To anonymous: I'm sick and tired of hearing everybody on the entire planet treating the white man's countries like some big smorgasbord. They can fix their own problems and have no business being here in the first place, especially in Europe where we are the natives. Read Archeofuturism by Guillaume Faye. As Faye says:

Europe First!

I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don’t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven’t time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid — for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).

If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won’t find us sniveling (like a priest)or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the ‘other’s’ cause. ‘Ourselves alone’ will suffice.

Speaking as their next-door neighbor, Finns are indeed fascinating people. If you look at Murray's book Human Accomplishment, the highest-achieving Nordic countries in the arts and sciences are Denmark and Sweden, with Norway as number three a few steps behind and Finland quite clearly as number four. Finland is a cold country and has therefore experienced selection pressures for high IQ, but I don't think they have higher IQ than their Scandinavian neighbors. They outperform Norway now mainly because of their education system.

Since I'm already here I'd like to recommend the book The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature by Professor Byron M. Roth to those who read this blog on a regular basis.

Charles Murray's book is excellent and will be remembered as an important pioneering work. I have read it in great detail and it isn't flawless. You could successfully find a few Asian names that should have been included but weren't – the Japanese mathematician Seki Takakazu being the most serious omission in my view – but the overall dominance of European and Western scholars will not be seriously affected by this. Most of the major scientific breakthroughs were made by Europeans. Most of the people who almost made these breakthroughs or contributed to them were Europeans, too. In other words: If you made a list of "individuals who were not included in Human Accomplishment but perhaps should have been," then it would have a few Asian names but more European and Western ones.

No matter how you put it, modern science was to an overwhelming extent a European invention, in methodology and mentality as well as in results. In fact, after spending years looking into the material my basic conclusion is that the European leadership role is currently understated, not exaggerated as we are frequently told. I already suspected that the African contributions were small and that those of the Islamic world were inflated, but I was genuinely surprised to find that the Asian, especially East Asian, contributions were not greater. This represents by far the most challenging issue to explain for those who believe in IQ as an important variable.

Koreans probably have a higher mean IQ than any European nation, even the Germans. Yet throughout their entire history until today they haven't produced a single mathematician of anywhere near the stature of a Gauss, Leibniz or Riemann. The only possible conclusion is that Koreans have historically underperformed in the sciences compared to what their numbers and IQ levels should predict. So have the Chinese. The only East Asians to have performed anywhere close to what their IQ should indicate are the Japanese during the past century. The Japanese contributions to the sciences since the mid-1900s are respectable, but not more than that if you take into account the fact that they constitute more than one hundred million wealthy people with perhaps the highest mean IQ of any nation worldwide.

By far the most important thing IQ cannot explain is why the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions took place in Europe, not in East Asia. I am willing to accept as correct the numbers indicating that Northeast Asians have slightly higher average IQs than northern Europeans and significantly higher than southern Europeans. At the same time it is also a fact that Europeans easily outperformed the same East Asians in mathematics, astronomy and the theoretical sciences, certainly during the past 500 years, but arguably much longer than that.

How to explain this? One possible explanation that has been suggested is that although East Asians may have at least as high average IQ, Europeans have a greater standard deviation, which means more individuals with very high or very low IQ. If we postulate that scientific progress is disproportionately made by a few geniuses then it might be possible to claim that Europeans produced more geniuses than East Asians, despite having a slightly lower average. This claim is often repeated in certain circles. It may or may not be true; I haven’t yet seen conclusive evidence demonstrating that it is correct. It is also possible that while IQ is important, there are mental traits affecting accomplishment that it doesn't measure.

Another possible explanation is cultural, and this is almost certainly partly correct. Culture can be summed up as genes plus ideas. Although the analogy is imperfect (a computer can be physically “upgraded” with newer technology, which is harder to do with humans), perhaps the human brain can to some extent be compared to an electronic computer. To achieve the best results you need good hardware; powerful machinery and a fast microprocessor. IQ is a decent indicator of how good your “hardware” is. Just like very complex programs cannot run well on slow computers, there are certain tasks that a person with an IQ of 80 or less cannot perform well, while a person with an IQ of 120 can. A person with high IQ will almost always have greater potential for great achievements than one with low IQ, but to what extent that potential is realized depends upon social factors. You can easily destroy a high-IQ society through bad policies, for instance by banning private property rights, but you cannot make a nation with a mean IQ in the 80s the global leader in space exploration no matter how hard you try. It simply lacks the necessary potential for this.

In addition to good hardware you also need good software, that is, useful programs to run on your computer as well as skilled, competent users who can utilize the hardware and software to its maximum potential. Based on this analogy, we might claim that although East Asians had and continue to have fine genetic “hardware,” their cultural software in some ways prevented them from realizing their full potential and utilizing this hardware to the full extent. According to this line of thinking, the white West may or may not have produced more geniuses than East Asia did, but the West, despite its flaws, certainly took better care of the geniuses it produced and gave them more room to flourish. The cultural software was definitely better. I say “was” because it is not at all clear that this remains the case today, when the West is dominated by many very bad ideas.

For an alternative view of human history instead of Jared Diamond's I would strongly recommend that people read the book Understanding Human History by Michael H. Hart, which focuses specifically on IQ differences. I quoted it extensively in my own essay/booklet Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World?. The entire book can also be found online as a pdf file.

Michael H. Hart basically supports the cold climate theory for the evolution of high IQ. Applying this gives a pretty good fit with observed average IQ levels, but there are a few exceptions such as Eskimos/Inuits vs. East Asians. Eskimos don't have higher IQs than the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese, although they clearly live in a colder climate than the latter. Similarly, reindeer herders in Lapland in far northern Scandinavia don't necessarily have higher IQs than, say, the Germans or the Dutch. This can be explained if we modify the cold climate theory a little bit and state that evolution toward high IQ will move faster in a region which has cold winters, but nevertheless is capable of supporting a large and dense population. If the region is sparsely populated by nomads, the evolutionary pressures will move more slowly. Applying this modified cold climate theory, we should expect to find the highest IQ levels in north-central Europe and in the densely populated lowlands of Northeast Asia. This is exactly what we can observe.

I could add that the cold climate theory doesn't stipulate that climate is the only or only possible factor behind rising IQ, certainly not today in our industrialized societies, merely that for many thousands of years it was the single most important factor. In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, climate apparently wasn't important at all. While the rise of IQ for Western Jews per century was impressive and probably unprecedented in human history, the Jewish evolutionary strategy carried potential pitfalls. Climate worked more slowly for Europeans and East Asians, but it eventually raised the IQ of the entire population in these regions. The Jewish strategy raised the IQ of a small minority, which made them numerically vulnerable. Jews paid a heavy price for this in the twentieth century.

As I demonstrated in my essay On the Illusion of a Moderate Islam, the chance of ever seeing a "reformed" Islam is pretty much zero. Given that we can also never trust what Muslims tell us, the only possible solution is to remove Muslims from our lands.

The lies are becoming more and more aggressive and absurd, which is good. It means that the ideological censorship regime is weakening. White people are daily becoming less and less scared of being called "racists."