Counter-Currents
1,966 words
Right-wingers are fascinated with IQ to the point that it’s a focal point of the ideological brand. It’s an unspoken credo that says, “We’re the smart ones.” And that’s fine. All movements have mantras. There’s certainly nothing unappealing about being “the smart ones.” But when was the last time you heard the Left discuss IQ?
The Left understand that practical politics involves consistent messaging that resonates emotionally with their audience. Black Lives Matter was so successful because they took their best meme and named their movement after it. Regardless of how you feel about that, it was brilliant.
The upper echelons of political movements should to a degree be exclusive. They should be hierarchical. They should carry prestige. Obviously, they should have the smartest and brightest leading the way. There needs to be a handful of chiefs and a lot of Indians. But to insinuate that the Left doesn’t have high IQ leadership is being naïve — particularly when you consider they’ve been winning at every turn for the last 50 years. That’s not by accident. They’ve used their intelligence, instead of making it a talking point.
What the Left gets right is their appeal to the commoner. Perhaps even more importantly is their staked claim of the moral high ground. It’s not that they don’t think they’re smart; they just prefer to brandish their intellect proactively. They recognize that power is achieved in numbers, and that everyone (regardless of how smart they are) has potential and worth. So slogans like “we all bleed red,” or “inclusion and equality” resonate with average people. And let’s face it, it’s the common people who invoke the change that swings the pendulum of power.
Leftists understand that to the average person, the truth doesn’t matter. In the political and social realms, truth is perception. The truth is what individuals believe, not what they know. Nothing snags people on the Right more than the quest for truth. Potential political gains are repetitively lost due to the Right always wanting to prove they’re right. But, have you ever argued with a liberal? Did being “right” ever make a difference? If politics was about being right, then it would be game over.
If there was to be an open debate in the public square between the Left and the Right on the subject of IQ, who would win the public’s heart? Would it be the side that used “facts, figures, and data” to conclude that the genetic inheritability of intelligence makes people of certain racial groups inferior intellectually, thus other racial groups are more suitable to be in positions of power? Or would it be the side that claimed the only reason everyone isn’t intelligent is because they didn’t have the same privileges as “the smart ones”? And that “the only thing preventing equality is systemic oppression; with the appropriate resources we would all be geniuses!”
IQ discourse in the political sphere should be the equivalent to something like critical race theory (CRT). An intellectual concept submitted within the institutions of power — which are controlled. There’s a reason that CRT is a subject of lectures in universities, and differences in racial IQ scores is not — even though one is an observable phenomenon, and the other is blatant anti-white propaganda. The winners always write the curriculum.
Furthermore, the Right has been obsessed with IQ for decades (perhaps even a century; eugenics was an intelligence-based movement in the early 1900s that heavily influenced Hitler). This isn’t to imply that IQ isn’t extremely important; of course it is. That goes without saying — particularly with regards to systemic cohesion and functionality. And just the overall quality of life that socially evolves in societies with higher IQs (it’s not a coincidence nobody wants to move to Haiti). The Bell Curve was written 30 years ago, so not only has the empirical data been known for a long time, but everyone has observed racial IQ differences in the real world (and on social media). Has it mattered?
This isn’t to say, “Shhh. Don’t talk about IQ, the dummies will vote Democrat if you do.” Rather, we should focus on practical politics and consistent messaging that resonates with a broader audience. There’s nothing wrong with noticing what the opposition is doing successfully and implementing it into the game plan. “The smart ones” will typically seek the truth; it’s the dumb ones who need to be persuaded.
In a recent essay titled “IQ Is a Phenotype,” an assertion about Leftist ideology is made which highlights its religious dogma:
My armchair analysis concludes that the ideologies which prop the Left up rely more on demonstrable lies and unprovable dicta than Rightist ideologies. At the heart of the matter is the notion of equality. The Left claims against all evidence that people — regardless of class, race, or sex — are equal; that is, equal in mind and in potential. This is the Left’s original sin, the lie which begets all other lies. Agents of the Left are so invested in it that the truth becomes anathema to them, causing them to stamp it out wherever they see it.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Confessions of a Reluctant Hater here
He is absolutely right in his analysis. The Left doesn’t care about the truth, because they don’t want to establish the truth; they want to be the establishment of truth. The truth is irrelevant to the politically powerless. Politics has one goal, and one goal only: power. The Left understands the adage “all is fair in love and war,” and their actions prove it.
The “notion of equality” is just propaganda that’s an empathetic appeal to the common citizen. The architects of equality don’t believe in equality any more than you do (if they did, they wouldn’t be the architects). One doesn’t have to have a high IQ to conclude that equality is relevant in mathematics, not biology. But equality is inclusive, which means there are no restrictions on membership. In fact, you don’t even have to apply, let alone be a “smart one.” Or white. Or popular. Or attractive. Or sane. Or even gender-binary. Just participate in some way, and you can be a part of the team.
Politics is a Machiavellian numbers game, with no honor and very few rules. Democracy is half plus one (regardless of how you feel about the legitimacy of democracy, that’s the current system). Thus, quantity over quality is the recipe for success. The Left has dominated the institutions of power by appealing to the unappealable, and gaslighting with Alinsky-style tactics.
The aforementioned mentioned piece goes on to critique the Right’s mindset in comparison to the Left:
The Right, however, does not tell this lie. Instead, it accepts natural group differences and builds social and political hierarchies accordingly. The cruelty is baked in the cake, so to speak. Yes, slavery, racial exclusivity, ethnic tribalism, distinct gender roles, and other authoritarian constructs can be found in Rightist societies, both today and in the past. But these are most often based on group differences, which are in turn based on biological differences. Of course, injustice can appear in Right-wing societies; worthy individuals being overlooked because of their race or gender is a prime example. But this injustice pales in comparison to that found in societies which ignore racial differences.
It all boils down to unprovable dicta. Lying about biology requires the Left to resort to more unprovable dicta than the Right, and so Leftists have to do more work in order to make reality fit their dicta. For example, blacks commit more crime than whites. Why? Because of slavery and Jim Crow, according to the Left. Women cannot perform as well as men in STEM fields because of sexism and lack of opportunity. Jews gravitate towards usury and finance because in the Middle Ages they weren’t allowed to own land. Chinese-Americans outperform everyone in math because tiger moms make them study really hard. Each of these dicta are unprovable, but must be accepted on faith in order to preserve the lie of equality — and there is no end to these claims for as long as group differences continue to manifest.
The Right, on the other hand, relies at most on one unprovable dictum: God — or Zeus, Odin, ancestral spirits, or other such divinity. The Right essentially invokes some kind of heaven-sanctioned human hierarchy — with its concomitant views on good and evil — which cannot be questioned, only accepted. Everything else flows from that. Yes, this is also an unprovable dictum, but it’s only one. It makes Rightist thought more economical and easier to swallow.
If there’s one thing we know about politics, it’s that if you’re not lying, you’re not winning. All successful politicians have some level of sociopathy. If you don’t know this, then you either don’t know the nature of sociopaths, or you’ve never met a politician.
The Left can “lie about biology” because they determine what biology is — at least on the academic level, and to a large degree on the social level (e.g., “gender and race are social constructs”). If some part of biology (or a biologist) is determined to be “racist” (or anything that doesn’t align with Leftist doctrine), then it’s canceled. Does that objectively change the truth about biology? Well, that depends on what you know about biology, because outside of what you know about biology, everything else is what you believe about biology. The average person doesn’t know the difference between the two. Generally speaking, only high-IQ Right-wingers contemplate the philosophical concept of absolute truth. For the other 99%, truth is just perception.
The modus operandi of Leftism can be simplified and summarized as follows: empowerment via lies. Operating through usurpation. Expanding deconstruction. Literarily speaking, Orwell described the reformation of this unholy trinity with his famous Leftist axiom:
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
This is not to say that all hope is lost, nor that people don’t recognize lies and deception. Of course they do. These people are what is known as dissidents. But, more importantly, the Left doesn’t reproduce. Thus, with IQ being inherent (0.8), this poses a major evolutionary problem for Leftist intellectualism (the brightest Leftists are feminists, homosexuals, careerists, environmentalists, etc. — all with negative birth rates of effectively zero). In order for them to reproduce, they therefore have to kidnap our children (ideologically) and convert them. So, from an evolutionary perspective, the Left is dying — literally. From a spiritual perspective, they’re already dead. They’ve sold their souls for power and status.
The game of power is a pendulum that is always in motion. The Right’s Achilles’ heel in politics and power is also their saving grace: the truth. Absolute truth undoubtedly exists, even if it’s independent of the observer. As the cited work accurately states, the Right relies on God (i.e. the truth) and the dichotomy of good vs. evil. Any rational person can recognize the evil that has consumed the West. At this point, it’s not even debatable.
All critical thinkers will eventually come to the realization of God. It’s inevitable. It’s at that very point that the concept of free will determines your fate by allowing you the choice to accept or reject God.
The Left’s god, by contrast, is egalitarianism, which is enforced by tyranny. Every shred of evidence contradicts human equality. There is no “coming to equality” moment. Leftism is a lie put forth by the father of lies. The problem with building a society on lies, deception, and deconstruction is that it isn’t sustainable. It eventually implodes — sooner rather than later.
The Right, individually and collectively, needs to focus on inheriting the Earth. How? By showing they’re “the smart ones”: getting right with God, having lots of children, and being meek. We are in the midst of a spiritual war that transcends the political paradigm. As Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov: “Everything passes, only truth remains.”
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
49 comments
It is my understanding that the right recognizes that the lefts’ white leadership, generally, has a higher I.Q. but that the street leftist is rather stupid. As their leadership gets browner it gets easier to see a lowering of I.Q. at the top.
Right-wingers are fascinated with IQ to the point that it’s a focal point of the ideological brand. It’s an unspoken credo that says, “We’re the smart ones.”
That’s not what I get out of discussing IQ in the least, which is why it’s never a good idea to pretend you know what someone else is thinking and what their real “unspoken credo” is.
If focusing on IQ was merely a dishonest and backhanded way of saying, “We’re the smart ones,” whites would score above all other groups on IQ tests. To me, discussing IQ is the easiest way to debunk the main tenet of leftism, which is universal equality and their endless attempt to explain away all real-life disparities through some dim notion of “injustice.” It’s possible that the left avoides all discussion of IQ because it would undermine their sacred gospel of equality.
Then you go on by bringing up “God,” and as “proof” that that the Middle Eastern-born, non-European Christian God is the “truth,” you cite a Bible passage.
How about a political movement that isn’t based on squirming nests of contradictions and universalist superstitions such as “equality” or the biblical narrative?
Also, when you talk about birthrates of the “left,” you seem to only be taking into account white and Jewish leftists. The left’s demographic bread and butter are the hyper-fecund browns and blacks of the world, many of whom are—wait for it—Christians! In fact, there are more nonwhite Christians than there are white ones worldwide.
I like this. IQ is 50% phony, conservatively speaking. Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese were somehow subnormal 100 years ago, now they’re at the top of the heap. I have a higher nominal IQ than some of our high-IQ mutuals, but it doesn’t seem to have helped my lack of success.
IQ tests were an artifact of early data-science, i.e., statistics. We needed something to measure, so we made up arbitrary tests and did variances and standard deviations. Like a little kid to whom you give a big heavy Stanley measuring tape for Christmas. (Great stocking-stuffer idea, btw.) Let’s measure THIS! Let’s measure THAT! It’s not for grownups.
Of course there ARE differences in intelligence, but “IQ tests” are a shot in the dark.
I have a higher nominal IQ than some of our high-IQ mutuals, but it doesn’t seem to have helped my lack of success.
Same here. Sometimes our personalities get in the way. I’ve seen some arguments, often buttressed by those demon statistics, claiming that IQ’s effectiveness peaks at a certain level, but beyond that, people become too weird to function in a larger society.
But anecdotal exceptions don’t disprove general statistical patterns. At least for the past couple generations, the racial groups with the highest mean IQs also have the highest per-capita income. Those with the lowest mean IQs have the lowest per-capita income. That’s been a viciously stubborn pattern for a long time now. Is that all merely coincidence?
Regarding IQ tests 100 years ago, I’d like to see the questions. Maybe they were “culturally biased” in a way. Maybe the questions were “arbitrary.” Maybe they tested knowledge of certain subjects rather than general cognitive aptitude. Maybe the tests have grown more sophisticated. But when you’re comparing shapes to one another, testing the ability to spot logical fallacies, and testing other things that can’t possibly have a cultural bias, those stubborn patterns keep emerging. I’d like to examples for any large-scale modern intelligence test with huge sample sizes where those patterns don’t emerge.
Comparing IQ tests to a kid at Christmas with a measuring tape is an emotional approach, not a logical one. In other words, it’s for kids and not for grownups.
Were you born at Fitzgerald Mercy Hospital (Darby, PA), perchance?
I too would like to see the IQ tests from 1917, where the Jews all had IQs of 88. Latin tags? Internal combustion engine operations?
Sherlock Holmes had a great explanation of how he didn’t know Darwin’s theory or the binomial theorem.
I was born, all nine pounds and ten ounces of me, at Taylor Hospital in Ridley Park, PA, although my Aunt Marion (funniest woman in world history) worked at Fitzgerald. I spent the first 19 years of my life in the Westbrook Park section of Clifton Heights, PA.
It’s sad what happened to Darby. It went from the birthplace of W. C. Fields to just another jungle war zone.
I know Clifton Heights, formerly Kellyville or something like that. (Kellys started the textile business in the area, c. 1810.) Home of Kent Mills, where you went to buy your school uniforms. It furnished blankets and uniforms for the Union Army during the Civil War, and had not changed much since when I was there a century later. Naked lightbulbs hanging from the ceiling. Dark satanic mills. You were definitely in another century when you went inside.
I don’t think Darby was ever a real town. It’s a “census-designated place,” as Wiki says. The blackness is just a spillover from the adjacent areas of Phila and Chester.
But I’m quite chuffed to have been born in the same hamlet as that fine, bibulous gentleman, Mr. Fields!
Regarding IQ tests 100 years ago, I’d like to see the questions. Maybe they were “culturally biased” in a way. Maybe the questions were “arbitrary.” Maybe they tested knowledge of certain subjects rather than general cognitive aptitude. Maybe the tests have grown more sophisticated. But when you’re comparing shapes to one another, testing the ability to spot logical fallacies, and testing other things that can’t possibly have a cultural bias, those stubborn patterns keep emerging. I’d like to examples for any large-scale modern intelligence test with huge sample sizes where those patterns don’t emerge.
Exactly.
The fact that all sciences have a primitive stage does not mean that the science isn’t real. We should know this as people who recognize the reality of race.
Race is constantly disparaged by people who say it’s not legitimate because categories like “alpine” aren’t used anymore, and because Ben Franklin didn’t think Germans were white.
Fast forward to today, where you can find out what part of the globe you’re from just by spitting in a tube and mailing it.
Of course, we should still question some things about IQ (the incredibly low African estimates by guys like Lynn come to mind). This doesn’t mean we should abandon IQ. Instead, we should strive for better tests.
First IQ test I ever took was when I was 5. Kindergarten. Only question that puzzled me was (teacher was reciting questions, as most kiddies couldn’t really read), “Which of these items is combustible?” Only thing I recognized was a line-drawing of what appeared to be an Electrolux vacuum-cleaner. So I checked that.
IQ is 100% valid, absolutely speaking. In the two world wars through Vietnam, millions of young men were drafted, and they all had to be quickly tested for intelligence, and the tests had to be reliable, i.e., they had to correctly predict success in the various specialties within the services. The tests may have had different names at different times, like AFQT (armed forces qualification test), but they were essentially IQ tests that measured general intelligence. Nowadays, in the all-volunteer forces, the need remains to economically sort recruits into cognitive categories. Up until recently, the armed forces had no use for anyone with an IQ under 85, which happens to be the average for American blacks.
“All critical thinkers will eventually come to the realization of God.”
Does that include those born before Rabbi Yeshua?
Who Rabbi Yeshua? One of these new Lubavitchers? Lubies are often quite based.
I refer to Jesus of Nazareth
I believe he means Jesus.
All critical thinkers will eventually come to the realization of God.
Equating the bare-bones concept of “God” with “the very specific and contradiction-riddled Christian narrative about a God who chose Hebrews above all others until he changed his mind about that, because he’s mercurial and gets pissed off all the time despite being perfect” shows a lack of critical thinking skills.
So does equating “atheism” with “rejection of the Christian narrative.”
BLM was “successful” because it received unbridled support from virtually every institution of power in society. It appealed to blacks because it was advocating for their license to commit crimes with impunity, and to some liberal whites’ natural impulse to kowtow to power and signal their virtue. Other than that, it had nothing in the way of mass appeal and nothing it achieved was by its own devices.
“And let’s face it, it’s the common people who invoke the change that swings the pendulum of power.”
This is verifiebly false. For the last 80 years at least, public opinion and policy always conformed to the wishes and attitudes of those in power, and never to those of the masses. What the author suggests would imply that governments in the West were pressured by public demand into legalizing gay marriage, normalizing transsexuality, or opening national borders to floods of migrants.
Author’s surprising failure to grasp some basic realities leads me to believe he has a very personal motivation in diminishing the importance of IQ.
“And let’s face it, it’s the common people who invoke the change that swings the pendulum of power.”
This is verifiebly false. For the last 80 years at least, public opinion and policy always conformed to the wishes and attitudes of those in power, and never to those of the masses. What the author suggests would imply that governments in the West were pressured by public demand into legalizing gay marriage, normalizing transsexuality, or opening national borders to floods of migrants.
Exactly. I scrolled down to the comments section after reading the article to post something very similar to this. The success or leftism (at least in its current incarnation) has little to do with any type of grass roots support for the ideology itself. A quick look at the Bolshevik Revolution illustrates that fact perfectly. In fact, if America were a “pure” democracy, all of the listed things would have been voted down by wide margins in most states. It’s why I always get irritated when some right-wing sperg shits all over democracy in any form and starts touting the many benefits of absolute monarchy.
“IQ Doesn’t Matter.” “This isn’t to say that IQ isn’t extremely important; of course it is.” So, which is it? Perhaps you’re not responsible for the title. If so, whoever wrote the title should have read the article more closely. Or, perhaps, you might have expressed yourself more clearly.
A big difference between the left and right is the left believes the right are evil and the right believes the left are wrong. This results in fire-and-brimstone style condemnation from the left. Ever tried to debate a leftie? They won’t let you talk and are certainly not interested in debating points. They assign all sorts of bad intentions and motivations to the right. Their religion (wokeness) allows them to excuse all the bad behavior of ‘their’ side. The mostly peaceful 2020 riots; the BLM protests were okay when social gathering due to COVID was banned; pretty much all black behavior; Antifa etc
The right, believing the left are wrong, tries to debate their ideas. They discuss science in matters of gender; the discussion of the consequences of defunding the police and not prosecuting criminals. The right relies on facts but the left doesn’t care about facts. Like religion, faith and belief are more important to the left. Trying to calmly reason and debate doesn’t work.
Eventually the left will start to see the error of their ways when most have been assaulted and robbed, and their neighborhoods are open sewers and the bridges, buildings and water supplies that diversity hires build or maintain have failed. However, by then, there won’t be anything left.
A big difference between the left and right is the left believes the right are evil and the right believes the left are wrong.
That might be true historically but it is definitely changing. Many on the right now view the left as irretrievably evil and not worth debating, as they know their enemies will not debate in good faith. IMO, we have the election of Trump to thank for that (for better and for worse).
A big difference between the left and right is the left believes the right are evil and the right believes the left are wrong.
That’s merely a rephrasing of the old Charles Krauthammer quote, “Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.”
Either way it’s phrased, it’s a gross overgeneralization. I see plenty of Church Ladies on both imaginary “sides” who are constantly searching for demons under their bedposts. As I’ve said many times, my initial distaste for leftists arose when their venomously self-righteous shrieking started reminding me of the nuns I was forced to spend 12 years with in Catholic school.
It seems that most usages, people tend to hide behind the word “evil” to justify committing atrocities against someone that in most contexts would be considered…wait for it…EVIL.
Not everyone believes in the objective existence of “EEEEEEE-vil.” Some of us think it’s an innately silly concept. As best as I can discern, the concept—which is almost ubiquitous—arose from the genetic survival instinct. Put extremely simply, “good” is that which doesn’t threaten our existence, while “evil” is that which threatens us. That’s why, and I’m repeating myself because the incessant use of this voodoo word necessitates it, both sides in a war ALWAYS think they’re the good side and the other side is “evil.” What are the odds? But “evil” is not something that can be quantified, and I wish—vainly—that people would stop using the word:
Why the Concept of “Evil” Is a Bad Idea
The smartest Conservatives, like Sam Francis, although he didn’t like the term “Conservative” in his later years, called the Republicans, supposedly much more Conservative than the Dems, the Stupid Party. And he called the Dems the Evil Party. I don’t know how you would classify John Stuart Mill, but he called the Tory party of his day “the stupid party” as well.
Sorry you had such bad luck with your Catholic School. I went to Catholic grade school for 8 years before attending public high school. One nun was indeed just as you say, just like the Wicked Witch of the West. But one was incredibly sweet, kind and a gifted teacher. The others were in between. If I had to choose to do it all over again, I would go to the same grammar school.
Pretty ridiculous to turn this into a case for christcuckery, when really what this argument shows is that democracy is a problem for truth-based politics.
The way to beat an enemy’s moral position is to first displace it and then suggest an congenial alternative.
For example, the appeal of ‘equality’ is real. So, in a debate, you accept it and then respond with ‘But why does everyone being equal have to result in everyone living in the same place and the same way?’ or something like that.
One way to tear an argument apart is not to attack it, but to ask it questions it does not have ready answers for, or whose ‘canned’ answers just lead to more questions that can make it seem like, really, the other side doesn’t have all the answers.
Sophistry is recognizing that whatever ‘eternal truths’ might be out there, they’re normally not particularly relevant to quotidian decision-making. Sophistry also recognizes that situations change and the wise person adjusts their arguments and positions accordingly.
Not being a person of the Right, I don’t care if ‘right-wing values’ survive a White Nationalist victory.
I’m not an IQ nationalist.
I’m a White Identity Nationalist.
The ‘bringing in’ of White people should be our lodestar, not IQ or ‘hierarchy’ or ‘equality’ or any other idea or value other than racial self-love.
There is this great documentary on Yukio Mishima’s visit to Tokyo University in 1969 where you can see him reaching out to his enemies as fellow countrymen as a rhetorical tactic.
For our public vanguard, nothing could be more valuable than an instinctive desire appeal to wayward anti-White Whites as an act of loving solidarity.
Not anger.
Not intellect.
No self-interest.
Racial love.
As someone who isn’t the sharpest bulb in the shed, I wholeheartedly agree with you. We need smart people to lead this movement, but regular guys and gals like myself, have something to offer too.
I can’t speak for right wingers, but I absolutely sympathize with this, and admit I’m puzzled by the way some focus solely on IQ as a sort of gotcha. I do think its important when it comes to third world immigration, and, say, refuting white people as the source of black ailments.
But it’s not as if the main problem these days is that leftists simply “don’t know about IQ” and are literally using affirmative action to give 100 IQ people jobs as brain surgeons.
Presumably, in a well designed meritocracy, the most productive people will naturally rise to the top based on their output and performance. Having additional IQ tests thus aren’t generally necessary, and could even lead to a sort of affirmative action where unsuitable people and sociopathic leaders are given positions solely due to IQ. It’s not as if the sleeziest, high level Democratic politicians don’t have very high IQs.
Plus, we arguably no longer live in a functioning meritocracy anymore, so the link between IQ, income, and material success may be increasingly irrelevant in a way it wasn’t in the twentieth century. As an observation, there are lots of younger high IQ white people these days that fare very poorly due to the way the economic system is stacked against them. I think this argument presented by one author at Eurocanadian might be one very reasonable alternative to focusing too much on IQ and hierarchy:
https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2022/04/white-nationalists-can-use-progressivism-social-spending-to-their-advantage.html
There are a couple additional concerns now that weren’t as relevant when it came to 20th century surveys of IQ and income. It’s a very real possibility that mass automation and AI will make much employment increasingly irrelevant and obsolete. Secondly, artificial bioengineering schemes could finally unlock easy means of IQ enhancement, perhaps rendering IQ irrelevant. In my humble opinion, these are additional reasons why nationalists and populists should remain wary of basing their ideology or movement on a supposed need for IQ realism.
Inequality is natural: it is the very mainspring of change, for absolute uniformity is the heat-death of the cosmos. The Left’s sleight of hand is in claiming that inequality equates to injustice. Of course their vanguard thinkers do not truly believe this, but as a slogan to stir up the masses it is unsurpassed. The Right sometimes makes the opposite error in proclaiming that what is just is what is natural, which leads to Libertarianism or the war of all men against all. Of course the debate goes back to Plato and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. Again, if we appeal to the transcendental, as the author of this piece suggests, then why not Islam, which at least contains the political vision that Christianity eschews? At least we must move beyond ‘Jews and IQs’ as the sole planks of our programme.
“The aforementioned mentioned piece…”
That’s a lotta mentions.
Good article let down by irrelevant and nonsensical Bible-bashing.
Not interested in representing “the Right” if “the Right” doesn’t represent my objective interests. Bible fluff isn’t among that.
P.s. race and gender are social constructs. Otherwise, what is the point of trying to convince people to identify as white? After all they are already white and race isn’t a social construct. And why care about “men in dresses”? After all biology doesn’t care what you wear so long as you are warm enough.
I think you mean “Bible-boosting”. And I have no idea what you mean following the “PS”. Race is a valid taxonomical category in biology, but whether it becomes subjectively meaningful, and motivating of action, obviously is dependent on factors other than its mere reality.
This is a great article, but it made a few wrong assertions like the right is reproducing when it is actually contracting alongside leftists. The right embarrasses itself by having to always be right about everything. They will rewrite history to own the libs: DR3. They will retroactively become progressives to defend women’s suffrage being a GOP triumph nearly stifled by sexist Democrats. Yet for some reason they never do this shtick with warmongering. They never pull the trigger on underscoring how Democrats started nearly every war for the last century.
The Left always wins because they are Machiavellian conmen, gamblers and scoundrels. They will put on an affectation and then drop it not just seasonally or upon reading the tea leaves, but reflexively in the opposite direction of whichever way they are losing the argument to a rightist ‘owning the libs’ in that moment. Sometimes they simply do what is fashionable. They stopped being communists and became neoliberals once they realized how corporations are more efficient at manifesting destruction than government. The only time they get tripped up is during their praxis on things like transsexualism. The Right is simply uncompromising on this, much to the chagrin of leftists because this forces leftists to double down on tolerating the encroachment of transsexuals into feminism, as per the ‘we zig when they zag’ and never-the-twain-shall-meet-shtick. The acceptance of transsexualism will absolutely form a bipartisan consensus eventually in the same way the rest of LGB was, so much so rightists will eventually be claiming leftists are the real transphobes, but leftists know this. This will be the capstone on the ouroboros corroding all that feminist power they built over a century. So they will become a victim of their own success, especially as more nonwhites are exposed to this postmodernist propaganda, suppressing their birthrates (the futures market of leftism) more dramatically than that of whites.
When Lauren Boebert announced that her underage son sired a child, the left clutched their pearls about statutory rape and unmarried bastards siphoning more tax dollars on welfare. They dropped the free love facade because they don’t want that either when it comes down to it. So the truth is these people do not think that differently from us. That’s why they choose to live alongside us in suburbia rather than near their professed constituents in the hood, the barrio or even Chinatown. They hate Trump existentially yet somehow manage to survive being besieged by the Trump signs of their white neighbors.
I get the point. The message should be “it’s ok to be white,” not “IQ über alles,” and we should be targeting whites of all rungs. We’re concerned with the survival of the white races, not just the survival of smart people.
When you get to the “why” of “it’s ok to be white” however, IQ is an excellent point to bring up, whites being on average smarter and more productive than other races, having invented the modern world. Obviously it was the unique combination of qualities that made the whites successful, not just IQ, but IQ no doubt played its part.
So why not say both? It’s ok to be white, it’s ok to be smart, it’s ok to be industrious, creative, courteous, moral, to invent things and engineer things. Because that’s what it MEANS to be white. Bring that up whenever the anti-white lefties start calling whites idiotic, rednecks, yokels, retarded, etc. Which they do all the time.
The message doesn’t need to be watered down to just a single slogan, and we certainly don’t need to be aping everything the left does. Talk about IQ, JQ, WN, all of it, and never limit yourself when facing anti-whiteness.
In my experience with talking to all kinds of people, the Left is so successful because of the widespread belief that those Nazis would surely exterminate all minorities. This is how most people think today, be it minorities, slightly dark skinned, women, or simply regular normies, and it is an incredibly strong belief. No amount of truth about IQ or race or biology or politics will budge their attitude as long as they have this belief.
So anyone who wants to win the hearts of the masses will have to do something to address this belief.
A welcome discussion. IQ isn’t everything. Even if it does contribute to a variety of outcomes, does it seem like the topic is getting results other than banishment? I suppose the reason to keep exploring this many decades long conversation is that somehow the public may wonder if wokeness is going to far…. Is increasing the degree of autonomy, agency and personal responsibility also needed to improve outcomes and ‘equity’. The thing is we can skip to that sort of topic right away without even mentioning genetics, etc. How much money is spent per DC public school student to achieve ‘proficiency’ well below the American standard (hint, it’s a lot more spending per student)?
Even the research in this area must approach it indirectly. Steve Sailer covered the massive study “Measuring human capital using global learning data”. First, the title barely hints that it is about standardized testing results by country. Second the entire report does not use the word ‘intelligence’, but the words ‘learning’ and the even more obtuse ‘harmonized learning’.
Serious question, but to what extent do leftists now even literally preach that all human beings are equal?
I mean, egalitarianism is obviously a general left wing assumption, but it seems to me that some right wingers dwell too much on this fact, as if their opponents, and all “leftists” and Democratic party operatives are monolithically driven by the literal belief IQ doesn’t exist, or that all humans have literally the same IQ. Even some smarter leftists know wokeness and racial equity is just a scam to deflect from rising economic inequality.
I think right wingers could probably learn from some of the successes of the left. In general, perhaps right wingers are too negative and cynical. In politics, you have to be able to motivate people and offer them something, and having a positive vision of the future is one of the best ways to do this. Failing that, you have to offer them something tangible. Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to fight against blatant falsehoods, and it’s a necessary strength of the far right to bring “harsh truths” to infantile, sentimental taboos regarding things like IQ differences between groups. But it has a limited ability to motivate and unite people.
Thanks for this comment. I see a lot of writing among the right seeing IQ as some sort of ultimate ‘gotcha’ argument… the Left saw it coming and retooled years ago. When the idea that everyone is not equal in all ability started to gain steam a few years ago, you started to see the left stop using the term “equality” and then start using “equity”. The bell curve also applies to other races. The left will try to pick the cream of a demographic they are looking for and then use affirmative action to replace opportunity for whites when they deem “merit” or “experience” to be of low priority.
Here’s another word that show the limits of relying too much on IQ in our arguments: MENSA. Does anyone take Mensa membership seriously?
Serious question, but to what extent do leftists now even literally preach that all human beings are equal?
I appreciate this question, thank you.
The communications that I hear from the organized left do not mention “equality” at all.
They tell us that whites are innately evil, cruel, and oppressive, while non-whites are virtuous, pure, and above all, victimized.
How does one debate such an infantile world view?
Debate? I say that we deploy the N-word: no.
Regardless of whether the masses care about truth, some people do; those people tend to be of higher quality than the commoner; therefore, it’s important to expend energy converting those people to the truth. Doing so is an investment that will pay larger political dividends in the future. I believe that is a prime function of a website like CC.
Disproving the lies of “diversity and equity”, which IQ research helps to do, must be one element of a larger strategy to defeat the Left. Here is a now classic dissection of egalitarianism still worth reading:
https://mises.org/library/egalitarianism-and-elites
The mistake the Right has been making for many decades, as Sam Francis pointed out in his 1991 speech “Equality as a Political Weapon” (reprinted in the collection Beautiful Losers) , is to assume that the truth will eventually triumph simply because it is the truth, even if unattached to any grubbier interests (ie, those involving wealth and power). But we have those grubby interests today, insofar as it is ever more obvious that whites are a) [politically and financially] oppressed, and b) on a trajectory to much greater persecution in the future unless we consciously act to protect ourselves and further our interests.
The Left has won for many reasons, only some of which the author has broached. Indeed, the question “Why Has the Left Won?” would be a good crowdsourcing issue for CC to examine in depth. It’s a big topic, which admits of many possible answers.
Asserting that the Left “has won” is a defeatist assertion for a Rightist.
Any depth study would have to qualify that statement by asking what the left has won, specifically, and put forward evidence for it.
For most of its history, America was “free, white and Christian” (in the words of Sen. Stephen Douglas). Those were the defining attributes of the Old America: racially white, religiously Christian (with Christian moral values embedded in and upheld by law), and a Constitutionally limited republic with strong property rights and a free economy. And criminals were routinely hanged.
The Left set about to overturn these realities, to make America multiracial and non- Christian (or at least, aggressively secular and anti-traditionalist/pro-feminist + LGBTQ); to shred the Constitution, destabilize property rights, and substitute a “mixed” for a capitalist economy; and to subvert the forces of law & order as a way to promote further instability, general fear, and, ultimately, Marxist revolution.
In 2023, who can say they failed (or haven’t gone a long way towards final success)?
IQ is probably too narrow of a subject for most white people because as Jim Goad recently pointed out everybody’s IQ is going down, and I would add that even before it started going down, most white people couldn’t brag about their IQ, and of course all human beings want to brag about something.
IQ relates somewhat to occupations. After midwits preen a lot of people having IQ above about 126 from various occupations for the sin of having a conscience, these occupations nevertheless have differing bell curves for intelligence, and that’s how individuals differentiate each other according to intelligence within and across groups. It’s a mini bell curve affiliation.
However, intelligence isn’t super adaptive within hierarchies. Most jobs primarily concern doing stupid things really fast and sucking up to superiors. The former translates to paper well via demonstrating quantity, and the latter proves one’s quality to one’s superiors. Conflating intelligence with income is therefore stupid. Ascribing all human worth to income, moreover, is corrupt.
You could conceive of politics as a simple contest between people who wish to ratify the gifts of Nature and people who wish to destroy them. Genius IQ and race are gifts from nature. Those who don’t wish to ratify them will destroy them even if inadvertantly.
We should promote nurturing/defending the gifts of nature. The trouble is people take nature for granted, and they don’t nurture/defend it. They do stupid things really fast and suck up to superiors.
The left will debate nothing based on facts. Global warming, masks for protection, racial affinity, IQ. Their appeal to emotion is effective and near monopoly control of media is a huge benefit for them. White enclave’s are far from perfect, but also far superior to areas stuffed with minorities. I’m in a possible transition period looking to relocate and trying to find demographically comfortable surroundings. Even so my recent experiences with whites have been far from optimal. Yet I would still rather be around us than any other tribe. These are facts the left can’t handle.
Trust my long experience: if you are remotely prowhite, you want to be around conservative whites (ideally prowhite whites, but such communities are hard to find, and anyway broadly correlate with “Red” [GOP] strongholds). Progressive whites are as alien to us as nonwhites (and progressives utterly dominate the American Left and Democrat Party today). In fact, I’d rather live in a community comprised of half prowhite, and half blue collar (but not black underclass) nonwhite, than in one that is, say, 70% white, 30% nonwhite, but among the whites, 80% prog-Democrat, 20% GOP. Everything progressives do lowers the quality of civic life. They are more of a menace to your quality of life than nonwhites (with the exception of violent ghetto blacks).
White flight doesn’t solve anything.
The left and the right each complain that the other side is ignoring facts. There are plenty of bonehead conspiracy addicts on the right, too. I think you are on the right track about appealing to emotion. Targeting “Hearts and Minds” is not a new idea, but the right is definitely losing on the ‘hearts’ side, insomuch that the left has branded it heartless bastards. My suggestion is focus less on IQ and more on the hypocrisy of the left, especially on ’emotional’ topics. For instance, Trump had deported fewer people than Obama. Check out this horseshit CNN analysis:
“Yes, Obama deported more people than Trump but context is everything”
Maybe the crux of the ‘context’ is that left keeps this quiet when they do it, but they wail and cry if there is any news of the right doing it. Of course, the answer is not for the right to suddenly open the border, but it definitely should not let this sort of thing be forgotten. The right needs to be aggressive in reporting on the bullshit sanctimony of the left. An example was Florida sending a group of migrants to affluent Martha’s Vineyard. The response of the left was better than I expected but all in all a very potent statement.
‘Diversity’ democrats are very vulnerable on the hypocrisy of living amongst affluent whites (despite what they say, most want the same type of neighborhood as you). There should be some soft of database of how diverse the neighborhoods are for those who wants to scold everyone about diversity (not doxing).
Recently the Dilbert comic guy misread a poll and wrongly inferred how many blacks disagreed with ‘it’s okay to be white’. He was sent to pasture for saying ‘get the hell away from black people’. But Ann Coulter wittily skewered any number of holier than thou pundits who jumped on bashing him while they themselves live in neighborhoods that have few blacks.
Frequently there is white guy in charge who wants to handle their equity dilemma by discriminating against white underlings. We must in turn keep an open mind to diverse concepts, in this case the Japanese. Those in charge should be expected to seppuku their privileged job first. Apparently the ritual requires an assistant. I imagine there will be a lot of people willing to pitch in.
Purely anecdotal comment here. An obsession with IQ, in my opinion, has been the cause of much mischief and many headaches. When I was in the 3rd grade in the late 1970s, the pointy-heads in charge (remember, “colorblind” meritocracy was mainstream leftist dogma back then) decided to separate (segregate?) all of the brightest kids, those with IQs of 120 and above, into a program called Gifted & Talented. Boy, did they fill our heads up with some bullshit. There were two tracks, math and what was then called language arts–sadly, at least for my future prospects, I fell into the second category–and, although we were all in the same classes in the beginning, in junior high there were some finer gradations according to aptitude. At any rate, most of us stayed together for the entire ten years. At the time, my small, rural county had just one high school, so after junior high we all knew one another. I haven’t kept up with all of them obviously, but I do know the whereabouts and situations of most of them. Guess what? Out of the 50 or so of us (my graduating class had 515 people), one has achieved what most people would think of as roaring success. Granted, he was one of the math geniuses, and he sort of lucked into a Microsoft job. The rest of us? Relatively speaking, your average card-carrying United Auto Worker in 1950 was doing better. The point of all this is: had the bureaucrats of the time not been so hung up on IQ as a predictor of material and all other successes, most of us would have been pragmatic in our strategies for preparing for the future and adulthood. Don’t get me wrong; I do appreciate my genetic endowment and wouldn’t trade it for success. What we need to do is contextualize intelligence (i.e., where and how would it be most useful?) and stop using it as a political shibboleth.
There is an audience which is open to the use of “facts, figures, and data” on IQ, crime, etc., and can be useful in the struggle to legitimize race realism. This audience can include scientists, criminologists, media personalities and other key communicators.
The Dissident Right does not need to win over everyone or even a majority. Rather, the audience is in those key communicators who can bring other people along with them. This is why it is vital to push statistical evidence.
FWIW: If I was wealthy, I’d probably spend my few remaining years in this racial cesspool drinking the finest European Beers (St. Pauli Girl and Peroni), the best coffee, and watch pre-1980 TV shows, and do crossword puzzles on a daily basis. Just a thought.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment