Whoa, guys. Take it easy! Saying some cultures are so much better than others? All these personal attacks? Can’t we just get along?

Mecca Godzilla, I know you feel strongly about the problems that the western world has, but don’t get too out of hand with it. Sure, we got problems that people in other parts of the world don’t. But we also should be thankful for what we do have. Be glad that we have a freedom that few others get to enjoy. If you were in one of those countries, you’d probably get half of your comments censored and would not be allowed to say what you can say. We have free thought, religion, press, etc.

Jay Man, I know that Mecca Godzilla was harsh, but couldn’t you cut him a little slack? He’s a human being, too, and even though I don’t entirely agree with him, he still made some good points. Is it really necessary to shut him off? This is supposed to be a free, thoughtful discussion. Let’s try to make things right.

Above all else, it seems that what really makes a society the way it is would be its culture.

Northern Europe and North America, though they are less religious today, have that protestant work ethic that drives them to be very industrious, and that I think is why they tend to be the richest countries in the world. Technology helps, too, of course.

Meanwhile, Mediterranean and Latin American countries are not as wealthy, and never developed that same hyperindustrious streak that their northern counterparts did, and have more corrupt governments. But the people do seem to have a better sense of family and strong moral values. They’re very friendly people, and I’ve noticed they really care about others a lot.

It’s interesting to see how such things really shape how societies develop. Cool article.

Don’t let Jay man bully you into agreement, Cosmic Yeti. You have the right to disagree with him all you want. He’s sadly misled. But we at least know better than those who are sleepers for the establishment. Peace.

“This is of course complete nonsense.”

Speak for yourself. Look, I’m not saying Russia and China et al. are completely clean. But they aren’t as degenerate as the west. Like I said, western countries are less overt in their tyranny, and have a “polite totalitarianism”, making it look like we are free and thus leaving people oblivious. But we are not free. Our politicians are very corrupt and dishonest. But you, of course, are too blind to realize that. The western world today is a sham.

https://www.juancole.com/2013/12/corrupt-country-world.html

http://www.westernjournalism.com/dnc-corruption-core-latest-evidence/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12124910/Sir-Bernard-Ingham-EU-is-corrupt-useless-and-riddled-with-fraud.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/corruption-in-the-european-union-scandals-in-banking-fraud-and-secretive-ttip-negotiations/5543935

The basis of your “data” is flawed. Any country that is influenced by degenerate postmodern America is very corrupt politically and morally, serving elitist and international interests such as the UN, NATO, EU, any central bank, crony capitalists, and the MSM over serving the nation. The reason they seem so clean and transparent is that they’re the complete opposite, as in their corruption and suppression is much sneakier than that of Russia, China, the Middle East, etc. As a result, people are much more easily fooled to believe their countries are clean because they themselves have been corrupted. That’s why southern and eastern Europeans are more likely to see corruption in their countries than northern and western Europeans are: because northern and western Europe is less blatant and they’re the one’s rigging the system. And at the same time western countries will portray their eastern counterparts as worse than they really are, not just vice versa. So your assumption that western Europe is less corrupt is basically the blind leading the blind. I’d suggest you really examine what lurks beneath the surface in your own part of the world before being complacent and giving yourself a false sense of security as if all the corruption is just out there. We’re drowning in it, too, just more slowly!

There’s no way Western Europe is less corrupt. The EU is very corrupt compared to countries not part of it.

Why do people revert to arguing from anecdote in face of statistical facts?

Your answer:

And, if even parenting had an effect in rare instances (key word), they would be, in that case, rare. The average man wouldn’t need not worry about it, no more than they need worry about being struck by lightning.

That’s the thing about rare. In the larger context it will always look like anecdote.

I do find it fascinating to see you argue all day long about population means, and what such data tell us about individuals (nothing), and then when someone raises an individual anecdote you simply cite the means & SD’s again.

For what it’s worth, my IQ is mid-140′s and I have three sons whose IQ’s (unmeasured, but as they say, life is an IQ test) are undoubtedly at least as high if not higher than mine. My point is that for all your allegiance to statistical facts, it should be quite unexpected for my wife (a school teacher) and me to produce three for three kids whose performance in STEM occupations places them in at least 1 in 500 if not 1 in 5000 (example: my middle son received one B in school, the rest A’s, from K through a BS in mechanical engineering, and all three competed in state-level math competition.)

PS: A lot of my conjecture is the result of a lot of observation in which you’ve not yet indulged. Your kids are tiny, more like my grandchildren. Get back to me in 25 years to see if any of my conjectures are still as useless to you.

Is it “right wing crazy” to be enraged by PC efforts to square the HBD circle via wealth redistribution, job and school admissions preferences based on government-approved segmentations and other attempts to coercively reallocate the benefits bequeathed by ones DNA?

Here, 50 years plus past the Civil Rights Acts, most of the Alt-Right as I read it would be relatively happy with simply eliminating all the Marxist “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need” bullshit. Charity is defined as a voluntary act, and thus cannot be undertaken by politics (or political government.)

Here at apogee of this Marxist equilibration we see calls to apply school discipline or even criminal law (and punishment) unevenly in favor of individuals who are (according to HBD) predisposed by their ancestry to behave in more disruptive or even more violent ways.

If objecting to being told “you can’t be promoted because the company management is already too white” or “we have to arrest fewer black muggers because we don’t have enough white and Asian arrests to counterbalance the numbers” makes me a right wing crazy racist, then the anger being expressed these days by resentful whites is only the first spark in a coming conflagration.

There’s a whole lot of conflation these days, and it’s not all located on the right.

*western Europe, not eastern Europe.

“I simply don’t believe that Sicilians, Irishmen and eastern Slavs have created as little as Africans and American Indios.”

Have they? It’s quite clear that the achievements of these peoples pales in comparison to those of eastern Europe, as can be seen by the maps of human accomplishment Jayman and HBD chick have on their websites.

And something a lot of alt-righters seem to forget. The United States was not “whiteopia” as people like Jared Taylor seem to believe. The founding stock of this country were white Anglo Saxon Protestants. The founding fathers would have been appalled if they could have seen the influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe, let alone the rest of the world.

Ok. Thank you for your clarification on what you intended to portray in this article. Most of your article actually was very good, but I was just making extra sure of what overall message you were intending to portray, as small as such a concern I had was now that I think about it.

Of course, even if there is less corruption here than outside of the western world (believe me, I know they are corrupt, too), we certainly should be concerned with any level of corruption.

I’m conservative, but neither the neocon type nor the white supremacist/Nazi/fascist type. It’s just that a lot of what is going on in western countries, with their policies and their march towards socialism and globalization, has frustrated me, so I got defensive when it sounded like you were defending that. But no harm done.

Believe me, I am all for stopping immigration of “refugees” into Europe and dissolving the EU. But Europe is not superior to the rest of the world. Every place has their ups and downs, even though some countries are in better condition than others.

I could see why you would say that the IQ of certain European groups is higher, that is, if you mean it is due to cultural matters. Otherwise, your article sounds awfully biased and racist against people who are not western Europeans.

And that map on corruption across Europe? Way off. The EU countries are highly corrupt, bureaucratic, and bent on globalism and enslaving their people in the name of “democracy”. Soviet Europe is by no means free or incorruptible, and is one of the most corrupt parts of the world. Say all you want about there being corruption in some of Eastern Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America…in all parts of the world. But to say that the US and EU are not corrupt is totally wrong.

Interesting how this website had some good, conservative articles and now is taking a left-wing, racist, Western supremacist propaganda twist.

[…] factually inaccurate, and their beliefs are twisted from the reality to suit their agendas (see The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz and “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist (Neither Does Group Selection)). The […]

I’ll continue to hope my granddaughters are highly selective and look for intelligent, kind, low-time-preference, masculine, family-oriented men from which to select their mates. I’m a big believer in assortive mating, and if I understand JayMan’s revert-to-the-mean position, a bright Caucasian girl with four bright grandparents would be an idiot to produce kids with anyone with significant African ancestry. In fact, she should be looking for young men in unrelated families that otherwise resemble her own.

Is this wrong?

Then again, producing kids with Caucasians whose parents/grandparents are multi-divorced, with a history of alcohol/drug abuse, bankruptcies and other self-destructive behaviors is just as idiotic, is it not?

What I’m getting from JayMan’s transcription of genetic science is confirmation that:
1) There is no cure for stupid, it’s inborn.
2) People inclined to violent criminality cannot be reformed; they should either be permanently exiled from civil society or exterminated.
3) There is no value in trying to “save” children who exhibit the early signs of their parents’ intellectual or (especially) behavioral disabilities. Exile once again seems like the safest, sanest policy.

Lastly, the studies cited by JayMan concluding that parenting has no effect on kids suffer the same problem as all such social science: they cannot study rare conditions due to sample bias issues. I posit that extremely few parents are actually good at parenting. I’ve watched a lot of people parent a lot of kids, smart, average and stupid (parents and kids, the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree of course) and even smart parents are usually crappy at it. Parenting is a highly social activity, and thus outliers who choose to exist outside the GroupThink herd are rare.

Logic informs me that there is always a range of possible phenotypes from a given genotype. To suggest that extraordinary parenting cannot affect where on this range an individual falls, but other environmental variables do have such an effect, strikes me as unbelievable.

I’ve raised kids and lived long enough to know two things:
1) The goal is to find the path to Happiness Plateau, and then stay there.
2) Extremely few people have any idea whatsoever how to find this path. The foundation for it is establishing a partnership, expected to last a lifetime, with the right person. Given how God-awful most people behave in this regard, it’s no wonder that the USA is saturated with people on anti-depressants.

A third obvious thing is that miserable people (a plurality) love company, so Pop Culture always exists to suck people into misery-inducing behaviors. Today’s Western Civilization is completely saturated with such collective folly.

… E. Germany might have been more recently settled than W. Germany, so that its people are probably more descended of your violent, hard-scrabble pioneer types than your urbane, outbred urbanized sorts…

Could also be Slavic admixture (i.e., Poles and other now vanished groups).

I simply don’t believe that Sicilians, Irishmen and eastern Slavs have created as little as Africans and American Indios. To justify the former’s presence in America a population doesn’t have to equal white achievement. It just has to be a little better than the populations you want to throw out. After all, the cut-off point has to fall somewhere.

The whole argument is ridiculous. Does anyone who had a father growing up value that relationship simply because they believe it managed to increase their monthly income at age 35? It’s absurd. Relationships between parents and children, children and their friends, ARE WHAT HUMAN LIFE IS, for crying out loud. Genes are driving the triforce of single mommy, feral child and abandoning dad? Well shit, looks like getting dad to stick around and raise the kid is going to be a harder problem to solve than we might have liked. Even if dad does stick around the kid will have the same IQ and same income at 35 that he would otherwise? Well good thing not all of us went straight from God is Dead to men are but standing reserve for industrial use and actually want children to HAVE A GOOD LIFE.

[…] is also filled with its own share of rubbish – and worse. I’ve gone over some of it here (The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz), but one pernicious piece of nonsense is the idea of “ethnic genetic […]

[…] See also my post The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz […]

Most people are well aware of the many obvious different stereotypes they encounter. But political correctness prevent any honest questions to be asked let alone to state the obvious. At times political correctness can help keep the peace.

It seems a universal requirement is hypocrisy. Most religions primary first requirement is hypocrisy. So this has been a requirement in many societies for along time. North Korean life today has a high hypocrisy requirement, its obvious because it is quite different from the rest of the world. Does IQ measure how good at hypocrisy people are?

[…] ADDED: The Jayman commentary (excavated by Mr. Archenemy). […]

Complete and utter horse caca. Functional people are capable of learning from people who don’t live with them. Those single-parent kids would have to be homeschooled and completely cut off from the outside world in order to so constrict their ability to learn from others.

Also, I’m really glad I didn’t learn how to love the opposite sex from my parents, because ew, incest. That’s pretty disgusting.

Single parenthood is indeed related to adverse outcomes in children. Not “the mother’s fault” as you seem to be saying, but that one-parent environment most certainly has negative impacts. Not just financially, either, but when the opposite sex parent is missing, that child is missing on an adult role model which negatively impacts them including in how to be a parent and also how to learn to love the opposite sex.

How do so single mothers manage to hook up with reliable decent guys later in life despite having multiple children, being older, and often overweight, if they’re so low quality?

You can be as hateful as you like – as other commenters have pointed out before me, just about every single opinion that contradicts the modern liberal zeotgeist is automatically condemned as “hateful”. Just TRY TO KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Jay, I see people saying, “But how could that have no effect?” all the time, (okay, twice in the past two weeks,) so I think it’s a reasonable distinction to make in some conversations.

The weird thing to me is why people think the effect is going to be negative. My mother bought into the “a child needs a mother and a father” ideology HARD, despite just not being the right sort of person for it, and the results weren’t very pretty.

“That’s one reason it’s wise to not be a dick to your kids: they will remember it.”

JayMan: that’s the best single bit of parenting advice i’ve ever heard – i’m impressed (& heartened) that it came from such a new parent!

watch out, tho: it can be hard NOT to be a dick to them when they’re about 16-18! but, if it’s just for a little bit & not continual, they’ll get over it – mine are near 30 & happily live near me:) & seriously, i wish the only parenting advice i had received is that one line of yours, & nothing else.

Jay, no effect = no measurable changes in life outcomes like jobs, IQ, or chances of getting married. It doesn’t mean “You won’t resent your parents because you were stuck in a shitty daycare every day while other kids were having fun,” or “You won’t be terrified and hiding under the table all the time because your parents are screaming again.” Those are effects. They are just not long-term, measurable effects that are going to percolate down to people’s grandkids like people seem to think they are.

I’m an historian, not a scientist. My scientific knowledge is rather poor.

My problem with a leftist- friendly HBD perspective is the same problem I have with a leftist understanding of Darwin in general. Sure, in the abstract selection isn’t going in a specific direction, and is selecting based on adaptation and without ” purpose.” Therefore it makes sense that ethnic groups are not ” better” or “worse” than one another objectively, just different. The problem is that while this makes sense in the abstract, like a lot of HBD (this could be said about scientific ideas in general) , it ignores the social, political, and economic contexts completely. While selection might not be going in a divinely- ordained direction, we definitely are living in a specific set of circumstances- compact enough for us to create standards and to form clear ideas about the success or failure of groups. Are groups more or less economically productive in our capitalist system? Do they consume more resources than they produce? Are they numerous enough to bolster or drain the system? The problem with third world immigration as opposed to the nineteenth century Irish is that the third-worlders are seen as ” parasitic,” consuming far more resources than they produce, shocking the system. Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant. HBD or no ( I myself am skeptical of HBD, but don’t have the scientific background to argue it on this blog), there WILL be a huge system shock at some point in the future. Balkanization and a renewed white identity are distinct possibilities, whether positive or negative from our point of view ( negative from mine, but still). No one really cares how stupid the guy next to them is unless we’re spending money to educate him. Furthermore, civil rights emerged during an era of massive economic growth- really unprecedented prosperity. This made it more palatable for white America to share its largesse with minorities. In poorer regions there was more resistance to this, and in less prosperous times you had overt acts of violence, such as the burning of ” Black Wall Street.” If “black dysfunction” is truly hard wired (and when I say black dysfunctions i only mean the perception that it exists), then the rest of the population is going to demand an end to programs meant to mitigate it.

Regardless of what’s inheritable or not, people have conflict when resources are scarce. I myself feel terrible about the state of the American black male, but if he’s designed by nature for this state, no amount of compassion is valuable. People are going to demand Draconian measures or an ” out of sight, out of mind” approach. There’s going to be huge changes in the future after white America loses its power to fund the welfare state. Any resentment by minorities due to the loss of their livelihoods is only going to make matters worse.

The leftist resistance to HBD is different from my own criticisms. The leftists are terrified that they will set in motion pogroms if they become convinced of HBD. This is due to their puritanical need to cleanse the Earth. These ideas are very dangerous.

It will be hard convincing people to pay me to educate populations perceived as unreachable. Many of my students are enrolled to collect welfare benefits. All of this is done in the name of improvement and an attempt at equality. If it’s futile, God help us.

“No effect” is different from “doesn’t actually cause kids to turn dumb and abandon their own children.” You’re also probably assuming that it’s better to have both parents there; speaking from my own childhood experience, sometimes life is more pleasant when violent people are out of the household. Unless you like watching your parents hurt each other. Would that have an effect on a kid? Mebbe.

Links to studies on the effect of single mothers? I’m open to evidence, but I have a hard time believing that halving the number of parents in a household would have no effect on a child.

ER thank you for calling Jayman & misdreavus for a Point and Sputter. I don’t think iSteve has a trademark on that but it does mark one as conversant with the lowly stupid HBD rabble they protest so much against. I spent a few minutes searching for a source one day, but every use I could find was from around the Stevosphere. I am guessing that they count Steve and the unwashed from his commenters among such. Some of the reward of reading West Hunter or Razib is the spectacle of watching some popinjay get smacked down. The higher the intelligence of the git receiving the smack down the more we enjoy the show. It seems there is always plenty of stupid to go around on the right side of the bell curve as well as the left.

[…] http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-problem-with-hbd-the-dark-enlighment-neoreactionism-alt-… […]

And they’ve changed too slowly to be biological responses to changing environment.

JayMan asks Why?

Bob notes that children born in 1940 would be having children in the 60s and 70s. But even before that, starvation wasn’t really a problem in the U.S., and childhood disease didn’t affect the irresponsible much more than the responsible until vaccines became more widely available. Bob’s claim that the women born in 1915 were “largely the children of responsible people” isn’t terribly plausible – while those who were conscientious and smart may have had more children than average back then, even irresponsible people could, and did, have children who largely survived to adulthood. Even if the more responsible half in 1900-1920 had a zero child mortality rate and the less responsible half had a 20% child mortality rate, that’s small compared to the rates of 100 years earlier, which were 40% and up. And the split wasn’t nearly that extreme. So that seems that a woman born in 1915 who had a bastard child or three in the 1940s would probably see her children all survive to adulthood, and probably knew that. And, in fact, there were substantial numbers of women who had children, then had their husband die. Mostly, those children didn’t starve.

The negative incentive that women born in 1915 had to not have bastards wasn’t that their children would die – there was some risk, but that risk existed for women who had men around when they had their children, even if attenuated. The risk was social ostracism, even by their socioeconomic peers; it was being hungry, which is pretty unpleasant; it was living in a tar-paper shack downwind of the smokestacks while wearing extra rags for warmth, etc. Even during the Depression, there was very little starvation, and disease deaths declined.

If the change in rates of unmarried motherhood was a biological response to a changed agricultural and medical environment, it should have started in the 30s and 40s, not the 60s and 70s.

I agree that changing the social and political environment back to, say, that of 1960, wouldn’t push the behavior all the way back, even over a generation. We’re also really, really unlikely to see those changes, as there’s a pretty entrenched constituency for them. On the other hand, we also have Depo-Provera, which reduces the effect of irresponsibility on the contraceptive failure rate, and which seems to be decreasing the fertility of the feckless more so than contraception which requires conscientiousness.

anon,

Trying to find a community you can live in harmoniously is a normal part of life. Day in day out with rednecks probably wouldn’t be good for me or them. However, trying to isolate yourself and wall off from the greater social spheres you belong to (race, community, nation, etc) so that you can do harm to them for personal gain and not be affected by the results is different. You also have certain levels of obligation to people with different levels of connectedness to you, even if they aren’t a part of your immediate social circle or personal interests.

Liberals don’t believe this. Everyone outside of those useful to them gets a bit dehumanized. There is a lot of talk about how this is being enlightened at treating everyone equally, but in practice (and for obvious reasons when you think about it) this actually means equally not giving a shit about anyone when it counts. The universalist ideas simply become another philosophical trap to rationalize largely selfish actions and detachment.

As to moral fury, I think you’ve just got to go through the meat grinder to understand. Every single anti-racist policy and every single anti-racist person I’ve ever known has been evil and done great harm to people. I’ve seen too much shit over and over again and at too high a level to give these groups the benefit of the doubt any more.

Bob,

When someone is attacking you then you have to fight back. There is nothing polite or kind about what the PC groups are doing.

This seems pretty straightforward to me:

1) HBD shows that immigration, disparate impact, and political correctness are false and evil.
2) Therefore, a belief in HBD implies the political policy proposal that these things be stopped.

When Jayman says that there are no political implications to HBD belief he is either disputing #1 or #2.

#1 I think is empirically provable. I can look at #s on NAM IQ, hook that up to the 80/20 chart for disparate impact, and see that its literally impossible for people to comply with the law. This isn’t a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact.

#2 Is an obvious implication of #1.

So when Jayman says HBD doesn’t imply a political policy just what the hell is he saying. Because if he doesn’t mean #1 or #2 he is simply contradicting himself.

3) If people oppose #2, and given #1, this makes them evil or foolish..
4) Given the methods and fervor of people in #3 that we are all familiar with, how long can we go about, quite frankly, taking it every day. For someone like me that has taken and seen it given to his brothers quite a lot, that time is over. The white guilt card is maxed out.

Saying that there are no political implications to HBD is like saying that everything that is wrong in the system but justified by HBD denial should continue.

I left my response to this postat HBDchick’s place.

I’m of the view that a lot of the opinion that Misdreavus and JayMan revile is actually people so frustrated by PC and the Harrison Bergeron agenda of public schooling over the past 50 years (i.e., to cripple the higher IQ kids in the name of Mainstreaming the morons), that they choose a relatively safe place to vent. If they dare make certain observations, particularly in corporate mainstream media or higher education, no matter how accurately experienced or empirically demonstrated, they are called KKK or whatever. The penalties in higher ed are even worse.

So why not sew their own drag and strut it for all they’re worth? If nothing else, it will make the more moderate opinions sound that much more credible.

In general, anonymous internet writing/commentary is one way that people explore their ideas and thoughts in a social setting. Higher education used to serve that function. Then it turned into indoctrination camp. See the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the fire dot org

One other thing occurs to me:

In the decades I worked in “activist” PR, it was considered a standard tool of the trade to go online and pose as the opposition, even to create caricatures of them and make them say dumb things. It was the parent tactic of today’s “sock puppetry.”

I was asked to do this on several occasions, working at a couple of progressive NGOs, and I refused. The second time it cost me my job.

I once talked to a PR person whose job consisted of doing this for, among other organizations, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a brilliant fundraising-scheme organization that creates racial enemies to save others from, and still raises tens of millions of dollars each year despite having been exposed in the ’90s by no less than /The Atlantic/ and /Harper’s/.

These days whenever I see a Tweet or comment that sounds too good to be true from a “gee, honey, look at the nazi yokel” perspective, I assume it is that PR lady, or others like her. This obviously doesn’t account for ALL extreme opinions from Planet Wingnut…but it surely accounts for some proportion.

Anthony, if you change the frequency of traits coding for mating behavior in a population of babies, you’re not going to see any changes in actual mating behavior until the babies grow up and start mating.

The children born in 1940, generally speaking, had children in the 60s and 70s. By this point, we were seeing big increases in the numbers of single mothers. You wouldn’t expect any change in the behavior of mothers in 1940, because those women were born around 1915, and therefore were largely the children of responsible people.

Changes in the welfare state, the number of women pursuing careers and higher education, etc., have only accelerated the trend, thus changing the distribution of traits in each succeeding generation. Culture may take a while to catch up.

I absolutely agree that we can change incentives to change behaviors.

asdf, kindness and politeness are also also virtues. The crimes of one side or another do not justify being unkind to other folks elsewhere. Such virtues allow large numbers of people–even unrelated ones–to live harmoniously with each other. It is the unkindness of the far left that has driven me from it. My commitment to various liberal principles does not justify harming others who have not attacked me, and unfortunately, too much of the left has gone down that road.

Kindness, dignity, and respect. Act with integrity regardless.

As Razib says below, most people are morons. Or, at least, are incapable of thinking statistically. That last is true even of lots of otherwise not-morons, which is why there are people who come to HBD blogs and spout racist crap – because they are incapable of seeing the trees for the forest.

@Bob: I highly doubt cultural condemnation was ever the driving force preventing large scale single motherhood; rather, the abysmal survival rates for unwanted and unplanned children and high death rates for the poor in general simply prevented these kids from existing and bad planning genes from getting passed on.

American society pretty much solved the problems of “abysmal survival rates for unwanted and unplanned children and high death rates for the poor in general” well before the explosion of single motherhood. By 1940, the infant mortality rate was under 1%, and other than childhood diseases (which were worse, but not spectacularly so, among the poor), most kids survived to adulthood. Higher death rates meant dying at 55 to 60 was as likely as dying after age 70 for the poor, not that the poor were dying off in droves in their 20s and 30s.

So there’s a problem. Things have changed among America’s poor too fast to be the result of selection. And they’ve changed too slowly to be biological responses to changing environment. Or, at the very least, the changed environment is the social and political environment, not the agricultural and medical environment. Policies towards supporting the poor changed a *lot* during the 1960s, and reproductive behavior among the poor changed a lot at about the same time. If policy drove the behavioral change, then policy can (somewhat) drive it back.

asdf, you make some decent points and I mostly agree, but I’m going to take issue with one bit:

“That is the conclusion most of his co-ethnics who are capable of understanding the matter came to. I think their view is correct, that if HBD were seriously adopted by the public it would have negative effects for many blacks, probably the largest negative effects being to people like Jayman (high IQ blacks). Right now Jayman can largely just be a part of white society (or an isolated group of IWSBs within white society). In a world that was aware and took HBD seriously that would be much more difficult. He would have to be closer to a wider swath of his fellow co-ethnics and he wouldn’t like it. Just like SWPLs don’t like hanging around white trash. However, SWPLs being snobby to white trash and advocating policies that destroy their lives are evil spiteful people. The same would be true of IWSBs who treat ghetto people the same way. Your fellow co-ethnics are an extended family, sometimes your just the person who has to put up with the annoying aunt for awhile so you should do it with grace.”

First, I think it’s important to keep in mind that ethnic group affinities don’t necessarily follow the one drop rule. JayMan has stated that his ancestry is a mix of black, white, and, I believe, Asian. African Americans aren’t necessarily any closer to him genetically than American whites. There probably aren’t even that many people in this country with his ethnic mix. Personally, I’d be quite happy to have JayMan in my community–maybe we could discuss HBD together.

Second, even being totally HBD-aware doesn’t mean that we can’t incorporate some amount of human capital-HBD (discussed by another commenter below). I think it’s a mistake to be exclusively oriented around either ethnic or human capital HBD. We may talk about the downsides of diversity here, but that doesn’t mean that 100% purity is the best option either.

Third, I think it’s not so unreasonable or immoral in theory for SWPLs to try to get away from prole whites, just as it’s not so unreasonable or immoral for IWSBs to try to get away from ghetto blacks (I agree that either is immoral if they’re advocating policies that destroy lives, but I don’t really think it matters that much whether we’re talking about the same ethnics or not). If they’re successful at separating themselves from the rest of their ethnic group, this can be a powerful source of positive evolution for their group–just look at what Jews managed to do to their IQs over the last 2000 years or so.

Admittedly, the political realities of modern America may mean that you’re correct about the necessity of racial/ethnic solidarity, but I don’t see it in the same kind of moral terms as you do.

I hope I’m replying in the right place–I can’t click reply on Razib’s comment. Who says you can’t like the post, say most people are motivated morons, or not deal with retards from anyone at all? Go right ahead. And one of the great things about your blog is that you tell people they’re idiots. I take no position on the general percentage of morons on the web or in real life, and my ire had nothing to do with that. And why on earth should you feel insulted just because I don’t like the post, or feel you should be spared from my righteous wrath? It’s not personal.

“personally i’d rather not deal with retards from the HBDsphere ‘schooling me’ on lewontin’s fallacy.”

vs.

“If the facts about heritable human differences are to be ever taken seriously, it needs to be extricated from such utter nonsense, as well as from the mean-spirited sentiment.”

and

“This, of course, has done absolutely no favors to its dispersal within society at large, because if technology has taught us anything, it is that the anonymity of the web tends to bring out the crazy and stupid in everyone”

I have no issue with the first. I find the latter two offensive for the reasons explicated above.

My ire is not in any way intended to dissuade you, Jayman, misdreavus, or anyone else from posting similar preferences. It is, simply, ire.

(wanders away, muttering to self “you said you wouldn’t go back in there!”)

So here’s the thing, in terms I suspect everyone here can understand:

Jayman and Misdreavus were POINTING and SPUTTERING.

Now, from everything I’ve seen, which isn’t much, there is no core to the Dark Enlightenment, or the world of HBD, or whatever else you call it. This conversation surely proves that, as much as anything. Time and again, you see a commenter here say “Well, we know this” and some other commenter says “No, that’s what we must fight against!”

In short, there is no “we”. With one exception, as I wrote in my last essay on this topic(http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-dark-enlightenment-and-duck-dynasty/) people who fall into this group despise The Cathedral.

Jayman and Misdreavus are just trying to create the Cathedral for HBD thinkers. You can wrap it up in judicious morality, you can make it about Us and Them, but at the heart of it, misdreavus was saying man, these people over here need to Shut Up, and Jayman was like, preach it, man! We need to clean things up around here! We can’t have people with the wrong opinions! We need *science*, man!

But to the extent *this* exists, this thing, whatever it’s called, whatever I have a node on, it is little other than a stand against the notion of the unspeakable. So once you violate that, there’s nothing left.

And now, a brief conversation with myself: Ed, why do you get caught up in this nonsense? (Because I got an MIS and online communities fascinate me, particularly when they’re doing it wrong! Plus, I’m on a node!) Well, shut up, dammit.

[…] of the gay germ hypothesis, “misdreavus” (whose colorful commentary was featured in my previous post – and whose comments over at West Hunter have added invaluable insight to the gay germ model) […]

Bob,

If I can take the actual shit liberals and blacks have dished out on me and my fellows in real life Jay can handle some words on the internet. Have liberals tried to shut down your school because not enough black kids could pass the entrance exam? Been a victim of black crime? Had other racial groups discriminate against you and then be told they are justified in doing it and you’ve just got to take it because of “privilege”? Been told that if you object to mandatory premium subsidies for sex change operations paid for by other people that your a bigot and it could effect your job? Had your career threatened by liberals because you stood up against professional corruption?

This blank slate stuff has real consequences. Liberalism has real consequences. People pay real prices every day that are a lot more important then feelings. HBD is meant to fix those problems, not be some ivory tower bullshit that we don’t do anything with and all this garbage above keeps going on and people keep getting hurt every day.

I get why Jay feels how he does. He has a real reason to worry about HBD awareness affecting him and people he cares about negatively, so he doesn’t want it to be taken too seriously and actually change things. He would like everything to pretty much go the way its going. Yeah, it would be nice if we slowed immigration, but not important enough to actually do anything to make it happen. Not anything risky. Not anything that might damage to spoils system or screw up social status.

But we aren’t all black. Most of us are white, and that means we have different loyalties. Jay can write off the negative effects his ideas have on white people, can even justify it based on whatever historical reason or different allegiance he has. But fellow white people selling out other white just to advance themselves or stay out of danger, that’s just cowardice and immorality. I’ve seen too much of it, and while cloaked in some universal ethics of bullshit that claims its all really being done for the benefit of random minority/foreigner that only an enlightened person like me can see Really Needs, its always just an excuse for personal moral and ethnical law breaking for selfish ends.

“Misdreavus has noted that there are plenty of sensible policies that can be enacted, such as immigration restriction to the developed world.”

How many anti-racists are speaking out against immigration. Is the pro-immigration sphere not liberals (and corporatists of both parties)? Are the people most up in arms about anything that has a “disparate impact” not minorities? Your side is the one saying anti-immigration = racist = worst people in the world and should probably be punished (where your side are the political groups you support in practice and the racial group you belong to).

As long as HBD = racist, which is the policy of your people (politically and racially), people are going to have to be racists to believe in HBD.

There is no argument against immigration that can work without using HBD. Not with the demographics and political system we have today. Maybe a few decades ago before the NAMs and political correctness reached a tipping point, but its too late to stop without radicalization on white peoples part. Do you think Switzerland could pass their bill (by 0.3%) if they shared a border with Mexico and had a giant Hispanic population?

If you want to stop immigration you need overwhelming majorities of white people against it. Enough to overcome both the existing minority blocks in support and the monied interests that are always in favor of immigration. How do you get that without radicalizing whites? How do you make the argument without HBD? Rich Italian Swiss voting to restrict immigration of rich northern Italians isn’t the same thing as what we have going on with NAMs.

“See stuff like this is what gives the movement a bad name”

It’s just taking it seriously. 90% of blacks vote lock step for racial spoils and are doomed to be a permanent underclass. Are the 10% remaining really worth it? Is having a black minority a net good for the country.

The question to always ask yourself is: “if you could go back in time and stop the immigration of such people, would you?” The answer with black people (even leaving aside the institution of slavery) is no. Maybe that would also be the answer with the Irish, but given the fact that they were better long term investments and the manpower needs of the country at the time of immigration perhaps not.

What to do with the current group is a different question (treating any racial group differently in your own country raises massive political, social, cultural, and ethical problems) which is one of the reasons you never want to have them around in the first place. And why the simplest starting point is, “please, lets not bring any more over”. Mercy and charity are always easier when the size of the problem is more manageable.

“levels of corruption rose once the Irish came to America”

Yes, when Catholic immigration got too big they restricted it, which was a good thing. And you know how they did it. Racism! It worked. I guarantee they denigrated the Irish to make it happen.

But lets not kid ourselves about Irish and NAMs being the same thing. Irish people don’t live in ghettos. Commit massive crime. Survive solely off welfare. Or form monolithic and dogmatic political blocks. The Irish largely assimilated. If you go into a workplace or community you don’t see an Irish faction feuding with a British faction. You just see a bunch of white people who view all the other white people as fellow whites. However, amongst the different continental ethnic groups you do see factionalization, misunderstanding, and distrust. This happened because the differences between whites are relatively small. That’s not the same with NAMs. The differences are huge. They will never assimilate.

“There are big regional differences in Germany”

Are they the difference between IQ105 and IQ85?

“Let 12 million Russians pour into America and we’ll see about that.”

Except they aren’t. We do not share a border with them nor are they a large minority. Its not a practical concern.

“Can we please cut that here?”

It’s just the truth man. HBD does have real public policy implications. Most of them, at least in terms of outright racial spoils and social status, aren’t good for your racial group (amongst others).

I get why you don’t like it. It’s a bitter and unfair pill to swallow. I don’t exactly have master race genes in myself either, I would have been sent to the death camp under Hitler’s rules too.

But I don’t like this total opposite either. Being told everything that ever happened wrong in the world is my fault, being under constant surveillance to have my social and career lives ruined if I ever even mention the truth in public, and watching my country turn into Brazil. Not to mention that anti-racist have generally compromised the most evil people I’ve known in my life.

The stakes are too high to regard HBD as nothing but an academic curiosity. If it doesn’t lead to actual reform, especially on something like immigration, then I’d say the case for HBDers is worse then blank slaters. They can at least claim ignorance. We allowed it to happen knowing it would happen because of our own selfish ends. The stakes on this issue are just gigantic. I can ignore the latest retard thing congress is doing because it doesn’t matter in the long run. NAM takeover does matter, its a permanent Game Over.

Anthony,

I’m herein assuming that the perspective is from a white person that cares about the fate of his fellow white people enough that they are willing to make personal sacrifices to do what they believe is right. You could extend that from white to citizens (Steve Sailer) but you get the general idea. Obviously if you are concerned only with yourself, a small isolated group (elites immediately in your social circle), or you are part of a different group (your a minority, etc) the implications of HBD may be different for you. For instance, Jayman’s view on the matter will be wholeheartedly different because he has both a personal and racial reason to want certain outcomes. If Jayman had the choice of saving America but selling out his own people we would not expect him to do so. In fact I’d consider it a great moral failing on his part if he did. He should be looking out for his co-ethnics, even if it meant denying HBD. Who wants to endorse the view that not only are you a loser, but your genetically damned to be a loser (and your kids are too). As bloody shovel said, not a great selling point.

That is the conclusion most of his co-ethnics who are capable of understanding the matter came to. I think their view is correct, that if HBD were seriously adopted by the public it would have negative effects for many blacks, probably the largest negative effects being to people like Jayman (high IQ blacks). Right now Jayman can largely just be a part of white society (or an isolated group of IWSBs within white society). In a world that was aware and took HBD seriously that would be much more difficult. He would have to be closer to a wider swath of his fellow co-ethnics and he wouldn’t like it. Just like SWPLs don’t like hanging around white trash. However, SWPLs being snobby to white trash and advocating policies that destroy their lives are evil spiteful people. The same would be true of IWSBs who treat ghetto people the same way. Your fellow co-ethnics are an extended family, sometimes your just the person who has to put up with the annoying aunt for awhile so you should do it with grace.

In a lot of ways I view the practical effects of desegregation as smart black people leaving dumb black people to rot because they didn’t give a shit what happened to them (at least not enough to go back). A similar thing happened with white people when the “big sort” happened and rootless cosmopolitanism became the order of the day.

So I assume a moral outlook much like my own. That I feel a loyalty to my race and country strong enough that I don’t want it to become a shithole, even if that means being a racist.

SMERSH,

“And if you support a strict moratorium on immigration, your political views on this topic are as extreme or more extreme than the National Front. And let’s not kid ourselves, this is the topic that people are going to judge you by, not your views on petty issues like social welfare or gay marriage.

So, people who believe what misdreavus believes about immigration are already plenty Nazi enough to get a beating from the antifa.”

Indeed. So long as the left maintains that anything a minority might not like = racism = Nazi we are all racists.

You know this is an HBD blog, right? You have completely missed the point of everything.

I assume, based on your statements, that you purposefully and freely chose to misunderstand everything; therefore, there’s no point in explaining what you do not desire to understand.

Jay, I don’t know if you experience emotions in response to things people say and whatnot like that, (which is probably a really aspie thing to say), but I think asdf was really out of line there.

On a related note, I was thinking about the East Germans the other day, and some things you’ve noted about them, and your frontier (or was it pioneer?) hypothesis, and theorized that E. Germany might have been more recently settled than W. Germany, so that its people are probably more descended of your violent, hard-scrabble pioneer types than your urbane, outbred urbanized sorts, and then by random chance I happened to come across a map of German expansion in the Middle Ages, and it turns out that E. Germany actually was settled (by Germans, anyway,) more recently than W. Germany. I’m sure this is all Old News to someone familiar with European history, but it was a fun moment of “yay my theory was right!”

Honestly, there are certain folks in my own ancestral tree whom I think were pretty darn problematic.

There is no “system” that removes the need for moral agency. The buck always stops with individual choices. All the carrots and sticks in the world don’t survive a people determined to find a way around them.

“these still wouldn’t be “stable two parent homes” because the dumb people in the equation are not capable of long-term stability.”

They were stable for a long time. So its not impossible. The current state should be viewed as the abnormal broken one.

That’s a different Bob there. I would like to note that we Bobs are not necessarily the same person.

All good points. What I would add is that strong emphasis on genetic relatedness will scare liberals more (especially as the United States continues to implode), while a strong emphasis on human capital may very well draw objection from conservatives.

“Playing God” and all that.

A thorough scrutinizing of Anonymous Conservative’s claims is something I’d like to read.

I have found practical uses for his work. On purely scientific grounds, however, the odor of absurdity is fairly pungent.

[formerly "Rome's Creature"]

Proud as I am of my hierarchism and colorful bigotry, it is simply mind-numbing how demonstrably false many claims made by HBD-rightists tend to be. The only reason I come here regularly is because Jayman’s hypotheses seem much closer to the truth than what is proffered among my ilk.

I don’t attribute this to any illusions of unimpaired rationality, which I consider mythical anyway. Reason does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. The fact that Jayman’s ancestry differs from those of Cavalier and Appalachian proponents of HBD is likely what enables him to see inconvenient nuances in their data.

Nonetheless, in the end, I stand with Dixie and the Freemen of the Far West. Any material prosperity secured through “cooperation” (read: progressive eugenicists bossing the rest of us around) between the very outbred and less outbred nations of Euro-America would hardly compensate flyover country for aesthetic death.

“Conservatives’ beliefs stem from this (cf. Johnathan Haidt), and no matter what you tell them…”

Those stupid crazy conservatives! Surely there is a pill that can fix their stupid brains…

oh snap! ed. realist tellin’ it like it is

Isn’t HBD an extension of evolution?

I don’t see the controversy over HBD. Humans are very diverse. We’re diverse in skin color, bone structure, eye shape, etc…….so why can’t our diversity extend to average intelligence too?

Jayman said: “Misdreavus is no Chris Crawford”

HBD largely exists outside of conventional moral horizons; and it has not rigorously developed norms. Misdreavus is correct that this situation represents, at very least, a marketing problem; the attempt to draw lines is appreciated — I could use some guidelines myself; the problem is the manner. HBD is politically neutral; the lines need to be politically neutral. Misdreavus seems to section of the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, and Alt-Rightism; yet these positions are not — at least from my perspective — categorically morally problematic, despite being anti-egalitarian; rather, they suffer from the same problem as HBD regarding morales and norms. Generally, lines should be drawn but drawn in the most politically and morally inclusive way palatable; caution should be taken when labeling “nutters”.

Interesting column.

http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/?page=single#

I think others have been hinting at it here, but this post does a great job of highlighting the tension between human capital-HBD and ethnic genetic interest-HBD. Preferring either of these overall seems reasonable to me, and I think there’s plenty of room for debate. Going too far in the direction of ethnic genetic interest legitimately scares people about the implications, so adding some human capital HBD to their strategy would probably make them less scary (after all, bringing in some advantageous genes from other populations can be very advantageous in the long-term). For example, Japan is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries on the planet, but they allow a small number of gaijin in without significant problems.

misdreavus said:

“— if you think HBD justifies the creation of a white-only ethnostate [sic] in America”

I don’t understand why you think that HBD is needed to justify an ethnostate; to my mind, you merely need an ethnos and a willingness to affirm the principle of national self determination. I don’t recall the Southern Sudanese calling upon HBD to justify their succession; why would the situation be any different for e.g., White nationalists? That said, to some extent, one could draw upon HBD. For example, when arguing against race based immigration policies, you state: “why don’t we be consistent here and just kick out every single Sicilian…”. Your reasoning: since selective immigration must be justified based on capacity, and since many of a given race are less capable than many of another, one can not justify an exclusively race based policy. But, of course, bioethnonationalists don’t draw upon human capital -HBD, for justification, they draw upon ethnic genetic interest –HBD; they, seeing a nation as an extended biological family, propose to discriminate on the basis of overall genetic relatedness. In doing so, when preferring a low capital Sicilian to a high capital Korean, they exhibit no inconsistency. Now, I don’t recall what the whole-genome pairwise relations were, but I suspect that Europeans tend to form a nested cluster within the Caucasoid race (which includes indigenous Europeans, many Central/South Asians, North Africans, and Middles Easterners) and that this region of genetic space forms the basis of the “white race”, biologically understood. That is, I suspect that one could carve out of multidimensional genetic space a natural population which loosely overlapped with geographically defined indigenous Europe while excluding many other caucasoid populations. Maybe not. To the extent not then either our bioethnonationalists would need to boot the less related European populations, include the more related non-European (Caucasoid) populations, or take into account other considerations such as culture relatedness. Generally, they do the last. Whatever the case, this is a marginal problem for them — like Israeli Jews deciding who precisely qualifies as a Jew. So, yes, Stormfronters and others can draw upon HBD to some extent when it comes to justifying their proposed ethnostate. Of course HBD can never justify the principle of national self determination. It can just be employed to construct a defense of the idea and ideal of a bioethnos. Now, while I stand in defense of their position, I don’t back it for various, largely selfish, reasons (e.g., I’m a miscegenator). The position is important to defend, though, because it represents a more or less coherent application of genetic interest-HBD, which, itself, represents, more or less, a logical extension of foundational HBD principles (e.g., Hamilton’s rule). Also, it’s worth defending because it is one of the core types of applied HBD for which anti-HBD was developed to undermine. Some here might see ethnic-genetic interest-HBD and applications thereof as too dangerous or too problematic — just as many elsewhere see IQ-HBD. If so, I think that’s a mistake. But we can discuss that point more later.

Hear hear, well said ER!

The genes of high intelligence are present in all populations , this means that all peoples of the world have the potential to develop their skills through eugenic selection. However , intelligence is not without personality .
Another factor , not too worrisome but that seems to be real , is that the lower the average intelligence of a population , the slower the process of genetic improvement of cognitive skills . However , this could be solved through cultural separation of populations of different cognitive substrates .
What is still a mystery for me is to understand how the mechanism , regression to the mean works . I believe that this process is variable among populations and even between individuals . Recently I came across a study conducted in the Netherlands in which patients with high IQ schizophrenics were more likely to have relatives with the same disorder than patients with iq average. The price of intelligence , my dear Watson .
It seems that genius is a rare combination of disparate traits as outstanding intellect and predisposition to psychopathology ( if we can say this way) and results in high creativity . However , the idea that a high intelligence does not correlate with neurological idiosyncrasies , is completely wrong and maybe the predisposition to psychopathology is related to the extremely perfectionist tendencies , the creative geniuses . This could have many considerations about the future of society , where we seek to ( before the cultural Marxism ) the improvement of the same and human relations . The anguish , present in most of the most exceptional brains of the human species could be triggered by this autistic obsession with perfectionism .
Another idea that should be thought about is the modern concept of intelligence itself, which perfectly fits with the modern demands as acquisition of education and income . From the initial idea that human intelligence is a mix of contemplative skills with skills direct impact on individual survival and clan , I believe that one of the components of primitive and natural character, intelligence is precisely the instinctive ability of people to detect danger essentially of the two components in non- human populations. The danger could be represented in complex societies as a chaotic chain of events , rising crime , climate change etc.
The English girl who saved hundreds of lives on a Thai beach , during the 2004 tsunami . Income and education depends primarily on the type of personality combined with cognitive style rather than intelligence , quantitative or qualitative . What I see is , the higher or highest quality is the intelligence , the more the person will tend to outlier and be more repulsive will the subjective social contract in which it will be subjected a priori .
Therefore, someone who is characterized as enlightmen enlightgirl or dark, is one that exhibits a high capacity general intelligence, which is not limited to modern mechanical activities of society but which refers to the quintessence of life on Earth, instinct. The nonconformity is basically instinct.
It is expected that between sophisticated intellectuals hbd movement, appear equally instinctive other groups, such as white nationalists and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them regarding their will to survive.
After this testament, I would like to thank you for your patience. I’m putting myself out temporarily, I hope, because I know now that people are not forced to guess what I’m writing.
I will continue reading your blog, good luck dear Jay man!

“After a tedious discussion, it turned out that Chris simply opposed unPC-HBD, which is it say, in practice, interesting HBD.”

Pay closer attention to what I believe, and maybe we’ll get somewhere. It’s the stupidity that offends me far more than the so-called “racism” — if you think HBD justifies the creation of a white-only ethnostate [sic] in America, all power to you. Just don’t sound like an idiot or broken record while defending that idea.

Euro/African differences–chiefly intelligence–is simply the elephant in the HBD room. Even if you’re just discussing eye color, that elephant is still there, and love ‘em or hate ‘em, the racists and the anti-racists will always be focused on that damn elephant.

I agree with your comment, but I’d say that some interesting HBD is less un-PC than other interesting HBD. Discussing intra-European or intra-African variation is more PC than discussing European-African differences. Policy-wise, it might be both more effective and more PC to discuss policies oriented around, for example, intelligence or aggression levels or nature vs. nurture generally than around race.

I suppose that one of the objections of the original post is that some HBD-associated people are overemphasizing race over other possible categorizations.

Telling immoral people to just be more moral without changing the environmental conditions that allow them to produce more children than moral folks simply doesn’t work. The immoral folks will just keep ignoring you. Bill Cosby has been trying this tactic for decades, and it hasn’t worked.

I highly doubt cultural condemnation was ever the driving force preventing large scale single motherhood; rather, the abysmal survival rates for unwanted and unplanned children and high death rates for the poor in general simply prevented these kids from existing and bad planning genes from getting passed on.

If you want to change that, then you have to change the environment in which homeless people feel more confident about bringing children into the world than Harvard grads, not yell at people about how they ought to get married. Even when single mothers do try to get married, they marry the men they find attractive, which doesn’t actually change the genetic situation. Even if you could force them to marry IT guys, or the deadbeats to marry fat women with nice personalities, these still wouldn’t be “stable two parent homes” because the dumb people in the equation are not capable of long-term stability.

I wrote more, but my computer ate it and now I just don’t feel motivated to re-type.

Our “Misdreavus“ reminds me of Chris Crawford. Remember him?

“I had a long conversation with a lady with a doctorate on related stuff. I can’t recall the label on her doctorate, but her research thesis involved DNA work. Anyway, she hadn’t heard of “HBD” so she spent a few hours looking it over, and came up with a characterization that rings true for me. She sees a spectrum starting with evolutionary psychology, going through HBD, and ending in outright racism…”

After a tedious discussion, it turned out that Chris simply opposed unPC-HBD, which is it say, in practice, interesting HBD. Now, “Misdreavus“ comes along and warns us about the “nutters from Stormfront and NRx” that are going to muck things up. After a tedious discussion, it will turn out that he simply opposes HBD-informed-policy-thinking of the non-egalitarian sort, which is to say, in practice, interesting HBD-informed-policy-thinking . But let’s hear it –what, specifically, are these horrible people — if we can call them that — saying? (Personally, I wish Stormfronters well in their ethnostate project and in their project to redesign, with the aid of synthetic biology, their race. I also wish neoreactionaries well in setting up their explicit neocameral state.)

Yeah, yeah, HBD is just empirical observations, so it doesn’t technically make any policy prescriptions.

But let’s not kid ourselves. HBD tells us that British accomplishment is, to a significant degree, the result of British genes. Similarly, Nigerian, Pakistani and Polish accomplishments (or lack there of) are, to a significant degree, the result of their respective genes. (Not knocking the Poles here, just sayin’.)

So, if you want the kind of accomplishments that Britain produced in the past to keep occurring (and most people do), then the ongoing demographic replacement of the British population should strike you as a very, very bad thing.

So, assuming you like technological progress and stuff like that, HBD does basically say “There are rational and sensible reasons to advocate for a strict moratorium on immigration to every developed nation (not just Europe and the Anglosphere),” misdreavus said it, I believe it.

And if you support a strict moratorium on immigration, your political views on this topic are as extreme or more extreme than the National Front. And let’s not kid ourselves, this is the topic that people are going to judge you by, not your views on petty issues like social welfare or gay marriage.

So, people who believe what misdreavus believes about immigration are already plenty Nazi enough to get a beating from the antifa.

– Marxism is “intellectual orthodoxy” in U.S. and European university social science, and other “humanities” departments. Also the NR will never have “mainstream legitimacy.”

It won’t need that to accomplish what it is setting out to do.

[…] The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz – READ THIS! – from jayman (and misdreavus). […]

I take issue with one assertion. The glorious past was not better edited. Lots and lots of oogily-boogily was passed off as science, despite the barriers put up by the guild controlling the flow of information. It is an old gripe that was common when I was a young man running a BBS. It was probably common when the printing press put monks out of work. The truth is the ratio of truth to nonsense is constant. The only thing that changes is volume.

That said, the Victorians (I think) used to say “never speak of religion or politics around the servants.” It is why officers stay out of the enlisted bars. In the wrong hands, the truth is a lethal weapon.

nutters from Stormfront sparring tête–à–tête with anthropology professors over elementary facts that anybody can look up in a linguistics textbook.

While there will always be nutters who believe that The Establishment Is Wrong, they will get a much better reception these days because as a matter of fact, The Establishment is wrong. The social sciences, in particular, have so fouled their nest with adherence to Blank Slatism, Freudianism, Marxism, and other anti-scientific concepts, that rejecting all the generally-accepted conclusions of the social “sciences” may bring one closer to the truth than accepting them all.

I’m sorry, HBD does say we should stop immigration of NAMs. Along with all sorts of other necessary political changes.

No, no it doesn’t. Not any more than AGW says we should de-industrialize or switch over to nuclear power. HBD says “Because these people are not like those people, on average, letting a bunch of those people immigrate to these people’s country will cause these effects.”. What should be done depends also on what moral values one has. For example, an anti-black racist may support increased Mexican immigration because Mexican immigrants push blacks out of jobs and neighborhoods. A corporatist-capitalist may support it because it provides a supply of cheaper and more docile unskilled and semi-skilled labor. They will continue to support it even though they know what HBD says about the results. Both may continue to support it because of what HBD says about the results.

“It is an equation of *both sides* foregoing commitment and stability in favor of reproduction now–a strategy that works in our society.”

And that is a MORAL CHOICE. I’m coming at this from the standpoint that moral agency exists, that we are not deterministic sacks of meat that have zero control over our decisions. If you believe that then even talking about choices or morality or anything really is a completely useless exercise.

One should not mistake evolutionary tendencies for deterministic facts. Yes, in an environment of high survivability there is a strong incentive to make short term selfish decisions. There are all sorts of things in life that present incentive to do evil. Corruption, violence, etc are all in our genes too. It remains a choice of individuals whether or not to choose good or choose evil.

It’s my belief that raising a child in a stable two parent home is GOOD. Objectively morally good. Thus choosing other options is bad. Just as any bad act that seemed pleasurable or led to higher personal fertility is still BAD. If you disagree with the assertions of moral agency or that stable two parent families are objectively good then I agree we can’t have a discussion. Not because you view is legitimate, I believe such a view a sign of deep seated evil in yourself, but because you are so twisted and warped that understanding is impossible.