When are white nationalist going to stop pretending to care about IQ?

Austin Peterson, former Libertarian candidate coined a term in one of his live broadcast called industry conservatism. It was an apt term, as it's the right's way of using leftist tactics to rally support and more importantly money from poor and disenfranchised whites.

I have found just from talking to people, that people who are poor are the angriest. When someone feels they are no in control of their lives, they lash out at others and start to pass blame. The reality successful people rarely blame others for their problems, they generally find a way to work around them. However losers generally need a great leader, or a culture of personality to motivate them.

In the black community this is well known. We have many many black nationalist groups whose main agenda is to fight white supremacy. The key is white people and their anger towards white people are the center of these discussions. Generally they use vile and hateful language against whites, stating that whites are not humans, and how the black man will some day rise to prominence. In general outside of a few speakers, it's all empty rhetoric at the end of the day. But it does say something very interesting about human psychology, and how it is echoed among whites.

See when someone truly is a losers, they don't have many personal accomplishments to feel proud of. So they have to be proud of things that they may relate to, but are not directly responsible for. One of these things is race. Black nationalist have made entire careers stating how great the black race is, with sometimes shoddy and revisionist history. But the intended audience doesn't care about the accuracy. It's feel good science, and it artificially gives you a sense of importance.

So what does this mean for white people? Well the same thing. Except we can replace melanin with DNA and IQ scores. Make no mistakes, majority of the whites who go on and on about IQ test, probably don't even know their own IQ, couldn't tell you the first thing about statistics outside of just quoting it from some random site, and honestly doesn't care about biology. All of this is just to make an absurb premise seem somehow more valuable.

The bottomline is this. We have some white people who are dumb and losers. The smart white people have noticed this, and have hacked up a bunch of studies and wrote a few books to cash in on this demographic. We've seen many independent bloggers and candidates try to pander towards the angry dumb white crowd. All the while the smart white people, who really don't care about any of this are laughing all the way to the bank.

How do I know race realism is a scam? Because no one EVER says what you're going to do as a result of race realism. The "conclusion" just turn into the same tired rants about white genocide and having a "white ethnostate". Meanwhile prominent white nationalist speakers really don't talk a whole lot about how they're going to get to this desired white ethno state. But they will spend a lot of time talking about how dumb blacks are, and finding ways to blame everyone but white people for their own failures. The key isn't to actually solve the problem, it's just to keep whites angry enough to keep the income stream of poor white money going into their pockets. Jared Taylor and Charles Murray has made an entire career pandering to poor white people.

So the IQ thing doesn't mean anything to the average white nationalist. That's just so they can look smart. That's also to keep them from hearing any rational voices from non-whites. And just label anyone who isn't a white nationalist a leftist or a jew pretending to be white.

 

Although you have a great point about IQ being a fetish object for white nationalism, I don't think there is very much real white nationalism to worry about. But putting Jared Taylor and Charles Murray in the same category is a total misfire. Murray is a real social scientist who has broken a lot of real ground. He's not a white nationalist or any sort of racist as far as I can see. Maybe you don't agree with his conclusions, but they are data supported. He's released his data sets online for anyone to use, so if you want to challenge him, he's given you the ammo.

So basically you don't buy racial differences in IQ? Is that really what this is about?

 

Jared Taylor also isn't technically a white nationalist either. But that doesn't mean he doesn't make a living pandering to this crowd. And the entire race and IQ thing is far from conclusive. As to if it's real or not, I would lean on it not actually real. I think it's from a few circumstantial statistics that are at this point probably largely outdated, but people have decided to run with them. Also no one really knows what intellect is to even measure it, so at best you can say IQ only measures a certain type intellect. I just think we don't know nearly enough about the human brain or intellect in general to deify IQ scores to the extent people have.

Also I don't like Charles Murphy because he pretends that none of this could be cultural. Which is a large variable to just throw out of the window. Again the arguments again culture are hardly conclusive and come from mostly unsourced and old studies. In the days of more sophisticated data science, I'm shocked that social scientist rarely ever question their assumptions or methods of collecting data

 

Charles Murray was arrested as a teenager for burning a cross on a hill.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwing-a-curve.html

When interviewed about it Murray said that he wasn't aware that burning a cross was a symbol of racism used by the KKK. He's dishonest. You don't need to be part of a hate group or believe in a movement like White Nationalism to be a racist. Being a scholar also doesn't exempt you from bias. Qualified scientists have reviewed the research and conclusions of The Bell Curve and stated that it is pseudoscientific, racist garbage. I agree that White Nationalists and so-called race-realists who are obsessed with race & IQ don't really care about science. They are just using science as a tool to justify their racist perceptions. What is also true is that leaders of their movement are profiting from this propaganda. This is a business for them. I'm sure that many of them actually believe in racist goals but they care more about their bank accounts than any thing. You can argue about the data and theories all you want but at the end of the day the attention paid to this subject is motivated by a racist ideological agenda.

 

It's perfectly legitimate to argue that we don't understand enough about intellect or intelligence to measure it. Who knows, maybe there really isn't anything as g. Maybe IQ testing is only measuring a small slice of whatever it is we call intelligence. But I think we have collected enough data for many decades to say that IQ does correlate to better life outcomes, and those with higher IQ's perform better in college and graduate level education.

You said in your first post that race realism is a scam because no one ever says what they want to do with it. But I'm not sure why exactly you think there even is a policy resulting from it (assuming there is a racial, nature over nurture reason for intelligence). If there are millions of dumb black people in this country, there are tens of millions of dumb white people, so there isn't any sort of policy that comes out of "race realism." You've actually posted that very question more than once on this forum. I'm not sure what answer you are looking for but it seems obvious to me there is no policy that comes from it, so your search is likely in vain.

 

Well you actually brought new information to the table, as I didn't know Murray started in, "I was a teenage cross-burner," however your credibility and anything else you've stated is suspect given your past record. And of course, you've exposed yourself and a pretty terrible human being so your credibility with me is pretty low.

 

I like how you say "life outcomes". Because what does that even mean? Do we mean in terms in income, education, etc? I mean let's be honest in the 1970s there was only a handful of ways to succeed. You either graduated high school and headed to your nearest factory and worked the next 30 years with a pension. Or if you were fortunate and had the money you'd go to college and you'd get some high paying white collar job. There are obviously variations to this, but in the 70s that was the way majority of the people in this country, if not the world made money.

Fast forward to now where there are countless ways to make money and a great income with no education. You can make an actual real income being a blogger. I know many who have only blogged and have the funds and means to travel the world quite regularly. It's not nearly as hard to start a business and get an income. And some of the highest paying jobs, like in tech, don't have any strict requirements for degrees or education (though it certainly helps).

So I do think the idea that IQ correlates with outcomes in life, is largely an outdated concept from a much different economy. There are plenty of reasons why people succeed, or make money and it usually has nothing to do with how smart or brilliant they are. I know youtubers who literally have made a living cursing at video games. I know one who just bought a mercedes. But this is all possible through technology. And so I really question the value of IQ scores in the world we live in. In the 70s, yeah maybe they had some value. Today? It definitely worth questioning

 

"Life Outcomes" per Forbes seems to mean income, education level, health, and longevity. and yes, it's correlated to IQ.

 

In terms of income, you don't need a high IQ. As stated before with technology people have been able to make money doing various things that has nothing to do with a high IQ. Again, how do you account for people who make money playing video games, blogging, making youtube videos, etc? I'm not saying IQ hasn't had anything to do with "life outcomes" at some point, but I think that's a very outdated idea in the modern economy.

 

I don't know if the correlation between IQ and income has become unstuck recently. I've not seen any studies to indicate that, but even if it's true, it still seems it's better to have a higher IQ than a lower one.

 

Your opinion of me as a human being is irrelevant to this discussion and I think you're just using that to stifle debate.

 

Given that you tried to bail out of a losing argument that you brought from a racist website by calling me a racist means that my opinion of you as a person is based not only on your bad character, but an entire flawed argument. You don't discuss in good faith. I welcome reasoned debate but you've demonstrated that's outside your purview.

 

What losing argument? I accused you of trying to derail my thread which is exactly what you were doing. You are the one arguing in bad faith. You employ dishonest debate tactics to stifle debate and derail discussion. Accusing me of being a "horrible human being" for calling you a racist is ridiculous and now you are trolling this thread acting like it is beneath you to debate me because of some silly grudge from another thread. Well too bad for you I haven't broken any board rules so you can either ignore me or learn how to debate in a rational manner.

 

Actually you did break board rules.

 

In the previous discussion? Which ones?

 

Having a high IQ is certainly important for very cognitively demanding jobs. You are right that there are easier ways to make money in the world today that don't require a very high IQ. Based on the research I've done I think it is a well-established fact that there is scientific basis to the concept of intelligence and that there is a genetic component to mental ability which is hereditary. That's really not in dispute by most scientists on this subject. The real questions when it comes to race & IQ are whether what society calls races are biological meaningful categories and whether the observable genetic variation within the human species that we see is the cause of measured differences in IQ. Those questions from a scientific perspective are far more relevant than whether IQ correlates with life outcomes or whether IQ testing is a reliable and legitimate way to measure intelligence. The core of the racist argument is that human populations or races are biologically different in ways that are important to society.

The ability to succeed in life without high intelligence is far less interesting. For example no one in their right mind would argue that Mike Tyson is smarter than Neil Degrasse Tyson or that Boxers generally have the same level of intelligence as astrophysicists or any of the world's top scientists but between them who has made more money in their life? The racists are clearly willing to concede the argument that you don't need high intelligence to be successful or even that Blacks can't have advantages in some traits such as athletic ability. They conceded that a long time ago and they don't care. They are even willing to accept that some Blacks are highly intelligent and some Blacks are smarter than some Whites. Their fixation is on average differences. They can't claim absolute differences since that idea can be objectively falsified based on world observation and they know there will always be exceptions to their generalizations so they want to argue that Blacks are on average less intelligent and measured IQ scores are their best argument for that.

I have created several threads that argue that this position is fallacious and not based on sound science but I think a better direction to go in is to expose the underlying racial ideological agenda that motivates these ideas. Indeed White Nationalists are generally not genuinely interested in the scientific pursuit of truth. They want to believe these claims about racial differences in intelligence because the idea appeals to them emotionally. This topic is and has always been about the promotion of racism. Some thing to consider is why so many so-called race-realists are White. The data shows that East Asians have the highest IQs so why don't we see more Asians embracing this research? Where are the "Yellow Nationalists?" Where is the Asian equivalent of Stormfront? There are racist and xenophobic Asians but they don't have the cultural background of racial supremacy that Whites, especially in America have. White Supremacy was at one time considered the natural order in America. In the antebellum South it was a way of life and most Whites were racist on some level in to the 1950s and 1960s. Far less are now but there is still a remnant of those racist attitudes left enough to form a sub-culture and movement like White Nationalism which is promoted by racist ideologues and lead by hustlers who profit from the promotion of racism thanks to people who are less intelligent than the general population and more willing to buy in to this nonsense.

 

Eh, I'm with you up to this point. People's whose jobs revolve around identifying factors that go into determining IQ have every reason to wonder if human populations diverged in such a manner as to result in genetic differences in IQ.

But you're right in that most people who talk about this issue a lot fall into one of two camps:

Racisty racists just racisting it up.
And people who are uncomfortable with the sort of growing militancy on the left.

The second group is much smaller, unfortunately.

An unfortunate outcome of the economic system established throughout the Americas by the European powers. Some of the worst "race-realist" problems have existed in Haiti, of all places. The divide between "black" and "coloreds" has always been a source of tension in that country.

It's odd that I just came to the realization that I've never been a race-realist. Of course, I do believe that there are genetic differences between populations that make them distinguishable from one another and that these distinctions are what make "race" a reasonable categorization, but it's only important insofar as societies define those races. For example, the difference between a "black" and a "colored" has been practically non-existent in the US, while it was so important through Latin America.

 

I have to disagree with you based on researching the history of intelligence testing. The research that has been conducted to give legitimacy to the claim that there are racial differences in intelligence has been overwhelming financed by racist organizations and conservative think tanks, most notably the Pioneer Fund whose founder was quoted as stating that his goal was to prove that Blacks were mentally inferior. The Pioneer Fund gave financial support to the Nazis, Segregationists and scholars associated with White Nationalism. If you look up the history of this research you will see an intellectual lineage from 19th century White Supremacists to eugenicists to Nazi scientists to Segregationists to Neo-Nazis to White Nationalists. I mentioned earlier that Charles Murray the co-author of The Bell Curve was a cross-burner in his youth. J Philippe Rushton, a psychologist and former President of the Pioneer Fund was raised in Apartheid South Africa and suggested that his childhood prejudices motivated him to support this research. Most of the supporters of this work have some connection to the Pioneer Fund or hate groups and racist activities or statements in the past. The scholars who promote this research are just racists with academic degrees. Mainstream scientists whether you are talking psychologists, biologists, geneticists etc. generally do not support this work and some have taken the time to show the pseudoscientific nature of the scholars promoting it.

 

Why? You'd have to argue that every variable is fully understood. And maybe they are, I just really doubt it.

It's clear that, between populations, the environmental factor is overwhelmingly dominant. But the idea that populations came to have the exact same genetic endowment seems unlikely. Even if we go down this simple route: It's clear that within populations there are genetic differences in intelligence, right? If these genetic differences can be passed down, would it be reasonable to believe that some, even random, amount of disparity came to exist between populations?

I admit to being totally ignorant on the subject, just trying to work through the basic principles here.

 

That's the key issue here. Is it actually unlikely for populations within a species to have the same genetic potential for intelligence? To answer that question you need to look at evolutionary genetics and research human evolution. I have made several threads on this subject that you can look at presenting research from qualified scientists some of whom I have also spoken to personally via email.

Here are a few good ones:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/article-reveals-racial-iq-gap-is-not-genetic.424151/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-geographical-origins-of-modern-humans.374443/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...psychology-9th-edition-by-david-myers.452080/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pseudoscience-of-j-philippe-rushton.373375/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...g-persistence-of-an-unscientific-idea.391430/

Basically human populations became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa. All modern humans descend from one evolutionary lineage with some slight interbreeding with archaic human species so we share an evolutionary history that spans millions of years leading to our current level of intelligence. From an evolutionary perspective natural selection would favor intelligence as it is a trait beneficial to all human populations and there is no scientific reason why human populations would be unevenly differentiated in genes that determine intelligence. Genetic research supports this position as most of the genetic variation in our species is within populations rather than between them and genome-wide association studies show that genes related to intelligence are not racially differentiated.

When you have time you should watch these videos on the subject:





Start at 47:00:





These quotes summarize what I said well:

 

White Nationalism's biggest problem is not to defend their obscure fascination with IQ, but rather to explain how they are going to get people who hate each other and have nothing in common to unite under the principle of skin tone. Secondly, they have to explain how they can call themselves 'Nationalist' when, clearly, they are Internationalists.

 

You are making your own assumptions about Murray. He has made no arguments against culture. Data is neutral but he was excoriated by the PC crowd for presenting data. In fact the actual difference in data between races is minor and it is beyond the data to determine why. One would think men should be more up in arms about the data because it shows more men idiots than women but since race is also included...

 

Insulting a forum member.

 

I don't recall making any derogatory insults towards anyone that violate the rules. If that is the case you can report it. However the reality of the situation is that I made a thread on a serious topic and instead of contributing to legitimate discussion you decided to troll. Now you are trolling this thread.

 

I made a reasoned reply to this thread topic before you jumped in, so no, I'm not trolling. However having reasoned discussion with you is, as you've amply demonstrated, an uphill climb.