Anarcho-Tyranny Unleashed

This is an especially disgusting type of crime. Its enablers (police, media, politicians, ngo's) will suffer not the slightest punishment. The few perpetrators so far convicted received light sentences.

On the theory and practice of anarcho-tyranny: http://www.vdare.com/articles/anarcho-tyranny-where-multiculturalism-leads

Overview articles on Rotherham:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11066244/Rotherham-is-not-an-isolated-incident.html
http://mangans.blogspot.hk/2014/08/rotherham.html

Top feminist websites' (non)-coverage of Rotherham: http://www.kidstrangelove.com/2014/08/29/the-rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-and-the-american-media-coverage-in-pictures/

Some thoughts on the Rotherham atrocities from Nick Land and commenters (the "Cathedral" is the Leftist media-academic complex, those who lead the Leftist religion):

Nick Land:

The BBC fog-machine at work on the UK child-predation story:

Child sexual exploitation is happening in a “number of towns” in different parts of the country, according to the author of a damning report into abuse in Rotherham. … According to an estimate from the Children’s Commissioner for England three years ago, 2,409 children were identified as victims of exploitation by gangs over a 14-month period from 2010-11 …
 I’m going to assume that all the fanatically unspecified “men” (or “males”) involved are Muslims of Pakistani origin (abusing white children), unless presented with definite evidence to the contrary. Any other default would be an act of cognitive collaboration with Britain’s sordid little branch-operation of the Cathedral, and we’ve now seen with stark clarity what that enables.

Does the progressive media really think it can de-realize this festival of cultural ruin with a standard inattention protocol? If so, it has to count as an extraordinary peak hubris moment. Perhaps the left is structurally incapable of preventing itself from pushing things over the brink of catastrophe. It always has to take that one additional step, and it has no sense at all of how to back down.

There have to be a lot of people in the UK right now who would be delighted to see the media establishment strung up from lamp-posts, with panic and defection rife in journalistic ranks. It’s surely not impossible that the pattern now jutting into hideous visibility in Britain will evoke a disturbing sense of recognition elsewhere, possibly throughout the Anglosphere. As far as core Cathedral operating procedures are concerned, this has to be a period of (possibly unprecedented) vulnerability. As a source of regime threatening irritability, the Rotherham syndrome is the droit du seigneur of the new nobility — even among a pitifully broken people, it pushes some deeply atavistic buttons. Lies, sexual exploitation, and foreign invasion — who’d want to be PR manager for this cocktail of native degradation?


Commenters:

Scientism: I think perhaps we, from what I assume are our fairly “privileged” positions (not having been “vulnerable youth”, but I only speak for myself here), don’t quite grasp how insidious the Cathedral is. This looks to us like the Cathedral coming apart, but consider that what we have here is a system that managed to train a succession of civil servants to overlook abuse. Not just one or two, but seemingly every last person involved with the council, the police force and the charities, was trained to overlook this kind of abuse, for 16 years.

How can such an outcome be anything but the Cathedral firing on all cylinders, doing what it was designed to do? The immediate reality of the Cathedral for most of us is, essentially, having been misled by the media, having woken up and realised we’ve been lied to, perhaps knowing we’ve lost much of our culture. In the future, we expect some kind of collapse, we think things will get worse. But that’s in the future. On the other hand, the reality of the Cathedral for the civil servants, activists, etc, who are part of it is: Pakistani men raping little white girls while everybody looks the other way. The reality for the media: not reporting on these events, because it might make white people angry at a minority group. That’s their main concern, in both cases, not the abuse. That’s their daily lived experience: being complicit in atrocities while simultaneously being enraged by trivialities.

This is what these guys do all day and have been doing for years. A little scandal isn’t going to change the way they do things. The only thing that’s going to end this is economic collapse or war.


Kgaard: I do not see economic collapse, and I don’t see war coming to the UK’s shores anytime soon. So the existing system continues as is, I guess. When you look to the top of the power structure, the logic of it all is crystal clear: Big business wants the bodies to offset all the babies not being created by native Brits. Labour, meanwhile, wants the immigrants because immigrants vote Labour. So it’s a pact made in hell — and the same pact has been made in the US and much of continental Europe. There is no stopping it that I can see. Who stops it? Who can withstand the combined force of the ENTIRE power structure coming down on their head — from the political left to the right?

Scientism: It’s essentially a set of pernicious feedback loops. The civil servants, the media and a large portion of the British public are experiencing a severe belief bias effect where all evidence confirms their Leftist outlook. Every atrocity is cause to double down on their anti-racist efforts. These efforts protect and enable the gangs and cause more atrocities. This serves to confirm the horrors of systemic racism in the mind of the anti-racist. When the natives try to organise against the protected immigrants, they’re merely seen as racism incarnate, again confirming the Leftist outlook. It’s difficult to see any end to it. These aren’t rational people; they’re caught in a system that develops and maintains a kind of delusive belief system. With the media and most university educated members of the public complicit, there’s little hope of exposure. The outrage of the uneducated masses merely confirms their racist nature. Nationalist groups inevitably find solace in anti-system symbolism and end up goose-stepping down the street, again conforming the worldview of the anti-racists. Everybody has a role to play and everything confirms Leftism! How do you escape that?

A Nice Takedown

http://takimag.com/article/the_solipsism_of_john_edgar_wideman/print#axzz31O0o0ueE
Of course, Obama was in the same line of work as this professional whiner. It suited him.

An especially good line: "The unexamined life is, we are told, not worth living. If, like Mr. Wideman, you are one of modern liberalism’s pampered pets with a plush affirmative-action sinecure teaching a made-up pseudo-discipline so that some university can darken up its brochures to the degree required by federal regs, the over-examined life is worth a neat 200 grand a year, plus tenure."

Surrealism

 http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/04/obama-nsa-to-refocus-away-from.html

Also special: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/
A development like this marks a small decline in civilization itself. A running tally of such declines, which in these days come ever thicker and faster, would be instructive, I've no doubt. Those who think the utter dominance of Leftism in American discourse is a mere nuisance do not understand how culture evolves. The resentful hordes and the egalitarians, two mainly separate groups, are religious fanatics in action. Inferior people and groups are naturally resentful--what has changed is the increasing unwillingness of the naturally superior to defend their privileges--because the superior have mostly succumbed to the ideology of egalitarianism.

But, there is no equality either between individuals or between groups. Even the ancient philosophers knew that the only way to approach human equality is to level down. Considering just how far down certain groups are, that way lies civilizational collapse. Black Africa has never manifested the capacity for civilization; neither has Black America nor the Black Caribbean. Native Americans (including Mestizos) have demonstrated very little capacity for civilization. Neither race knows what achievements of civilizational consequence are. Neither race has ever produced a significant philosopher, theologian, prophet, composer, painter, architect, novelist, poet, playwright, inventor, scientist, engineer, mathematician, general, king, president, explorer. Not even one. Consider that the wheel had to be brought to them--neither of these peoples invented it themselves, no one in all the vastness of the Americas and Sub-Saharan Africa could conceive it, though Asia and Europe had had it for at least 5,000 years. Both the climate and the presence of civilization alter human evolutionary paths--and in both respects aboriginal Americans and Blacks are disadvantaged. Their lack of any meaningful achievements as peoples is unsurprising: consider how far they lag Europeans and East Asians in evolutionary adaptation to the requirements and the opportunities of civilization. I do not believe America can survive intact the psychological and ethnic shift currently underway toward Mestizos and Blacks. Technology and democracy-limiting political structures (such as we have already in abundance) might well suffice to contain effects of the ethnic decline. But, the psychological side of the game, political correctness (egalitarianism interpreted resentfully), assures ruin.

A Statistical Summation

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2013/08/whence-afro-criminality.html

 

Amongst many other things: think twice before you accept a black, Hispanic, or foreign-educated medical doctor. They are generally less qualified.

Note also, the behavioral differences are well-attested. They tend to be demonstrable very early in life--before, for example, a black knows he's a black.

Racial Profiling

Diversity Uber Alles

http://theden.tv/2013/09/23/the-diversity-racket-at-lehman-brothers/#sthash.M7wHEgZq.dpbs

 The parasite load in America is beginning to tell. Even without a major external threat, societies can stagnate or implode.


http://theden.tv/2013/09/27/benjamin-ginsberg-jews-have-undermined-wasp-america/#sthash.4dbU9jIb.dpbs

Those who have nothing to fear can speak the truth, including true jokes. It seems that in America diversity is merely a euphemism for Jew-rule. The immaculate chosen people kindly condescend to "reorganize" the rest of us so that we are all equal to each other, even as the chosen ones remain "more equal." The WASPs constitute a failed ruling class, a group who fell in the usual way: they no longer believed in themselves as the rightful rulers. This was also the deepest cause of the fall of the Soviet Union.

Unthinkable Patterns

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-hunt-for-great-white-defendant.html

Most people have only a subconscious awareness of this pattern--and all that their subconscious actually picks up is that white men are evil. Consider that the time factor may be The Cathedral's crucial advantage. These "great white defendants" are typically smeared by the media for months before they are vindicated. Not being especially bright or rational in any of us, the subconscious ineluctably absorbs months of anti-white propaganda. Is this long training in "good thinking" supposed to be effectively counterbalanced by one day of articles that offer quiet, subdued, coldly factual confirmation--not of innocence, of course--but of dubious acquittal? The Cathedral can fail every attempt to generate its ideal defendant--that is mere tactical failure--the powerful subterranean current of its endless propaganda will continue to win the war, will continue to erode away the foundations of Western civilization.

And didn't Sailer provide a convenient collection for us? Do you know of anyone out there today--or even any publication--that does better journalism, within such a range of specialization, than Steve Sailer?

The Tide Comes Back In

From the Wire Services:

Former President George W. Bush wants Republicans to consider immigration on its own merits, not just as a party saving piece of legislation, he said during an interview on ABC's This Week. "Sometimes, it takes time for some of these complex issues to evolve. And it looks like immigration, you know, has a chance to pass," Bush said. "The reason to pass immigration reform is not to bolster a Republican Party -- it's to fix a system that's broken. Good policy yields good politics as far as I'm concerned." The bill's uncertain future in the House after the Senate passed it last week is causing some concern. But Bush argues the bill is too important not to pass. "It's very important to fix a broken system, to treat people with respect and have confidence in our capacity to assimilate people," Bush said. "It's a very difficult bill to pass because there's a lotta moving parts. And the legislative process is-- can be ugly. But it looks like they're making some progress."

Jeb Bush came out in favor of this amnesty + new immigration wave not long ago.
And I'm sure Bush Sr. supports the notion as well--he certainly did not oppose Reagan's amnesty in 86'. That amnesty produced the largest immigration wave in American history, and a baby-boom among the immigrants.
This is seen by "La Raza" (the race), as Mexicans prefer to call themselves, as an invitation to the Reconquista--the reconquering of the territory lost in the Mexican-America War. Here is the progress they've made so far in the states that we formed out of our conquest of Northern Mexico in 1848:

Pop % Hispanic
CA: 38M 39%
AZ: 6.5M 31%
NM: 2.1M 47%
TX: 26.1M 38%
NV: 2.8M 27%
UT: 2.8M 13%
CO: 5.2M 21%

Total: 83.5M 36%

Whether they try to make a clean break with the Union or not (and I do hope they provide the Western World with a lesson sorely needed), they will have at least de facto political control over most of the old Mexican Cession within 10 years. Considering how Mexicans run Mexico, optimism here would be a lie so large that only our elite could get away with it. And, remember, La Raza recovers its lands with or without the pending amnesty. As usual in America, it's merely a question of whether leftist results are achieved quickly or slowly. The direction is always Left. We live in a one party state that showers the blessings, and only the blessings, the rewards without the risks, of capitalism upon the elite and inflicts socialism upon the vast remainder. The only decent political position that remains to us is dissidence, outright opposition to the sick alliance of egalitarian moral fanatics and crony capitalists who now run the country untrammeled.

On Colonial Redemption

When we fail to oversee the natives, our Africans remember how Africa works (and yes all 4 baby mamas are black): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313882/Tavon-White-Murderer-fathered-FIVE-children-FOUR-guards.html





Ah, the psycho-pathology of African life. No wonder the Cathedral wants to flood us with mestizos--eventually these mestizos will presumably do what they did in Mexico: literally breed the Africans out of existence. Africans once roamed the wilds of Mexico. Now they're gone. Except, it happens that your average mestizo has 3% African DNA. The question then arises, what is the maximum amount of African blood consistent with a manageable race? Perhaps Brazil holds some answers to that one, with its wide ranging racial experiments.

Some Holdouts Speak

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/stupidity-a-malady-of-the-cultural-elite

 

This is a Catholic take on the course of Western decadence. I have noticed that intelligence and erudition are not often lacking in the Catholic intellecto-sphere. Even the comments maintain a standard.

 

I might riposte with the sense that a true tracing of our moral decline rounds right back to Christianity itself, especially the Puritan branch which eventually produced that fleur du mal, New England's Christian Socialism. It is this Christian Socialism that infected our elite more than 100 years ago, claiming the title of "Progressivism," and which morphed and melded, under increasing Jewish-cosmopolitan influence, into a mode of Europeanized thought better termed cultural Marxism. What we now have, then, is a hyper-egalitarian form of Christianity minus God. And this set of values not only determines the political and social trends of America, but is exported aggressively to the world. Our first target, Western Europe, is notable for being even more thoroughly dominated by cultural Marxism than we are--not surprising if one considers that we played Dr. Frankenstein to their corpse-monster after the War. They are our creatures; our elite made them what they are, without any interference from elements like the masses--nor even from powerful residual institutions (like the Catholic Church), such as slow down leftist reforms in America. Our elites availed themselves of the tabula rasa they'd created--one reason FDR determined upon unconditional surrender at war's end.

 

In considering of this article, I reflected further upon the value system in which our elite places its faith and for which it exercises its power. One of the handful of pivots is the spiritual and material benefits of diversity upon which they presume.

 

Supporters of diversity presuppose uniformity of human talents across groups, at the genetic level at least, and consider that all signs of non-uniformity of talent indicate different cultural and other environmental conditions. They do not believe in meaningful genetic diversity across groups. They therefore deem cases in which a group is underrepresented to be proof that there is prejudice against that group in the particular field. They seek, then, to achieve cultural/racial/sexual diversity in each field, at whatever cost to other factors, such as competence. The problem arises from the initial presupposition of equal human talents across groups: this is quite clearly not the case. There is in the world both genetic and cultural diversity across groups, to different degrees and variously intermixed. In other words, to achieve "diversity" these diversocrats ignore real genetic diversity and seek to include diverse cultures in every field at equal levels of representation, which has the effect of reducing real cultural diversity. The attempt to equalize the interests and achievements of every culture guts the particularity of each culture, its essential character. So they seek to ignore one form of natural diversity (the genetic) and reduce the other (the cultural). It's a nice Orwellian game for the religiously earnest devotees of diversity to deny one major form of human diversity and suppress the other.

 

"Diversity," as used by these people, our elite, actually means uniformity. They want uniformity, at least in the masses. They believe this will render the world more politically stable and also make people easier for them to mold because more interchangeable. They fear that the scientifically confirmed genetic differences between human groups, races especially, will exacerbate the usual tensions caused by cultural contrasts. Of course, they have a point here. But, one may well question both the means and the ends of their workings. Is uniformity really a superior human future to one featuring conflict and competition? Have they failed to notice that China, like all healthy nations, seeks primacy, and not merely of the primus inter pares sort? And this egalitarian fantasy combines with the infatuation with pity-motivated and -justified government social supports to create a society which inflicts equality by leveling down. After all, the standard may always be lowered, but the more it is raised the more exclusionary it necessarily becomes. The decline of standards throughout society follows ineluctably. Anyone who disagrees with this interpretation of the meaning and priority of diversity is rigorously excluded from the elite. Intellectual diversity is proscribed.  

 

This is the wrong way. The incapables ought to be discouraged from breeding, and if an entire group manifests disproportionate incapacity, then that group ought to move to a nation dominated by its type--or submit to its fate, as determined by talent and effort, among superior people.

IQ and Infectious Disease

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/29/rspb.2010.0973.full
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/07/reader-writes-in-reference-to-new-paper.html
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/07/guardian-lower-iqs-found-in-disease.html
http://www.economist.com/node/16479286

Science as the Evasion of Science by Means of Political Correctness
The first link is to a recent paper on the link between infectious disease rates in different nations and their IQ levels. They found a correlation of r = -.82 (the closer to -1, the stronger the negative correlation). They then mention, in passing, this curious inconvenience: 

Lynn (1991) and Rushton (1995, 2000) proposed that temperature and climate provide important Darwinian selective pressures for intelligence, with cold climates selecting for higher intelligence, because low temperatures provide more fitness-related problems for humans that must be solved through cognitively demanding means, and through more complex social organization. Templer & Arikawa (2006) tested and supported predictions of this proposal in a cross-national study and found that average IQ correlated significantly with winter high temperature (r = −0.76), winter low temperature (r = −0.66)...Templer & Arikawa (2006) also found that average IQ correlated significantly with average skin darkness (r = −0.92). The authors offered little explanation of why this trend exists, except that they believed skin colour was related to exposure to certain climates over evolutionary time.

Yes, skin pigmentation is a stronger predictor of international IQ differences than any other factor yet discovered. The second best predictor is infectious disease rates, third average winter temperatures--both of these two factors, however, may be considered good proxies for skin pigmentation since infectious diseases are more prevalent in the environment (and not only in the populace) in equatorial regions and higher latitude strongly correlates with the lighter skin pigment of peoples who evolved at those latitudes. This means that when skin color is used as a predictor of national IQ, it is highly accurate in its predictions and essentially eliminates the supposed predictive powers of infectious disease rates. To be fair, it is also true that when this process is inverted and infectious disease rates are first used as predictors of IQ, skin color has reduced predictive power beyond that gained by looking at infectious disease levels. These two characteristics almost cancel each other out--though, again, skin color has a bit more power. This makes the problem of distinguishing the causal factors from the merely correlative factors much more difficult. In dealing with various other potential influences on IQ expression, they used statistical analysis to clarify degree of overlap in the correlations compared. This way the proportion of causation to be assigned to each factor may be estimated more accurately. But, in the case of the most powerful correlation (and presumptively the most important), skin color, here's how the study's authors approached their challenge:

Although Templer & Arikawa (2006) found a positive relationship between IQ and skin darkness, we will not use skin darkness in our analyses for three reasons: (i) although evidence suggests that skin darkness is a measure of historical infectious disease intensity over evolutionary time, it is unclear exactly what kind of infectious diseases it is indicative of (see discussion); (ii) Templer & Arikawa (2006) argued that the relationship between skin darkness and IQ is not causal; and (iii) Templer & Arikawa (2006) did not sufficiently explain why the association between intelligence and skin darkness exists. Without a reasonable theoretical framework for this association, we did not feel it was appropriate to compare it with other variables for which there is a better theoretical rationale.

What's this? Inconvenient data? Will the reviewers let us toss it? Yes? And they agree with us that political correctness must here prevail over science and reason? Yes? Then let it be tossed!

Truly, it must be a bit discouraging for scientists to have to write such weak stuff. But, if you want to be published in "mainstream" journals, the proper political mask must be donned--howsoever ridiculous it may be. After all, in our time, this does not count as stupidity among one's peers. It's only convention, habit, a matter of rote--and barely distracts the conscious mind for a moment. Enough.

My rebuttal to their "reasons" for not analysing the skin color factor:

It scarcely matters what specific infectious diseases skin color may be a marker of--darker skin is known to be associated with enhanced protection from infectious disease in general. This leads to the inference that the pressures exerted by Darwinian selection in equatorial regions favored those with stronger immune systems, the added strength of which may have diverted resources from the highly resource intensive human brain. Those who allocate their energetic resources optimally for their environment survive and reproduce most successfully, enacting natural selection. Dark skin is genetically determined. The same forces which caused the evolution of dark skin may very well, by this logic, have caused a genetically determined reduced allocation of resources to the brain development of dark skinned people. It looks as though some IQ is given up at the genotypic level and, for those still exposed to equatorial disease rates, still more IQ is given up at the phenotypic level when children must fight off diseases. The different degree of exposure to infectious disease in childhood may provide part of the explanation for the IQ differences between Africans raised in developed nations and those still living in Africa. African-Americans (and African-Dutch and African-English) run at about 83-86 on IQ tests, indigenous Africans manifest, for various reasons, a large range of 64-82. In contrast to the evolutionary pressures faced by the dark skinned equatorial dwellers, those who left Africa 60,000 years ago and migrated north confronted a harsher environment which may have constrained them to evolve more intelligence than their tropical ancestors had required. Reduced UV exposure coterminously caused evolution of lighter skin. I think this constitutes a "reasonable theoretical framework." It's called The Theory of Evolution.

Another sign that their chosen leading predictor of IQ may be second best is the major group of outliers that can be seen in Figure 1 of the paper. These countries have IQs about 15-25 points lower than their disease rates would predict. They happen to be a group of African-populated Caribbean countries with relatively low disease rates, yet IQs consistent with those found in disease-ridden Africa. The authors' "explanation":  "Because these outliers are in the same geographical location, it is possible that local parasites that are not included in the DALY owing to infectious disease variable are causing these outliers." That's it. No notice that these countries are not outliers when skin color and IQ are graphed. I might add that the authors are quite lucky that American blacks never founded their own nation in N America. If you add American, Dutch, English blacks to their graph these groups would also constitute a group of major outliers about 15 IQ points below their disease-predicted levels. By comparison, East Asian nations end up 11 IQ points above their disease-predicted levels (there does appear to be a latitudinal or racial gradient for IQ in East Asia, which, when accounted for, leaves little if any predictive power to disease). Europeans are close to their predicted levels. Another point is that, in comparing Sub-Saharan African nations, no IQ-disease relationship visible in the data. Given the skin color similarity, this is perhaps unsurprising. The virtual absence of an IQ-disease relationship once nations are grouped according to skin color is rather striking. This absence is true in groups comprising Sub-Saharan Africa, N Europe, S Asia, NE Asia, and SE Asia.  The lack of relationship in S America (inclusive of the Caribbean) is so obvious that the authors admit to it themselves. There seems to be some disease-IQ relationship in S Europe (which would make them an anomaly, the exception that proves my proposed rule that the authors thesis lacks a sound basis in the data presented).

What do we have left of the original thesis? This: infectious disease rates may be considered a proxy for skin color in most places. Those cases where they are not a proxy (eg, blacks in rich northern countries or healthy caribbean ones) may reveal the racial component in genetic IQ determination. Since both infectious disease rates and skin color are latitudinally determined in most cases, the clearest way to reveal the relative causal power of these two factors would be to find instances where either disease or skin color are not in line with what is typical of a given latitude. In Singapore, we have a case of equatorial latitude, but low disease prevalence (2.7) and light skin (most being of Chinese extraction). Result (with both factors in its favor): average IQ 108, the highest in the world and 17 points higher than disease levels predict--as much as a 17 point racial bonus, though some of this is certainly non-racially determined. Surrounding Singapore, Malaysia is almost half lighter-skinned Chinese, the rest darker indigenous Malays, with a disease level (3.2) somewhat higher. IQ is 92, 6 points higher than disease-predicted. Another Chinese-based racial bonus?

Nations in the following graph (I made it based on the paper's data) are all of the 18 non-African nations with the highest disease burden (3.5-4.4, compared to the 4.2-4.8 range in black Africa), the closest disease-based comparison to sub-Saharan Africa.

High Disease Non-African Nations:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S290610_-A9

First, and once again, there is little disease-predicted IQ relationship to be seen here. Second, on average these unhealthy nations have IQs 5.5 points higher that predicted by the disease-IQ correlation. By comparison, black Africa is 4.5 points lower than predicted. In other words, these unhealthy non-African nations had IQs measuring 85, the black African nations measured 68--a 17 point difference--whereas according to the disease-IQ theory the numbers should have been 79.5 and 72.5, which would be a 7 point disease-created difference. Could it be that black Africans have a more serious case of melanin over-determination? Amusingly, the only two non-African nations actually within the black African disease range (4.2-4.8) are Cambodia (4.2, IQ 91) and Afghanistan (4.4, IQ 84). These are the two most direct comparisons with black Africa and they clock in at 16 and 23 points higher than black African average IQ. It's difficult to think of any IQ relevant advantages those two have over Africa. Except skin color, of course.

So, when we compare black African IQs to the 18 globally scattered nations with similar disease burdens, African IQs fall well short of the expected level, insofar as disease is at all determinative. And when we compare blacks in various rich countries with low disease burdens to other races in such places we find that blacks fall 10-15 points short. The consistency of this shortfall in every study and every environment of which I am aware is quite impressive.

The ironic thing about this post is that I've followed the data in a direction that surprises me. As an a priori matter, I expected infectious disease to be a major factor in creating IQ deficits. But, once race is accounted for, it looks as though the impact is limited. With uncontrolled studies like this (ones without good control groups), one can only estimate the degree of causation behind disparate IQ levels. And different causes will have more influence in some nations than others. In America, infectious disease levels are low and therefore cannot explain much of any deficit that may exist. For the black American deficit vis-a-vis white Americans other causal factors must be sought. Besides, as the authors commendably note, there are multiple other factors, known and unknown, that influence the phenotypic expression of the genetically-determined IQ potential.  Nutrition, education, wealth, pollution exposures, stress levels (like growing up in a war zone), mental stimulus in the environment, familiarity with testing--it's likely that all of these elements (and probably others) play a role in achieving one's genetically-determined potential IQ. Disentangling the relative causal power of each factor will only ever be an exercise in estimations. All of these factors have improved in those places (all rich countries) where the Flynn effect (IQ scores rising 2-3 points per decade over the last 100 years) has been observed.

Various studies have come up with an IQ heritability number of about 80% for adults (even the red-tainted NY Times assents to this established figure). The main qualification of this number is that it presumes a similarly favorable environment for the parents and children. The Flynn effect makes for a secondary qualification, though the IQ increases seen in the developed world are diminishing. These stable, favorable conditions are found in the rich world, not in the third world. If you have black African parents with typical 68 IQs, roughly 30% of IQ variation would be genetic. Black Americans with typical 84 IQ parents might have 80% of their IQ genetically determined--though this percentage might be lower for the extremely poor. Basically, the worse your environment, the less influential genes are in finalizing your IQ and the more influential is the environment.

On the whole, analyzed critically, this paper is useful in diagnosing some of the problems causing low IQ. It would have been rather better had it presented a proper statistical analysis of the race-IQ correlation compared to the disease-IQ correlation. This would have provided a clearer view of the proportion of IQ lost to disease. Nevertheless, disease certainly takes its toll on a phenotypic level. And, whether the worst effected lose 3 points or 15 points (I suspect it's about 6-8 points in the worst areas, though the paper implicitly claims something like 12-15 points), it's worth funding corrective measures. Bill Gates has explained that this is part of the rationale for his multi-billion dollar effort to cure the major diseases of black Africa. On a return on investment (ROI) basis, even if African lives are valued at relatively low dollar amounts, this area has been hugely underfunded for decades. Gates knows this too. Unfortunately, most NGOs are mismanaged by mediocrities and timeservers ducking the challenges of private sector competition. The non-profit sector of the economy is flabby and incompetent precisely because they are not forced into fitness by the competitive forces of capitalism--the only thing (some of them) compete for is handouts--and this is the only thing most are good at, coincidentally--as Gates also knows and even, delightfully, says. Not only is the money for poor countries' assistance misspent, but too little is allocated to begin with. The other source of funds, rich country governments, also have the very same competency problems common to all non-competitive enterprises and have historically done little good (though there be exceptions, esp work on eradicating small pox and polio). If black Africa were at the IQ levels of black Americans (84), they would then be at the same level as these countries: Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco. All are in better shape than black Africa--Brazil and Mexico have progressed so far as to escape into the second world. There are also a couple of failed or failing states at that IQ level (Afghanistan and Pakistan), nor is IQ anywhere near the sole determinant of national success (or any other success). My contention: a reasonable national IQ is necessary, but not sufficient.

A few graphs I created from the paper's data, broken down into world regions (and skin color), showing, except in S Europe, limited IQ-disease correlation once region/race are accounted for:
Sub-Saharan Africa and Black Caribbean nations:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S290505LvL5
NE Asia:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S290517b9r1
SE Asia:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S290519Fue6
S Europe:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S290611C5lb
N Europe:
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=S290612tTHr

Obama Logic

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/09/barack-obama-on-bell-curve.php This is one of the very few things Obama has actually put his name to. It makes for totally unoriginal propaganda along the main line of political correctness. How surprising. Obama says (circa 1994): 1. IQ tests are illegitimate 2. cancelling affirmative action and welfare is racist 3. blacks need to take responsibility for their lives 4. blacks have never had equal opportunity in reality 5. equal opportunity would require heavy (or heavier) government spending/intervention in the lives of the poor I agree with #3. #1 is a harmful form of denial. #2 presumes that America owes reparations to blacks, which it does not. I might add that calling others racist without clear cause and justification is itself racist. #4 blacks have received more than they've given since 1965 in financial, professional, and educational terms--and it is a pregnant symbol of the self-defeating attitude of the black community that by the second generation, every non-black group of immigrants (having started with less) has surpassed American blacks in all measurable socioeconomic statistics. #5 government intervention has been so pervasive and is so incompetent and psychologically damaging that it has been, is, and will be counterproductive.

Crossing the Line

This is not the sort of review one expects to find in a leftist magazine like The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/book/review/what-hope Nevertheless, even if enlightenment is achieved by the socialist component of our polity--I think a change of policy likely to lag very far behind, for political, psychological, and cognitive reasons. This is a key insight: Wax [author of the book under review] is well aware that past discrimination created black-white disparities in education, wealth, and employment. Still, she argues that discrimination today is no longer the “brick wall” obstacle it once was, and that the main problems for poor and working-class blacks today are cultural ones that they alone can fix. Not that they alone should fix—Wax is making no moral argument—but that they alone can fix.          The Johnsonian "Great Society" interventions in black America are as flagrant a public policy failure as the Nixonian "War on Drugs" that followed. In each case, the government stepped in, all money and arrogance, spent profligately to ensure black men no longer faced any financial responsibilities, ruined millions of American lives by process of moral hazard, and made the original problems much worse. The black family was ruthlessly destroyed as an institution, and black culture went with it. Further, as I've mentioned at other times, the black-white IQ gap is not irrelevant to the problem. It has persisted at the same level for the 100 years that IQ testing has been administered. But, to reiterate a basic consequence of this fact, if the top third of whites pull bachelors degrees, their average IQ would be about 114 and the minimum would be 106. Only 8% of blacks meet this minimum and 2.5% meet the average--a fourfold difference between college-capable whites and blacks. With ever more sophisticated demands faced by professionals, the fact that only 8% of blacks can hope to meet those demands constitutes a serious problem requiring such redress as we can muster. Wax does mention this, but only in a single paragraph that fails to grapple with its implications. I do credit her, however, with the courage to admit that the possibility of genetic differences in IQ between races yet remains, "the science on this question is inconclusive." (69) In the next quote, I disagree with the reviewer, who hasn't learned the limits of governmental competence. Throwing more handouts at black America will exacerbate the problem, which stems in the first instance from a lack of self-reliance reinforced over decades by the nanny state. Wax stipulates that the government should do all that it can to ensure equal opportunity, which includes providing decent education and enforcing civil rights laws. I [the reviewer] would say that there is somewhat more that the government can do, given the historical circumstances. Programs to ease ex-cons back into society could do infinitely more for black inner-cities than suing car companies over small differences in loan deals. The welfare state imposes a system of incentives on blacks that encourages irresponsibility. Black men who walk on their families are at the center of the problem. But, why do they walk? They did not do this in 1960. What has fundamentally changed except the vast and comprehensive governmental provision of all necessities to black mothers and children? And the less involved the father is, the greater the government's largesse. The incentives are clearly perverse, and they have achieved the effect one might have expected. Incentives work. I do not mean to claim that this monstrous bureaucratic affliction impacts only blacks--attenuated versions may be seen among other groups as well. The welfare state has entirely remade lower and working class American society. It has not only robbed these orders of all dignity, but even of the sense that human dignity has value. So have the economic incentives crafted by our left-wing experts corrupted the character of much of America. The author, seeing the psychological results without fully understanding the causes which lie embedded in the system, then moves on to her summation: Wax usefully asks: “Is it possible to pursue an arduous program of self-improvement while simultaneously thinking of oneself as a victim of grievous mistreatment and of one’s shortcomings as a product of external forces?” To the extent that our ideology on race is more about studied radicalism than about a healthy brand of what Wax calls an internal locus of control, her book provokes, at least in this reader, a certain hopelessness. If she is right, then the bulk of today’s discussion of black America is performance art. Tragically, and for the most part, she is right. This is dead on. The whole of our handling of black America since Johnson has been a cynical game of elites (especially gentile and Jewish elites) engaged in social status competition. The most "generous" on the face of it, at the superficial level, won the competition, as demonstrated by the ever leftward tendency of our politics. Assuming that the poor are angels who will not humanly respond to incentives in the way that the contemptible "bourgeois" would counted as a sound basis for policy design. It turns out the poor are human, and the incentives came into play, and the poor were ruined--just as the middle classes would have suffered ruination had the incentives been generous enough to tempt them. This is what comes of officially sanctioned lies. To adapt Henry James, these are the black and merciless things that are behind the great socializations.

Affirmative Action in Action

check out the graph on the second page: http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Racial-Wealth-Gap-Brief.pdf When you hand out undeserved high paid jobs to affirmative action beneficiaries, is it any surprise that they behave not according to their income, but according to their (mental) abilities? This goes back to the relationship between intelligence and time horizons--the higher the intelligence level, the longer the time horizon. In this context, this means white people invest for the future, blacks for the present. In other words, giving blacks high pay is a waste of money since they squander it instead of investing in the country's economic future.

A Key to the Mystery

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html?src=me&ref=general I deem this study slightly dubious, but, if true, it would imply that African and non-African races could be considered separate sub-species--an implication oddly consonant with experience and observation. Also to remember: neanderthal brains were at least as large as human brains.   I wonder a little at the idiot presumption of the researchers that the gene flow would have to cut both ways. Have they failed to notice that a neanderthal male is far more likely to assault a woman, than a man is to assault a (butt-ugly) neanderthal female?

Socialism in Action

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html?hpw   "The South Bronx, Plagued by Obesity, Tops a Hunger Survey" You've got to love a headline like that! How did they determine these denizens are hungry? Well, they asked them whether they were short of food money at least once in the last year. In America, answering yes is sufficient to define you as hungry--at least, under socialist lights. Who believes this crap? It's not enough that we feed these morons with food stamps and free school lunch and breakfast--now they want us to subsidize the healthy items of their free food--since they cannot make intelligent decisions for themselves. They do not have healthy foods in these areas because businesses cannot make money selling what people do not want. It's no accident that this area is entirely overrun with blacks, puerto ricans, and dominicans--the third world imported to America and put on welfare because they cannot function in a first world society. The socialists know this--they will not say they know it, but their actions betray the knowledge. An eloquent British perspective on this issue, fortified with "knowledge by acquaintance": https://www.city-journal.org/html/starving-criminal-12383.html Excerpts: The existence of malnutrition in the midst of plenty has not entirely escaped either the intelligentsia or the government, which of course is proposing measures to combat it: but, as usual, neither pols nor pundits wish to look the problem in the face or make the obvious connections. For them, the real and most pressing question raised by any social problem is: “How do I appear concerned and compassionate to all my friends, colleagues, and peers?” Needless to say, the first imperative is to avoid any hint of blaming the victim by examining the bad choices that he makes. It is not even permissible to look at the reasons for those choices, since by definition victims are victims and therefore not responsible for their acts, unlike the relatively small class of human beings who are not victims....He feels the need to retreat into impersonal abstractions, into structures or alleged structures over which the victim has no control. And out of this need to avoid the rawness of reality he spins utopian schemes of social engineering. The British intelligentsia has thus come up with an abstraction that fits this particular bill perfectly—that is to say, the need to explain widespread malnutrition in the midst of plenty without resort to the conduct of the malnourished themselves: food deserts....The only homes in which there were ever any signs of genuine cookery and of eating as a social activity, where families discussed the topics of daily life and affirmed their bonds to one another, were those of the Indian immigrants. In white and black homes, cookery meant (at its best) re-heating in a microwave oven, and there was no table round which people could sit together to eat the re-heated food. Meals here were solitary, poor, nasty, British, and short....The Indian immigrants and their descendants inherited a far better and more elaborate cuisine than the native British, of course, but this is not a sufficient explanation of their willingness still to buy fresh food and to cook it: they continue to cook because they still live in families, and cookery is a socially motivated art. Even among Indian heroin addicts (principally Muslim), the kind of malnutrition I have described is rare, because they do not yet live in the solipsistic isolation of their white counterparts, who live alone, even when there are other people inhabiting the house or apartment in which they themselves live....If food deserts truly exist—and they cannot in these times of easy transport be very extensive—the explanation lies in demand, not in supply. And demand is a cultural phenomenon... The connections I have drawn are obvious, yet denied—or rather avoided altogether—in the typical modern British approach to social problems... The liberal intelligentsia has several reasons for failing to see or admit the cultural dimension of malnutrition in the midst of plenty—in failing to see its connection with an entire way of life—and in throwing the blame instead onto the supermarket chains. One reason is to avoid confronting the human consequences of the changes in morals, manners, and social policy that it has consistently advocated. The second is to avoid all appearance of blaming people whose lives are poor and unenviable. That this approach leads it to view those same people as helpless automata, in the grip of forces that they cannot influence, let alone control—and therefore as not full members of the human race—does not worry the intelligentsia in the least. On the contrary, it increases the importance of the elite’s own providential role in society. To blame the supermarket chains is implicitly to demand that the liberal and bureaucratic elite should have yet more control over society. This is how the British government’s current Food Poverty Eradication Bill should be interpreted. By attempting to tackle the sources of supply rather than those of demand, it will sidestep the question of an entire way of life—a problem that it would take genuine moral courage to tackle—and aim at an easy target instead. The government will increase bureaucracy and regulation without reducing malnutrition. This, in miniature, is the story of modern Britain.

The Mindset of Black America

Black psychology in America is a slavish psychology in the sense that Nietzsche means when referring to "slave morality." They transitioned from a slave class to a federally protected underclass, then were made wards of the state by LBJ, Nixon, and the "liberal consensus" of that time. In other words, they have always existed in a dependent status as a people, though they were progressively closing in on independent status during the Jim Crow era. Hence, burdened by this sense of a separate history, they do not conceptualize citizens' rights in the same way as other Americans, that such rights form the great bulwarks of individual liberty. They view liberty as a threat to their protected status, to the supposed safety of their dependency. Their other major psychological problem, and another fundamentally slavish condition of the mind, is a lack of trust in others. They mistrust non-blacks for historical and cultural reasons; they mistrust government due to its association with the police power; and they mistrust fellow blacks due to prevalent and atavistic criminal tendencies.

Judging from the history of the Jews (admittedly an entirely different culture in most ways and one which had the signal advantage of starting with and sustaining a unified cultural and religious tradition through their periods of enslavement), it may be that a people, once overcome by slavery and a slave morality, can only achieve a restoration of their full humanity by establishing and governing their own nation. Of course, this was attempted in the case of Liberia--but, in fairness, the attempt was, from the beginning, highly prejudiced by lack of resources. A counterpoint to this line of thought would be the case of the Indians, who, despite the opportunity to govern quasi-nations of their own, seem unable to escape their own version of slave psychology (though some of the casino Indians are now rather rich dependents). The ward-races of America, however, are too far domesticated by government largesse, and the elites of their races too corrupted by race quotas that divorce them from the highest aspirations of their peoples--under these conditions salutary reforms of political conditions that might redound to ennoble the unproductive, slave-minded races will not even be thought of, and will not be discussed, and will not happen.

How Loopholes Create Monsters

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/us/politics/14cbc.html?hp

Everyone in Washington has known for years that the Black Caucus is a morally bankrupt laughingstock. The black elite is only interested in the black elite? Really? The NY Times is not only the paper of record, but the paper of revelation too! But, to be fair to the black elite, they are still sufficiently conscious of the "other" Black America to religiously support the socialist agenda of keeping the "other" Black America a ward of the state--and treating them as just such dependents and incapables as the Left-Wing elite has always assumed them to be.

Pay for Failure

A judge has decided that a test is discriminatory against blacks because they score lower on it than whites: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/nyregion/22vulcan.html?hpw And those who failed the test now get compensation payouts or unearned jobs with the fire department, including "retroactive seniority." How long will it be until black groups in this country manage to get all forms of testing outlawed as racist? I cannot think of a widely administered test on which blacks come close to matching whites. Therefore, ipso facto, all must be discriminatory. The title of this post fairly summarizes socialist political philosophy. It seems like all the liberal constituencies have policy agendas that weaken this country. They are the party of national self-destruction. Also, these are all collectivist groups, who disparage the dignity of the individual. They tolerate parasitism and encourage dependency.  To be fair, conservatives tend to be too uncritically fond of militarism and corporatism, neither of which conduce to individualism either. And they are overswayed by religionists and give disproportionate consideration to monetary priorities over others (eg, culture, environment, aesthetics, health, education, national strength, etc). In large part, the dementias afflicting both parties are set on by the corrupt procedure of gerrymandering political districts: the result of such is to segregate leftist voters in one voting district from rightists in another. Both sides then evolve "purer" forms of their underlying ideologies and place these ideologically pure types into office. First, both ideologies have serious problems, as above noted. Second, this process encourages a dogmatic, unthinking, inflexible, uncompromising, backward-thinking attitude among all politicians--which means stagnation, lack of useful innovations in the public sphere.

Reality Dares to Poke Up Its Head

One of the 2 or 3 premier scientific journals in the world published an audacious editorial discussed on Steve Sailer's blog:

 http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/lahn-lets-celebrate-human-genetic.html

Note the label at the article's end. This ought to throw the commy-pinko-fags into a fine fit.