“Hive mind” is in error by comparing the individual correlation between income and IQ with the national correlation. Correlations are dimensionless quantities, and we need a quantity with dimension “increase in income per IQ point”
From Scott’s graph of income by IQ decile, I conclude that within a nation, individual income increases by a factor of 1.024 per IQ point, that for IQs in the normal range, average income for people of that IQ within a given nation is proportional to 1.024^(IQ)
This closely agrees with Dallards result, obtained from different and independent data, that the average income for white males is proportional to 1.025^(IQ)
From La Griffe’s table, I construct a graph of log of national income against IQ, draw a trendline, and conclude that between nations, income increases by a factor of 1.099 per IQ point, that the average national per capita income is proportional to 1.099^(IQ).
This curve (exponential in IQ) gives a better fit than linear in IQ, and as good fit as smart fraction theory (linear in the proportion of people above a certain threshold).
From which we may conclude that the only a quarter of the benefit of IQ is internalized, that three quarters of the benefit goes to everyone else.
And that therefore importing inferior people people will lower your income much more than you yourself being inferior. Inferior people benefit by going to the countries of superior people, but destroy what they come for.
Note the the neoreactionary classic tinyurl.com/gllc3xs gives a clear explanation of why national IQ matters. Because ruling IQ matters. A couple drive through the Congo. Everything has gone to shit since the white rulers left, everyone is trying cheat and rob everyone else, and often enough, trying to eat everyone else. Cannibalism is not common, but it is a lot more common than one would prefer. Every so often an entire village comes after them with machetes, presumably intending to eat them.
In France, forty percent of births are African, and this fraction is rapidly increasing. It is worse than Brazil, but France is still France, rather than Brazil, because pure blooded whites still rule. From which we may conclude that in a few decades, French cuisine is going to feature people more than snails and frogs.
On which pages of the NRx classic might one find the references to cannibalism or machete attacks (it’s more than 50 pages long, after all)?
Call it I.Q. or call it basic creativity, but yes. Bringing in Mexicans by the tens-of-millions to the United States will cause the country to take on a Mexican quality. A lot of people believe so strongly in “education”, that it’s impossible for them to understand that everything _can’t_ be solved by their programmes. It’s a sickness, a catastrophic myopia, but it’s still criminally genocidal, White Genocide.
A.J.P.
But it is a very entertaining fifty pages.
And during most of that fifty pages the white protagonist is working hard in the hot sun, surrounded by a horde of black people for whom two dollars is a great deal of money, and yet, because of distrust, dares not hire them.
Mutually beneficial transactions cannot be made – due to the transaction costs caused by frequent bad behavior.
I’ll take it one forkful at a time then…
A.J.P.
-Mutually beneficial transactions cannot be made – due to the transaction costs caused by frequent bad behavior.-
One of the theologians that I pay most attention to is the late Rev Rushdoony, the podcasts are quite good. He said something in one where he mentioned that over the recent centuries there has been a “cooling” between human interactions. That might be a metaphor for what is being talked about here. It’s a grand idea, getting people to work together again. Throw the scum out!
Page 12, this man is defective, taking a woman to Africa and camping near negroes.
Hey, give him credit for learning.
only 21 pages into the thread so far, this guy seems like an apex alpha male to me.
jim, thanks for the link, this is amazing reading
-this guy seems like an apex alpha male to me.
In the same way that Sec Stalin was one and not a completely worthless psychopath…
A.J.P.
same anon here. stalin, with help form his 2 best bros, waged a successful revolution and took control over a major country. that’s fucking alpha. shaving with a classic razor, reading pua blogs and telling women they look fat does not make you alpha.
Stalin was just the final stage of the left singularity. He rode it to the top, then stopped it. The process was set in motion by Alexander the Liberator.
Page 6.
would it kill you to use the text search feature? Does everything have to be some gay slogan for you to chant for you to want to read it?
[bandwidth wasting insults deleted. Please show imagination or relevance]
[bandwidth wasting insults deleted. Please show imagination or relevance]
Does this:
would it kill you to use the text search feature? Does everything have to be some gay slogan for you to chant for you to want to read it?
Does this have either of those, “Jim”?
Best regards,
A.J.P.
>In France, forty percent of births are African, and this fraction is rapidly increasing
Is there any evidence for this? This isn’t to say that I don’t believe it–it seems plausible enough–but that I’ve never managed to find any hard, reliable proof for these kinds of claims.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/the-africanization-of-france-medical-data-suggests-one-third-french-births-are-non-white/
34.4% according to this. Jim may be working off more recent/accurate numbers.
Actually working off half remembered guestimates – your data of 34% in 2012 and growing fast is almost certainly more accurate than my data of around 40% around now. But, hey close enough, and if it was a bit off today, it will be correct soon enough.
The closer they get to an African majority, the easier it is to hold the tap wide open, so the faster we approach an African majority.
According to the Algerian government there are 7 million Algerians in France. That’s about 11 percent of the french population already. I don’t know how many tunisians, moroccans, black africans, arab jews and other immigrant groups there are, but I’m sure the number is large. Given the fact that they alead you have more children than the native French, I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage is much higher than 40%, and still growing fast.
Projecting the figures you linked from 2012 to 2016, they would be 40% in 2016, and since the rate of immigration has increased rapidly, probably 40% now.
This is a new justification for 40%, for I cannot recollect the old justification.
Spandrell says 37.2% in 2014.
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/%D1%87%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C/
Increase in income for individuals due to IQ is conditional on many other factors, such as laziness, taking the cloth, or sheer luck. Studies holding these things constant simply cannot be done, meaning they lower the apparent IQ-income correlation. For nations, these things are averaged out.
It’s the same phenomenon as within-gender variation being more than between-gender variation. The specific luck variations between individuals will be more extreme than average luck variations between countries, meaning they are almost held constant.
The IQ/income decile graph is a halfway point. IQ explains something like 0.17 of the variance in income at the individual level. Clearly it’s much higher by decile. By country, it’s even higher.
—
Haha, insert expletive.
The decile graph forms a clear line up to the exact average. 6-9 are on a second, lower line. Decile 10 is higher than the original line.
So, that’s democracy/Sophism. It’s easy to form a coalition to benefit the exact middle at the expense of those better off…which is ultimately collated and run by the very smartest.
» So, that’s democracy/Sophism. It’s easy to form a coalition to benefit the exact middle at the expense of those better off…which is ultimately collated and run by the very smartest.
how exactly does the progressive agenda benefit the average? If you ask the question ‘qui Bono’, the answer is ‘die Juden’. Jim and Spandrell argue that that’s the wrong question, the right question being ‘how does signaling these opinions benefit the people with authority’.
You’re a Roman Catholic, trying desperately to draw attention to the Jew so as to avoid your own religion’s complicity.
White ethnics are all the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ethnic
A.J.P.
It’s simple bidding. It’s getting highly exsanguinated, but you do have to pay off the voters, just barely. The 5th decile spike is the evidence of that payoff. 10th decile forcing 6-9th to pay to the 1-5th, so the 5th will vote for the 10th. (More precisely, for the 1st millelile’s lackeys.)
Die Juden, qui it supposedly bono, are dying out in the exact proportion in which they have assimilated Western humanist values. And have been for the last 200 years.
Notably, the suicidal values of today’s West are identical to those of the Oneida Community, Piero Arellano, the ancient Greeks, etc. and not to those of the Sages of the Talmud.
Yeah, sure, obviously. And similarly the Old Bolsheviks were devoured by Bolshevism.
But we can certainly blame Jews in substantial part for Bolshevism. It is wrong to accuse Bolshevism of being clever plot by “The Jews” to benefit “the Jews” Rather, their role resembles that of ebola patient zero.
Jews tend to be the chief victims of, and chief spreaders of, memetic diseases. Marx tortured his sources to fit history into his theory of history predicting the inevitable victory of the proletariat in the same fashion that Talmudists torture the Old Testament. Dialectics strikingly resembles Talmudism. As each rabbi takes the previous rabbi as a basis, rather than the Old Testament, and so each layer of interpretation drifts further from the old testament, each intellectual engaged in dialectics takes the previous intellectual as basis, rather than the supposed sources and observations.
This characteristically Jewish treatment of evidence and argument is the intellectual equivalent of a doctor failing to wash his hands as he goes from patient to patient.
70 million Vatican-Roman “Catholics” spread disease better than 8 million Taldmudic Jews in the United States, of course.
One for one it might be a better story, so you’re allowed that as an “out”, “Jim”…
A.J.P.
[Deleted for making empty assertions without explanation, evidence, or argument
If I say X, not enough for you to say “Not X”]
Pointing out that you can’t call Jews “patient zero” for Bolshevism when Bolshevism didn’t differ from the French Revolution is not an empty assertion.
“Pointing out” that Bolshevism did not differ from the French revolution is idiotic. Of course Bolshevism differed radically from the French Revolution.
You are right-the hats were completely different. Also, most of the Bolsheviks did not speak French and practically none of the revolutionaries spoke Russian.
But in their most basic premises about human nature and history, and their desired direction, and in their effects, they were quite close.
Marxists had a theory of history, identified with the proletariat, and the dialectical method. French revolutionaries had none of these things.
Bullshit.
Armed with the example of the French Revolution it would have been impossible for a nationalist Napoleon to seize the Russian Revolution. Rather than spending their efforts on creating a revolutionary calendar, armed with more advanced Marxist communist theorizing, the Russian Revolution systematically executed and exiled class enemies to secure the power of the revolutionary state.
While there are now plenty of Nazis on the Internet who would pay many clicks to an intellectual who could plausibly blame the French Revolution on the Jews, that doesn’t appear to have happened.
There isn’t much difference between libertè, egalitè, fraternitè and all power to the supreme soviet. But, in the absence of leÅŸ juîf, we can explain that the French Revolution was just Whites being too White for a while and eventually figuring themselves out, while the Russian Revolution was led by diabolical Jews whose actual goal was to ethnically cleanse Eastern Europe of ethnic Germans, a goal that they concealed from their fellow revolutionaries due to their verbal IQs.
Peppermint: you are wrong.
If anything, Marx thought very highly of Germans. Google “Marx racist” just to get a clearer picture of Marx’s mind. Most secular Jewry of 19th to early 20th c, wanted to fit in with German values and society.
Many Jews in the Russian Empire joined the cause of revolution as it, under the “international” banner, promised to finally liberate from institutionalized antisemitism of the Russian czars. This involved much more than the antisemitism of the common folk/peasantry, like yours, which has been a reality for centuries.
I am certain that some could have desired to cleanse Eastern Europe of Russians (or pay back), but I don’t see Germans as the target.
>”the suicidal values of today’s West are identical to those of … the ancient Greeks”
Identical? Our popular values and civic culture are nothing at all like theirs — a fact that every man should lament! Nor, for that matter, were the values of the ancients “suicidal” in any way at all. They were, emphatically, the opposite: Vigorous, heroic, expansionary, driven to conquest and trade and discovery. (Quite the opposite of Talmudic culture, wouldn’t you say?)
Right. Vigorous, heroic, solipsistic, gay, idolatrous, lots of abortions. I doubt Alcibiades would have a hard time fitting in in modern American society.
Quite opposite from Talmudic culture-right you are! We didn’t invade Greece, but when Greece invaded us and tried to impose its values, we kicked its ass good and proper, kicking off a wave of rebellions across the Seleucid dominions. And unlike the pederast Greeks, whose values led them to a quick and well-deserved extinction, our values led us through several hard millennia and back to our land.
Minor quibble, though, re: trade and discovery. We were sailing the Med at the same time as the Greeks, trading and so forth. This was the specialty of the tribe of Dan. The Spartans claimed descent from Dan. And when your ancestors were huddling in peat bogs, mine were Rahdanites, “those who know the way,” going from France to China. Sorry.
1. I don’t think you preserved your values. I think you got hellenized
2. The miracle of Jewish survival is now well understood: Your religion compelled you to wash your hands, bury your poop, and keep your houses free from vermin. Nothing to do with transcendental values. Rather, one of the patriarchs understood disease transmission and made cleanliness observance into a religious observance so that his knowledge would not easily get lost. Instead of telling his kids that he was wrathful to see human poop and wanted it buried, told them God was wrathful to see human poop and wanted it buried, and would likely afflict them with plague if they failed to bury it. Which is religion as recommended by the Dark Enlightenment: Wisdom expressed in a form that stupid people can follow.
Jewish religion has changed frequently – but surviving Jews preserved the cleanliness parts of it and the ones that did not preserve those parts eventually vanished. Now that everyone understands cleanliness, Jews no longer have a survival advantage.
Bullshit.
I doubt Alcibiades would have a hard time fitting into any society at all. Yet, with that said, there’s not a man alive who is half as accomplished as he was. His life was quite literally the stuff of legend. If it were a work of fiction, we would dismiss it out of hand as ridiculous and unlikely, like a serialized work of pulp-adventure fiction.
…Even great men have their faults, and Alcibiades had far too many — but men of his caliber simply do not exist today. Modern society does not allow it.
Although the tribe of Dan may have sailed, the Greeks dominated land and sea.
Your people may have led bloody rebellions — as the ghosts of many Greeks and Romans would attest — but were always a conquered people, and were never the conquerors. The history of the Jew has been wholly tragic. The history of the Greeks is, in contrast, rousing and inspiring. (Not only did the Greeks defeat invasion, they eventually marched on to Persia and captured it! And then of course there’s the Anabasis, and much more…) The story of Masada is depressing and puzzling, whereas the tale of Thermopylae could not possibly be more beautiful or noble.
The Jews have survived. The Greeks did not. I’ll give you that one. But it was not on account of “suicidal” virtues — they became a Roman protectorate and waned in strength. Of course, their culture and virtues had a profound influence on Rome, but Roman culture was not Greek culture.
When you look at the Greeks, try not to see them at their very worst.
>1. I don’t think you preserved your values. I think you got hellenized
You think this based on conjecture. But I notice that the values of your world coincide quite well with those of the Greeks, and our values don’t.
>The miracle of Jewish survival is now well understood: Your religion compelled you to wash your hands, bury your poop, and keep your houses free from vermin.
What a delightfully Marxist, materialistic explanation.
Strangely, according to this explanation, NONE of our ancient contemporaries-not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Persians, not the Assyrians, not the Babylonians-were smart enough to figure out how to wash their hands, bury their poop and keep their houses free from vermin. I mean, if that’s all it takes to stick around for 3K years, well, none of them are around, so they must not have figured it out.
It is also strange that despite living among Muslims who did know how to wash their hands etc., we did not become assimilated into them.
> Nothing to do with transcendental values. Rather, one of the patriarchs understood disease transmission and made cleanliness observance into a religious observance so that his knowledge would not easily get lost.
I remember being a kid and reading Communist just-so stories about how people were once very stupid and heard thunder and saw lightning and made up a sky deity to explain it. You’d make them proud.
>Instead of telling his kids that he was wrathful to see human poop and wanted it buried, told them God was wrathful to see human poop and wanted it buried, and would likely afflict them with plague if they failed to bury it.
And for the next approximately 120 generations, these gullible Jews just kept doing it.
Meanwhile, none of the goyim around them made the connection and took up these customs. Just too stupid.
Very reasonable.
>Now that everyone understands cleanliness, Jews no longer have a survival advantage.
Except for that little fact that while you all have stopped making babies, our birthrates keep going up, and G-d seems to be sending us enough sustenance that our material condition is improving.
Probably just a coincidence.
As for Dan sailing the sea, you pretend that you know what it says in the Torah and we don’t, and then continually demonstrate that you have no idea what it says in the Torah:
“Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships?”
And obviously, if you don’t know what it says in Judges, you have no idea what it says in Maccabees 1 (which is apocrypha, but still a primary source):
20 King Arius of Sparta to Onias the High Priest, greetings. 21 We have found a document about the Spartans and the Jews indicating that we are related and that both of our nations are descended from Abraham. 22 Now that we have discovered this, please send us a report about your situation. 23 In reply, we will send you a letter indicating that we are willing to share our possessions, including cattle and property, if you will do the same. We have given orders to our ambassadors to give you a full report about these matters.
Josephus, whom you also claim to have read but obviously have not, says:
“Areus, King of the Lacedemonians, to Onias, sendeth greeting … we have discovered that both the Jews and the Lacedemonians (Spartans) are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham … This letter is four-square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws”(Ant.12:4:10).
Muslims rules on cleanliness less effective than Jewish rules – for example they don’t eat vermin, but they don’t worry about vermin crawling over their house.
Those that kept doing it remained, those insufficiently gullible disappeared.
The usual interpretation of the tribe of Dan is that they were a branch of the sea peoples, same branch as the Spartans, who became Judaized and left their ships and settled down in Israel – and some of them also left their ships and settled down in Sparta. The sea peoples were late bronze age pirates and raiders, part of the collapse of Bronze age civilization. Judges Israel is early iron age, part of the recovery from the Dark age that followed the collapse of Bronze age civilization. So Judaizing killed off their exploring, sailing, conquering and adventuring, just as Islam killed off Persian science.
>…Even great men have their faults, and Alcibiades had far too many — but men of his caliber simply do not exist today. Modern society does not allow it.
Your modern society does not. Well, this is exactly what happens with the kyklos of your history-there’s a long steady buildup of resources, then a brilliant flare up, then a dying down into mediocrity. I will take a Ben Gurion over an Alcibiades if we are looking for brilliant pragmatists with massive flaws.
>Your people may have led bloody rebellions — as the ghosts of many Greeks and Romans would attest — but were always a conquered people, and were never the conquerors.
Not so. We have never aspired to build a great empire (except in the time of David and Solomon.) Our aspiration has always been to take our share in G-d, and for each man to sit under his tree. But this is, in my mind, true greatness. The Greeks had no share in G-d, and so were, like every other nation, opportunistic, grabbing what they could at their bloom, and then fading out. “When the wicked spring up like grass, it is only that they may be cut down.”
This is Jacob’s ladder, with the angels of the nations going up and coming back down. Israel is different, inherently.
>The history of the Jew has been wholly tragic. The history of the Greeks is, in contrast, rousing and inspiring.
We can judge each thing only by knowing its end.
The young homosexual might cast a stylish figure prancing down the street of New York City, but he won’t look so rousing or inspiring in the hospital in 15 years. The Torah Jew walking past him might wear funny clothes, his posture might not be as good as the homosexual’s, his nightlife not very exciting, but he will outlive the homosexual by 50 years and die surrounded by his 100+ greatgrandchildren who follow in his footsteps.
>The story of Masada is depressing and puzzling, whereas the tale of Thermopylae could not possibly be more beautiful or noble.
Context.
After Masada and the crushing of the rebellion, things like this happened:
“Our Rabbis have taught: R. Joshua b. Hananiah once happened to go to the great city of Rome,9 and he was told there that there was in the prison a child with beautiful eyes and face and curly locks.10 He went and stood at the doorway of the prison and said, Who gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the robbers?11 The child answered, Is it not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned and in whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient unto his law.12 He said: I feel sure that this one will be a teacher in Israel. I swear that I will not budge from here before I ransom him, whatever price may be demanded. It is reported that he did not leave the spot before he had ransomed him at a high figure, nor did many days pass before he became a teacher in Israel. Who was he? — He was R. Ishmael b. Elisha.”
Rabbi Ishmael was one of our greatest teachers, by the way. And today, Jewish boys do their swearing into the Israeli army at Masada.
Meanwhile, what happened after Thermopylae? The victorious Spartans and Athenians plunged the entire Greek world into war. The noble Athenians murdered their fellow Greeks to bring them democracy. At the end, the noble Spartans took Persian money and build one mercenary fleet after the other until they starved the Athenians into submission. Then they put tyrants over them, and the Athenians proceeded to murder each other. Is this beautiful or noble?
>Muslims rules on cleanliness less effective than Jewish rules – for example they don’t eat vermin, but they don’t worry about vermin crawling over their house.
Neither did Jews. How can you prevent vermin from crawling over your house with Iron Age methods? What are you going to do about rats if you live in Jericho 8 centuries BCE, or some European ghetto in the Middle Ages? You’re not going to go to Walmart and buy some mousetraps, or call the exterminator so he can set out some strychnine. You’re going to suck it up.
The halacha on vermin is that dead ones make you ritually impure. Live ones, rat shit, etc. do not. And a bunch of other stuff makes you ritually impure, lots of which you can’t really avoid. Not a big deal unless you are going to bring a sacrifice, eat from a sacrifice, etc. Since the fall of the Temple, we are all ritually impure, since there are no more ashes of the red cow.
>Those that kept doing it remained, those insufficiently gullible disappeared.
Yes, we’ve obviously been selected for gullibility. This is what everyone complains about, those gullible Jews.
>The usual interpretation of the tribe of Dan is that they were a branch of the sea peoples, same branch as the Spartans, who became Judaized and left their ships and settled down in Israel – and some of them also left their ships and settled down in Sparta.
“Usual interpretation” based on what? The only primary sources we have on Dan are Jewish ones. Everything else is built on handwaving and conjecture.
In the primary sources, the Spartans tell the Jews (i.e., the tribe of Judah/Benjamin/assorted Levites and refugees from the other tribes) that they come from Abraham. Not that “we are related to you guys because our ancestors used to pirate the seas along with their relatives, who then settled down and became one of your brother tribes. Which tribe, by the way, was run off into slavery and disappeared 500 years ago the writing of this letter, and which tribe you are not descended from.”
>So Judaizing killed off their exploring, sailing, conquering and adventuring, just as Islam killed off Persian science.
Good point.
It is a mystery, though, how Judaizing did not kill off the exploring and adventuring of e.g. the Radhanites, and how those unadventurous Jews managed to spread from Portugal to Kaifeng (and then to North and South America).
I know-the earth’s magnetic field shifted, so that while it used to be that being a Jew/Hebrew made you boring and unadventurous in a time where we have no documentation, it then made you the kind of person willing to run caravans from France to China in the middle ages to turn a profit in all times for which we have this documentation.
Regarding vermin, the Talmud talks about what happens if a dead rat is found in a barrel of oil. Rats are not a kosher animal. Is the oil now forbidden?
“The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 68b) mentions a case where a rat fell into edible oil, and it rules that the product is permitted because oil must be kept pleasant smelling, and the flavor that dead rats add to oil is unpleasant. To quote the Rambam (Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros 15:31): “If a rat fell into beer or vinegar, we measure to see if the kosher liquid is sixty times the volume of the rat because of concern that it provides a good taste to the beer or vinegar. However, if it fell into wine, oil or honey, the product is permitted, even if one can taste the rat in the product, because it provides them with a taam pagum. These three foods require that they be very tasty, and this causes them to spoil and ruin their taste.—
Obviously, rats were not unheard of in Jewish houses in the time of the Talmud and in the time of Maimonides.
As for feces, the Jews lived with the same sewage systems as the non-Jews around them (or worse, given the crowding and squalor of the ghettos.) So you have things like this: http://tinyurl.com/gl3uh59
They used chamberpots like everyone else did.
Your explanation of our survival over 3KY years (when everyone else disappeared,) then, comes down to a selective advantage ascribable to us washing our hands after relieving ourselves. Pretty weak sauce, especially when you consider that we circumcise our sons, which before modern germ theory meant exposing them to the likelihood of serious infection at the age of 8 days.
This is not a deep enough analysis.
Having dumb people around creates massive negative externalities in a downward-aspiring society, where those dumb people either set the behavioral standard for those smarter than them, or are allowed to set their own behavioral standard.
In an upward-aspiring society, where the dumb look up to and emulate the smart, those massive negative externalities largely go away. Hence, lots of Europeans went to live in places like Rhodesia-it was a very nice place to live, despite having a much higher percentage of Africans than today’s France.
Next, how many smart people does it take to create massive positive externalities? Not too many, apparently. The population of England and Wales in 1700 was about 5 million, of whom the majority was occupied herding sheep and so on. A tiny group of intellectual Brits created a huge amount of positive externalities for the whole world. Small groups of colonialists created massive positive externalities for Africa.
Finally, distance. The negative externalities created by the dumb, even when they are incentivized for vileness, are highly localized. Dindus commit the vast majority of their crimes in their own hood. In order to use them as a proxy weapon, Western elites have had to build them bus lines to neighborhoods in need of cleansing, to build Walmarts in those neighborhoods, to bus them to schools in those neighborhoods, to buy houses in those neighborhoods and settle dindus there: http://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=3533
In the absence of these heroic and constant measures, the damage caused by the dumb, even in a downward-aspiring society, would be much smaller.
On the other hand, the positive externalities created by the smart are geographically unlimited. Even postcolonial Africans have smart phones and modern meds if they want them. This is assuming the smart are not having to waste their energy constantly proving that they are not racist, sexist, wreckers, etc.
Bottom line: you can have very high positive externalities and very low negative externalities in a society with lots of dumb people and relatively few dumb people, if the incentives align, if the society is upwards-aspiring, and if the rulers seek the good of all their subjects.
In order for this to happen, you have to have an organic moral system based on numinous truth (not utilitarianism or pig-philosophy) which the people buy into.
If France’s population finds such a moral system, they will not have cannibalism, even if they have 80% Africans. If they do not, they are bound for destruction, even if they deport all their Africans tomorrow. The Africans and their behavior are a symptom of a disease the French have.
“In order for this to happen, you have to have an organic moral system based on numinous truth (not utilitarianism or pig-philosophy) which the people buy into.”
Organic? As opposed to what?
There are plenty of numinous truth systems which people buy. Like Islam. Will Soumission make France into an upward-looking society? Mmm doesn’t seem like it. Arabs are into nepotism. Upward-looking societies assume meritocracy. Numinous Islam isn’t into that. The problem with meritocracy is that makes having large families quite pointless.
Organic, as opposed to made up by some intellectuals and imposed from above.
Islam has a numinous nature which is deeply corrupted by the character of the Arab people and the religion’s crazy founder. Certainly, though, Islam and meritocracy are not incompatible. The Ottoman Empire had some very gifted leaders and administrators, and knew how to reward merit (hence many renegade Europeans flocked to serve it.) Prior to the ascent of the Turks, the Islamic world produced many first-rate minds like Ibn Khaldun, and placed them into advanced positions.
It is noticeable that Israel has a GDP per capita similar to that of Southern Europeans, despite the large ruling minority of Ashkenazi
Perhaps it is precisely because you believe you are all one people, Ashkenazi Jews and mud people Jews all being Jews. You really are not, and were you not surrounded by people who want to kill every Jew, you would not believe it to be true.
>It is noticeable that Israel has a GDP per capita similar to that of Southern Europeans, despite the large ruling minority of Ashkenazi
It is noticeable that the Southern Europeans are not beset by murderous degenerates on all sides, so don’t have to spend massive amounts of money on defense. It is also noticeable that, not having children, they don’t have to spend money on them.
Bastiat-what is seen, what is not seen.
Israel is actually above Japan already in terms of nominal GDP per capita, and the trend is only upwards… Compared to Southern European countries (Greece, Spain, Italy), there’s just no contest.
Wikipedia ranks Israel far below Japan, and slightly below Italy, Spain, and Malta.
How like a Jew to counter an assertion with the opposite assertion, and no sources. Thus debates with Jews have a distressing tendency to turn into “Is”, “Is not”. “Is”, “Is not”. “Is”, “Is not”. “Is”, “Is not”, wasting bandwidth.
Now, now, no more Jewish lies. Everyone knows we are like the Greeks, hunting mountain goats and selling our daughters to stay alive. It’s because of the “mud Jews.”
“It is noticeable that Israel has a GDP per capita similar to that of Southern Europeans…”
Transcendental properties aside, Israel is rather like a Southern European country on most indicators. Ashkenazim are even genetically closest to Italians if I remember correctly.
“Wikipedia ranks Israel far below Japan, and slightly below Italy, Spain, and Malta.”
Well, he did say “nominal”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Israel has an unusual economy which makes standard economic indicators about as useful as Israel’s national IQ.
Elsewhere B argued that because the Labor party is condescending or whatever towards Arab and African Jews, presumably by appearing as overly Ashkenazi, while Likud panders to these apes, resulting in Mizrahi butthurtedness and shift to the right-wing, it proves that what Israel needs is more involvement of apes in controlling the state. He then proceeded to supply us with examples of prominent Mizrahim, none of whom was fully Berber or Arab, all of whom were total mediocrities, as evidence that Israel should be run by hot-tempered, 70-IQ gorillas. And now he contradicts everything he spewed here by claiming that actually, you do need the elites, if only just them and no one else, to be superior in intelligence. Because “muh brothers”.
@Jim
“You really are not, and were you not surrounded by people who want to kill every Jew, you would not believe it to be true.”
It doesnt work like that. Assume you are right, and “mud Jews” are inferior to “white Jews”. Regardless we are similar enough that there is thorough inerbreeding between the two groups, both through marriage and cukturally, that any differences are going to be irrelevent in seversl generations.
Disclaimer: I am speaking based on my own observation of Israeli culture, not based on sources or studies.
The content of Hive Mind is not the point.
Today, Scott Alexander has switched from believing that everyone is behaviorally compatible except for purely cultural differences that can and should be stamped out by the State to believing that one number, intelligence points, is the only thing that makes peoples behaviorally incompatible, and, by the way, Scott Alexander and his friends are the supreme master race of mankind.
Baby steps.
Next year, we might have him believing in not only IQ, but also aggressiveness and time preference.
Then, the next year, we might even have him believing in a multitude of unknown factors that leads certain peoples to look at heroes like Jacob, Joseph, and Jezebel and others to look at heroes like Hercules, Theseus, and Odysseus and see themselves magnified to heroic proportions.
“Jezebel”?
You are really an idiot, Hercules.
Agreed
Doubt this and do not see that you have presented evidence or argument for it.
As evidence against it, the early colonialists were a bunch of pirates and slavers, and yet nonetheless their rule created prosperity.
Doubt this and do not see that you have presented evidence or argument for it.
As evidence against it, Rhodesia, and the early colonialist adventurers.
>As evidence against it, the early colonialists were a bunch of pirates and slavers, and yet nonetheless their rule created prosperity.
Your chrestomathic example of this, your poster boy, is Raffles. Who, on closer inspection, turns out to have ABOLISHED slavery, and been a builder and administrator rather than a pirate.
Rhodesia’s moral system was running on inertia from the English and Dutch moral systems, which was based on a long tradition of Christianity.
For an example of the failure of a place with all of your ideal conditions but no organic moral system, see Singapore. Lots of money,great administration, no kids, no national character.
You know other people’s history even less than you know your own. Well I grant you that though the son of a slaver, he piously abolished slavery. But he was a pirate.
He blew people out of cannons, gave cities to the sack, and his methods of dealing with guerrilla warfare were disturbing even to his contemporaries. His famous ever flowing chest of gold, which purchased princes by the dozen and funded armies on the march, was obtained in large part by shaking down cities and princes.
Gathering tribute does not make you a pirate.
Even capturing cities and enemy treasuries does not make you a pirate. For instance, Drake was not a pirate. He had a letter of marque.
Raffles was neither a slaver nor a pirate.
Sacking cities makes you a pirate.
No. Sacking cities makes you a pirate if you are doing it on behalf of yourself and your merry band of scallawags. If you are doing it in your capacity as the representative of a sovereign monarch, you are not a pirate.
Similarly, if I come to your house in the middle of the night, kick in your door, shoot your dog and drag you away along with your computer, I’m a breaker and enterer, kidnapper, burglar, etc. But if I do it with a badge and a warrant, I’m a law enforcement officer.
And yes, there is a big difference.
Jim:
“…gives a clear explanation of why national IQ matters. Because ruling IQ matters.”
I don’t see how that follows. You can have high IQ ruling elite even if national IQ is low, and colonial history shows that it can work fairly well.
And with large enough population that elite can even be native.
Obvious example being Rhodesia. White ruling elite. Whites moving to Rhodesia were no worse off, generally better off. Blacks moving to Rhodesia were vastly better off. Zimbabwe, black ruling elite, everyone, white and black, flees poverty.
In substantial part they flee to Botswana, which is ruled by a royal family with a striking preference for marrying white women, with the result that its supposedly black rulers look rather white.
Jim:
“Obvious example being Rhodesia. White ruling elite…”
That’s exactly my point. What made Rhodesia such a nice place – national IQ or the IQ of the ruling elite?
Rhodesia is not a particularly representative example because people there were conveniently segregated and color-coded. One negative externality of low average IQ is that you can’t trust strangers, but this doesn’t apply if you can tell at a glance who you can trust.
Jim offered Rhodesia as the example.
Your argument would be relevant if everything in Rhodesia was produced exclusively by whites.
But what I think made Rhodesia successful is that somehow the ruling elite set up the system where whites could cooperate with the natives to their mutual benefit. They solved the problem Frederik and Josephine were facing in Congo. I am not sure how they solved it but probably not by raising national IQ.
I do think that my argument would remain relevant until we look at examples in which the high IQ ruling elite has arisen organically from the same population.
We all know that you can run a country well if you somehow import a high IQ ruling elite to run it. But that doesn’t disprove Jim’s point, because the high IQ of the ruling elite in this case has nothing to do with the national IQ.
He’s saying, national IQ matters because the elite IQ depends on the national IQ. You’re saying no, it doesn’t matter in the cases in which elite IQ does not depend on the national IQ.
Jim you need to gather up the audacity to purge a few of your regular commentators. They’re holding you back, and you know who they are.
Jim:
“1. I don’t think you preserved your values. I think you got hellenized
2. The miracle of Jewish survival is now well understood: Your religion compelled you to wash your hands, bury your poop, and keep your houses free from vermin. Nothing to do with transcendental values. Rather, one of the patriarchs understood disease transmission and made cleanliness observance into a religious observance so that his knowledge would not easily get lost. Instead of telling his kids that he was wrathful to see human poop and wanted it buried, told them God was wrathful to see human poop and wanted it buried, and would like afflict them with plague if they failed to bury it. Which is religion as recommended by the Dark Enlightenment: Wisdom expressed in a form that stupid people can follow.
Jewish religion has changed frequently – but surviving Jews preserved the cleanliness parts of it and the ones that did not preserve those parts eventually vanished. Now that everyone understands cleanliness, Jews no longer have a survival advantage.”
Art:
Everyone alive today has ancient ancestors Jewish or not. What matters here is the survival of the tribal identity.
If so – the question to ask is whether the Jews of the Second Temple period would recognize modern Orthodox Jews as members of their tribe.
I don’t know enough but I am guessing they would. What do you think?
Tribal identity survived, because linked to burying poop, washing hands, and so forth. Now no longer so linked, tribal identity unlikely to show remarkable survival.
Are you saying ancient Jews would recognize most moderns (Jewish or not) as members of their tribe?
Pdimov:
“He’s saying, national IQ matters because the elite IQ depends on the national IQ. You’re saying no, it doesn’t matter in the cases in which elite IQ does not depend on the national IQ.”
Art:
If such cases do exist – doesn’t that prove that elite IQ does not depend on the national IQ?
Even if national IQ is relevant in one way or another, I still think it is misleading to identify national IQ as the key factor when in fact it is the ruling elite that makes the difference.
Further, with the population of 72M I expect DRC should have enough smart natives to support high its own IQ ruling elite.
Observe the distinctly milk chocolate colored Burundi ruling elite.
However, in practice smart people do not necessarily get to the top. It is hard to communicate and lead over an IQ 20 gap.
So if the bulk of the voters, or the bulk of the goons, are IQ seventy, then your leading politician is going to be IQ 90. Robert Mugabe. Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Jim:
“However, in practice smart people do not necessarily get to the top. It is hard to communicate and lead over an IQ 20 gap.
So if the bulk of the voters, or the bulk of the goons, are IQ seventy, then your leading politician is going to be IQ 90. Robert Mugabe. Jean-Bertrand Aristide.”
Art:
Yes. It could be that not smart people cannot tell the differece between those a little smarter than them and those a lot smarter. Or it could be they prefer to be ruled to those just a little smarter. They feel more connected. Or it could be …
I don’t really know. But I think I do know that at least under some circumstances all you need is a handful of smart people.
Obviously national IQ is somehow important. How exactly – I don’t know, but it does not seem to be the main factor.
Communicating with the dumb is a skillset. It takes a very specific kind of smart person to enjoy acquiring and using this skillset, but plenty of these smart people exist and are for hire.
Therefore, in a non-democratic system, the elite can be arbitrarily smart and hire these sorts of people to communicate with the dumb.
Arguably, in America this is exactly what happens. Clinton, for instance, has an IQ which is significantly more than 20 points higher than that of the average American voter. And of course whatever that difference is, you can add 15 points to it to get the difference between his IQ and that of the average black voter. But blacks loved him, and still do.
“Therefore, in a non-democratic system, the elite can be arbitrarily smart and hire these sorts of people to communicate with the dumb.”
Plenty of these people do not exist when the average IQ is 65.
– You can import a white elite
– Yes but can you make do without importing?
– Sure, you just import foreign facilitators
– …
“But blacks loved [Clinton], and still do.”
Their love is not the point. The point is to make them produce more than they need to consume. No fair importing a foreign producer class either. Use only the native population, Luke.
Countries with an average IQ of 65 are few and far between.
Subsaharan Africa seems to have run plenty profitably with a foreign managerial class.
And love IS the point. The original assertion is that smart people have a hard time communicating to and leading those who are more than 20 IQ points behind them. My counterpoint is that there are smart people who specialize in exactly this sort of thing who can serve as a bridge.
Also, what is the problem with importing managers and communicators?
To construct a functional society you have to make the average produce nice things. To make the average produce nice things when the average IQ is low you need to boss them. You can’t boss +0SD with +3SD. To have a +3SD elite you need +2SD intermediaries, then +1SD intermediaries.
“And love IS the point. The original assertion is that smart people have a hard time communicating to and leading those who are more than 20 IQ points behind them. My counterpoint is that there are smart people who specialize in exactly this sort of thing who can serve as a bridge.”
My counterpoint was that organizing stupid people to produce nice things is harder than organizing them to riot or giving them free stuff in exchange for votes. Much harder.
“Also, what is the problem with importing managers and communicators?”
None in principle, except that you have to pay them. This however doesn’t tell you much about how, and why, and how much, national IQ matters. Obviously, you can have low national IQ and oil, bring in foreign oil extraction companies, sell the oil, buy nice things, and declare victory, but what useful information about IQ externalities can we glean from that? None at all.
See Saul D. Alinsky’s “Rules for radicals”, whose instructions for dealing with the masses resemble instructions on how to stampede a herd of cattle in the general direction of one’s enemies.
>My counterpoint was that organizing stupid people to produce nice things is harder than organizing them to riot or giving them free stuff in exchange for votes. Much harder.
Having actually worked in a factory producing vary nice things for a few months, I can tell you that it’s not so hard. Even a dummy can run a properly designed machine with a bit of training.
>None in principle, except that you have to pay them. This however doesn’t tell you much about how, and why, and how much, national IQ matters. Obviously, you can have low national IQ and oil, bring in foreign oil extraction companies, sell the oil, buy nice things, and declare victory, but what useful information about IQ externalities can we glean from that? None at all.
You can also have a low national IQ, bring in foreign management, build factories and produce nice stuff. You know, all those CNC shops in India are not staffed exclusively by Brahmins. You can also grow a lot of stuff with proper management over low IQ labor.
It is obvious that stupid people can’t be productive without good management. But with good management, they can be massively productive. Further, it’s not obvious to me that if you massively increase the IQ of a farm’s tractor drivers, ditch diggers, etc., say, from 70 to 100, the farm’s productivity will improve accordingly, as long as the farm’s manager and mechanic are of normal intelligence.
You are always confidently announcing personal experience X which proves whatever point you want to prove, which personal experiences tend to be improbably inconsistent with my personal experiences.
In this case, your personal experience is improbably consistent with your own personal experience, since you earlier remarked on the inability to get useful work out of Palestinians, and the substantially greater value provided by Chinese workers.
Yes, organizing stupid people to be productive is not that hard. Not that easy either. Needs smart people with authority, and a willingness to comply by the stupid people.
“Having actually worked in a factory producing vary nice things for a few months, I can tell you that it’s not so hard. Even a dummy can run a properly designed machine with a bit of training.”
There are two problems with that. One, a properly designed machine can operate itself. Two, stupidity can occasionally cause millions of dollars of damage, which can offset anything stupidity has produced in its life.
Below a certain level, stupid people can’t compete with capital.
Below a certain level, stupid people can’t produce enough to maintain a certain quality of life.
Below a certain level, stupid people can even produce below zero.
“It is obvious that stupid people can’t be productive without good management. But with good management, they can be massively productive.”
With good management and good support in the workplace (capital maintenance) and support at home (religious guidance), productive, yes. Massively productive, no.
“You can also have a low national IQ, bring in foreign management, build factories and produce nice stuff.”
Yes, that’s just a positive IQ externality.
“Further, it’s not obvious to me that if you massively increase the IQ of a farm’s tractor drivers, ditch diggers, etc., say, from 70 to 100, the farm’s productivity will improve accordingly, as long as the farm’s manager and mechanic are of normal intelligence.”
Farming only gets you at the “not starving” milestone, nice things have to come on top of that. It’s obvious that most people can farm, or they wouldn’t have survived, it’s also obvious that high IQ brings diminishing returns at some point for the majority, or everyone would be at 140. La Griffe du Lion’s smart fraction theory says that the cutoff point is 107 and everything nice is produced by 107+ and those below 107 are an economic zero. This implies no negative externality and no positive externality.
>You are always confidently announcing personal experience X which proves whatever point you want to prove, which personal experiences tend to be improbably inconsistent with my personal experiences.
You got me, man, I just made up that part about working in a factory running a press brake to sound cool. Of all the things to make up…don’t you think I would have told you I was on Seal Team Six or something if I cared about impressing you?
Interestingly, the factory foreman was an Arab, the owner was a Mizrahi Jew, and all the workers were Russians. The other guy I wasrunning the press brake with had been a mechanical engineer in the USSR. The Arab foreman was an alright dude, quite competent, and the factory owner had made the right call putting him in charge (from a strictly business perspective.)
>In this case, your personal experience is improbably consistent with your own personal experience, since you earlier remarked on the inability to get useful work out of Palestinians, and the substantially greater value provided by Chinese workers.
That bit was based on J the Water Engineer’s comments on his decades of experience of work in the Israeli construction industry. I have not had the pleasure, myself. I’m sure you have deep insights into the field.
>Yes, organizing stupid people to be productive is not that hard. Not that easy either. Needs smart people with authority, and a willingness to comply by the stupid people.
Needs people of medium intelligence and decent responsibility in positions of authority. Stupid people are typically willing to comply, because they want to eat (unless the government, in its wisdom, feeds them without making them work.) Also smart people. See the factory above.
>There are two problems with that. One, a properly designed machine can operate itself.
No, it can’t. I’ve been in some really advanced factories, with robotic arms and trays loading and unloading 6 axis Mori Seki CNCs worth millions of dollars. Guess what? A dude was still in charge of every machine or three. All a properly designed machine can do is enhance an individual’s productivity.
>Two, stupidity can occasionally cause millions of dollars of damage, which can offset anything stupidity has produced in its life.
This is (within reason) a question of proper UI design and training.
>With good management and good support in the workplace (capital maintenance) and support at home (religious guidance), productive, yes. Massively productive, no.
Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa.
South Africa had its own nuclear weapons program and made its own tanks, long range artillery and who knows what, while turning a massive profit.
>Farming only gets you at the “not starving†milestone, nice things have to come on top of that. It’s obvious that most people can farm, or they wouldn’t have survived
See above. With a very small group of agricultural managers, Europeans turned African countries into massive agroproducers to such a degree that some of them still are, even though the whites have left. For instance, see the khat industry of Kenya.
» It’s obvious that most people can farm, or they wouldn’t have survived
false. I know this is tough for you to accept, since your inborn bias and schooling have argued against it, but not every people are Aryans. For example, the filthy rat kikes specialize in social parasitism, not farming. Furthermore farming has various difficulty levels in various places, West African niggers can leave the farming to the women with the obvious evolutionary consequences
» it’s also obvious that high IQ brings diminishing returns at some point for the majority, or everyone would be at 140.
false. Aryans developed civilization as soon as they had enough IQ points and good enough behavioral traits for it, no later, implying that we don’t know what would happen if there was a higher average IQ, and implying that if dysgenics ever takes off, or miscegenation, civilization will disappear.
The farm with average IQ 100 will function better because smart people inevitably learn how to work more efficiently than according to their training. Then they teach each other, and monitor each other.
You can see the Aryan penchant for cooperation in the various forms of Aryan line dancing that Aryans do for fun.
“» It’s obvious that most people can farm, or they wouldn’t have survived
false. […] Furthermore farming has various difficulty levels in various places, West African niggers can leave the farming to the women with the obvious evolutionary consequences”
I did say “most people” and the only reason this is not technically true at the moment is that the developed world gives Africa free food. Cut the aid, and the population incapable of farming will shrink.
And yes, I do know that in Africa farming is easier.
“> Massively productive, no.
Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa.”
The land in Rhodesia was massively productive, not the people on it. Give me an example with something that doesn’t grow and isn’t dug up.
“South Africa had its own nuclear weapons program and made its own tanks, long range artillery and who knows what, while turning a massive profit.”
Good, but without quantification, this doesn’t say much. What was the SA GDP similar to?
– A white country with population equal to the white population of SA? (Hypothesis blacks an economic zero.)
– A white country with population equal to the population of SA?
– Somewhere in between? Where in between and why?
– A country with average IQ equal to the SA avg IQ and the same population?
– “Smart fraction”, whites + (blacks over 107)? (Note that some place Zulu IQ at 89, which is unusually high for Africa.)
>The land in Rhodesia was massively productive, not the people on it.
The land in Rhodesia is not any less productive today, and yet…
> Give me an example with something that doesn’t grow and isn’t dug up.
Why? Most of the things we use come from materials that were grown or dug up.
>Good, but without quantification, this doesn’t say much. What was the SA GDP similar to?
I am not sure that GDP is relevant in this case.
In 1990, SA had a population of 35 million people. The GDP/capita was $3K. 14% of the population was white. So about 5 million people. Show me a white country with 5 million people that has its own nuclear reactors, weapons programs, fighter planes, artillery, etc. etc. White countries with comparable population size include Denmark, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia.
And this is in the middle of a civil war and after decades of war on the borders, which ate up a lot of economic resources and the time of a big part of the productive population.
To me this says that the black population under white management produced enough to feed itself and leave a very significant surplus.
in the ’70s, israel had like maybe three million filthy rat kikes, and managed to have nuclear reactors and develop WMD.
Today Israel has tanks and anti-artillery, but needs to buy strategic nuclear rocket submarines from Germany with Holocaust sympathy and airplanes from the US for US foreign aid money and promises to participate in the peace process whenever a US president wants to make a grab at a Nobel Peace Prize.
But people have been building strategic submarines and fighter planes since the days of slide rules. I could probably design one on my computer with modern lightweight polymers and 3d print it.
Did you have a point, or are you just crying out for my attention?
» Show me a white country with 5 million people that has its own nuclear reactors, weapons programs, fighter planes, artillery, etc. etc.
if a jew with 1000 years of financial talmudic iq selection is worth 5/3 of a white, then 1970s israel
Oh, OK, thanks.
I’m going to refer to Jacob’s ladder for the reason we’re not an appropriate comparison point.
We don’t live by the same rules as the nations. 5/3s or whatever doesn’t really work as a comparison point.
Also, we’ve been learning Talmud for a lot longer than 1000 years.
“To me this says that the black population under white management produced enough to feed itself and leave a very significant surplus.”
That much it did. La Griffe du Lion says that blacks were 0.24 times as productive as whites.
“Mentor handed me the 2004 edition from which I noted that 16.2% of the South African population is either white or Indian, the rest being of the third world. “If we apply the Fourth Law to South Africa using a third-world population fraction of 0.838, we predict that South Africa’s per capita GDP has been depressed by its third-world population to approximately 36.3% of its hypothetical ‘pure European’ value. If we now scale up South Africa’s per capita GDP of $10.7k (purchasing power parity basis) to its hypothetical ‘pure European’ value, we get $29.5k, a value about in the middle of the West European countries, e.g., Finland $27.4k, France $27.6k, Norway $37.8k, Denmark $31.1k, Belgium $29.1k, UK $27.7k, Switzerland $32.7k, Germany $27.6k, Austria $30.0k, Netherlands $28.6k and Italy $26.7k.””
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm
Of course he also says at the other link that
“Some of this is experimental error, but a few outliers are due to cause. South Africa, for example, is the world’s largest producer of platinum, gold, chromium and diamonds. None of this has much to do with human resources.”
In either case, three fifths is a massive overestimation.
Whether you can legitimately consider 0.24 to be “massively productive” is a matter of opinion.
“Show me a white country with 5 million people that has its own nuclear reactors, weapons programs, fighter planes, artillery, etc. etc.”
I don’t think that you really want to argue that 5 million whites can’t do that without indispensable Zulu help, so perhaps you’re just talking size of the economy. In this case, see North Korea, which is indeed not 5 million but is poorer than any of those white 5M countries and for which most of the population cannot produce enough to feed themselves.
Under white rule, a black was, on average, worth one quarter of a white man.
Under black rule, is worth considerably less.
>I don’t think that you really want to argue that 5 million whites can’t do that without indispensable Zulu help,
I certainly will argue that if the White population of 1990 SA had not had the rest of the population to manage, they would not have been able to achieve all of these things+an economic surplus, while fighting a civil and border war. The obvious point that without those Zulus, they would not have had a civil war to fight does not escape me-but without the Cathedral/USSR inciting, training and supporting those Zulus, South Africa would have been even more productive.
>so perhaps you’re just talking size of the economy. In this case, see North Korea, which is indeed not 5 million but is poorer than any of those white 5M countries and for which most of the population cannot produce enough to feed themselves.
Of what relevance is NK? South Africa did all these things while providing material plenty and freedom for its citizens.
GDP is a very bad measurement in a case like this. For instance, if I live in a place where due to financial games and overregulation a single family home costs $500K, the GDP will be higher than if I have access to cheap labor, land and materials and can build the same home for $30K.
>Whether you can legitimately consider 0.24 to be “massively productive†is a matter of opinion.
Of course you can, because it’s 0.24 of the productivity of a white guy in 1990, which is insanely productive by historical measure. I mean, go back 100 or 500 years and compare. It’s obvious that a 1990 black guy driving a truck, even if he’s doing it a quarter as well as a white guy (I have no idea how-maybe he wrecks the truck every two years, or gets drunk and shoots someone who has to be treated at a hospital) can move as much stuff in a day as a horse cart driver would move in two months, and so on.
“If such cases do exist – doesn’t that prove that elite IQ does not depend on the national IQ?”
Well obviously, if the elite is foreign.
One example in which the elite is native is India, where because of stratification the ruling castes are more intelligent than the lower castes.
But typically we either have something approaching a normal distribution, or assume one because that’s the best we can do.
“Even if national IQ is relevant in one way or another, I still think it is misleading to identify national IQ as the key factor when in fact it is the ruling elite that makes the difference.”
The focus on national IQ is probably because we have data on that and not on elite IQ. Elite IQ does seem to be more important, but again, non-colonial success stories where elite IQ is high and national IQ is low are somewhat rare.
“Further, with the population of 72M I expect DRC should have enough smart natives to support high its own IQ ruling elite.”
DRC? Average IQ 65? Assuming normal distribution, the fraction with IQ 110+ (+3 standard deviations of 15) would be 0.27%. Would that be enough for a ruling elite?
pdimov:
“DRC? Average IQ 65? Assuming normal distribution, the fraction with IQ 110+ (+3 standard deviations of 15) would be 0.27%. Would that be enough for a ruling elite?”
Art:
200K should be more than enough.
The hard problem is not finding enough smart people but promoting them to the ruling elite.
Also note that as long as French ruling elite remains native, massive African immigration may not matter.
We can hope, but I doubt it. African DNA is poison. See Portugal – before, a naval empire, after, poorest country in Europe.
-Also note that as long as French ruling elite remains native, massive African immigration may not matter.-
“ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!”
A.J.P.
Anti-whites say things like:
“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states.” – General Wesley Clark
“200K should be more than enough.”
It’s actually 100K, because my figure of 0.27% incorrectly includes the -3 sigma case. The correct one is half that.
the problem is, they’re 100’s of k’s of smart niggers, meaning they tap dance better to get women to give it up and maybe can understand why it might be better to hold the gun properly while using it
discussion of IQ is useless when it isn’t a transparent proxy for race
La Griffe du Lion agrees with you.
“There is another interesting feature on your graph, Prodigy. Per capita GDP in black countries seems nearly independent of IQ.”
“I noticed that too, Mentor, and computed a correlation coefficient for the 15 black nations as a group. The result, 0.034, confirms your observation. It seems there is an IQ threshold to be reached before a country can get off the ground economically.”
http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm
[…] bring some back of the envelope math on the Externalities of IQ. This was an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable […]