1,598 words
I have confidence in the Right as the political entity we know today largely because Right-wing extremism has proved to be less insidious, murderous, and destructive than Left-wing extremism. This has been the case for the last 250 years. Nothing can compare to the hideous wake left by the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet terror famines and gulags, the mass starvations of Mao’s China, and the crimes committed by the North Vietnamese, among other atrocities. The Nazis at least waited until wartime to commit their acts of barbarism. The worst of the Left had no such compunctions, and were deadlier to boot.
Why is this? 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. This explains many of the atrocities I mentioned above.
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.
Although Rightist thought can also rely on provable dicta for its politics, such as what is found in biology. Frank Salter pioneered such thinking in the final chapters of his 2003 classic On Genetic Interests, with the notions of Universal Nationalism and Adaptive Utilitarianism. His fitness portfolios are great illustrations of this as well. Basically, because each inherited trait is a “parliament of genes” that seeks to perpetuate itself into the future, and because DNA analysis reveals that ethnic groups share many phenotypes that are exclusive to them, the smoothest-running nations are those designed to promote or protect the genetic interests of a particular ethnic group or race.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right here.
Thus, in order to counteract the Left’s dicta, the Right must push its own: either God or DNA. And since DNA is the provable one, it makes sense to lead with that. This is where IQ comes in. Until recently, the Left had relied on our lack of research to establish IQ’s biological (and therefore racial) basis. In the resulting mist of ignorance, the Left could commandeer IQ as another one of their unprovable dicta (for example, IQ is a tool of white supremacy, IQ is a reflection of white privilege, etc.). But those days are over. To quote the opening sequence of The Six Million Dollar Man, “We have the technology.”
Thanks to advances in neuroscience, the Right now possesses the ultimate weapon with which to take back their kingdom. It is the Holy Grail and Ring of Power in one. It is the knowledge and certainty that IQ is a phenotype.
This basically means that IQ is a genetic trait like any other, and is an expression of gene frequencies found in an individual’s DNA, also known as that individual’s genome. Once this is established, then IQ differences among ethnic groups and races must also be established. This shatters the one great lie upon which all Leftist edifices must be constructed: the lie of equality.
But if DNA and IQ are part of the Right’s provable dictum, then where is the proof?
Neuroscientist Richard Haier offers much by way of proof in his 2017 work The Neuroscience of Intelligence. In this slender, yet densely-packed volume, Haier uses neuroimaging data to link IQ test scores to observable, tangible, and mappable structures and functions of the brain. This correlation proves the biological etiology of intelligence.
From my 2022 review:
Haier moves on to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). When used in conjunction with computer technology called voxel-based morphometry (VBM), three-dimensional images of the brain can be created and studied. A voxel is essentially a 3D pixel, and lowering the voxel level within regions of interest in the brain allows researchers to accurately correlate test scores with physical structures. Here is a brief list of brain structures which correspond directly with IQ:
- Cortical thickness and surface area (which correlates with the number of neurons in a major part of the brain associated with memories and reasoning).
- White matter in the parietal lobe (which corresponds to the speed of signals sent between brain cells).
- Gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex (which is associated with attention allocation and impulse control).
- N-acetylaspartate measurements (a marker of neuron density and viability).
- Shorter path length of frontal-parietal connections (a measure of communication efficiency between crucial parts of the brain).
- Inter-hemispheric connectivity between parallel brain structures (an inverse relationship with IQ).
- Basal ganglia volumes (subcortical nuclei associated with cognition and learning).
- Volume of the thalamus (“an important hub of brain circuit connectivity”).
Here is Haier in his own words:
All these early MRI studies of gray and white matter were exciting because they found correlations between various psychometric test scores of intelligence and quantifiable brain characteristics both in specific locations and in the connections among them. This increased optimism for the potential of discovering not only “where” in the brain was intelligence, but also “how” intelligence is related to brain function.
Extrapolating from this, we can reason that temperament and other mental characteristics are also phenotypes. Nicholas Wade makes this very point in his 2014 book A Troublesome Inheritance:
As it happens, the promoter for MAO-A is quite variable in the human population. People may have two, three, four or five copies of it, and the more copies they have, the more of the MAO-A enzyme their cells produce. What difference does this make a person’s behavior? Quite a lot, it turns out. People with three, four or five copies of the MAO-A promoter are normal but those with only two copies have a much higher level of delinquency.
So the more MAO-A gene copies a person has up to a certain point, the greater his impulse control will likely be. Wade writes further:
If individuals can differ in the genetic structure of their MAO-A gene and its controls, is the same also true of races and ethnicities? The answer is yes. A team led by Karl Skorecki of the Rambam Health Care Center in Haifa looked at variations in the MAO-A gene in people from seven ethnicities — Ashkenazi Jews, Bedouins, African pygmies, aboriginal Taiwanese, East Asians (Chinese and Japanese), Mexicans and Russians. They found 41 variations in the portions of the gene they decoded, and the pattern of variation differed from one ethnicity to the next, revealing a “substantial differentiation between populations.”
Wade also refers to a 2012 study led by Michael Vaughan of Saint Louis University which demonstrates that 5% of the black men they observed possessed only two MAO-A promoters, compared with only 0.1% of white men.
I believe there is an unhealthy amount of IQ disparagement on the Right these days. Some of this is understandable. IQ worship, like any other form of focusing exclusively on a particular human characteristic, is silly and counterproductive. At worst it can undermine any ethnonationalist project. High-IQ outgroup members are still outgroup members, and need not be invited into nations that wish to preserve and protect their genetic interests. Further, IQ becomes close to irrelevant when discussing the various European nationalisms. IQ does not make a Frenchman French or a Swede Swedish.
Regardless, in smashing the lie of equality, IQ undercuts the Left’s ideological foundations like nothing else. Neuroscience and genetics have now made IQ the most potent weapon the Right has ever had. Yes, it must be used with caution — but if the Right wants to win, it must be wielded.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
41 comments
Thus, in order to counteract the Left’s dicta, the Right must push its own: either God or DNA. And since DNA is the provable one, it makes sense to lead with that.
Nailed it. The left’s god is “equality.” DNA, and by extension group differences in IQ, is the easiest way to kill the left’s god.
I never understood the idea of “IQ worship” as a pejorative. I suspect it comes mainly from right-leaning types—almost exclusively religious ones—who also use terms such as “race idolaters.” It’s a way of squirming around the fact that, just like “equality,” there’s simply no proof of the monotheists’ pet gods. Using such terms in an accusatory manner also seems like blatant projection from people who actually do worship and idolize things. You can believe that IQ explains a lot of things without “worshiping” it, for heaven’s sake.
Thanks!
I think IQ Worship as a pejorative can mean two things. One is where people get overawed by off-the-charts scores and overlook IQ’s limitations or they justify multiracial immigration as long as the immigrants have high IQs. In my mind ‘IQ Worship’ as a pejorative makes sense when it describes someone who misunderstands or abuses IQ.
What you describe above seems more like IQ denialists falsely calling IQ realists IQ worshippers. Doing that only projects ignorance.
One is where people get overawed by off-the-charts scores and overlook IQ’s limitations or they justify multiracial immigration as long as the immigrants have high IQs.
OK, I got it now. I call those types “bright supremacists.”
I don’t think there are as many actual “IQ worshipers” out there as they are dumb people or hoity-toity intellectual types simply misunderstanding the IQ crowd’s reasoning. IQ is the strongest, most reliable tool in all of psychometrics, hands down. As I see it, the IQ crowd’s intention is to prove that race is significant using this overbearingly powerful tool, while the Spengler enthusiasts, Catholic fanatic wannabes, straight-up dumbos, etc are just strawmaning the former with accusations of IQ fetishism.
Thank you, Mr. Quinn, for articulating very much the same in your article!
You are most welcome, Daniel. Perhaps I should have called it IQ fetishism.
Jim Goad (quoting Spencer): Thus, in order to counteract the Left’s dicta, the Right must push its own: either God or DNA. And since DNA is the provable one, it makes sense to lead with that.
Nailed it. The left’s god is “equality.” DNA, and by extension group differences in IQ, is the easiest way to kill the left’s god…
Not exactly, Jim. If polled, 99% of the U.S. Senators and Congressmen, Right or Left, conservative, liberal or moderate, whether they really believe it or not, will say their god is Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Allah — take your pick — the Jew’s mythical tribal god up in the sky.
Dr. William Pierce had this phony fight ruse between the right-wing and left-wing figured out 47 years ago as they relate to our racial struggle with his classic speech Our Cause, here: https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/our-cause/
We, in the National Alliance, the racial nationalist organization Pierce founded 50 years ago, are neither Right, nor Left, but biological, racial preservationists, which neither Right nor Left are. In fact, when scrutinized racially both sides of that imaginary “aisle” are anti-White.
[O]ne of the difficulties people have in trying to understand us is that they can’t figure out quite how to categorize us. They’re accustomed to putting everything they encounter in life into little, mental pigeonholes labeled right-wing, left-wing, communist, racist, and so on. And once they’ve done that, they think they understand the thing.
Now the trouble is that we don’t quite fit any of the customary pigeonholes. And that is because the doctrine of the National Alliance, the truth for which we stand, is not just a rehash of old and familiar ideas but is really something new to Americans.
Perhaps the best way to approach an understanding of the Alliance is to start by getting rid of some of the most troublesome pigeonholes altogether. That is, by pointing out what we are. We are not, as many people tend to assume at first, either a conservative or a right-wing group… Do we want to restore prayer and Bible reading to the public schools? Hardly. Anti-fluoridation? Nonsense. Income tax? Abortion? Pornography? Well, we may sympathize more with the right-wing position on these issues than we do with the left-wing position, but they are still only peripheral issues for us. They are not the reason why we are here. They are not the things we are prepared to die for…
There are, in fact, several issues on which we are closer to what would ordinarily be considered the left-wing or liberal position than we are to the conservative or right-wing position. One of these issues is the ecology issue: the protection of our natural environment, the elimination of pollution, and the protection of wildlife. And there are also other issues in which we are closer to the liberals than to the conservatives, although I doubt that we agree with them completely on any issue; just as we seldom, if ever, agree completely with the right-wing on any issue.
The reason for the lack of complete agreement, when there seems to be approximate agreement, with either the right or the left is that our position on every issue is derived from an underlying view of the world which is fundamentally different from those of either the right or the left. That is, to the extent that they have any underlying philosophy at all. Often there is none, and a great many people who identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or moderates simply have an assortment of views on various issues which are not related to any common idea, purpose, or philosophy…
1976 was also the year Pierce formulated the necessary non-Semitic, non-Abrahamic spiritual foundation for Our Cause, that he named Cosmotheism. Read about this and order our recently published bible, here: http://coamotheistchurch.org/product/cosmotheism/religion-of-the-future-by-william-pierce/
That link is dead (for me)
For me too, even when the typo is corrected. This article by Dr Pierce may provide an introduction.
https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/09/our-cause-by-dr-william-l-pierce/
I apologize. When told that a link to an earlier nationalvanguard.org article I’d put in a comment here was “unclickable,” I started typing in each character of an URL address. Unfortunately, in typing in the 80 or so characters I see now that the “s” was left off of “http” and that cosmotheism is spelled wrong.
Oh well, putting ‘cosmotheism” in the NationalVanguard.org search block will bring up plenty of articles about Pierce’s ideology/philosophy besides his “Our Cause” speech.
Thanks to you, Caleb, and to Antipodean for helping to fix my blunder.
Each of these dicta are unprovable…
It’s not merely that they are unprovable, nor even that they are unfalsifiable; it’s that they are imputing causality to a relationship that hasn’t even been demonstrated and probably can’t be rigorously formulated. The dicta aren’t even wrong.
Measurability is the hallmark of science. That which cannot be measured may constitute knowledge, but it is of the metaphysical variety and never supersedes the empirical.
For instance, the idea that black criminality is caused by Jim Crow implies that there is in fact a relationship between black criminality and Jim Crow at all. But how would such a relationship even be established using rigorous means? Because Jim Crow is a historically unique set of circumstances, the task would be methodologically fraught. We could treat Jim Crow as a binary variable, taking Jim Crow-like conditions that existed in other countries with significant numbers of blacks — per this formulation, we are only interested in black crime — and compare them with similar countries that never imposed such conditions.
But because of the inherent difficulty in measuring Jim Crow, it’s doubtful that we could get this kind of study off the ground methodologically. And we can guess what the likely results would be if we could: specious correlations if any. Many of the left’s other panacea explanations are even murkier and probably impossible to define, much less measure, precisely enough for meaningful analysis. How does one define systemic racism or the legacy of slavery in ways that aren’t trivially shown to be bad substitutions for much better models?
And in the US context, we are likely more interested in violent crime generally than just black crime particularly. A NY ATM geisha wouldn’t be relieved if only her attacker were donning a sombrero.
Here, the left again smashes its balaclavaed face into yet another of reality’s brick walls. When we take two highly measurable variables, violent crime and proportion of blacks within a given area, we can easily establish an actual relationship with a confidence level that quickly blows past statistical significance minima by orders of magnitude.
Ron Unz undertook just such a study. Using simple linear regression to compare cities, Unz found correlations across all categories of crime that exceed r values of .8. He suggests that for various methodological reasons doing a study at the zip code level would very likely lead to r values of .9 or perhaps even higher. This corresponds to r^2 values in excess of .8, meaning that over 80 percent of the variance in local crime rates is attributable to the proportion of black residents.
This finding is devastating to the left’s theoretic contrivances. First, an r^2 value of .8 is so high that it means it is effectively inconceivable that a better model could ever be found for predicting violent crime by otherwise undifferentiated areas. It is even so high that it is unlikely that the monovariate model could be significantly improved by any multivariate model. There is zero chance that some nebulously conceived variable like Jim Crow is going to approach that level of predictive strength by itself.
Next, there is the issue of causality. Again, with an r^2 in the 80% range, once the causal arrow is correctly pointed, nearly all of the phenomenon’s causality is thereby explained.
The left hatches from its born-yesterday eggshell, pointing and sputtering how “correlation doesn’t imply causation” in one breath while raving about systemic racism causing cancer in the next. But to the NPC’s horror, establishing steel-clad hatefact causation is often trivial.
While there may be the chance of some limited two-way causality in the case of proportion of blacks and violent crime, we can clearly see on which of the causal arrow’s possible directions smart money will bet.
In this case we have two statements,
“High proportions of blacks cause violent crime” or,
“Violent crime causes high proportions of blacks.”
The latter might at first glance appear plausible. But even enthusiastically violent blacks — rappers, gang members, drug kingpins — almost invariably choose to leave the hood the first chance they get. If even boisterous thugs flee on their first big payday, it’s clear that the more timid would leave even faster if they could. There is also the poverty argument — blacks, being poor, can only afford to live in high-crime areas — which is dispelled by the fact that poverty in the US doesn’t correlate particularly well with crime when adjusted for race and that many of the locations blacks currently inhabit were always of lower economic strata but only became hyperviolent once invaded. And how does that theory explain the state-of-the-art new buildings, like Robert Taylor and Pruitt Igoe, that became death traps within short years?
All the above demonstrates with statistical rigor that blacks cause the large majority of violent crime in America and that no cause of violent crime remotely as important likely will or even can be found. The left can posit all it wants about what causes the cause. But its attempts at doing so are often speculative to the point of lacking cognitive content at all. “Why are blacks hyperviolent?”, is an interesting question. But I’m not interested in the schizoid answers offered by dogma-possessed fanatics.
Similar patterns of analysis can be applied to most in-vogue neoMarxist arguments.
Thank you for this, AC. After what you have provided there can be no argument that race isn’t significant when it comes to crime.
“but if the Right wants to win…”
“If.” That’s the rub. Yet I hope and pray.
Great article, SJQ. You keep popping them out and I can’t keep up with my growing reading list.
I predict (because I have had a glass of green beer and am in the mood to indulge myself) the 21st Century will be about demographics and specifically, the reality of racial differences. It may be very painful for all of us (as it plays out…), but I think it is inevitable now. Geneticists will have a big part to play, much like social activists did in the 20th.
On that happy note, Happy St. Paddy’s! Have a beer or a whiskey and let a taste of the luck of the Irish carry you through the modern madness.
And happy St. Paddies to you too, Desert Flower. I hope all is well.
“I predict….the 21st Century will be about demographics and specifically,…”. Specifically & precisely why we Europeans aka White Peoples MUST breakaway. To survive as a European Race & live our full potential we have to embark on a breakaway civilization in perpetuity. Our European Race to totally & completely separate in perpetuity, &, continue our quest for knowledge & the explorers we are by heading back to the stars. We MUST alter our thinking & focus exclusively on our children, our grandchildren, our posterity’s future. It took the Spaniards some 700 yrs. to take back their homeland. Our total & complete separation in perpetuity must be our ultimate goal.
Whilst rediscovery of the discrepancy in intellectual capacity between Europeans and black Africans, which was well known in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, may be useful in certain arguments to do with affirmative action and crime, it won’t save Western peoples from hybridization and replacement. There is a practically unlimited supply of relatively high caste, intelligent South and East Asians who can be invited into our territories to displace white men and breed with middle-class white women, encouraged by full-spectrum miscegenation propaganda. Selective school students (academically selective from fifth grade) in South-Eastern Australia, home to more than half the population, are ninety percent from these two demographics already.
Yep, and that’s already an argument you see basic bitch white conservatives starting to make, i.e. “Affirmative action hurts Asians blah blah blah” or “We should allow even more Asian immigrants because muh medical and tech professions!” They will literally say or do anything to keep up the notion that race is not important to them. Or at least not their own race.
Debates about demographic interests (especially when talking about immigration) should be in terms of identity and not in (proxy) terms of merit (IQ, lawabidingness, family values, conservatism, religiosity etc.). If it is about race then we should talk about race. Otherwise Jews, Chinese and high-caste Hindus would be allowed to replace us. The taboo that race is not a legitimate group interest (but only for Whites that is) should be broken.
BTW, the idea that Blacks are more criminal due to (former) discrimination (“Jim Crow”) is a reversal of the truth. It was exactly the system of discrimination that kept black criminality in check. Same with Apartheid in South Africa.
Leftoism is in all respects a reversal of natural truth. We see that in especially in the realms of race and gender.
“Debates about demographic interests (especially when talking about immigration) should be in terms of identity and not in (proxy) terms of merit (IQ, lawabidingness, family values, conservatism, religiosity etc.)”
Agree. But this is a process. Red pilling a normie over identity is a nonstarter. Any talk of the dispossessed majority or freedom of association will lead them to that part of their minds which point and sputter over racism/Nazism. This is how they are programmed by the Left, like some acquired gag reflex. The Left can deal with talk of identity.
Discussing the demonstrable reality of IQ as a phenotype, however, gets around this by appealing to science (not merely psychometrics). This is where the Left is weakest. It has no defense when you show how according to the cutting edge of neuroscience IQ is a phenotype. This points to tangible proof which cannot be refuted. Thus the fundamental lie of the Left gets exposed and the normie will start to be deprogrammed from Leftist thinking.
Once this initial break occurs, then we can talk about identity.
A fine point. When you’re trying to convince the average white normie that being a witch in the 21st century is perfectly fine and in fact in their best interest, baby steps are probably the way to go.
I would say the crime statistics, as presented by a nice, softly spoken but highly intelligent white lady like Heather MacDonald, are all that’s needed to prove the lies. Even very intelligent, family-oriented whites seem to arc up about discussions of race and intelligence when they’re not ready for such.
Intelligent non-whites are not as much of a threat to the jews’ civilization as negros but in the long run they are a greater threat to us and ours. Replacement occurs in a much more orderly fashion with Asians, allowing it to proceed much further, to the point where, even if they finally awaken, many will throw up their hands in despair and declare the battle lost.
In my experience growing up with three TV networks, a college degree, and no internet, there was always a way to excuse the crime statistics. It wasn’t until hearing about The Bell Curve that everything suddenly made sense.
The only difference between the races is skin color…Well, that and eye color, lip size, hair texture, the nose, the lips, the skull, the blood, the body, the brain, criminal tendencies, impulsive behavior, energy levels, and of course, IQ. But other than that, it’s mostly just skin color.
Another great article Mr. Quinn.
However, I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the last two sentences of your article.
In particular, what would be a non-cautious use of neuroscience and genetics? What I would like to see would be an example of a societal/racial problem where a cautious use of neuroscience and genetics is used and compare the same example where a non-cautious use is used.
Here are your last two sentences.
“Neuroscience and genetics have now made IQ the most potent weapon the Right has ever had. Yes, it must be used with caution — but if the Right wants to win, it must be wielded.”
Thank you, Judd. An incautious use of IQ would be placing IQ or any positive trait over race or in-group preferences. For example, justifying non white immigration or miscegenation as long as the non white in question has a high IQ.
IQ as a phenotype should be used first and foremost to de-program normies away from the Left. It is important but should be subservient to the group as a whole. So in a white ethnostate, using IQ to help determine College placement or job opportunities among whites is a matter of legitimate controversy. Using IQ to help undermine the genetic interests of whites should not be.
“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.”
If you condemn these practices, you have already surrendered to the Left. With the partial exception of slavery, all of them are vital in order to have a functioning society.
Racial exclusivity is nothing more than rejecting a US-style “diversity” zoo, whose undesirability hardly needs to be elaborated upon. Ethnic tribalism is similar but in regard to ethnic groups of the same race; since individuals of the same race (and religion) but belonging to different ethnic groups can be assimilated, a nation can accept small numbers of them without changing its fundamental character, but only small numbers.
Distinct gender roles are as necessary as they are natural because men and women are vastly different, and only malignant lunatics deny it.
Slavery too has a place, not on a racial but on a penal basis. So-called liberals are profoundly sick in spirit, and given what they have done to the US and other White countries, they patently cannot be allowed to be citizens. So what to do with them? Restrict what occupations they may have and where they may live, confiscate their property and tax them heavily, take away their rights to speech and assembly, make them report where they are and what they are doing. If they show any defiance, put them in camps and make them perform hard manual labor. In other words, make them a lot like slaves. And that’s actually merciful because the alternative would be to remove them completely from society.
Hi Ray,
I surrender nothing. I am merely pointing out in terms a normie would accept that the worst of the Right is more humane than the worst of the Left.
Ray has the right idea.
The differences in our taste and response to music may also be an indication of a genetic difference in the races, especially between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. SS Africans show a preference for rhythm and heavy bass and their response to the music they like is to shout out, make themselves part of the performance and to generally act afool. (They do the same thing in movie theaters). Europeans tend to be quiet out of respect for the artist and to listen for every nuance in the performance.
SS Africans and Europeans were genetically separated for about 70,000 years (plus we interbred with different and older human species).
Europeans apparently spent a lot of time in caves and played flutes. I imagine them playing their flutes (and whatever other instruments they may have had) and listening intently to the nuance as the sound echoed off the cave walls. Undoubtedly, this music was part of their ceremonies and celebrations.
This went on for maybe 10’s of thousands of years. Perhaps long enough to affect their genetics. Women like musicians. African women seemed to have liked men who banged on drums and hopped around shrieking like a band of wild Banshees. Not much nuance.
Stonehenge, and perhaps other similar ancient structures, could be descended from our European cave music culture. The stones seem to have been chosen for their acoustic properties and it has been conjectured that the structure itself was a giant musical instrument.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-26417976
A very strongly put case! I quite agree that the hard science of IQ can be a great entry argument away from the equality worldview.
Though as you say it can easily be led astray. We must be careful to point out that we seek the wellbeing of our race because it’s ours, and because we respect that essential instinct of tribalism – not that we only care who has the biggest number on some measurement, which would just be more of the rootless economic mindset.
This is a great article and the comment section is great too.
I agree with Teutonic Path’s point about our right to preserve our well-being and our survival as a distinct and unique people. That is a moral argument.
Mr. Quinn you make a good point that the IQ knowledge is a weapon that must be wielded against egalitarianism. Do you have thoughts on what other arguments we can and must wield and strategies for which should lead and in which situations? Not to be reactive, but to be most effective in different contexts. I think the moral case properly stated – our people’s right to our well-being and homelands, is a powerful weapon. The Left makes that case for all people except on – ours. There is an opening in their formation to be exploited.
I think the moral case properly stated – our people’s right to our well-being and homelands, is a powerful weapon.
Morality can’t be quantified like general intelligence can. And I don’t think it’s an effective weapon at all in world that’s been brainwashed to think the ultimate evil is white self-interest. There’s really no effective retort to “White people are bad,” because once someone uses the word “bad,” they’re tiptoeing throught the tulips in Subjectiveland, a magical kingdom where truth is whatever you wish it to be.
One can’t come up with a replicable “morality test.” But the IQ tests are highly replicable. No one has ever come up with one where blacks score higher than whites do.
A potential bridge here is psychology, showing that suppression of one’s humanity (I.e. instincts) is self-destructive. Sure you may get some particularly masochistic types who are fine with that, but in my experience most people are open to the idea that our moral and political system must be rooted in our instinctive interests once this point has been made.
“Do you have thoughts on what other arguments we can and must wield and strategies for which should lead and in which situations?”
Psychologists need to come up with an ICQ figure: Impulse Control Quotient. That could prove helpful. Also, perhaps a sure fire way of linking genetics or brain function to impulse control so a DNA test/brain scan could predict criminality.
So to answer your question, no. Not until science catches up.
Interesting. Yes. It seems like there also needs to be some sort of helplessness vs. self-reliance quotient. I suppose this would be called the Agency Quotient. The history of our people is a history of self-reliance, inspiration to action in upward and outward propulsion.
Here is where the stark contrast between peoples manifests. Of course, while we have a towering history that proves our Agency Quotient, we must perform some grandiose undertakings to exercise, test and prove it still exists. Our cause and its realization fits the bill.
Jim Goad –
Those are great points. I do agree with you on this in terms of convincing the out-groups. It is a waste of time. It isn’t even because they are brainwashed. It is because of the biological reality of clannish and tribalistic group survival and power strategies. Chimps are low IQ relative to us, but they handed that to our biology.
My proposition is in the context of considering who our target audience is. For the moral case/cause of self-preservation we don’t need to convince any external groups. We need to convince more of our people. It isn’t the coastal rabble, (my term in place of, “coastal elites”, as I think it more apt), that we need to convince. It is the large segment of our people that has never considered the question. I think there is value in getting them to consciously ask themselves and consider it. Many probably never have. Few would answer no if they only considered it, and that might lead to the next question. ‘Why am I even considering this question?’ From there the floodgates open.
In other words, the highest morality, and I suspect why we are all here, is a person’s survival and the survival of their children. Before the moral obligation we have to our ancestors, ourselves and our children to survive lies the primordial imperative of self preservation. I don’t think people see that as even a moral question – at least not in the degraded state that modernity and consumerism has left them in. When they are groveling from opening weekend to the championship game in relative comfort, the question may never be confronted.
How do we embed that question in a more potent but as easily digestible statement as, “It’s OK to be white.”
Maybe it’s a personal aversion to the word “moral,” because I’ve been clubbed over the head since infancy by moralists.
As odd as it is to hear me citing Ronald Reagan, his famous 1980 debate point “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” was highly persuasive.
It could be equally persuasive to ask whites, “Are whites better off now than they were before the Civil Rights era?” Then show them about 200 hours of footage of whites from before the Civil Rights era.
Jim Goad –
Perfect. My guess is the answer would depend on the class of the white person. Upper class they would say yes, with a few outliers whose intelligence is oriented toward seeing the consequences of ideas. Middle and lower class would probably say no. That is changing with the more brazen strain of AntiWhite Corporatism.
I think that idea of the question with film footage and statistics is a great idea. I think these types of vignettes need to be in our arsenal. Brilliant idea.
I am with you and the moralizers. I am sick and tired of them. I long for an age where you could just ask our people, “Do you want to be the best, control your own destiny and dominate the world?” The answer would be, “Why are you asking me this? Join in and help me carve a statue out of this marble or do something useful so I can.”
Has anybody here seen Europa: The Last Battle? The Nazis did not commit the atrocities that you think they did.
Spend time with stupid people to learn what smart people think of the mainstream.
Stupidity has a personality:
Believing optional things are rigid rules, being anti-intellectual, hackneyed (espousing cliches), learning slowly, being unconcerned with details, easily confused, having a limited vocabulary, disliking big words, not noticing mistakes, claiming things are over their head, intellectual incompetence (being wrong, overly simplistic or overly complicated), lacking introspection [having reduced perception]
liking small-talk, keeping it light, being unimaginative, never thinking ahead, not caring about the future, having no original ideas, thinking quantity trumps quality, having disorganized thoughts, not opening up (seldom sharing thoughts, feelings, preferences, tastes, ambitions, hopes, and fears) [existing primarily as a physical animal living in the present].
easily offended, easily overwhelmed, fractious, panicking easily, being neurotic, unhappy, having mood swings, being orderly, following others, sticking to routines, being formal, avoiding confrontation, being demure, fragile, nurturing, tender with others, and sociable [mammalian femininity] conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness.
Human society is becoming stupid.
You are the resident counter-currents expert in unsupported assertions. Many of the character traits listed like agreeableness, being tender with others and adhering to formal rules are what make civil society civil. In fact normative formality used to keep a check on anti-social people. Now we have enforced celebration of public degeneracy. Not everyone who is not just like you is stupid.
I was wrong about agreeableness because IQ is positively associated with agreeableness, so yes, that was an unsupported assertion.
Most of the rest of the assertions come from this article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/how-does-iq-relate-to-personality/
“IQ was negatively related to orderliness, morality, nurturance, tenderness, and sociability.” The negative correlation with nuturance was -.193, p < .01.
Actually, a meta-analysis showed agreeableness is not significantly correlated with intelligence rather than being positively correlated.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.