent of handicapped, then they throw the crutches away, kick the wheelchair to the side, throw the person into the gutter, all the while cursing them for being a cripple. How cruel can you get? Why does a realization that humans are not intrinsically equal automatically seem to lead to the cruelest sort of Social Darwinism, at best?

And by the same token, if the superior races are only superior through the luck of the dices, what on Earth do they have to feel proud of anyway? Nothing, really. Have they done anything to earn their superior status? Hardly. They just lucked out in the genes crapshoot. Big deal.

If humans are not equal, then it would be up to the state to equalize things. If Blacks, on average are always going to fall behind due to lower IQ (I am beginning to fear that this may be the case), then that is no fault of their own anyway, and it’s cruel to force them to suffer the ravages of the market, which is what most White nationalists seem to perversely want to do.

If Blacks were on average the same as we are, and the failures of their group were just due to their being a bunch of willful, perverse and deliberately wicked and stupid pricks, I would just say the Hell with them. But I honestly think that they can’t help it.

Nor can Amerindians, Polynesians, Hispanics, Aborigines, or any other group that is going to tend to fall behind. It’s really not their fault. Therefore, they should not be punished with failure for things that they can’t help.

If Black income is always going to be a lot lower on average than, say, Whites, due to an IQ deficit that they have no control over, then it is the duty of the state through redistributive taxation to equalize things a bit and make it more fair for Blacks who fail through no fault of their own.

Humans are not necessarily equal at all. Even within a race, we are born with wildly differing IQ’s and whatnot. I think most liberals would agree with that.

Even from a White Supremacist point of view, libertarianism makes no sense. Libertarianism is not only perverse for conscious White nationalists, it’s downright cruel.

If you really love your own people so much, why throw them into a Roman-type pit where they consume each other alive while you cheer on the deadliest and most homicidal of the White cannibals? Only via some form of socialism can Whites really work together to help each other and have real solidarity.

I’m not interested in supremacism or chauvinism or nationalism or any of that. What are you looking for in your acquaintances? There are smart or good or kind, or any combination of many other great qualities, Blacks, Hispanics, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians and all sorts of other non-Europeans. Just as smart, good and kind as your European White friends.

I love my people finally (after decades of self-hate) but Whites are not the end-all and be-all. I think Whites are a bit cold, for one. Hispanics and Blacks are much warmer and friendlier, and it’s much easier to befriend them. Of course, their lower-income neighborhoods also have some big downsides too. There’s good and bad with all groups, including Whites.

If people are not equal, that’s no argument against liberalism. It actually implies we need it even more.

It means we need affirmative action, progressive taxation, humane prisons and all sorts of things you would never think of.

Why Lewontin’s Fallacy is a Fallacy

Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation. He co-authored a silly book called Not In Our Genes along with some other nutty Marxist Jew.

According to his fallacy, most genetic variation is within groups and not between groups. 8

Why this is a fallacy can be easily shown. For instance, within Whites, IQ’s in a group of 1000 Whites have IQ’s ranging from 148 to 68 or so. There are 80 points variation within the group.

Now let us look at the average of 1000 Whites versus the average of 1000 Blacks. The 1000 Whites have an average IQ of 103. The 1000 Blacks have an average IQ of 89.8. There are 13.2 points variation between the averages of each group.

According to Lewontin’s Fallacy, the 13.2 point differences between Blacks and Whites is inconsequential to meaningless, since the difference within Whites ranges from geniuses to idiots! Yet that difference has real meaningful consequences at many levels, particularly societal and sociological but also political.

In contrast, the 80 point differences within Whites which Lewontin claims is the real enchilada is just normal variation in any White community, easily handled within the community. The geniuses go on to get advanced degrees, and the idiots get Special Ed, disability checks, easy government subsidized jobs, and state-subsidized group homes to reside in. Everything flows along pretty smoothly.

Pretty dumb analogy huh?

More on the Male Genius Versus the Female Genius

People seem to be misunderstanding these latest posts of mine.

I am getting pretty abstract and heavy duty here, so try to bear with me. Most people are going to miss the point. I am attempting to make a philosophical point, along the lines of say a Nietzsche essay.

Suffice to say that when I discuss the Female Genius, I do not necessarily refer to very smart or talented women at all. I refer only to the brilliance of a particular type of thinking that can be present in either men or women, but is better done by women.

My position is that there are two types of minds, the Female Mind and the Male Mind. Both are present in both sexes. I also say that genius is present to some extent in everyone, though that might seem hard to believe.

It follows then that the Female Mind often produces in its best form the Female Genius. The male mind often produces in its best form the Male Genius. However, great female minds nowadays often display the Male Genius, and I suppose it’s possible that great male minds might display the Female Genius, though I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

A lot of the really smart women running around pontificating and making everyone think they are really smart nowadays are really using the male part of their mind. People like the Male Genius because it gets right to the point and it’s easy to follow (it is rational and nonemotional). Logical, rational, point 1, 2, 3, 4, it follows that 5, 6, 7, 8, conclusion. The Male Genius is active, rational, conscious, and seeks to rise about sex and relationship stuff (quotidian everyday life). Most really smart men and women nowadays are often utilizing the Male Genius, because it’s more respected and tends to get to the point more.

The Female Genius is more confusing because it tends to wander around a lot, and it’s often hard to tell exactly what’s being communicated, as the message is largely irrational (emotional). The message is often more of a general feeling than something you can summarize with a Powerpoint demo.

I say that the Female Genius is completely different from this. The Female Genius is passive, irrational (emotional), unconscious and wrapped up in sex, love and relationship stuff (quotidian life). It’s all about the Emotional Mind and the World of Relationships. To the extent that a woman is explaining this to us well, it’s an example of the Female Genius.

Confusion About Brilliant Women and the Female Genius

A commenter dislikes an earlier post, The Female Genius – Some Examples, but fails to understand it because I speak allegorically and not logically. The Female Genius means not what we think logically, the genius in the body of a female, but allegorically, as a specific type of genius different from something called the Male Genius.

In this vision, both the male and female principles will exist inside all males and females. I also think that genius exists to some extent in all humans, though admittedly, that’s a hard sell. Hence, both the Male Genius and the Female Genius exist in all humans to one degree or the other.

Good god, man. Of all the serious examples of female genius and eloquence you have at your disposal on Youtube… Arundhati Roy, Maya Angelou, Camille Paglia, Toni Morrison, Wangari Maathai, Nadine Gordimer, Meredith Monk, Nina Simone, Sylvia Plath…

You end up choosing a washed-out astrologist and a ditzy pop singer?

Are you trying to make women look bad, or are these honestly the most representative examples of female genius that first popped into your head?

I mean damn, I would have even preferred some Starhawk chatter to these two.

First of all, Caroline Casey is brilliant, whether she’s nuts or not. Maybe people should listen to her more. She’s quite entrancing. And Marianne Faithfull is a true artistic genius, not a ditzy pop singer. Sure, female entertainers make a lot of crap, but I honestly feel that Faithfull rises above all of that.

More importantly, I distinguish here between brilliant women the Female Genius.

I am also using Weininger’s theory that the Male Mind and the Female Mind are two completely different things.

Weininger says that women are incapable of genius. The only women who will be capable of genius are those who, copying Whiteness Studies here for a bit, “abandon femaleness.” In other words, those women who think like men can surely be geniuses of the Male type. I understand why he says this, and I agree with him.

However, I believe that there is a specific Female Genius that he missed. It’s often overlooked in the world, because the world is, well, male-oriented and dominated! It’s also sort of trashed, because it seems silly and ditzy like most women, just as the commenter’s reaction here indicates. Faithfull’s perfect portrayal of the Female Genius, as great artistically as Beethoven or Melville, was attacked by the commenter as “ditzy.”

The Male Genius is logical, one, two, three, four, conclusion, bam. It generally lacks emotion or has controlled emotion. The Male Genius is seen as the life of the mind since the only way we can see the mind alive is in the unemotional and logical encapsulation of a male skull. It’s true that the Male Genius explicates the logical and rational life of the mind well.

But we are human. There is another life of the mind, the Emotional Mind. This is the mind that I speak of when I speak of the Female Genius. The Emotional Mind is irrational, since emotions are irrational at their base. However, they are an essential part of human existence, and women are the best at explaining them to us.

The Female Genius exists to explicate the Life of the Emotional Mind. Sure, it’s trivialized, as I said, emotion is trivialized in male, rational, logical, modern industrial society. But we are not Spocks, at least not yet. And until then, the Female Genius, in all its passivity, pettiness, calculation, unconsciousness and irrationality, will talk to us about the dark side of the moon in our heads, if only we care to listen.

Arundhati Roy, Maya Angelou, Camille Paglia, Toni Morrison, Wangari Maathai, Nadine Gordimer, Meredith Monk, Nina Simone, Sylvia Plath

Of these, I only know Paglia and Roy well. They seem to be two regular women of the Male Genius type (especially Paglia). The rest I can’t really speak to.

Some other good examples of the specific Female Genius would be actresses Bette Davis, Greta Garbo and Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz. The Wizard of Oz shows the girl genius or young woman genius. Bette Davis in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane shows us the Female Genius in late life.

The Female Genius – Some Examples

In the previous post we saw Otto Weininger’s startling position that women lack souls, are amoral, and hence lack the capacity for genius. For Weininger, genius must understand the nature of good and evil and choose one or the other. So we have the evil geniuses and the good geniuses.

But the potential for genius is lacking in the usual unproductive sort of unconscious conniving and subservience to baser sorts of quotidian live of the body Id stuff revolving around the body and the family. The male template achieves genius a la Nietzsche when it removes itself somewhat from this base maneuvering for survival and parenthood searches for God within oneself. When one finds that, one finds morality, and hence genius.

I have a feeling that Weininger simply misunderstood the nature of female genius. In the emotional world of sex and motherhood, and emotional world of relationships with lovers and offspring, there is a possibility for the female genius. It’s an important part of our life, so we need geniuses to comment on them.

In an earlier post I described the female genius as a meandering sort of thing. Imagine a great river. That is the Human Mind.

As it spreads into its delta, it explodes into a swamp of never-explored regions, backwaters, byways, channels, islands, bypasses, and bayous. You can barely find your way with a map and without one, you’re just lost. From the air, it’s a maze. If you’re in a boat it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere in any straight line, but it’s a great ride anyway, with lots of truths along with the way if you can slow down enough to take the time to figure them out.

Caroline Casey on KPFA Pacifica Radio is an excellent example of the classic female genius. Men see that and they may just see it as nuttiness, but it’s a real genius. She’s talking about astrology here, but just forget about that, that’s one of her kooky things.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17joTRgaW-Y]

Another one can be found on KPFA’s Stone’s Throw with Jennifer Stone. She seems to be an older Jewish woman. Other than that, I know nothing about her. A lot of meandering, a little bit world-weary, life of the emotion stuff, but you have to admit it’s great stuff.

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/62855

A lot of people think that girls and young women are completely stupid, as a man who really likes women, and who actually likes them more than men, I think that young female has a sort of brilliance, beauty, charm and even genius that is not given its due. The female genius, in class form, or better yet in the rarely seen, “girl genius” form, can be seen here in Marianne Faithful’s “As Tears Go By.” The video was shot when she was only 17 years old. As you can see, it is much consumed with the emotions, but as we are emotional beings, a genius look at this vast aspect of our being is indeed a form of genius, if a neglected one in male-dominated society where male ways of thinking are elevated and the female genius is somewhat devalued.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhPPJ5dolxU]

She seems like a child in that video, so insecure and frightened, but that is the young girl in a nutshell, the source of her wonder and charm.

Here is another one a year later, when she was only 18, from the great Jean – Luc Godard film Made in the USA. It’s popular to bash these avant-garde Europeans like Godard these days, but think about it, without Godard, there is no David Lynch, no?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPKL3KHE–I&feature=related]

She seems like a completely different person. The other actress, the brunette, is Anna Karina (Anna Karenina?). By her distracted and somewhat annoyed typical vain young woman attitude, you can see why Weininger felt that the female nature was not only amoral but also unconscious.

That the female nature is unconscious is why we males call them airheaded. But they aren’t really airheads at all, they are just living in the World of the Woman. It’s looks stupid and solipsistic to males because we can’t imagine it very well. We have that nature in ourselves, but most straight guys had this distracted pettiness (amorality and calculation) beaten out of us as boys and young men as “being a fag” in the forging process whereby the male-female duality in the iron yet imperfect boy is smelted into the perfect and pure maleness of the steel man.

Marianne Faithful again at age 40, doing the incredible bittersweet Broken English, the song of a middle aged woman who has seen and done it all, singing in a whiskey, cigarettes and cocaine voice. Good counterpart to the young girl innocence of the former. She was using a lot of cocaine during all of these performances in 1979.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-H55V_oma0&feature=related]

Interesting that both songs deal with emotional pain and tears, the first literally, the second by implication.

Otto Weininger on Women (and Jews)

Here we come to another problematic issue, that is female intelligence and genius. The great but toxic Otto Weininger is especially fascinating on this issue. He holds that women are simply incapable of genius. A Jewish convert to Christianity and suicide at age 23, he had a similar low opinion of Jews.

He rented the home in Vienna where Beethoven had died for the night, told the landlady he was not to be disturbed, and wrote two letters, one to his brother and one to his father. He told them both that he was going to kill himself. Then he put a bullet in his heart. This suicide set off several copycat suicides.

This stone closes the resting place of a young man whose mind never really found peace on earth. And after imparting revelations of his mind and soul he could not bear any longer to be among the living. He searched for the death realm of one of the greatest minds that dwelled in the house in Schwarzspanierhause and put an end to his bodily existence.

His book was praised by Wittgenstein, who nevertheless distanced himself from its views. His contributions to philosophy were around the nature of genius. He held that Jews were essentially feminine, as such had were amoral, without a sense of good or evil, and thus as a consequence were soulless. He also held that women were amoral soulless types. Modern decay was traced to the amoral irreligious Jewish/feminine nature of modern times. Weininger correlated femininity with what he called Jewishness.

The Nazis had mixed feelings about Weininger, but Hitler himself said, “Dietrich Eckart once told me that in all his life he had known just one good Jew: Otto Weininger, and he killed himself…”

Though the Nazis denounced his books, they used parts of his work in their propaganda.

His great work was Sex and Character, which made him famous when he was only 23 years old (Incredible!). Yet the number of our brains cells peaks at age 23, so it should not be surprising that great works of genius would be done by the young and indeed in art, poetry, fiction, music, and mathematics, the genius often peaks young.

An example of Weininger’s views of women can be seen here:

Greatness is absent from the nature of the woman and the Jew, the greatness of morality, or the greatness of evil. In the Aryan man, the good and bad principles of Kant’s religious philosophy are ever present, ever in strife. In the Jew and the woman, good and evil are not distinct from one another … It would not be difficult to make a case for the view that the Jew is more saturated with femininity than the Aryan, to such an extent that the most manly Jew is more feminine than the least manly Aryan.

Weininger argues that all humans are composed of both the male and female substance. The female is is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral. The male is active, productive, conscious and moral or logical. Female life is consumed with the sexual prerogative – both the act itself, which he coded as simply “prostitution” in marriage or otherwise, and procreation, as birthing and raising children. This is the nature and duty of woman.

The duty of man, a la Nietzsche (sort of) is to forego sexuality and its life-consuming and distracting passions and to strive to become a genius by searching for the love of the absolute, which he will find in himself. For “male” and “female” also code the male and female aspects of the personality.

Weininger certainly gave off some interesting vibes:

Nobody who had once seen his face could ever forget it. The big dome of his forehead marked it. The face was peculiar looking because of the large eyes; the look in them seemed to surround everything. In spite of his youth, his face was not handsome, it was rather ugly. Never did I see him laugh or smile. His face was always dignified and serious.

Only when he was outdoors in spring did it seem to relax, and then become cheerful and bright. At many concerts he would shine with happiness. In the most wonderful moments we spent together, particularly when he talked about an idea in which he was interested, his eyes were filled with happiness.

Otherwise his face was impenetrable. One could never – except to the last few months – find in his face any hint of what was happening deep within his soul. The taut muscles would often move, and sharp wrinkles would appear on his face, as if they were caused by intolerable pain. I asked for the reason, he controlled himself at once, gave a vague or evasive answer, or talked about other matters, making further questioning impossible.

His manners would occasionally elicit surprise, and often a smile, since he cared little for traditions and prejudices.

The influence of his personality seemed strongest at night. His body seemed to grow; there was something ghostlike in his movements and there would be something demoniac in his manner. An when, as happened at times, his conversation became passionate, when he made a movement in the air with his stick or his umbrella as if he were fighting an invisible ghost, one was always reminded of a person from the imaginary circles of E. Th. A. Hofmann.

The Black Genius – Some Thoughts and Examples

There are a few things progressive people can do with regard to differential IQ results. The current results* show US White IQ = 103 and US Black IQ = 89.8. That’s being somewhat generous with Black IQ, as I am wont to do. Others might peg it a couple of points lower, but whatever. There’s about 1 Standard Deviation separating the two scores. I have a feeling that a lot of what people call Black pathology flows right from this I STD.

For instance, when Black and White IQ’s are held constant, Blacks have 2 times the crime rate of Whites. That’s a 10

That right there implies that there is more than IQ causing Black crime. One of the projects of this blog is to quit fucking around with fake liberal/Left BS explanations for Black pathology and to figure out what is really driving this stuff, come Hell or high water.

One problem with the current White nationalist line about Black IQ is that there are way too many smart Blacks. The White nationalist line goes that Blacks are semi-retarded with a IQ of 89.8 (when 88 was the former retarded line and then PC people changed it to 88 and changed retardation to 73, throwing 1/3 of all Blacks out of retardation.

So the line is Blacks Are a Bunch of Retards. We’ve heard this line forever coming out of the Black IQ scores in Africa, which, at average IQ of 70, are in fact retarded. 5

The problem is that when you take these attitudes out into the real world, they don’t really pass the smell test. There are way too many smart Blacks. This is the first problem. So the scores in a way don’t make sense. It’s quite clear to me that Blacks are currently less intelligent than Whites in the US at 1 STD. Whether that’s permanent or not is up is another matter. But to listen to White nationalists, smart Blacks are few and far between.

In Africa, extrapolating from the tests, there might be

The problem is that when you look around at Black Africans, there are quite a few who are very, very smart. I know a fellow from Togo who has a Masters in Computer Science. He used to work for me, and he had that kind of sloppy Black genius, but he’s very smart.

Last I talked to him, he was in France involved with some super-brains at MIT doing cutting edge graduate IT theory work in stuff that I could barely even understand. He was thinking of going for a PhD in Computer Science. I’ve spoken to him, and he’s smart as Hell in all sorts of other ways too. I don’t know what his IQ was, but I was worried it was higher than mine, and I’m smarter than 999/1000 Americans.

I have also heard White nationalists make fancy arguments that because Blacks are so stupid, they have never created any “geniuses on the level of US Whites” and apparently never will. This bothers me.

Suffice to say that while clearly US Blacks are much less intelligent than US Whites, and clearly African Blacks are way too stupid for their own good and we must try to raise their IQ’s as a public emergency issue, in some way, the tests still seem to be underestimating Black intelligence.

Africa is an obvious case. Most Whites with IQ’s below 73 can’t drive a car, work, marry or live independently. They live in group homes and have very limited lives.

Black Africans, with an average IQ 3 points below the retardation level in the US, can drive, marry, have normal friendships, live independently, have children, etc. In short, they are able to function in a normal African society and do not need to be institutionalized, nor should they be institutionalized.

I talked to a lot of these characters when I did anti-scamming work. In some ways they were dumb as rocks, but in other ways they were smart as whips. In one case, we had an American with an IQ of about 76. She was sent in wild circles for months by these 70 IQ Africans with their wild schemes, games, stories and lies such that she was nearly driven nuts. They took for stupid and were running rings around her dumbass brain. Yet the tests say she was smarter than they were. Bullshit.

Long story short, yes, Africans have frighteningly low IQ’s, and many African problems surely flow directly from that. On the other hand, in some weird way, the tests are yet underestimating Black African IQ.

In the US, yes, Blacks are 1 STD lower in IQ than So many things, obviously, first of all, the achievement gap, flow directly from this fact. On the other hand, extrapolating out from these scores, we realize that there are should not be that many smart Blacks.

Yet, curiously, there seem to be way too many smart Blacks around than the stats would suggest. Alpha Unit, Car Guy and tulio types (commenters and writers on the site) should be quite rare, in fact, once you start looking around, it seems like they are everywhere, even in the Abagondsphere. Turn on Pacifica, and it’s full of smart Blacks. Way too many.

Something doesn’t make sense. Maybe it’s the Flynn Effect. According to the Flynn Effect of rising IQ’s in the US, your average Black today has the same IQ as the average White in 1960. That’s stunning, and doesn’t seem to make sense on so many levels, but the facts are true. In fact, James Flynn himself has verified that truth to me.

If Blacks are as smart as 1960 Whites, why are they so fucked up, and why can’t they create the 1960 White America? Once again, things don’t make sense. My conclusion is that it’s possible that US Blacks are perfectly capable of creating 1960 White America, it’s just that they are fucking up. Why, I have no idea, but you’ve seen the figures. Whatever reasons for them, lack of brains is not one of them. The conclusion is that Blacks are screwing up and need to get off the dime and get their shit together.

That Blacks have the same as 1960 Whites makes sense to me looking at my blog, at the blogosphere, and tuning in to Pacifica. There are way too many smart Blacks for the scores to make sense. But the intuitive reality makes sense if the entire scale has been flying upward with time. The old low is the new average. The old average is the new bright. We’re getting smarter, though Idiot Culture would seem to argue against that.

So we finally work our way back to the Black genius. if Black brains really are different on average (I say they are) then the Black genius will look different from the White genius. We may see this in a WN way of the Black genius is not even a genius, just a mediocrity, but that doesn’t seem to add up.

Black ideologues have long had the rather racist notion that Blacks have some particular thinking style that is not picked up on IQ tests and hence the tests are biased. I think this is nonsense in a way that it denies the realities of intelligence differences, but in a weird way, they may be onto something. As a race realist, I would go further and say that in fact Black brains are different on average from White brains. So Black intelligence and Black genius looks somewhat different from White genius.

To Whites, even some very smart Blacks seem sort of stupid due to sloppiness.

Their brain is going like a wild pinball machines, analogies, puns and references bouncing off each other like wild, but then there are spelling and punctuation errors and other fuckups. You call them on it, and the Black genius doesn’t seem to care. His brain’s going a mile a minute, all this genius stuff is pouring out like water over a broken dam, and Hell with the small stuff, errors and bullshit.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a good example of the Black genius. Here is his webpage. I wrote him a while back, offering to copy-edit his stuff, but in that Black either too proud of don’t give a fuck way, he never wrote back.

Here are two videos of two other Black geniuses.

One is Cornel West, the stunningly brilliant Black academic. The other is Micheal Eric Dyson, another incredible Black academic. This is where WN’s infuriate me. Both of these guys, especially West, are flat out top notch thinkers. I think West is up there with Tolstoy, Dante and Plato as a thinker.

Modern White philosophers leave me cold because I can’t understand them. West breaks all that BS down into street lingo that almost the average Black on the street could sort of figure it out. Watching his mind is facscinating. It’s like watchign a Coltrane jazz solo. It’s got to be the Black genius. Furthermore, think about.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1Q6v1xsvcI&feature=related]

The other is Michael Eric Dyson. Once again, the archetypal Black genius, brain as a pinball machine thing. He’s more like a great rapper than great Black jazz musician, but it’s more or less the same thing.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrRrlbiVRA]

How many Whites think like these guys? Not many.

Many very smart Blacks do not display the typical Black genius. Acculturated in White society, they don’t sound a lot different from Whites.

*Setting US IQ at 100.

James Flynn on America

Repost from the old site.

James Flynn is an Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand. He has also done a lot of work on the Flynn Effect, which shows IQ’s rising all over the world in the past 80 years for unknown reasons. We’ve written about at a lot on this blog.

For reasons that remain unknown to me, White nationalists (almost all of whom are just White racists really) are driven into a frenzy by the mention of Flynn’s name. I find this very mystifying.

First of all, White nationalists insist that Blacks are defective, and present a lot of evidence indicating that Blacks as a group do have a lot of problems and that this group does do a disproportionate amount of damage to society. All of this is noncontroversial to anyone whose brain has not been turned to mush by political correctness.

Low IQ is frequently cited by White nationalists as one of the reasons for Black dysfunction and the resulting serious problems inflicted on society.

Other reasons are given too, but all of these are chalked up to genetics for some odd reason. It’s an odd White nationalist who thinks culture or environment is behind Black pathologies. Fair enough.

But when someone like Flynn comes forward and notes that Blacks have gotten dramatically more intelligent in the past 80 years, White nationalists for the most part just go ballistic and see red. Why?

If Black dysfunction really is caused by low IQ, and these problems cause massive damage to society, would it not be better for Blacks, White racists and everyone else for the Black IQ to go up, and problems resulting from the low IQ to diminish? Sure, right?

Think again. White nationalists are furious at the notion that the Black IQ is rising. Almost nothing sends them battier.

This is very strange. It implies, despite all of their rhetoric, that White nationalists really do not have the best interests of Blacks at heart. They don’t want Blacks to get smarter, better, or less dysfunctional. The more fucked up, stupid, violent and criminal Black people are, the more joyous White nationalists are.

Wow.

Excuse me, but what a bunch of cruel, perverse assholes White nationalists are! You bitch that Blacks are incompetent, violent idiots, but that’s just the way you want them to be. If that’s the case, then maybe you just deserve to live with them and their messes after all?

There must be some other motivation here. The only thing that makes sense is a hoary cliche that I usually don’t consider.

White nationalists want Blacks to be stupid, dumb and fucked up because that way White nationalists can feel superior to Blacks.

White nationalists are the insecure punks from high school rejoicing in the failures of their rivals. White nationalists have an emotional investment in feeling superior to other races, and anything that suggests that the folks they dislike are gaining some ground in the footrace sends them into conniptions.

Sheesh. How petty and childish can you get? As long as this is what really motivates White nationalists, I’d say they have no right to diss Blacks for being pathological. Looks like White nationalists are plenty pathological themselves. We need to feel better than others because we’re a bunch of insecure weenies! Waaa waaa!

Grow up.

Anyway, Flynn has a very good article on the stupidity and uselessness of US liberalism from a sane First World point of view. He points out quite well what a bunch of political morons we are. But if the Democrats took up Flynn’s philosophy, they would get massacred. America is a center-right to conservative society at best, and liberal pikers like Obama are the best we can do.

Flynn also talks about US Blacks. He points out that between the ages of 25-45, there are only 57 Black men likely to be permanent (or even semi-permanent) partners for every 100 Black women. Sure, Black women could marry out, but few non-Black men want them. If you’re a Black female, you either have a kid out of wedlock with some Black loser, or you forego now and forever your chance to have a kid.

I think that most people have a right to have kids. As such, it’s reasonable that Black women are going to figure out a way to become mothers one way or another. That’s reasonable. I’ve made this argument to some White “liberal” Americans and they frowned. “Having kids isn’t all it’s cracked up to be,” a mother of four (!) grimaced. Hmm.

Flynn points out that for every 100 Hispanic women, there are 96 promising males, hence their single parenthood rate is 5

Evolution of High IQ’s in Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese

A commenter asks the reason for the high IQ’s of Ashkenazi Jews:

What accounts for the higher Ashkenazi IQ? Is it from living in a cold climate in eastern Europe instead of in their original sunny Mediterranean homeland? Or perhaps Slavic genes?

Apparently selection. When the Ashkenazim went to Europe, Talmudic Judaism unfolded around 1000 CE or so, and in order to be a Jew, a man had to read the Talmud and the Torah in full and study it all the time. That’s hard to do, and a lot of men couldn’t hack it. If you could not hack it, you left the community and converted to Christianity. The only ones that stayed were the smart ones.

After a while, they developed a preference for brains like the Chinese have. The Jewish girls would all fight each other to marry the smartest boy in the village, as he was seen as the best catch. Rabbis would have contests where they would invite all the young men around and ask them these convoluted Talmudic questions that might take a day or so to figure out. After a day, he comes back, and all the guys compete to answer the question. Whoever has the best answer (the smartest guy) gets the rabbi’s hottie daughter.

One reason I’m a Judeophile is because I like Jewish chicks. They often like me too, because I’m a brain. Another reason anti-Semitism is stupid is because Jews obviously have a better culture than we do. Jews value brains and possibly even sexually select for it via their women (their women sexually select for the brightest men). American women value near-retardation, tattoos, and monosyllabic, double digit IQ brutes. Conclusion? Jews are superior to White Gentiles.

Chinese society may be similar. I was reading a lot about China for a recent article, and I came across a couple of stunning anecdotes.

The first was about a creative writing class for adults that was held in some rural city. There were all women in the class and only a few guys. One of the men was clearly the best writer in the class. So naturally, all the single Chinese women were fighting over him!

He would go back to his room to read and write, and all the Chinese female students would make up these BS excuses to come to his room and ask him fake “student questions.” By the end of the class, one woman finally landed the guy, and she was the envy of all the others. The women were competing for the smartest man!

Another anecdote told of a village in rural Southern China. One young man was said to be the smartest guy in the whole village. I don’t know what he looked like. Anyway, every hot young Chinese chick in the village wanted him. He was the prize man of the village, and they were all fighting over him. Once again, all the women fighting over the smartest guy!

This is one reason I’m a Rice King. Asian chicks love smart guys. I remember one time I got involved with this Chinese woman. She was always saying, in awe, “You’re so smaaaart.” She was a typical Chinese, no dummy at all. I listened to her say that, and I thought, “You know, no White woman would ever say that to me, especially in that tone.”

Apparently centuries of this sort of thing has resulted in very high IQ’s for both the Chinese  and the Ashkenazi Jews. The Chinese IQ is 108, and the Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is ~119. In Zhejiang Province on the Chinese coast, the average IQ is 118.5, as high as the Ashkenazi Jewish IQ.

Total opposite of this idiot society we have now where the smarter you are, the less likely you are to get a date, and the more women hate you. The dumber you are, the more women want you. We have truly evolved a retarded society nowadays.

In White society, the more tattoo-covered and monosyllabic you are, and bigger your Harley is, the more stupid White women want you. In Hispanic society, tattoos, gang membership, criminal behavior, sociopathy and a prison record gets you the hottest chicks. In Black society, rims, grills, tats, a Cadillac, gang membership, a drug dealing enterprise and a rap label contract lands you the best women.

You could excuse young women for this nonsense, because young people in general are stupid, but unfortunately, there’s evidence that this continues through life, even into middle age from what I can tell. American women and American society are quite hopeless. Tarded to the depths.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Schipper On Jews, Modernism and the Left

Repost from the old site.

Astute commenter James Schipper comments on the Statement on Jews and Antisemitism post:

Another intellectual flaw of anti-Semites is overgeneralization. Jews live in dozens of different countries and Judaism varies from superorthodoxy to reformism, but they see all Jews as the same. That’s only possible if Jews are seen as a race and if their race explains their behavior.I don’t think that Jews created modernity. It is the other way around: modernity created the post-ghetto Jew. Starting with revolutionary France, Jews in Europe were emancipated, that is, their separate legal status was abolished and they became ordinary citizens.

Since they still were outsiders to some extent, most of them were attracted to leftism, which, being the ideology of change, obviously would be preferred by outsiders. Conservativism is the ideology of those who are well-integrated in and happy with the status quo.

The fact that Jews are overrepresented among leftists has nothing to do with Judaism but everything with their minority status and their historical situation as often persecuted outsiders. We need sociological, not theological or biological explanations for Jewish behavior.

Biology explains only Jewish over-representation in intellectually demanding professions because there is every reason to assume that Jews have on average more innate intelligence than Gentiles.

My view is that Jews in Palestine were not smarter than the people around them, but that it was the smartest ones that in Roman times were expelled from or left Palestine in disproportionate numbers. Those that stayed behind were eventually assimilated.

Surely there is nothing in the genes of the Jew that creates “the Jew”. When you delve into anti-Semitism, pretty soon, you find that most rightwing White racialist anti-Semites believe that the evils of the Jew are located in the genes. I consider this to be nonsense, but we shall await the findings of modern genetics. I doubt if anything will turn up.

Hyperethnocentrism along with tendencies towards insularity, clannishness, xenophobia, paranoia and and even racism tend to occur across all types of Jews. I feel this is due to culture. As evidence, I note that many converts to Judaism quickly develop all of these characteristics, often in spades. That seems to seal the case for cultural Jewishness right there.

Schipper neatly sums up why the Jews have been attracted to the Left. In all this time, I have never heard anyone say it quite so succinctly. Outsiders are attracted to the Left, so Blacks and Hispanics in the US vote Democratic. Those satisfied with the status quo are conservative, hence Whites in the US are conservative.

Schipper’s analysis also probably explains the new emergence of a considerable movement in the US of conservative Jews. Antisemitism in the US has been reduced to a shadow of itself, and Jews are more successful than any other ethnic group.

When they were still getting barred from country clubs, and when signs said, “No Jews or dogs allowed,” Jews had a great reason to vote liberal, whatever their economic fortunes. Now that they’ve got life dicked here in the US, a number of them are well-integrated in and happy with the status quo and the phenomenon of the rightwing Jew has appeared.

I doubt if the Jews who left Palestine were any smarter than the ones who stayed, but I don’t have a lot of proof.

I suspect that Talmudic culture, which developed in Europe after 900 with the solidification of the Babylonian Talmud, with its emphasis on learning (Jewish men who could not learn the Talmud left the ghetto and converted to Christianity), along with the smartest Jewish men being seen as the best marriage partners for Jewish women, had a lot to do with selection for intelligence and high Ashkenazi IQ, though I realize that this ought to also predict high IQ in Mizrachi Jews, and their IQ is not notably high.

Why Are We So Damned Funny?

Because we’re so damned smart, that’s why.

However, because I don’t want to discriminate against dumb people, I must admit that many idiots are extremely funny, often intentionally so. Especially when they are young and dumb.

There are problems with this theory.

Black people are way funnier than Whites, and they are way dumber. Mexicans are funnier than Whites, and they’re dumber too. And Mexicans are a bit smarter than Blacks, but not quite as funny. Asians don’t seem to be very funny at all, and they’re extremely smart.

Dumb tribal people are always laughing. I’m not sure what they are laughing about, because I can’t understand their languages, but something must be funny. Maybe it’s because they’re always naked or near-naked? I mean, look around you at all these fat Americans. If we were always naked or nearly so, would that be a riot or what? ROTF.

There is some support for the theory. Jews are as funny as a fart in a sleeping bag, and they’re so smart that their heads are often in danger of exploding. Guys are a bit smarter than than chicks, and we are way funnier. Or maybe chicks just don’t dig our sense of humor? Chicks are not that funny, but they do laugh at our jokes, which is nice of them. Sometimes women are funny, like when we seduce them against their will and they get mad afterwards. That’s damned hilarious!

Lots of people of all races, from brilliant to moronic, are extremely funny, but frequently not intentionally so.

Clearly this matter calls for further research!

A Hereditarian Points Out the Main Problem with Hereditarianism

A commenter points out the problem that I have long had with the hereditarian view of human genetics, in particular IQ, where these characters are the most vocal. On the face of it, the hereditarian view is a valid hypothesis, it’s just that the people proposing it are such a bunch of malign and loathsome shit, almost to a man. And yes, they are almost all men, by the way. Women are understandably repelled by this misanthropic view, as they ought to be, since women are natural humanists.

For instance, quite a few people say I’m a good writer. Some even say I’m a great writer. Maybe they’re right, who knows?

But the point is that though I had talent even as a child, it didn’t end there.

I wrote a poem in the second grade, and the teacher thought it was so great that she called the principal in and read it to the class in front of him while everyone clapped. Actually, the poem sucked, but it was pretty good for a 7 year old.

At age nine, I was working on a novel. At age 16, I won an award for the best high school newspaper column in the state. At age 22, my creative writing professor said he’d never seen anything like it in his life and compared my stuff to Thomas Pynchon. At age 31, my friends were reading my stuff and shaking their heads, comparing it to James Joyce or William Shakespeare.

Anyway, the point is…guess what? I’ve been practicing writing my whole life! In the last few years, when I publish nearly every day, I’m practicing almost all the time. It wasn’t just some God-given gift. I’ve been working on it for 45 years! I have friends who are awesome musicians. Guess what? They all practice or if they are in a band, rehearse, constantly. They only get better and better. My artist friends draw all the time. The more they draw, the better they get.

Your risk of Alzheimer’s is related not so much to IQ but to the degree to which you exercise your brain in life.

Suppose two guys are born with a gift for running. At age 50, one guy hasn’t run in 25 years, and he sits on his ass all day, drinks beer and watches TV. His friend at age 50 still runs marathons. Guess which one is the better runner? Your brain isn’t all that different from your legs. Your brain is like a muscle; it gets better the more you use it.

The hereditarian approach to IQ has serious weaknesses. How can we explain 20 point IQ gains in only 70 years in the West in the 20th Century (the Flynn Effect) with consummate massive increases in head size? Guess what? It didn’t happen by genes, and genes didn’t make those heads bigger either.

How can we explain the 20 point gap between US Black and African IQ? Probably not by genes.

How can we explain 5-14 point Flynn rises in IQ in the second generation of many ethnic groups who move from the 3rd World to the West? Not by genes.

Ground Zero for the atavistic misanthropes of the hereditarian game was always the almost physically repulsive Gene Expression blog. The character named godless capitalist was always a loathsome man. The repellent Jason Malloy was a close second. Even Razib was creepy as fuck.

I remember once the news hit that IQ’s in Scandinavia, previously rising due to a Flynn Effect, had actually started to decline in recent years. The assholes on Gene Expression were practically throwing a party on their fucking site! IQ’s are going down, yeehaw! Malloy was pouring the drinks. What kind of human being rejoices when humans are getting stupider? Good God.

The commenter sums this view up nicely:

I agree that hereditarian racialists shoot down every bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ. They tend not to merely disagree that the evidence is persuasive; they tend to angrily reject it and ridicule as it the stupidest idea ever. I think they’re somewhat justified in doing so because hereditarian positions are perfectly valid a priori assumptions, and, though not without problematic implications, would seem a wiser basis from which to proceed.

Nevertheless, one of those problematic implications hinted at tends to manifest itself as diehard genetic determinism, which in the hands of the average punter often produces a sort of supreme disgust with the world, seeing in it only human(oid) rubbish fit only for extinction natural or assisted.

Well, at least it does so in its most extreme forms.

The more moderate form is also dehumanizing, however. It says to a person all that you are now, or all that you’ve managed to achieve by now, that’s it; there is not the slightest chance you’ll ever amount to any more than that (so just give up and die already, or something useful like that, you get the feeling they’d like to add).

Evidence for Environmental Effects on IQ

The hereditarians are flat out wrong on IQ. They always say that there is an environmental effect on IQ, but then whenever you show them any evidence of it, they immediately shoot it down. There are few hereditarian researchers on IQ who actually acknowledge evidence for an environmental effect on IQ.

Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton and the snide, upper class, snooty, antisocial atavists over at Gene Expression lead the pack. Since nearly the entire HBD/race realist sphere follows the line of Jensen and Rushton, nearly this entire sphere has rejected all evidence for a direct effect of the environment on IQ. Every time we show them they evidence, they shoot it down.

Nearly all White racists and especially White nationalists reject all evidence for an environmental effect on IQ and shoot down any evidence they throw up.

White nationalists have a lot at stake in this debate.

White nationalism is founded on the idea that European Whites are a genetically superior race, and most of the other races, including Blacks, Bushmen, Pygmies, Eskimos, Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Southeast Asians, Papuans, Aborigines and Negritos are all quite genetically inferior in intelligence.

They also throw in all non-European Whites as genetically inferior in brains, including Arabs, North Africans, Iranians, Afghans, East Indians and the people of the Stans. Since most White nationalists are Nordicists, Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus are also thrown in as intellectually genetically inferior.

There isn’t much evidence for this, as Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus in general have IQ’s that are quite high. Furthermore, Eskimo and Maori IQ is high. The IQ’s of many groups in the US, including Mexicans, East Indians and Africans, are also quite high.

When we suggest that there are environmental effects on IQ, we shoot down their whole theory of genetic intellectual superiority and upset their whole theoretical worldview.

But there is quite a bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ.

Wild IQ rises in the 20th century, mostly in the developed world, are impossible to explain by genetics.

The much higher IQ of US Blacks as opposed to other Blacks is hard to explain by genetics, though WN’s and the Gene Expression authors never tire of retarded explanations. The WN explanation for the 20 pt difference between US and African Black IQ is that it is explained by White blood in US Blacks. This explanation is retarded as it can only explain 4.5 points of the gap, leaving the other 15.5 points unexplained.

The Gene Expression folks say that African IQ is artificially lowered by malnutrition (they invoke environment only when it suits their hereditarian bias and reject it the rest of the time). Therefore, normative Black IQ is 80, and US Black IQ of 87 is also explained by White blood. But there is no evidence for their theory.

The White nationalists and their HBD buddies also pour cold water on the Flynn Effect showing massive IQ rises in the 20th Century. According to them, while IQ has actually increased, real intelligence has not gone up one single iota. The FE IQ’s are not on some BS called “g intelligence,” therefore they are nothing, meaningless ephemera. People are not getting smarter at all, not even

For instance there have been 22 different studies of IQ and breastfeeding, all the way up to age 50. All of these studies found cognitive benefits from breastfeeding. On the contrary, hereditarians recently championed one study that found no de novo effect for breastfeeding on IQ. Instead, the differences were tied up with mother’s IQ’s. That is, smarter mothers breastfed more and stupider ones did not. I will take 22 studies over one any day. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 128)

The effects of nutritional supplementation in pregnancy on IQ of offspring have been studied.

Nutritional supplementation in pregnancy and later supplementation of children has been shown to have effects at age 24 in Guatemala (1980) and age 18 in Mexico (1982). Mexican boys improved on IQ, and Guatemalans improved on a range of cognitive and achievement outcomes. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 124)

Lead levels in blood have a strong effect on IQ, leading to declines of up to 10-15 points. There is a clear cause effect relationship between blood levels and IQ. Blood lead levels are higher in Blacks than in Whites, because Blacks tend to liver in older dilapidated housing that has lead paint. Black children apparently ingest the paint chips somehow.

Iron level in the blood also effects IQ. consistently shown that malnutrition leads to low IQ and antisocial behavior in childhood. Iron deficiency is quite high in US Blacks and Hispanics.

One controlled study found that children who were severely malnourished in childhood ended up with IQ’s of 84 when returned to the home, 82 when institutionalized and 97 when adopted away (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 123).

A study in South Africa showed that intensive courses in college teaching Black college students the types of intelligence that are tested for on IQ tests quickly raised IQ’s from 83 to 97. Students were generally aged 18-22, above the age where environment is said to effect IQ. Even Philippe Rushton agreed that scores went up in this study, but he had some retarded reason why this had no effect on his hereditarian theories (Rushton and Jensen 2005).

It is a common canard among White nationalist and hereditarian circles that all early intervention programs designed to raise IQ have not been able to do so. It’s true that they often do not raise IQ, but they have other benefits. What matters is whether these programs are cost-effective or not.

Yet some very intensive programs have been successful. The Abecedarian and Perry Preschool projects (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 108) showed long-term rises in achievement scores lasting all the way into adolescence. Abecedarian found rises of 4.5 IQ points all the way into adulthood. The problem is that Abecedarian was quite expensive. Whether 4 point IQ gains could occur in large populations given this treatment and whether this would be cost-effective is not known.

References

Rushton, J. Philippe and Arthur R., Jensen. 2005. Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol. 11, No. 2, 328–336.

Sternberg, Robert J. and Grigorenko, Elena. 1971. Environmental Effects on Cognitive Abilities. New York: Routledge Psychology Press.

A Few More Words on Stereotype Threat

A few more things about stereotype threat (ST), expanding on a previous post:

ST has only been shown to exist in experiments. In these experiments, Blacks and Whites, males and females, everyone really, is subject to ST and shows a similar decrement in performance.

From these experiments it has been extrapolated to the real world that Blacks are under stereotype threat, and that this explains the B-W test and even IQ gap, among other things. But it does not. Under ST threat, the B-W IQ and testing gap is the same as ever, except it is even worse! If you think about this, you realize that ST cannot possibly explain the performance and IQ gaps themselves. What it might do is make Blacks perform even worse than they ordinarily do!

No one knows if stereotype threat exists in the real world, who is subject to it, when, etc. No studies in the real world have shown that we can create high ST environments that Blacks do worse in and low ST environments that they do better in. In other words, all this stuff only works in the lab. It has no explanatory power whatsoever in the real world, where, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn’t, but we don’t know where and how it effects whomever or for that matter how to correct it once we see it.

The Blacks have jumped all over ST lately because, while we can’t prove it exists and harms them, we can’t really prove it doesn’t exist and doesn’t harm them either.

ST is not so much bunk as it is untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable theory. Arguing about ST is like arguing how many angels can dance on a pin. It’s interesting, but it can go on forever, and we will never learn anything or solve any problems.

IQ Scores of Oppressed Minorities

There is some interesting literature out there about IQ gaps in minorities and in particular in oppressed minorities.

For instance, in Japan, Burakumin (a caste-like minority) and Koreans (an oppressed minority in Japan) have very low IQ scores and poor school performance relative to Japanese. The Burakumin have a 15 pt gap in IQ. However, it is said that when Burakumin immigrate to the US, in the second generation, the 15 pt difference evaporates and their children score even a bit higher than Japanese.

Japanese Koreans are also said to do very well in school and on IQ tests in the second generation after migration to the US, but they do poorly when they are in Japan.

There are also other examples of IQ score differences between close neighbors in the same nation who would appear to have similar genetics, for example between French vs. Flemish speakers in Belgium, Irish and Scottish vs. English in Great Britain, and Afrikaans speaking Whites vs. English speaking Whites in South Africa.

Children of immigrants of all types seem to score higher than those who stay behind. This difference is mysterious and apparently cannot be accounted for on the basis of selective immigration. Something about immigration itself seems to stimulate cognition in immigrants and their children.

References

Sternberg, Robert J. (Editor), Grigorenko, Elena L. (Editor). 2001. Environmental Effects on Cognitive Abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Do Asians Have a Short Bell Curve?

In race realist circles, much is made of a so-called short curve in Asian IQ. That is, Asians are said to have few geniuses and few idiots – there are few Asians below 70 IQ (gifted) and few above 130 IQ (gifted). So, while Asians are highly intelligent, it is said that they lack a large number of the sort of extreme geniuses that really move a society forward. On the contrary, European Whites are said to have a long curve.

Quite a few geniuses and idiots, and therefore more likely to produce truly innovative and forward-looking societies. White Supremacists have jumped all over this, as they are stung by IQ studies that show NE Asians scoring about 5 points above European Whites. By emphasizing the short Asian bell curve, White Supremacists fight back by arguing that European Whites are in fact the most superior race of them all, and NE Asians are inferior to them.

There are a lot of problems with this data. For one thing, it is not holding up well in the US. Our very top universities are overflowing not just with Ashkenazi Jews (IQ = 112) but also with NE Asians (IQ = 108). One would think that the competition at top schools such as the Ivy League would be among the most high IQ of them all.

Let us also look at the data below regarding gifted programs in the US. As you can see, Asians, especially but not exclusively NE Asians, have a higher

The graph below is confusing. It shows what

I have no explanation for some of the results below. Why do Amerindians have more gifted than Hispanics? Why do Hawaiians and Guamanians have so many gifted, but Samoans and other Pacific Islanders have fewer, when both groups have the same IQ?

The IQ scores may seem confusing. They are set at the new ranking of US IQ = 100. Scores were formerly set at US White IQ = 100. The new ranking pushes US White scores up to 103, and pushes everyone else’s score up 3 points. But the scores are still the same; only the scale has changed.

Asians are overrepresented in the gifted programs in the US, contrary to WN propaganda about narrow Asian SD and relative lack of gifted students.

For 1997, according to the Office of Civil rights (1999), 5.6

Examination of data for those assessed and those who qualified for GATE during the 1998-99 school year indicated that of 14,778 students tested during the year, 3,108 (21.0

Examination of data for Asian subgroups showed a wide range in percentages of children who qualified, with Chinese (50.4

Laotians (15.7

APA Subgroup               

Chinese                     50.4
Koreans                     47.44        108
Asian Indians               45.45        109
Japanese                    41.30        108
Vietnamese                  29.76        102.5
Hawaiians                   28.00         90
Filipinos                   28.00         97
Other Indochinese           25.00         93
Guamanians                  21.95         89
Total Including non-APAs    21.03         100
Laotians                    15.79         92
Hmong                       14.12         85.5
Cambodians                  12.58         92
Samoans                      7.32         89
Other Pacific Islander       5.56         89

In conclusion, it is not yet proven that Asians have a short bell curve relative to European Whites, and there is considerable evidence against the hypothesis.

References

Cheng L. L., Ima K. & Labovitz G. 1994. Assessment of Asian and Pacific Islander Students for Gifted Programs. In S. B. Garcia (Ed.), Addressing Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Special Education (pp. 30-45). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. 1999. 1997 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report. National and State Projections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

The Agenda of the Racial Hereditarians

Almost all of the leading hereditarian race researchers have come out saying that they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. The reasoning is clear. If it can be proven that Blacks are genetically stupider than Whites, then clearly, people ought to have the right to discriminate against them, right? Anyway, that’s how their thinking goes.

A lot of these folks have recently been taking this further. Jason Malloy of Gene Expression spent some time trying to put together an argument that lower Black IQ made Blacks inferior employees. The conclusions are ominous. If we can scientifically prove that Blacks are worse employees, then the logical thing to do would be to discriminate against them.

But their arguments are not as good as they seem. Let’s take a look at them. First of all, are South African IQ scores valid? Yes, it appears that they are.

In South Africa it was found that job performance correlated with IQ. A Black with a 70 IQ performed the same as a White with 70 IQ, and a White with 115 IQ performed the same as a Black with 115 IQ. That is, based on this study, IQ scores for Black South Africans appear to be valid.

This study is used to claim that Black-White job performance differences are caused by lower Black IQ.

But this is not what the study proved at all. Black job performance, if caused by low Black IQ, would have to be over 1 Standard Deviations (SD) (maybe 1.3 SD) below White. Instead, Black job performance is .33 SD below Whites. Black lower job performance is not very much lower than Whites anyway, does not correlate well with Black IQ. In other words, Blacks perform far better on the job than would be predicted by their IQ scores.

From the study:

Black-White differences on job performance are rather small and much smaller than would be predicted based on IQ differentials.Main Effects

The results of this study reinforce some beliefs and change others. For Black-White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation (when corrected for criterion reliability), and this is quite similar to Kraiger and Ford (1985).

We also had similar results for one of three types of performance measures used by J. K. Ford et al. (1986). Specifically, we found larger d’s associated with objective measures of job knowledge than with subjective measures of job knowledge.

Furthermore, Black-White wage gap is far worse than predicted based on B-W IQ gap. This is important because the hereditarians are going to say that Blacks make less money because they are worse workers, and they are worse workers because they are stupid. However, as you can see, the wage gap is far worse than would be expected by IQ, not to mention Black job performance, which exceeds Black IQ.

Nice try guys, trying to justify paying Blacks less, but it didn’t work. This study implies that there are other factors behind lower Black wages beyond IQ and job performance. One of them may be discrimination.

The hereditarians, whether they are right or not, do not have Black people’s best interest at stake. In fact, they are trying to provide scientific evidence to justify racism and discrimination. Blacks have every right to be skeptical about these people.

Who Are the Smartest White Europeans?

A commenter suggests that Russians are the smartest Whites.

It’s not the case. Russians are not at all the smartest Whites. Here are some recent scores. There is a North-South cline, but it’s not perfect at all. Italian is a very much a Med state, and it’s IQ is very high. France is mostly a Northern state, and it’s IQ is not so hot. Spain is a Med state with a high IQ. Ireland is a Northern state with a lower IQ than the rest.

Notice I title this piece White Europeans, because as a Pan-Aryanist, I not only believe that most all Caucasoids of Europe are White, but I also believe that there are Whites outside of Europe who are just as White as those of Europe.

Germany        107
Netherlands    107
Poland         106
Sweden         104
Italy          102
Austria        101
Switzerland    101
UK             100
Norway         100
Belgium        99
Denmark        99 (median)
Finland        99
Americans      98 (for comparison purposes)
Czech Republic 98
Hungary        98
Spain          98
Ireland        97
Russia         96
Greece         95
France         94
Bulgaria       94
Romania        94
Turkey         90
Serbia         89

I don’t have much to say about these scores. If France can produce such a great nation with an IQ of 94, then others with similar scores can do well too. Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be able to create some fine modern societies. They are surely smart enough to. These others listed below are certainly intelligent enough to do well for themselves. IQ is certainly not holding them back at any rate.

Mongolia                              100
Vietnam                               99.5
Estonia                               99
Latvia                                97.5
Ukraine                               96
Belarus                               96
UK East Indian                        96
Uruguay                               96
Moldova                               95.5
US Mexican-American (2nd generation)  95
Argentina                             94.5
Lithuania                             94
US Filipino                           94

Even Serbia has created an excellent modern society with an IQ of only 89. If you go to Belgrade, you would think you are in any modern US or European city. Even the countryside is not really backwards. Its health, education and development figures are excellent. There’s nothing inferior about the place other than their morals. If we take Serbia as the IQ at which one ought to be able to create a fine, modern, European-type society, things get a lot more interesting, and a lot more countries have the brains to do well.

Armenia                 93.5
Georgia                 93.5
Kazakhstan              93.5
Malaysia                92
Macedonia               92
Brunei                  91.5
Cyprus                  91.5
Chile                   91.5
Thailand                91
Albania                 90
Bermuda                 90
Croatia                 90
Costa Rica              90
Bosnia and Herzegovina  90
Cambodia                90
Cook Islands            89
Laos                    89
Suriname                89

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Are Whites Necessary For Modern Civilization?

A White nationalist commenter comments on the Neandertal thread:

Robert, I don’t get your strange form of ethnocentrism. You claim to think “we’re the best,” as a sort of superstition, while knowing that we’re not really the best; while in many respects “we’re the best,” is obviously true. You can’t compare Black supremacist ideology with White supremacist. The former may take things a bit too far and sometimes be a bit off the facts, but the latter is simply laughable.

Whites may not be perfect, but they do have a fairly high IQ and the most impressive track record in terms of scientific progress and high culture.

As far as the West not always being dominant– the Chinese had not discovered that the Earth was a sphere or that the sun was larger than the Earth by 1600 AD. We beat them to it by more than a millennium.

They were also amazed by Euclid as they had nothing comparable in mathematics; they had no system of formal logic or precise scientific method; excluding the Great Wall, no ancient architecture to compare with our great Cathedrals and monuments etc. you could go on and on. The Asians today have more great pianists to play Chopin, but where is the Asian Chopin? They are impressive people, but clearly less innovative.

The Arabs had a bit of a renaissance partly due to having better access to ancient Greek manuscripts; but it was short lived. Who’s following in the tradition of Classical Civilization today?

This whole “the West has only been ahead for a few hundred years,” line is silly. We really are in a different league than everyone else.

I get your point about it being in ill taste to constantly harp on and on about your own group’s superiority. But when we’re under attack – being flooded with nonwhites and told that Western Civilization really isn’t anything to be proud of, and even if it is, nonwhites will do just fine preserving the West despite having historically shown little to no ability to do so – well then we need to start making the case for being able to do something they can’t. The facts are on our side, we just need to have the nerve to use them.

If we want to preserve the civilization we love we’re going to have to accept that we can’t avoid hurting nonwhites’ feelings by telling them that they’re unable to maintain Western Civilization on their own.

As far as my form of ethnocentrism, well, it’s completely normal. Most ethnicities do think that their people are better or the best. It’s normal thinking. Many of these folks are also often non-racist to anti-racist. The two things are quite compatible. I don’t want to get into scientifically proving that we Whites are superior. What for? It’s a disgusting enterprise, and probably won’t be fruitful anyway.

I have some extremely serious problems with this line of thinking. For starters, its presumptions.

I do not think that NE Asian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Siberian, Taiwanese, Singaporean, or Vietnamese people lack the ability to produce a great modern civilization. They can clearly do so. I see them as continuing to be able to produce great and modern civilizations into the future. I don’t even have a problem with the civilizations produced by SE Asians in general.

I doubt if the problems of Indians, South Asians, Central Asians and Arabs are due to their genes. After all, the UAE right now is one of the most spectacularly modern places on Earth. Saudi Arabian cities look like Tuscon suburbs. Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are quite similar. What’s so inferior about that? Sure, Islam is fucked, but there’s nothing in these folks’ genes that keeps them from producing great modern societies.

The North Africans should do pretty well too. Last I heard Libya is quite a modern country.

The Turks and the people of the Caucasus can produce modern societies, as can the Iranians. Iranian weaponry now is considered to be dangerously lethal by both the US and the Israelis. Recall the Iranian anti-ship missile that destroyed the Israeli warship off of Lebanon in the last war. Kickass product.

The Pakistanis and Indians produced nuclear weapons. No small feat that.

I do have a lot of worries about the abilities of Africans to produce great societies, but it’s basically their problem, not mine. We are not going to let Africans flood in here anyway.

Furthermore, looking at history is not too relevant. Sure, Africa did not produce much in the past, on their own. But Africa is no longer isolated from all outside influences. The great leaps of knowledge, science and innovation that occur in the rest of the world are readily available to educated and skilled Africans soon after they are invented or thought up. Therefore, Africa has a much better chance to become successfully modern than in the past.

Caribbeans, I don’t know. Trinidad and Tobago has a PCI of $20,000/year with totally free health care for all and 10

As suggested in the African example above, the modern world is changing so much that it can hardly be compared to older worlds. Technology is global, and it reverberates around the globe like lightning, as does knowledge in all forms. The smart people anywhere produce innovation and knowledge, and then these facts and things move around the planet faster than you can blink your eyes.

They are made available from more skilled societies to societies that are not as skilled. Therefore, the differential IQ factors are somewhat modulated as knowledge and innovation produced in high-IQ societies flows to lower IQ societies for free.

The Hispanics are flooding in, it is true. Their societies seem to be rather chaotic and violent, but if you go to their capital cities in the wealthier districts, you will think you were in any large US city. There’s no real observable difference. Their problems are mostly due to issues of wealth distribution.

It’s hard to use national IQ’s to calculate national potentials. For instance, Cuba has

Medical discoveries and breakthroughs occur regularly in Cuba and are published in scientific journals. Cuban biotechnology, a high-IQ industry, competes effectively with biotech from huge Western corporations and sells its excellent competitive products the world over.

All of these achievements have been done with a Cuban IQ of 85, lower than that of US Blacks, who White Supremacists consider to be a failed people, mostly due to an IQ of 86.8 or so. If Cubans can do so well with an IQ lower than US Blacks, how can US Blacks be a failed people due to IQ?

I don’t really believe that other societies produce inferior musicians or music, but maybe my tastes are different from yours.

What I would like to do is to eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. I don’t care what race or ethnicity comes here, as I don’t buy your arguments that they are genetically inferior per se.

I would say that the combined average IQ of the immigrants we let in cannot be lower than the US average (either 98 or 100 right now, depending on scale used). So if 100 immigrants of whatever constellation of groups is let in, let their combined average IQ be 98-100. If the Jamaicans, Nigerians, Filipinos, Mexicans, Palestinians, Indians, Thais and Algerians we let in all average 98-100 IQ, what’s the worry? I don’t buy your argument that a 98-100 IQ person from one of these ethnicities is still somehow genetically inferior to a 98-100 IQ White American.

You say that Whites are going extinct and we are being flooded with non-Whites, but how are you going to save the White West? Even if you cut off all non-White immigration, you will still be only 6

Not to mention cutting off non-White immigration will be politically impossible. All the non-Whites will oppose it. Now you need to get 7

Do you honestly think that you can pull that off? It sounds impossible. Both political parties, the entire MSN media, etc will be deadset against it and will flood society with propaganda against it calling those who support it KKK, White Supremacists, Nazis, racists, etc.

Neoliberalism and the Creation of Oligarchies

One of the things that you seem to reliably end up with via the neoliberal model is some sort of an oligarchy of one type or another. One might even argue that this is the purpose of neoliberalism. It probably isn’t, but neoliberalism is definitely in service of an elite group.

The Neoliberal Era since 1980, perpetuated by World Bank and IMF policies, supported by both US political parties, most parties ruling parties on Earth and the entire world MSM media, has a reliable record. Everywhere it has been implemented, it has resulted in the creation of wild inequality.

One can argue that inequality is just fine or even natural, but isn’t it obvious that extreme inequality is destabilizing. Things can only get so unequal before you get a revolution of one sort or another. Take away Marxism now that history has ended, and the peasant revolts will go on.

Marxism was revoked in Thailand, but instead we have the Red Shirt Revolt, exemplified by the urban and rural poor, now armed and waging street battles in the middle of Bangkok. The Red Shirt Revolt has arisen in the context of wild inequality in Thailand via neoliberal reforms of the past few decades. Malnutrition in Thailand continues at around 30-4

Latin America has largely turned its back on neoliberalism after two or three decades of trying it on for size. Not only did it only benefit the top 2

Neoliberal creation of oligarchies:

In Indonesia, free market economics in 80’s and 90’s led to a

Figures are similar for the Chinese minority of the Philippines, a

7 men, 6 of them Jewish, the oligarchs, now control 6

HBD bloggers like to say that the

Let us assume that the Chinese are smarter. Let us put their IQ generously at 110. The Island SE Asian IQ is 86. That is a 25 pt difference. According to Richard Lynn, a 25 IQ point difference in some models equals about a 3.5X greater intelligence. So let us assume that the Chinese are 3.5X smarter than Indonesians and Filipinos. They then have a right to 3.5X more money than native Island SE Asians. That would give the Chinese a right to 10.

Some of my friends say, “Well the Chinese work harder.” I find this dubious. Indonesians and Filipinos work very hard. Down there, you don’t work, you don’t eat, real simple. For this model to work, the Chinese would have to work 23 times harder than the Indonesians and Filipinos. Does anyone believe that this is the case? Let us generously say that they work twice as hard. No problem. But 23 times as hard? Forget it.

These extremes of wealth accumulation by market dominant minorities cannot be justified logically either by appeals to their brains or industriousness. It’s simply not fair. In fact, it’s outrageously unfair.

Let us look at it from another point of view. What people anywhere on Earth would allow a minority, not even of the native people, but instead foreigners, of

Everything I said about the Overseas Chinese in Island SE Asia goes for the Jews in Russia. You can call them anti-Semites all you wish, but why should the Russian people put up with Jews owning the whole place? Jews who not only see themselves as not Russians, but also have no allegiance to the state and are often filled with hostility towards the natives.

Their loyalty, if any, is to their co-ethnics in Israel, the US and the UK. When the Russians start to crack down on these Jewish crooks, they quickly shift all the money they stole to their buddies in the US, the UK (Rothschilds) and Israel. There are TV dramas in Israel that deal with the fleecing of Russia by the Jewish oligarchs, and they are extremely popular with Israeli Jews. Fine, it’s paybacks. But why should the Russian people sit still while a hostile minority is robbing the country blind?

US Blacks Make Great Educational Gains

Here.

From the paper:

In the United States, based on a national assessment of adult literacy, African Americans improved their scores more than any other racial/ethnic group in the years between 1992 and 2003. The survey measured three elements of literacy: prose, document, and quantitative literacy – which are reading, synthesizing information from documents and graphs, and basic math.ch are reading, synthesizing information from documents and graphs, and basic math.

There’s an agenda behind most of the White nationalist and race realist arguments about Blacks. It should be no surprise that almost all such folks are conservative to reactionary, and many are out and out libertarians. They nearly all subscribe to the philosophy of minimal government and a free market. Such an agenda always decimates public education, but that’s how they want it. They’re either going to home school, send their kids to private schools, or they’re idiots.

There’s a reason that they continually harp on lower Black IQ’s and fall all over themselves to say that the Black IQ has been flat for 100 years. This means that Blacks are, for all intents and purposes, ineducable. Any money you spend on educating them is money down the rathole since they’re incapable of learning. This is a very convenient argument for moneyed Whites who hate the public schools. If educating Blacks is useless, let’s just quit educating them and cut them off. Think of all those nice White tax dollars you could save.

Marx was right in a sense. Everything isn’t all about economics, but in the modern world, so much of life surely is.

And with the White nationalists and race realists, there’s an ugly economic argument behind all the racist rhetoric: “I don’t want my hard-earned White tax dollars going to educate useless niggers.” This is the thought process underlying a lot of the anti-government movement in the US for the past 30 years. I know. I’ve lived in rightwing White communities all those years, and I know exactly how my people think. The rightwing revolution, from Reagan on, was about a lot of things, but it was so about race.

Above we see that one of their prime arguments is a lie. Turns out Blacks are educable after all. Turns out that they can improve over time, giving the lie to the sly hereditarian assumption that Black achievement will be frozen by genetic constraints.

On the NAEP, Blacks have reduced the gap by about 1/3. You would never know this if you went to a White nationalist site. All they do is rant that there’s been no progress.

Blacks now nearly match Whites on vocabulary, controlling for socioeconomic status.

Controlling for economic status, Blacks now nearly match Whites on vocabulary. So increasing Black economic status raises Black vocabulary scores dramatically. At the same time, rising White economic status had no effect on scores.

Young Blacks have closed the B-W IQ gap by 5.5 points over 30 years.

Young Blacks have closed the B-W IQ gap by 5.5 points over 30 years. However, this applies only to Black minors. By age 24, the gain is all lost, and the B-W IQ gap is the same. One thing that is very interesting is that Black 5 year olds have IQ’s of 98 (US White IQ = 103). That’s only 5 points below US White IQ’s. People say it’s because Blacks mature faster, but that seems like a lousy argument. Black kids score about the same as Black adults in Africa.

On the cynical side, I could note that environmental effects are greatest in childhood. As one moves into adulthood, environmental effects diminish, and genetic effects tend to predominate.

However, this data does show that the extremely rich Western environment of the US is dramatically raising the IQ’s of Black children. It is interesting that this gap closing has occurred in the past 30 years, which coincides with Liberation from 1964-on. There may be hope yet.

All this positive news aside, any discussion of B-W achievement gap that does not include talk about IQ is useless. Yet that’s what passes for policy debate in the US.

The gap may never be entirely closable, but surely it can be reduced.

The “Western Blacks Act Bad Because They Are Stupid” Nonsense

A commenter disagrees with me when I said that I don’t think there is anything to this “Blacks act bad because they’re dumb” argument.

Nevertheless, I would say that easily 10

Only one problem: it is complete nonsense.

Whatever causes Blacks to engage in pathological behavior to an excessive degree, being dumb can’t possibly have anything to do it, at least not with Blacks in the US and the UK.

Race realists typically bandy about the “Blacks act bad because they’re stupid” thing.

Well, if you’re intelligent, you would *think* before you act. You wouldn’t pull a knife or gun out on someone simply because you lost a basketball game or an argument. Plus, you would be far less likely to engage in impulsive behavior and have a greater ability to delay gratification. What do blacks do when they get their welfare checks? Spend it on a perm or a weave.

Yes, but there are quite a few populations all over the world that have IQ’s in that range where people do not behave that way at all. They are not idiotically impulsive in behavior or spending, they save their money, they are calm and emotionally controlled, crime rates are very low, violent crime is almost nonexistent, family life is stable, pathological behavior is rare, and society generally hums along pretty well.

Costa Rica   89
Laos         89
Samoa        88
Azerbaijan   87
East Timor   87
Indonesia    87
Myanmar      87
Tajikistan   87
Turkmenistan 87
Uzbekistan   87
US Black    86.8
Kuwait       86
UK Black    86
Cuba         85
Yemen        85
Iran         84
Jordan       84
Morocco      84
Saudi Arabia 84
UAE          84
Algeria      83
Bahrain      83
Libya        83
Oman         83
Syria        83
Tunisia      83

Granted, there’s some political violence in a few of those places, but there’s political violence everywhere. I don’t think political violence automatically means you have a nation full of morons, or Germany and Japan would end up two of the most retarded nations on Earth.

This argument about Western Blacks makes no sense at all.

Populations with the exact same IQ’s of US and UK Blacks do not engage in ridiculous impulsive violent and spendthrift behaviors. They are able to delay gratification and plan for the future quite well.

Granted, there’s a case that Blacks have difficulty in planning for the future, delaying gratification, engaging in impulsive criminal, violent or prodigal behaviors, but IQ can’t possibly have anything to do it, since there are many populations with the exact same IQ which don’t behave this way at all. Obviously something is causing it, but lack of brains can’t have anything to it.

It is here that we may enter into the realm of race and personality.

But the argument in the title deserves to be thrown on the trash heap once and for all. I’m tired of it.

Does Dumb Population = Dumb Government?

A new commenter, Portland Bus Driver, suggests that the IQ of a general population is reflected in the IQ of its top state officials. I beg to disagree. He also points to some behavioral differences between his Hispanic and Black passengers and suggests that it’s not all IQ. In fact he’s correct. Illegals probably have lower IQ’s than Blacks. Race realists typically bandy about the “Blacks act bad because they’re stupid” thing. In the case of US and UK Blacks anyway, I’d just as soon chuck this theory.

There is most definitely a causal relationship between higher IQ and a potential economic situation. Look at predominately East Asian and white countries compared to any black country, and South Africa does not count. Brazil is 5

The point is that the commanding heights of the economy and government must be in the hands of higher IQ people. Once the lower IQ masses take over –See: Haiti, Rhodesia, the US after George Bush 🙂 — the country declines.

That being said, environment and culture and all of that can still play a role.

In my experience Hispanics ride the bus to work early in the morning with lunchboxes, they show me respect and pay their fare (or have counterfeit fare). Blacks start getting on later in the afternoon in comfy workout style clothes to go “chill”. Then the Hispanics come home from work.

Later that night the blacks get back on in expensive clothes and jewelry and watches and flash their bus pass which is right next to their food stamp card, they give me a dirty look and use obscene language right next to children. I could go on, my point is that it is not just IQ, Hispanics may have some other trait that predisposes them to work. Every black run society, with a few exceptions that are easily explained, is economically “disadvantaged.”

I would say it is the IQ of the population that matters. Yet South Africa was able to work pretty well as long as the high-IQ Whites were running the state. S. African White IQ = 94.

But I bet that in the present South African government, at the highest positions, you have folks with high IQ’s. Same in Latin America, South Asia, SE Asia, Arabia, North Africa, the Caribbean. Even though the general population may be dumb as rocks, the folks at the top of government are typically well-educated and bright.

So I don’t think low IQ country = low IQ idiots in government. I just don’t buy it. Besides, past a certain point, IQ just does not matter. It’s “high enough.”

More than the state, it is the IQ of the general population that matters in terms of how the society functions. Let’s not place too much emphasis on government here! In Haiti, I imagine that those at the stop of the state are bright folks. I have met some of the Haitian elite, and they were not stupid at all. I’ve also met some of the African elite, and they were not dumb either. I have met very bright Africans from all over Sub-Saharan Africa. Surely there are enough bright folks to form a competent state at the highest levels.

You may start running into problems at the local levels, but I still say that it’s the composition of society, not the state, that matters. If your society has an IQ of 67 or 72, I am sorry, but chances are you are going to have lots of problems functioning in the modern world no matter how bright your officials are. This is what is really going on here when we compare say Africa with East Asia and the US.

The “Obama is in charge so dumb Blacks rule” thing is a fallacy. I don’t know Obama’s IQ, but it has to be higher than George Bush’s. Obama’s administration is full of bright folks of all different races. They are certainly intelligent enough to run a modern state well. He is conflating a relatively lower Black IQ with “Obama” and his admin. But Obama is very smart, and so is his Cabinet and his aides.

The IQ of Mexican immigrants is probably ~85. The IQ of US Blacks is 86.8. The illegals are less intelligent than the Blacks. But look at the behavioral difference. Let us not place too much weight on IQ.

Also, let us not conflate US and UK Black IQ = 86.8 and 86, with African IQ = 67. The IQ’s of US and UK Blacks are about 20 points higher. That alone almost makes them a separate race.

There are many societies that function quite well and have IQ’s of 86-87. US and UK Black IQ is certainly adequate to function in modern society. That they don’t seem to do too well has its reasons I’m sure, but IQ can’t possibly be one of them.

He suggests that every Black society is economically disadvantaged. However, there are some Black nations in the Caribbean and even in Africa that are doing quite well.  Equatorial Guinea and Gabon have per capita incomes of ~$20,000/yr.

Spanking Lowers IQ?

A very interesting study implies that spanking lowers IQ by approximately 2.8-5 points, on average 3.9 points. The more the kid is spanked, the more the IQ drops. Kids were tested at age 5 and then retested at various ages after that. The kids that were spanked the most had their IQ’s drop the most. The worst drop was seen for kids who kept getting hit into the teen years.

The study looks pretty good, because it is looking at IQ’s at a certain age, and then correlates the actual falls in scores with an environmental variable, in this case spanking.

This tends to rule out parental IQ and genetics. I.e., the stupider the parent, the more they are going to hit the kid, and the smarter the parent, the less they hit their kid, since beating your kid is a pretty stupid thing to do. Or on the other end, the dumber the kid, the they act up, and the more they get hit. The smarter the kid, the better they act, so the they get hit.

But it is not normal for an IQ score to fall like that, so that would tend to rule out these confounding variables.

Black parents spank and hit their kids like crazy. I’ve seen them doing it many times, often in public. It’s conceivable that Black IQ scores could rise by 4 points or so if Black parents would quit beating on their kids so much.

Black IQ scores in the West are very interesting. Setting US White IQ = 103, Black IQ at age 5 = 98, yet at age 24 = 89.8. 98 is a very high score, and it’s only 5 points below Whites. If you have spent a lot of time around really young Black kids, you will notice that they are not exactly stupid at all. In fact, they seem to be quite alert, curious and actually intelligent.

Yet after age 5, Black IQ starts to drop, and by age 24, it has fallen to 89.8. There are very reasons suggested for this drop. One is that the extreme positive environment in the US artificially elevates US Black scores in youth, when environmental effects are strongest. Environmental effects tend to fade with adulthood, when genetic effects tend to kick in. So the drop is just genes kicking in, and the early charge is not sustained.

Others say that Blacks mature faster, and this explains the dropping scores, but I analyzed Black IQ scores in Africa deeply, and I found little if any drop, certainly not a 10 point fall. White scores do not drop at all with age.

So heavy Black corporal punishment may be one of the factors in that 10-point fall.

Let’s look at the lineup:

Upper tier
US Jewish                       116
US Black African                110
US East Indian                  109
US East Asian                   108
US White                        103
US average                      100
US Black age 5                  98
US Hispanic  (2nd generation)   98

Lower tier
US Filipino                     97
US Eskimo                       94
US Hispanic  (average)          92.5
US Amerindian                   92.5
US Polynesian                   90
US Black age 24                 89.8
US Hispanic  (1st generation)   88
US Hmong                        85

Some things need explaining in this chart.

First of all, the US White IQ has been changed from 100 to 103, so everyone’s score has been bumped up three points as a result. This is because tests used to be normed at the US White score = 100, but they changed that recently and now the US average = 100 and the US White score has been bumped up three points, because White scores are three points higher than the US average.

All scores are for the ethnic group inside the US, not in their home lands, where scores may and do differ. Hence, scores are lacking for many groups in the US since I lack access to scores in the US.

Indian (109 versus 85) and African (110 versus 70) immigrant scores are much higher than in their countries. This is obviously some selective immigration going on here. We are selecting mostly the best and brightest of the Africans and Indians, as it ought to be.

US East Asian does not include Hmong or Filipinos, and generally = Koreans, Chinese and Japanese.

US Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. Sephardic Jews might only score 93 or so.

I am guessing, but I think that Hmong scores are artificially depressed due to poor English language skills. Their test scores show a profound high math and very poor verbal trend. I have met many of these people, and they are not unintelligent at all.

The fact that Black kids have high IQ’s, and Black African immigrants have some of the highest IQ’s in the US (Higher than US Whites!), shows that racist stereotyping along the lines of “niggers ain’t got no brains,” still widely seen among racists, lacks empirical rigor on the individual level anyway, depending especially on age cohort and nation of origin.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)