Sunday, March 23, 2014
America's Great Adversary
Sometimes our most dangerous enemies are wearing our uniforms. In the case of America over the last 100 years, I would modify that to most of the time. Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bush II, Obama, taking them as both men and as symbols of the elites of their times, did more harm than even our most powerful international foes could manage. America has been spoiled by the absence of serious threats since 1783. Such security has been a rare privilege in national histories, perhaps shared with ancient Rome and certain periods of Chinese history--all of which examples succumbed to the same decadence we see around us, ever-increasing self-destruction and self-indulgence. The Americans, Romans and Chinese all indulged in unnecessary wars. And their elites detached themselves ever more complacently from reality, a detachment which in our case takes the form of the religion of cultural Marxism.
Basic Numbers in Education
Note that this is a remedial education post--those who understand racial IQ disparities should skip it.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-men-high-academic-success.html
This study shows 5% of blacks/Hispanics take certificates or associates degrees within 3 years at community colleges--and 32% of whites achieve the same. The initial racial differences in academic capacity on the ACT: the test shows that 15% of blacks, 29.5% of Hispanics, and 54% of whites at community colleges are prepared for college. This is the only hard predictive data--the percentage of each race that meets ACT college readiness benchmarks. But, this disparity is exacerbated by the fact that "equally capable" students of different races have far different levels of achievement. It shows 17% of hispanics, 33% of blacks, and 59% of whites who meet ACT college readiness benchmarks (equally capable in theory) get certs/degrees within 3 years. But, the blacks/hispanics claim to be more "motivated and committed"? This might be related to the races having different definitions of "motivated and committed." There might also be some lying involved in the claims.
Another problem is that most blacks who make the college readiness cutoff barely make it, whereas most whites who make it are comfortably above the minimum. In other words, the average ACT scores of "college ready" whites and blacks are different, with the white average markedly higher. This is unavoidable due to the large racial IQ gaps. Average IQs for the major races in America are 110 for Jews, 105 for Asians, 100 for whites, 92 for Hispanics, 85 for blacks. The black-white IQ gap has been in the 13-18 point range for 100 years. That is, it is nature consequent upon evolution in different environments, which different environments produced different characteristics, including different intelligence levels. In the general population 75% of Jews, 60% of Asians and 50% of whites have 100+ IQs--but only 31% of Hispanics and 14% of blacks have 100+ IQs. Note that this statistical difference in IQs is almost exactly the same as found above in the percentage of each race that is college ready. Also, if you calculate the average IQs of whites, blacks, Hispanics who make the 100+ IQ cutoff you find that the averages are approximately 114 for whites, 109 for Hispanics, and 106 for blacks. Whatever IQ cutoff is specified (whether 90, 100, 110, etc.) this difference in averages above the cutoff persists. The college ready whites are therefore smarter on average than the college ready blacks/Hispanics, just as college ready Asians and Jews are smarter on average than college ready whites. Another way to look at this is to consider what the minimum IQ of each graduate (5% of blacks/Hispanics, 32% of whites) would be if only the smartest of each group could graduate, which would give a general idea of how much the graduation rates are based on pure intelligence and how much on other factors like effort. This is in the nature of a thought experiment, since the smartest of each race do not attend community colleges. The underlying principles of analysis are about the same though--only there would be an IQ ceiling for each race in reality. If the smartest 5% of blacks/Hispanics and the smartest 32% of whites graduated, the minimum IQs for each race would be the following: black IQ: 106, Hispanic IQ: 116, white IQ: 107. This shows that if all blacks and whites with IQs above 107 graduated, the graduation rates would be almost exactly what the study found in reality: 4% for blacks, 32% for whites. This implies roughly equal effort and equal treatment among blacks and whites, though the 32% of whites with 107+ IQs still have higher average IQs than the blacks with 107+ IQs (which means in reality slightly better effort or treatment for the blacks). Hispanics in the 107-115 IQ range are not graduating as blacks and whites in that range are. The lack of effort therefore seems to be primarily an Hispanic problem. To get black numbers up to 32% you would have to arrange for blacks with minimum IQs of 91 to graduate. Moreover if Hispanic effort levels improved to match black/white levels, their graduation rate would rise from 5% to 13%.
Because the authors are politically correct socialist cowards, none of this IQ-based analysis finds its way into the 36 page report, even though my analysis explains everything very clearly. In particular, my analysis specifies the most correctable problem: lack of effort among Hispanics. Beyond that, only much lower academic standards across the board or, in the long run, differential eugenics would have much impact. And this study does not get close to the real problem, which is the huge disparities in the number of blacks/Hispanics capable of doing high level work, people at the 135+ IQ level. About 5% of Jews, 2% of Asians, 1% of whites, 0.2% of Hispanics, and 0.01% of blacks make this cutoff. Whites outnumber Hispanics 5 to 1 and blacks 100 to 1 at this level. Virtually all of the best scientists and inventors have IQs of at least 135. Many are 145+ where the ratios are 7 to 1 and 280 to 1. Without science and invention progress stops or, as in Sub-Saharan Africa, it never starts, or, as in "Idiocracy," progress turns into regress.
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-men-high-academic-success.html
This study shows 5% of blacks/Hispanics take certificates or associates degrees within 3 years at community colleges--and 32% of whites achieve the same. The initial racial differences in academic capacity on the ACT: the test shows that 15% of blacks, 29.5% of Hispanics, and 54% of whites at community colleges are prepared for college. This is the only hard predictive data--the percentage of each race that meets ACT college readiness benchmarks. But, this disparity is exacerbated by the fact that "equally capable" students of different races have far different levels of achievement. It shows 17% of hispanics, 33% of blacks, and 59% of whites who meet ACT college readiness benchmarks (equally capable in theory) get certs/degrees within 3 years. But, the blacks/hispanics claim to be more "motivated and committed"? This might be related to the races having different definitions of "motivated and committed." There might also be some lying involved in the claims.
Another problem is that most blacks who make the college readiness cutoff barely make it, whereas most whites who make it are comfortably above the minimum. In other words, the average ACT scores of "college ready" whites and blacks are different, with the white average markedly higher. This is unavoidable due to the large racial IQ gaps. Average IQs for the major races in America are 110 for Jews, 105 for Asians, 100 for whites, 92 for Hispanics, 85 for blacks. The black-white IQ gap has been in the 13-18 point range for 100 years. That is, it is nature consequent upon evolution in different environments, which different environments produced different characteristics, including different intelligence levels. In the general population 75% of Jews, 60% of Asians and 50% of whites have 100+ IQs--but only 31% of Hispanics and 14% of blacks have 100+ IQs. Note that this statistical difference in IQs is almost exactly the same as found above in the percentage of each race that is college ready. Also, if you calculate the average IQs of whites, blacks, Hispanics who make the 100+ IQ cutoff you find that the averages are approximately 114 for whites, 109 for Hispanics, and 106 for blacks. Whatever IQ cutoff is specified (whether 90, 100, 110, etc.) this difference in averages above the cutoff persists. The college ready whites are therefore smarter on average than the college ready blacks/Hispanics, just as college ready Asians and Jews are smarter on average than college ready whites. Another way to look at this is to consider what the minimum IQ of each graduate (5% of blacks/Hispanics, 32% of whites) would be if only the smartest of each group could graduate, which would give a general idea of how much the graduation rates are based on pure intelligence and how much on other factors like effort. This is in the nature of a thought experiment, since the smartest of each race do not attend community colleges. The underlying principles of analysis are about the same though--only there would be an IQ ceiling for each race in reality. If the smartest 5% of blacks/Hispanics and the smartest 32% of whites graduated, the minimum IQs for each race would be the following: black IQ: 106, Hispanic IQ: 116, white IQ: 107. This shows that if all blacks and whites with IQs above 107 graduated, the graduation rates would be almost exactly what the study found in reality: 4% for blacks, 32% for whites. This implies roughly equal effort and equal treatment among blacks and whites, though the 32% of whites with 107+ IQs still have higher average IQs than the blacks with 107+ IQs (which means in reality slightly better effort or treatment for the blacks). Hispanics in the 107-115 IQ range are not graduating as blacks and whites in that range are. The lack of effort therefore seems to be primarily an Hispanic problem. To get black numbers up to 32% you would have to arrange for blacks with minimum IQs of 91 to graduate. Moreover if Hispanic effort levels improved to match black/white levels, their graduation rate would rise from 5% to 13%.
Because the authors are politically correct socialist cowards, none of this IQ-based analysis finds its way into the 36 page report, even though my analysis explains everything very clearly. In particular, my analysis specifies the most correctable problem: lack of effort among Hispanics. Beyond that, only much lower academic standards across the board or, in the long run, differential eugenics would have much impact. And this study does not get close to the real problem, which is the huge disparities in the number of blacks/Hispanics capable of doing high level work, people at the 135+ IQ level. About 5% of Jews, 2% of Asians, 1% of whites, 0.2% of Hispanics, and 0.01% of blacks make this cutoff. Whites outnumber Hispanics 5 to 1 and blacks 100 to 1 at this level. Virtually all of the best scientists and inventors have IQs of at least 135. Many are 145+ where the ratios are 7 to 1 and 280 to 1. Without science and invention progress stops or, as in Sub-Saharan Africa, it never starts, or, as in "Idiocracy," progress turns into regress.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Exponentializing Orwell
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Our Inner Party is rather more clever and possessed also of rather more technological options than Oceania's Inner Party was. Though not very good qua novel, Orwell's conceptual apparatus strikes me more and more as an indispensable element of political education. Of course that evil and incompetent faggot, Hoover, commenced this subterranean war against the American citizenry back in the 20s. And to this day the FBI is far better at tracking down petty domestic threats than guarding against real threats, like the espionage programs run by major powers. The Farewell Dossier, hand delivered to Reagan via a top Soviet KGB agent in 1981, demonstrated that the Soviets had such a vast and comprehensive spy program in the West--especially in America--that the technology thus acquired had kept their economy and military afloat throughout the Cold War. Of course, before the Cold War we had simply given them our technological riches. In other words, their entire economy and most of their military was founded on exogenous innovation. Outside of modest contributions to pure science and a few military advances, there was no innovation in the Soviet bloc. It was a gigantic, truculent parasite. But, the FBI had detected virtually none of this activity. Apparently catching bank robbers and destroying the John Birch Society was more important in their provincial minds. Now the Chinese are the principal threat, yet no signs of savvy FBI countermeasures appear. Though their economy is more efficiently organized than the Soviet's was, they've yet to demonstrate a capacity for innovation. They are quite good at technology theft though. The FBI's primary role is to manufacture consent domestically. I suspect the DIA/NSA/CIA/NGA/NRO/OICI/TFI/INR/etc. nexus does little more than manufacture consent abroad. The "democracy" part of our polity is strictly for purposes of public entertainment, like the circuses, indeed very like the circuses, in old Rome. Whether this odd configuration of national defense can last one wonders. Against the Soviets, some success may be claimed. But, then, their economic system was so outrageously inefficient, it made us look good in comparison. Their capacity to utilize all the tech their spies stole was badly constrained by their economic system. The Chinese have a better--probably a much better--set up. And, their demographics look much more formidable numerically, and somewhat better qualitatively. Confining American espionage to manufacturing consent at home and abroad will next be measured by its effects on the two remaining great powers. Which will suffer more damage from the firehose of egalitarian propaganda issuing from NYC, LA, and DC?
Our Inner Party is rather more clever and possessed also of rather more technological options than Oceania's Inner Party was. Though not very good qua novel, Orwell's conceptual apparatus strikes me more and more as an indispensable element of political education. Of course that evil and incompetent faggot, Hoover, commenced this subterranean war against the American citizenry back in the 20s. And to this day the FBI is far better at tracking down petty domestic threats than guarding against real threats, like the espionage programs run by major powers. The Farewell Dossier, hand delivered to Reagan via a top Soviet KGB agent in 1981, demonstrated that the Soviets had such a vast and comprehensive spy program in the West--especially in America--that the technology thus acquired had kept their economy and military afloat throughout the Cold War. Of course, before the Cold War we had simply given them our technological riches. In other words, their entire economy and most of their military was founded on exogenous innovation. Outside of modest contributions to pure science and a few military advances, there was no innovation in the Soviet bloc. It was a gigantic, truculent parasite. But, the FBI had detected virtually none of this activity. Apparently catching bank robbers and destroying the John Birch Society was more important in their provincial minds. Now the Chinese are the principal threat, yet no signs of savvy FBI countermeasures appear. Though their economy is more efficiently organized than the Soviet's was, they've yet to demonstrate a capacity for innovation. They are quite good at technology theft though. The FBI's primary role is to manufacture consent domestically. I suspect the DIA/NSA/CIA/NGA/NRO/OICI/TFI/INR/etc. nexus does little more than manufacture consent abroad. The "democracy" part of our polity is strictly for purposes of public entertainment, like the circuses, indeed very like the circuses, in old Rome. Whether this odd configuration of national defense can last one wonders. Against the Soviets, some success may be claimed. But, then, their economic system was so outrageously inefficient, it made us look good in comparison. Their capacity to utilize all the tech their spies stole was badly constrained by their economic system. The Chinese have a better--probably a much better--set up. And, their demographics look much more formidable numerically, and somewhat better qualitatively. Confining American espionage to manufacturing consent at home and abroad will next be measured by its effects on the two remaining great powers. Which will suffer more damage from the firehose of egalitarian propaganda issuing from NYC, LA, and DC?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)