RSS
From Intelligence:
Intelligence
Volume 104, May–June 2024, 101831
Predicting political beliefs with polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainmentTobias Edwards, Alexandros Giannelis, Emily A. Willoughby, James J. Lee
Highlights
• Within-families, intelligence predict left-wing beliefs.• DNA-based predictors of IQ also predict political beliefs within families.
• Our results imply that being genetically predisposed to be smarter causes left-wing beliefs.
Abstract
Intelligence is correlated with a range of left-wing and liberal political beliefs. This may suggest intelligence directly alters our political views. Alternatively, the association may be confounded or mediated by socioeconomic and environmental factors. We studied the effect of intelligence within a sample of over 300 biological and adoptive families, using both measured IQ and polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment. We found both IQ and polygenic scores significantly predicted all six of our political scales. Polygenic scores predicted social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within-families. Intelligence was able to significantly predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism, within families, even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. Our findings may provide the strongest causal inference to date of intelligence directly affecting political beliefs.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Sure, tell that to Plato & Aristotle.
Social liberalism is now associated with higher authoritarianism, so this study is crap.
OT, the Gaza case- Dan is, as usual, right:
Going to college correlates with having the views which are taught in college. Duh.
Some may jump to the conclusion that smarter people are liberal because liberal views have better supporting arguments that are better appreciated by smarter people. But there are other possibilities:
1. Smarter people go to universities where they are indoctrinated to liberal ideas, urged on by the need for conformity. So they are smart enough to pay attention in class and become indoctrinated, but not smart enough to dissent.
2. Being smart unfortunately makes one more susceptible to some bad moral emotions and ego trips – save the world syndrome.
3. Smarter people form a socioeconomic class and become self-flattering bigots. Liberal politics is just an expression of their high opinion of themselves and low opinion of the dumber people they left behind.
If liberals give free rein to criminals, affirmative action incompetents, immigrant invaders, and other assorted grifters, thus destroying the very open liberal society they value, then there must be some other element than intelligence turning them into liberals. Because destroying yourself is a really stupid thing to do.
This seems like a red flag, a la Adorno’s unscientific “authoritarian personality” .
In order to mean anything in research, “liberalism” needs to be defined by some objective measures grounded in valid definitions. Otherwise, these kinds of studies are just measuring whether smart people are better at conforming to socially beneficial political views.
There’s college educated Republicans and college educated Dems.
This doesn’t mean squat.
College educated wealthy Republicans will Woody Johnson and Hal Steinbrenner will be there for MAGA, because they are rock ribbed Republicans.
Other studies have shown a connection between social authoritarianism and lower IQ. However, a 2014 study by Noah Carl found Republicans had a slightly higher IQ than Democrats. This can be explained by the fact that there is also a link between economic authoritarianism and a lower IQ. Believers in a free market economy are more likely to vote Republican. Low IQ economic authoritarians vote for the socialist Democrats.
An example of this are lower IQ Black and Hispanic voters. They are generally socially conservative and also support a large welfare state. This causes friction in the Democrat party since they do not share the liberal social beliefs of many Whites in the party.
I suspect that if you control properly for formal education, the effect will disappear. This would be consistent with existing research on personality, as well as anecdotal evidence (“lived experience” in today’s cant).
BTW – Did the journal really publish the phrase “… intelligence predict left-wing beliefs” – or is that Steve’s typo? It would be ironic if a journal called Intelligence were edited by people who haven’t mastered the rudiments of grammar.
“Our results imply that being genetically predisposed to be smarter causes left-wing beliefs.”
Or, being genetically smart/conscientious leads young people to get more years of education and since universities double as institutions for conditioning into left-wing political ideology these students become progressively more left-wing with each additional year of schooling.
Or, being left-wing causes you to be more easily promoted within left-wing educational institutions like universities leading to more schooling which tends to raise IQ? Are students who signal left-wing political beliefs more likely to be admitted into elite universities in the first place? Are they more likely to receive recommendations from professors to prestigious graduate schools?
Or, rather than being left-wing, being conformist causes you to more easily promoted within institutions (regardless of what the reigning ideology is, be it left/right/fascist/communist/whatever) and since Western institutions happen to be dominated at present by leftists these conformists absorb both left-wing ideology and high levels of education, resulting in higher measure IQ/intelligence, confounding of these traits.
It was once the case that the Catholic Church was the center of education and literacy. Being someone who was deeply devoted to Catholic religious doctrine was almost a prerequisite for becoming a highly educated person in many contexts. In the modern West, by contrast, it’s a virtual prerequisite to signal leftist beliefs to be promoted in educational institutions but this hasn’t always been universally true. There have been various times and places where subscribing to conservative and/or religious ideologies were prerequisites to becoming a successful scholar. This is still true in certain highly religious orthodox communities. One wonders if they were to redo their research in medieval Europe if they’d find that religiosity were correlated with IQ instead.
I don’t know how you disentangle the confounding of factors which influence political ideology, education and intelligence. Researchers are still arguing, after decades of extensive research, whether vitamin D supplementation provides any health benefits in people who are not clinically deficient or whether it’s some confounder which explains why higher vitamin D levels tend to be correlated with health benefits – like healthy people with an active lifestyle and getting more sun. Does taking vitamin D supplementally improve your health if you’re not clinically deficient? Researchers still can’t agree. Consequently I’m skeptical of anyone claiming that they’ve disentangled the confounding of correlations found between DNA-based predictors of IQ, educational attainment, ethnicity and political orientation – a field which is basically a scientific ghetto and highly politically charged. If not even well-funded researchers in the field of vitamin D research can’t disentangle these confounders then I’m predisposed to be skeptical whether social science researchers working in ideological ghettos can either.
“Intelligence was able to significantly predict social liberalism and lower authoritarianism”
How are they defining authoritarianism? Were the liberals more in favor of free speech even if said speech included racist and/or anti-Semitic speech? My impression is that, today, right-wingers tend to be far less authoritarian on such matters. Of course, when one comes into power, as the left has today, it becomes tempting to pull of the drawbridge of free speech (which the “leftists” insisted the other side let down in the name of “fairness”) and employ all of the advantages of the castle, censorship and authoritarian powers of the state to crush one’s enemies. Which is exactly what “liberals” and “leftists” have done by all appearances. That’s hardly “liberal” or “non-authoritarian” of them.
This is mush corelated with mush.
This is a tiny sample size and we aren’t told in the abstract any details about who they are, where they live and how they were persuaded to all take IQ tests, and did.
In a nation of around 300 million, won’t tell us much.
Sample = Mush (1)
“Political beliefs” as defined by what exactly? Do sub teens have such beliefs (independent of parents)?
What beliefs are identified as conservative, liberal, right, left, libertarain, populist, etc?
How issues and questions are worded = Mush (2)
As to political parties, what exactly is represented by the current Democrat and Republican parties?
Obama, Biden = JFK and LBJ? Trump and Bush = Reagan and Nixon?
What is “pro military” in this mush bowl? Abortion? Etc.
What about religion or lack of it? Gay rights or transmania?
Green worship versus hunters/fisherman?
My own family was lower middle class, until current generation, no post secondary education. But hard right, Goldwater Republicans (military father), and family subscribed to National Review in the early 60s. We are/were high IQ as well.
Very few people create independent political beliefs beyond family and immediate peer groups.
The worst political beliefs are held by People Who Think They Are Smarter Than You.
Deplorables, on the other hand, fix things, make things, farm things, run things and generally hold traditional values. And don’t try to force their opinions down your throat.
The worst politics are done by people who in the belief that they should “run things” for everyone’s benefit, try to control you in every possible way. Like the Wokels and Beltway Blob people, and all of the oligarchical owned media. Big Sister tells you what to think, say, words to use and not use.
They are the Cancel Culture warriors of GroupThink fascism.
Thank God our founders, who were actually smarter than most everyone else, didn’t subscribe to this authoritarian Boss mindset. Instead they had humility and respect for individual decision making. They didn’t believe they were Gods.
Woke Comrades only mention “IQ” when they want to use it as as cudgel against others.
So in other words, “bah humbug!”
But many higher IQ Whites and Asians are also Democrats. They are not generally socially conservative and support a welfare state. The ‘friction’, seems constructive and well managed since they win elections. Republicans, on the other hand, have not been able to cohere their conflicts and seem to have split into paleo and MAGA Republicans. I do not foresee a process where the two splinters can unite.
Yes, the sorting of Pournelle’s Law: does this person have some sort of expertise, or is their claimed “expertise” in managing others?
And now I know why I’m supporting the Fetterman/Tulsi ticket.
Mugs, minor quibble. My unscientific observation is the worst beliefs are held by those who think they are “morally superior” than you for their beliefs, irrespective of intelligence.
The smug and stupid are by far the worse.
Presently I think that leftish goals are best reached by rightish policies. Otherwise, too scanty a description of the article to comment on. Hence, I’ll go off topic.
SOROS FILES 1
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says
Soros on 60 Minutes, explaining how he felt no sense of guilt for helping his Christian protector with the confiscation of property from Jews being sent to camps by the Nazis.
https://www.mediamatters.org/george-soros/tnrs-peretz-cropped-transcript-support-his-smear-soros-young-cog-hitlerite-wheel
When I was a kid, my mom and dad explained to me several times and at length, in tones of sternest rebuke, that “other people would have stole it anyway” was a contemptible excuse for for doing harm to others. Of course it is not a valid moral justification. The simplest way to show that is to ask, What kind of world would it be if everyone did that?
SOROS FILES 2
At various times on this blog, I have asked, What motivates George Soros? Here is one piece of evidence. I heard Mike Benz on a podcast claim that Soros was a piker until his Open Society Foundation began collaboration with the CIA and NED to manipulate countries’ politics in service of dubious US foreign-policy goals. Benz does many interviews but few publications, so the only text of his views I could find is a garbled, second-hand summary.
https://tierneyrealnewsnetwork.substack.com/p/soros-and-reagan
Note the Open Society Foundation inflection point:
(I hope there is a good reason for the missing data.)
These data show that greed for money is a major part of his motivation. Follow-the-money is a good rule, but a better one is don’t always follow the money. People can also be strongly motivated by things like envy, spite, honor, faith, insanity, revenge, hatred.
I’m not investment-savvy, but I don’t see how Soros makes money today from the destruction of American families, American cities, and American culture.
I’m going to say for the umpteenth time that if Popper were still alive he’d fiercely repudiate Soros’ crackpot claim to be applying his views. They both oppose nationalism (because of useless European wars), but that’s all they have in common.
Popper was an avowed fallibilist, Soros is a narrow dogmatist. Popper favored Hayekian caution in revising inherited institutions; and favored piecemeal change (with reversal if the change has bad results), rather than wholesale change. Evolution, not revolution. Soros favors reckless cultural and political revolution along all fronts (with Lenin’s cold indifference to the consequent grief of harmed innocents), deceitful subversion, and blood in the streets.
Relevant: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/war-on-citizenship
John Stuart Mill:
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party.”
Hogwash. Smart people are simply advancing their own interests by supporting liberalism because it favors the intelligent.
Social and economic liberalism are ruinous for the hapless left side of the curve, and their misfortune is usually to the advantage of their intellectual superiors, who can better navigate the rocky shoals and snags of a liberal society.
If being conservative were advantageous to intelligent people, that’s what they’d be (e.g Song dynasty neo-Confucianism — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confucianism). In many respects intelligence is mental plasticity.
All we are seeing is the abandonment of any sense of obligation to our neighbors. It’s becoming quite clear that intelligence does not confer morality. Not even prudence, which would entail some restraint in despoiling one’s countrymen.
If you are smart you realize that expressing progressive opinions is the way to get ahead in modern society. It is like learning proper etiquette in an earlier era.
Until they define what constitutes liberalism, this study is completely worthless…
Steve, have you ever looked into the work done by the anthropologist Mary Douglas regarding the relationships between language use and empathy, child-raising strategies, SES/IQ, and stances towards authority?
WDCB.org
’s Juke Box Saturday Night for today features Vol. 2 of Glen Miller’s 1939 band if anyone is interested.Also today.
Available on their two week archive.
https://wdcb.org/archive
Are the folks who support the ethno-state Israel and its policies of ethnic cleansing considered liberal and against authoritarianism?
Steve’s coming close to Noticing that building a political movement based around a discredited 3,000 year old book is a bad idea because it repels smart people. But he’s not quite there yet.
What did right and left mean in Plato’s day?
Are you referring to the authoritarian rise of wokeness? That’s very recent so the trend may have been accurate not so long ago.
All bets are off if the wokeness trend can’t be turned around.
No, it is all in the ((good)) genes. You do not need to go to a college to be a ((liberal)). Can go straight to Holliwood or Wall Street. Can get a high IQ test result from other liberals too.
It also does not matter what ideology is sold this or that time as a “liberal ideology”. Genetic liberals do not change, because genes.
Someone who refers to authoritarian radicals as liberals probably should not be opining on I.Q.
Anyhow, I.Q. genes are a source of power of which an authoritarian radical can use to wreak havoc on mankind and then get the lesser-evolved members of mankind to thank the authoritarian for his generosity.
“Please sir, may I have another?”
The problem with these kinds of studies is that for some reason they operate under the assumption that being “anti-authoritarian” is left wing. The Left has been authoritarian and violent for my entire life.
Right & left came into our dictionary in the 18th C, but their world-views (which differed, but had many similarities) were: Plato thought that humans were essentially unequal re. their inherent capabilities; he considered the idealized Sparta, essentially a proto-Fascist state as the best & was a mortal enemy of democracy; both he and Aristotle were thoroughgoing racists, even without knowing non-Caucasians; Plato was more of a feminist & communist, but in a pragmatic sense- he advocated women being taught everything, but only in service of a healthier & more powerful totalitarian state, which would then be more militarily effective. Aristotle, on the other hand, was more realistic and considered Plato’s many ideas to be childish fictions. Plato was more a totalitarian, while Aristotle more realistically conservative. Of course, both advocated slavery.
Another possibility is that too many people who aren’t that smart go to college, but were told they are smart by their not-very-smart public school teachers and later not all that smart college professors, and they are dumb (and arrogant) enough to believe them, and their false sense of smartness enables them to believe it is up to them to tell everyone else what’s best for the latter.
And Augustine and Aquinas.
Well, Socrates was executed for perverting the morals of youth by focusing all teaching on trying to define justice and its specifics in everyday life. That means that the Elites of Athens saw him and the sincere search for Truth as a threat to the reigning order of the day. They wished to conserve what Socrates and Plato saw as immoral order.
The wildly comic playwright Aristophanes, who delighted in debauchery, lampooned Socrates as living in cloud cuckoo land, but he also saw the ruling Elites of Athens as often stupid and more often greedy. He tended to lump Socrates and his students with the Sophists, which groups and teachers Socrates and Plato saw as morally and intellectually irresponsible at best and downright evil at worst.
Most Sophists I would call insufferable polluters of traditional Greek and Indo-European family based moral culture. And Aristophanes clearly was A-OK with injustice reigning as long as he could lampoon it while remaining a gentleman.
I stand with Plato and his Socrates, as well as with Plato’s top student Aristotle.
What is a Paleo Republican, and 2har is a MAGA Republican?
In other words, science has now confirmed the doctrine of Original Sin.
How do these scientists understand “social liberalism” and “authoritarianism.” Don’t the social statistics show that rich liberals are an odd kind of hypocrite, who preach liberalism but practice conservative family values? (relative to the lower classes anyways).
And what could they be measuring authoritarianism by? I wouldn’t be surprised if less intelligent parents spank their kids more; but less intelligent parents do not discipline their kids more than tiger moms and such like. I mean come on, AUTHORITARIANISM? Lets please acknowledge how extremely rare any form of authoritarianism is in the United States of America in the 21st century. Are they counting hijabs?
That said, if social liberalism and authoritarianism just mean tolerance and compromise instead of conflict, yeah I can see how intelligent people take those roads rather more than less intelligent people. So should Steve. After all, he chooses to live in LA.
High IQ Jews and low IQ Blacks vote for left-wing Democrats. For different reasons, I think. We need research to separate the reasons for being left-wing.
High IQ people is always innocent being dumb??
If the IQ test used is the Weschler adult being a conformist will literally raise your score. There is section that allegedly checks for Socialization which is basically conformity to what Dr. Weschler thinks should be societies attitudes and behavior. Both my grandfather’s were smugglers. So perhaps my attitudes and behaviors might not match those of an academic like Dr. Weschler. One of the questions in this section was “Why do we pay taxes?” The answer that gets you points is “To support the government.” I answered truthfully “So I will not get arrested.” I increases my score by 16 points by giving untrue but socially acceptable answers to these questions the second time I took the test.
As others have pointed out, “social liberalism” is politically highly authoritarian. The study proceeds from flawed assumptions or definitions.
High rational capacity (realism) and high IQ seems doesnt have a solid positive correlation, probably because IQ analyse memory and learning, not reasoning or thinking skills. People tend to think IQ analyse reasoning speed but is a confounding for memory and verbal/chrystallized intelligence which have a huge weight on these tests. Even about spatial skills, is the same thing.
IQ is like a drive test. It evaluate our intelligence under controlled circumstances, not in real world. In real world, it’s our rationality or lack off that show up all the time.
Dunning Krueger effect seems high also among high IQ people not only among low IQ. It’s not necessarily about low or high cognitive capacity but also a good self knowledge so many people are just average. So if low IQ tend to make people overrated their own intelligence by simple lack of capacity to self analysis and self knowledge, high IQ also tend to make people self overrate intellectually because it boorst their ego to think they are way better than they actually are.
Other possible factor is: high IQ people is better to adapt in society and today in the West the best way to do it is indoctrinating yourself to lean Left just like was advantageous to being conservative in the past.
Also autistic genes may make high IQ people more prone to have a poorer theory of mind (a side effect of high IQ??) which make them more prone to individualism/liberalism??
It definitely raises the question of how they measure authoritarianism. Here is the description from Table 2 for authoritarianism (uses a 12 item test): “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.”
That table references this paper: Willoughby et al. (2021)
Parent contributions to the development of political attitudes in adoptive and non-adoptive families
https://osf.io/k6pzc
The title of the Duckitt paper is telling.
A Tripartite Approach to Right-Wing Authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism Model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227819246_A_Tripartite_Approach_to_Right-Wing_Authoritarianism_The_Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism_Model
I think these are the questions. Makes clear how they get the association they saw IMO.
To my mind the interesting question is what questions would uncover the liberal authoritarianism you mention.
Questions about keeping protected groups safe from hate, disinformation and populist extremism would do the trick.
Is this James Lee’s way of avoiding cancellation? Find conclusions palatable to the woke.
First, paper (submitted version) and supplementary material are available here.
Predicting political beliefs with polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment
https://osf.io/3g6ca/
I mentioned Willoughby et al. (2021) above. This link also has supplementary material including a spreadsheet of the sample data and the associated variable codebook.
Parent contributions to the development of political attitudes in adoptive and non-adoptive families
https://osf.io/pf97d/
FWIW the sample appears to be heavily white and Asian with only 16 blacks. There are as many East Indians as blacks.
I’m not smart enough to answer the most basic question of our times: what can/should America do about its black problem?
Can anyone tell me? Thx.
Well, there goes the theory that leftism is caused by dysgenics (which never made sense any way).
The association is probably caused by the pathway: intelligence -> smart peer group -> left-wing peer group -> left-wing beliefs. Though that’s perhaps not entirely satisfying as it doesn’t explain why high IQ spaces have ended up left-wing in the first place.
We are smarter than you. So we command you to live in a way that is clearly contrary to your own interests, and to eagerly accept things which would make even a diagnosed Mongoloid imbecile blush.
For your own good.
By the way, I can’t seem to get this can opener to work, can you give me a hand with this?
I dunno, it’s a genome-wide-association-score study, and from the abstract it sounds like they took care with confounders. They took into account socio-economic status and other environmental cofounders, and they compared siblings. Part of the cohort were twins raised apart and adopted kids.
Intelligence is not necessarily conterminous with common sense and concern for one’s fellow countrymen. You can be smart and still have stupid politics.
Arguments for liberalism are based on reasoning and evidence. Arguments for conservatism are based on tradition. Of course the people using reason and evidence will be smarter than the people just invoking tradition. Btw, I’m not saying that invoking tradition is wrong. Chesterton’s fence is real. No matter how smart you are, you will probably always overlook something when analysing something as complex as politics. Tradition is to culture and politics as evolution is to the human body. Evolution has been creating human bodies for hundreds of thousands of years. We have no idea what the consequences of messing with one genre will have. It’s the same for culture and politics. Our culture and politics have been shaped by thousands of years of tradition, who knows what allowing gays to marry will do. It will probably be terrible, but I have no away to prove it.
Its not predicting liberalism, its predicting midwit conformity.
flat out no. it is caused by 2 things:
1) the smarter you are, within the last 100 years, the more likely you are to go to this thing called college. which never used to exist as a thing the general population attended. but which these days, most people of above average intelligence are broadly expected to attend. 300 years ago, nearly zero people went. 100 years ago, few people went, even most fairly smart people. today everybody over wechsler 105 shows up there.
what happens when you go to college? well 100 years ago, you got educated fairly well in some STEM program or a white collar professional field.
what happens when you got to college TODAY? you get absolutely bombarded with relentless leftist propaganda. that has a significant effect on a good amount of the students. not all of them, but lots of them. it converts a certain percentage of them who wouldn’t normally be political, into young leftists. and those predisposed to becoming leftists already, radicalizes them into activists.
this process is the proverbial ‘clicks to the left only’ ratchet, such that as leftists slowly and steadily take over the faculty, they then screen out any new hires who are not also leftists, decade by decade, until you end up where we are today, with the faculty almost all leftists, and the college’s mission largely changed from educating to brainwashing.
2) freedom of movement. most adult liberals are free to move away from the effects of their positively idiotic voting and activism. this process can only go on for so long though as they run out of places to move away to, then convert into the place they left. it can go on for a while – over 100 years – so, like printing money and creating debt, for 2 or 3 generation of leftists, it does appear as if it can go on forever. but it will end eventually.
Speaking of genes, is our obesity epidemic genetic in origin? (Like our bastardy epidemic?)
That’s mighty rapid deterioration. Did all the healthy people go into show biz and sports, leaving the fatties to bear all the kids? Or might environment play a role, too, unpopular as that view is hereabouts?
I ask because it appears women’s college basketball now has its own Babe Ruth:
No better place to be corn-fed than Ames. And is she “Audi” because someone else in town took the name Mercedes, or is she built like a Q7? But hey, she’s reached a milestone no one other than Bill Walton ever has, and as a freshman.
how do i know this is the mechanism for how it works? because if intelligence and liberalism were actually intrinsically linked, we ALREADY would not have a country to give away. the leaders of America would have already given the country away 100, 200 years before we were even born. we wouldn’t even be living in the United States of America right now.
same for all the nations in europe. back in 1700, 1800, the smart people in charge would have ‘realized’ the best way forward would be to destroy the British empire, the French empire, the German empire. deliberately bring in millions of useless third worlders to completely wreck things so that their nations didn’t even exist by 1900. instead of doing what they actually did. conquering the world.
this is the same process the Christian church is undergoing now. if Christian leaders in the past were as ‘enlightened’ as the current brainwashed leadership is, there would not be any Christian churches. they would have all been gone 100, 200, 300 years ago. we would not be living in an era where Christianity was declining – it would have already been long gone.
being smart has nothing at all to do with inherently being liberal. it has everything to do with the educators and professors of the current era all being leftist activists who use their positions as authority figures to teach their students to hate themselves and to destroy their nations. these days smart people are TAUGHT to be liberals who should want to hate themselves and destroy their nations.
And then you’ve got stupid people who pick up lefty politics thinking it’ll make them smart.
“To my mind the interesting question is what questions would uncover the liberal authoritarianism you mention?”
A possible question: Should a Christian baker be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for two gays getting married? Many modern day liberals would say “no”, indicating authoritarian tendencies.
Classical liberalism coupled tolerance with freedom of association. People could form voluntary communities with like minded individuals. No one would be forced to be around someone or associate with someone whose behavior they disapproved of. Social ostracism can be a powerful force to get people to behave. Eliminating freedom of association, as we have done, encourages bad behavior.
last week Steve asked why there were few father son MLB players 100 years ago, versus today. he could ask the same question here.
the proliferation of the university system selected for leftists. over 200 years of this stuff, the university system has been very effective at finding the small percentage of your population who hates your own country and people and favors the outgroup, and has magnified their numbers over time, so that today they are very concentrated in the industry where they are most rewarded. in academia they meet each other, date, and make more of themselves. generation by generation moving genetically more to the left politically. just as generations of athletes meeting and mating would increasingly move their offspring to the right on the athletic spectrum.
as politics is show business for ugly people, so too is academia the professional sports league for europeans who hate europeans and all the outgroup people who also hate europeans.
if most of the smart people in America hated America 100 years ago, there would be no America right now. smart people are not inherently liberals.
Classical liberalism coupled tolerance with freedom of association.
In theory. In practice, “freedom of association” was dealt a sledgehammer with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Even extreme conservatives will feel squeamish about returning to pre-1964 “freedom of association” society.
Yes, the obesity epidemic is not genetic. As you suggest, genes haven’t changed that much in the last century, but fatness has. (There’s a good change that whoever’s reading this has gotten fatter: did your genes change? And no, it’s not biologically predetermined that aging causes significant weight gain.) What has greatly changed* is the food environment. The effort/reward ratio of eating has shifted: extremely palatable but unfilling food is widely available at very low cost of money, time, and/or work.
That said, genetics are still relevant because they greatly affect people’s dietary choices in this environment (as well as how they metabolize excess calories.) For example, I’m grossed out enough by overeating and the concept of eating unhealthy food that I find it quite easy to eat in moderation and avoid empty calories. (Indeed, I have family history of anorexia as well as vegetarianism.) Others are wired differently and easily succumb to temptation. But the big change in obesity rate is clearly environmental: such people may well have been normal weights in the food environments of the past, but are not with the modern range of options.
I recommend Stephan Guyenet’s The Hungry Brain for more on these ideas/supporting evidence.
*People are also more sedentary, which has an effect, but the change in food environment is the larger factor.
Ran out of time mid-edit: first sentence is more correctly that the epidemic is not caused by a change in genetics: genetics are still in some sense a “cause” of obesity (see my second paragraph.)
Except that early anthropology shows that in the period of the earliest city states (i.e., Genesis 4), humans went through a “domestication” event in which they physically changed in ways similar to domesticated animals changing from wild ones. In other words, the advent of the world condemned by God in the Noah narrative involved a dumbing down of humanity.
Just imagine if she chose Iowa instead of Iowa State. She and Caitlin Clark would have been teammates!
Also, this is as good a time as any to note that if you look at a game program for basketball, the men’s program will list the height and weight for each player, while the women’s program will only list their height. Even though these are women athletes, it is considered to be a faux pas to publicly reveal a woman’s weight.
Nah, generally speaking when you meet a dumb white person, they identify as conservative.
There is no need to be salty or sore or defensive about this kind of finding, even if replicated well.
Higher IQ is probably correlated with “liberal” beliefs, because it is also correlated to openness to new ideas and such (and we all know new is often not better, but can, in fact, produce much worse unintended outcomes).
I note that intelligence is not the same as wisdom. Conservative or traditionalist beliefs aren’t better in many cases, because they are the more “high IQ” ideas. They often work better, because they are wiser, having been accreted by hundreds of years (nay, thousands in some cases) of enduring human experience.
are China’s leaders trying to sabotage China? are they trying to give China away to useless deadweight Indians coming over the border? do Chinese leaders allow homosexuals to control their society? does China allow common street criminals to murder with only a slap on the wrist so they can go out and murder again? are China’s leaders trying to make all drugs legal so 200,000 citizens per year can overdose? are China’s leaders trying install Islam as a protected religion so muslims can rape Chinese women by the thousands? are Chinese leaders thinking maybe economically colonizing africa was a mistake, and instead, we should be bringing in millions and millions of africans into China to make up for it and culturally enrich things? is China thinking maybe they don’t want to invade Taiwan after all, even if America’s Navy didn’t exist. are they gonna stop building ships and jets and missiles and instead send Taiwan a million Hallmark cards that play Kumbaya?
that’s what you have to believe is happening if you think high intelligence tends to make you a liberal. per science, Chinese people are the smartest people on average. so it follows they must be the most liberal. but of course the entire exercise here is just the late night television crowd doing confirmation bias studies on themselves. Jimmy Kimmel going to Japan, noticing that’s it’s pretty great, then not putting together the high IQ-to-closed border relationship. high IQ and NOT liberal is how great nations are built and maintained. high IQ liberals are the people who wreck stuff.
Exactly. Clockwork Orange got it right.
Are liberals the sort of men who got into fights when they were in high school? I would say that being toughminded is definitely less common among those kids who wear glasses (surely on average a sign of intelligence). Liberals are surely less to indulge in what Richard Wrangham calls ‘reactive aggression (lose their temper and get violent), but more likely to indulge in ‘proactive aggression’ (planned premeditated violence done in a calm state of mind).
Keven MacDonald noted the prevalence of ‘public violence’ such as burning of rebellious servants in the high average intelligence egalitarian East Anglian homeland of the mainly craftsmen original New England settler stock, who persecuted Quakers because the freedom was one of ‘Ordered Liberty’ that conferred the right to order one’s acts in a Godly way but not in any other way. Capital crimes in Puritan Massachusetts included ‘direct, express, presumptuous, or high handed blasphemy’.
Er… I don’t think there are specific “genes for IQ”. It’s more complex than that.
Also, liberals surely like to think of themselves as smarter, but there is no evidence of them being so. At least, not in the practical world.
They are only “smarter” in the sense that more of them went to college — and thus they were more brainwashed. Also, more socialization, and our modern world is liberal.
It all has a very prosaic explanation. Piaget once said “Intelligence is what you need if you don’t know what to do”. People who are intelligent are rapidly cognizant of the fact that they are more intelligent than their environment and they know they are predisposed to become experts. So there is a natural predisposition to align with parties that are based on “Expertocracy”. In the US, that party is Progressives aka Democrats. Case solved!
That Expertocracy doesn’t function if the facts are screwed is a given. Garbage in Garbage out. See McKinsey promoting DEI with screwed data (that they screwed on purpose).
Yes, but for the intelligent there is a class interest in endless immigration. See William Lind in the Tablet
Very Good.
The questions are vague, poorly conceived, chock full of the most basic logical fallacies, and in most cases, borderline retarded. It’s like watching one troop of chimpanzees throw volleys of their own poo at the other gang of chimps fighting over a coconut.
You can’t extrapolate anything meaningful from any sort of reply to this stew of nonsense: and in fact, it says many more damning things about its creators than it does about the ostensible subjects.
The people who knowingly gold-starred this as a basis of study are engaged in acts of terrorism and war, not a mite less than the evil Jews in Gaza.
I’ve long thought that there is a different psychological dynamic going on here – the sub conscious or perhaps conscious urge toward ‘acceptance’ and in group membership which is signified by conforming to the ‘correct’ societal shibboleths, which many might also argue is a key factor in the outward display of conventional religiosity.
Basically, it’s no different to garden variety grade school yard bullying and clique making. Rather than being the hated scapegoat jerk – whose mere existence and orgasmic transference of hared and contempt and the psychic relief this provides in a large part defines the gang – commonsense dictates that the best policy is to be one of the trendy in-gangs, and not the jerk.
“A possible question: Should a Christian baker be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for two gays getting married? Many modern day liberals would say “no”, indicating authoritarian tendencies.”
This isn’t authoritarian. It’s totalitarian.
That assumes the said immigration is low IQ.
Broke: The Frankfurt School and Foucault caused wokeness.
Woke: Civil Rights law caused wokeness.
Bespoke: The Flynn Effect caused wokeness.
But sometimes you can be too intelligent- sure you can play with a bit of instability but that bit leads to more bits…and to more bits and then it comes crashing down on your head.
If you are advancing your interests in this society its is to your advantage to promote gay issues, feminist issues, black issues because it leaves out many white men leaving less competition to your advancement BUT, for example, what if you slip into a war? Who will fight for you? Many white men (the left-hand curvers being the core of western armies) will feel alienated from their societies and not really join the army because their society rejected them. Once they do join they will be ordered around by some enormous-assed lesbian. Not much incentive to protect you.
It’s like Ayn Rand thought that armies should be voluntary and everything else open to exploitation by an elite. Yeah Ayn, who will protect your money-worshipping ass if potential recruits don’t see any benefits in fighting for a society that does not work for them?
Look in the French Revolution the king’s brother the Duc D’Orleans thought he might have a chance to be the king-so he supported the Revolution, provided some financing etc.-sure for a while it looked like he might become king since he was navigating the shoals quite well but bit by bit things moved on-he was lucky to escape and he never became the king.
a little bit true
Thanks Reading the questions lowers my trust in these researchers.
For instance, #2: “Being kind to loafers or criminals will only encourage them to take advantage of your weakness, so it’s best to use a firm, tough hand when dealing with them.”
If “People respond to incentives” is true, then so is this corollary (ex- “it’s best”). Whether or not I am an Authoritarian. Irrespective of whether or not I find the wording obnoxious or offensive, or what competing values I may hold.
Presumably, most N0n-Authoritarians “Disagree.” Reasoning, correctly, that the questioners are using pejorative descriptions of the subjects (loafers and criminals) to explore issues such as “Do you lack compassion towards Marginalized and Oppressed Others?”
The researchers could also bear in mind that half of the population is below average in intelligence. As one moves farther to the left side of the distribution, working through if-then chains and hypotheticals becomes progressively more challenging. E.g. the bemusement of university-grade intellects when people in the lower deciles struggle to answer, “If you hadn’t had breakfast this morning, how would you be feeling right now?” (“But I did have breakfast!”)
“Going to college correlates with having the views which are taught in college. Duh.“
Pretty much
I looked over the paper. Not bad for the discussion , but very weak on causality. “Consistent with” is as far as one can go. I think they are using ANOVA rather than SEM, but no matter.
The Adjustments for income would favor lower over higher income, biasing the results. The discussion hints at confounders, but seems incomplete, even naive , on unmeasured common causes.
Par for the course for sociology.
“Lived experience “ is a self congratulatory way of saying anecdotal, but my lived experience is that conservatives (or opponents like Moynahan) have been called either stupid or evil by the left for the past half century. E.g Reagan was stupid, OK, Nixon was smart, but evil, and W was both stupid and evil.
What a fascinating person!
Not only is he completely right about Gaza, but I love his general life perspective – it’s so life affirming, invigorating, and refreshing in this dispiriting age. Immensely enjoyable to listen to.
“Shit happens”, and you learn to adapt, flourish, and thrive despite it all, no matter what – this is perhaps one of the best and most refreshing things about Jewish culture, a culture I am often extremely critical of.
In an increasingly bland world full of dull and weak personalities, everyone a predictable conformist of one stripe or another (even on the alt-right), it’s nice that there still exist these vivid and strongly marked old characters redolent of an older generation. Perhaps after these older generations die out and our machine like age fully comes into its own it will be some centuries before we see genuine individuals again.
Still though, his analysis – while correct and brilliant – needs to be supplemented by an “idealist horizon”, not as realistic political plan, but as spiritual aspiration. Clear eyed realism is indispensable for survival, but a society without any idealism is dead. But he is not the man for that.
An interesting character for sure, though. Thanks for making me aware of his existence.
In Natural Symbols, Mary Douglas compared the permissive, individualistic post-1960’s culture with Congolese. In both cases, she saw individualism and permissiveness as weakening the community. She also saw similarities with Protestant Reformers.
Douglas argued that ritual was really important, and not empty. She was sympathetic to Catholicism.
Well I think Lind’s arguments are well made, and they are not IQ ones. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/war-on-citizenship
In his ‘Coming Apart’ argument Charles Murray has said that due to an increase in associative mating the current white knowledge class is 2 standard deviations above the workers of their own ethnicity, who are increasingly powerless.
Seems analogous somehow:
“Younger and well-educated Muslims were the most likely to think Hamas did not commit atrocities on Oct 7, with the proportions rising to 47 per cent among 18 to 24-year-olds and 40 per cent among the university-educated.”
Only one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel, report reveals
“Thank God our founders, who were actually smarter than most everyone else, didn’t subscribe to this authoritarian Boss mindset. Instead they had humility and respect for individual decision making. They didn’t believe they were Gods.”
I wonder what James Madison would have thought of a slave making an “individual decision” to leave Montpelier? Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible to suit his fancy. The Founders hated the deplorables. Republic, not a democracy, remember. The last holdout, John Quincy Adams, spent the 1830s and 1840s egging on Jacksonian chuds in Congress.
The founders were a bunch of middle-class with a fetish for Rome who rebelled against their monarch, peeved because a lot of them were in debt, and wanted Ohio lands for speculating purposes, and because they felt left out of the cool kids club in Parliament. The average American had a more intrusive government and higher taxes after le Revolution than before. Besides that, the founders didn’t even have a single vision for the country. The wrote nasty, anonymous articles about each other to the newspaper.
John Adams and the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
And yet, in many ways, our society is more segregated today than in 1964; leftist/libs have freely associated in gov’t/academia from where they launch riot squads to crush their political opponents.
Freedom is a contingent thing: some are free to win wars; some are free to lose wars.
Orwell…”Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
Steve, on the book review front page of today’s Washington Post:
HOW MANY HUSBANDS DOES ONE WOMAN NEED?
Holly Gramazio’s playful debut novel finds multitudes in matrimony
https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/04/05/husbands-novel-holly-gramazio/
The “higher IQ more likely to vote left” gets cause and effect backwards. At least in the West “left-wing” parties are no longer left at all in the traditional sense of being parties that advocate for workers’ interests.
What has happened over the past decades is that the upper middle classes have hijacked workers’ parties to represent their own social and economic interests. Higher IQ people tend to gravitate to professional jobs, and the Democrats have essentially turned into the party of lawyers, academics, and government bureaucrats. The Republican Party does represent the interests of a small group of high IQ people but the number of CEOs and engineers in the US is a lot smaller than the rest of the professional classes. The GOP attracts a lot of small businessmen and entrepreneurs but in my experience those people are not “high IQ”. The successful ones have an incredible work ethic and drive to succeed. Even Elon Musk is probably around 125. Someone once said that high IQ people often lack drive because they find success so easy in school, and so as adults often never learn to deal well with professional adversity. There’s some truth to that
In other news, coming to a harbor near you?
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/container-ship-reportedly-lost-power-nyc-harbor-right-verrazzano-narrows-bridge
I’d wager intelligence correlates with susceptibility to psychological warfare. Garbage in, garbage out.
What you are really seeing is a high-low social coalition against the middle. These are often seen in many countries (e.g. the UK) and have nothing to do with IQ or race except insofar as social class is correlated with IQ (and race).
Elite social class is not the same as economic class. For example, a college professor is from an elite social class but economically a successful plumber, especially one that has his own small business, might make a lot more than the professor does. High and low often share a contempt for “middle class values”.
“I’m not investment-savvy, but I don’t see how Soros makes money today from the destruction of American families, American cities, and American culture.”
Lots of people have been making fortunes since over 60 years from that business. In banking, real estate, retail, etc.
So much gibberish makes them Gibberals.
The example of Bobby Fisher should be sufficient to falsify the theory that there is a relationship between IQ and political acumen.
This is like fortune telling, this is like using Nostradamus quatrains to prove some Kahnemism.
The biggest tell this is a dishonest question is the categorical “will only”.
This is one of the issues. The authors conflate left wing with liberalism on social issues, for example legalized marijuana, LGBQTZYXWVUTSRQP+++, abortion, uncontrolled immigration, and so forth. The so-called intellectual elites can afford luxury beliefs and pay for the support of the parasite class with other peoples money (actually since about 2003, printed money). In return, they get vibrant restaurants and cheap lawn care.
Although there are some of the same players, new left doesn’t look like the old worker’s left from the mid 20th century. That’s probably because unions shifted from industrial to Fed/State workers and Teachers All significantly more educated than old school industry and trades. Meanwhile the colleges become addicted Federal and State aid and graduates dependent on subsidized loans and forgiveness.
What a world.
Intelligence has a positive correlation with “openness” on the “big five” personality traits, which in turn correlates positively with liberal political attitudes.
Also, as others have mentioned, intelligent people are more likely to go to college, where they’ll imbibe liberal political views.
Intelligent people also want to distinguish themselves from the middle brow, who tend to lean conservative.
Eco’s “Eternal Fascism” is useful here, presenting fascism as a revolt of the middle class when it feels pressured, centering on a “cult of tradition” and a violent rejection of newfangledness, aka all the weird ideas that high IQ, high openness people come up with.
Boy, did this post ever bring out the inner nurturist in the iSteve community.
Posit: Observed difference in black behavior and intelligence are largely genetic in origin.
HBDer: Absolutely. The Real Science!™ of genetics establishes beyond any doubt that 70,000 years of divergent evolution between blacks and whites have conditioned blacks to be low-IQ, compulsive, violent thugs with a high time preference. Environment can neither account for this nor correct it. If you don’t believe this, you are a science-denying, blank-slatist idiot who needs to open up his eyes and look at the statistics. Steve Sailer is the most underrated intellectual of the last 100 years.
Posit: Genetic polymorphisms that correlate with intelligence also correlate with leftist politics.
HBDer: Bullshit. It’s all confounded by assortive mating and the educational system. Only smart people go to college, where they are brainwashed into being doctrinaire liberals (because smart people completely lack agency when it comes to their own intellectual development and they believe whatever their professors tell them to believe—they’re tabula rasas, I tell you). Besides, what does “Left” really mean today, anyway? The designation of what counts as liberalism and what does not isn’t that cut and dried. It all exists on a continuum. Political affiliations are not intrinsic features of a person, they are a social construct.
No further proof is needed that “HBD” has never been anything more than a thin, pseudoscientific patina applied to racial animus, especially against black people. If you were as indulgent towards blacks as you were towards your fellow whites, you would sound no different than any Civil Rights-era hippie. If you were as rigorous with whites as you were with blacks, you would sound like the Nation of Islam.
HBD is not even wrong. It isn’t merely that it gets scientific facts incorrect, it’s that it has no idea what a scientific argument even is, or how to make one. It’s just an excuse for bitching about race relations in America. This, in and of itself, is fine; America has a number of legitimate problems with racial politics, immigration, and underclass black criminality—but that is a completely separate subject from the nature of race itself. What race is, HBD will never discover. I hold this blog and this entire movement discredited.
Chinese is not the smartest people in the planet even if just a narrow way to access it like IQ. About emotional intelligence and rationality, closely related, Chinese tend to be as deficient as Westerners, if not more.
Chinese government exploit their citizens; during decades proihibited urban Han to have more than one kids while allowed rural and non Han to have as many kids they wanted; destroyed a good part of their cultural legacy, their natural environment and is already importing problems/Africans…
Chinese current “civilization” is basically a copy of “modern” Western Civilization.
Somewhat related. Nice graphic here. Will probably need to edit the munged link to see it.
Height and weight of NBA players vs WNBA players (2023 Season)
“You can be smart and still have stupid politics”
We can, we are smart, average or dumb, depending about what. Lieberals are dumb to reason and this is already a big faillure.
Paleo Republican is pre-2016, think Reagan-Bush1-Bush2. MAGA is post Trump. They are different and irreconcilable political parties, sharing some common interests.
Well put.
One of the reasons I looked at the sample is that raw correlation tends to break once blacks are added to the analysis. And since researchers like to adjust for race the models often give illuminating race coefficients.
Agree. Roughly 5-6 years ago, I read an interesting article on zerohedge that included a few illuminating illustrations. The thesis was that obesity rates in the US had skyrocketed in the past 30 or 40 years. It cited a study that looked, at 10-year intervals, at % of the population in each state that was obese (presumably defined in terms of BMI but I’m not certain). The “skinniest” states in the 2010s were “fatter” than the “fattest” states in the 1980s.
Barring massive interventions (selective mass killings, war, genetic engineering of people) that did not occur, it seems nearly certain that this huge, rapid change was caused by dietary changes. I suspect a lot of it is caused by widespread use of seed oils, high-fructose corn syrup, fast carbs, etc. Generally, a shift from self-prepared foods to highly processed foods. And its is killing us, causing massive increases in Type II diabetes, for example.
Worth a link to this recent comment from The Anti-Gnostic.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/ben-sixsmith-on-noticing/#comment-6500826
A sample. More there.
Britannica on the topic.
https://www.britannica.com/question/What-is-the-difference-between-totalitarianism-and-authoritarianism
Is that the relevant distinction? We have questions for “right wing authoritarianism” shown above. Would the proper mirror of that be questions for “left wing totalitarianism?” Or is the distinction we are looking for more subtle or complicated?
This seems to tie back into early 1980s US politics.
Jeane Kirkpatrick and Neoconservatism: The Intellectual Evolution of a Liberal
https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3653&context=etd
What about the idea that many smart people identify what they need to believe in order to thrive, status-wise, and then they believe what they need to believe to thrive, status-wise? Or there might even be a simultaneity to it: “What’s the most advantageous thing to believe? Ok, that’s what I believe.”
Are higher I.Q. people less susceptible to delusion?
How many fourth century BC Greeks do you think were in their sample?
A sample reflects the underlying population it’s drawn from, hopefully. Even if it didn’t I doubt there are too many actual Ancient Greeks running around, unless of course they are vampires, which I guess is possible if you believe some QAnon people.
Doesn’t mean there can’t be smart conservative people, or that they don’t catch things their liberal peers miss due to ideology. It just means the correlation swings the other way.
Bless me, what do they teach them in these schools?
Putting aside the “Joo” question (and Jews are certainly over-represented in the knowledge class), is the white knowledge class “the same” ethnicity as the white working class or are there subtle ethnic differences (Episcopalian vs. Baptist, English vs. Irish, Yankee vs. Southern, etc.) that people don’t notice because they are lumping all “white” people together?
Wider access to education and the GI Bill might have temporarily opened the door for the brightest working class members to join the knowledge class but we have now had 4 generations of assortative mating and the classes have re-sorted themselves so that, just like in the old days, the banker’s daughter will not marry the janitor’s son (not that I have seen a white janitor for a long time except in super-white states).
When I was a little kid, my (female) school principal’s brother was the school janitor (maybe he was a little “slow” – I was too young to pick up on this) but such things are rarely seen in white America today . They are still seen in the black community. My former neighbor was a black woman (white husband) who had become a corporate recruiter (after starting in the HR dept of a Fortune 500 company) and she told us that her brother was a garbageman who lived in the black ghetto of some Connecticut slum city. I don’t recall that he ever came to visit. There was a black college professor at Penn whose brother was on death row.
Paleo and MAGA Republicans aren’t that far apart. The big rift in the GOP is between the Paleos (me) and MAGAs on one side, and the neocon/globalist/Wall Street Republicans on the other.
Actually, I’m not sure there are any neocons left in the Republican Party. Jeb Bush was demolished in 2016, Liz Cheney is gone, and Bill Kristol voted a straight Democratic ticket in 2020. I’m no fan of Trump, but the loss of Bush/Cheney/Kristol makes the party stronger, not weaker.
And it’s funny to hear conservatives described as having “authoritarian” personality types, when it’s the Left that has worked day and night to drive people who disagree with them out of every imaginable institution, and that punishes any form of dissent with the heavy hand of the state.
So now we hear:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/intel-community-warns-possible-threats-public-gatherings-across-us
The next step, of course, is a ban on Trump Rallies.
Just for your own safety..
“What you are really seeing is a high-low social coalition against the middle.”
You might remember the late Samuel Francis wrote about this idea extensively back in the 1990s. He talked about “Middle American Radicals” as an antidote to this tendency, but so far it has not materialized enough to matter.
You might be surprised, however, to find out how much a typical college faculty member gets paid (I am not talking about the slaves, e.g., adjuncts and graduate students). But no doubt skilled craftsmen if sufficiently specialized (hence difficult to replace with cheaper immigrants) can make a solid living. Probably one of the best career paths for the majority of young White men.
Paleo and MAGA Republicans aren’t that far apart.
What do you want to call WFB’s National Review Republicans?
OT – Dogs have g-factor, correlations across multiple fields of cognition, problem-solving, neophilia, trainability
https://neurosciencenews.com/dog-g-factor-intelligence-25849/
Maybe neophilia is the intelligence-liberalism common factor.
Birth order has more to with politics than everything else.
Society works differently when families only have two kids. Oldest sibling thinks they know better than everyone else and tries to regulate society. Youngest kid goes off the rails completely into all sorts of idiocy, demands society kowtow to his lunacy, and oldest sibling tries to stop youngest sibling’s constant squalling by changing the laws to placate them.
Youngest sibs=Every shrieking blue/haired/tranny/pedo/druggie/thief/libturd you ever met.
Oldest sib=Went into politics and organizations in a big way, runs everything, tries to be responsible, but folds like a house of cards when faced with younger sib’s demands. Next thing you know oldest sibs are passing laws to legalize post-birth abortion.
It’s the missing middle sibs that keep society from going off the rails. They know they can’t expect to get everything in life because they were never the indulged youngest sibling, and they can’t demand everyone obey them because they were never the privileged oldest sib who laid down the law. The middles stopped everyone from going off into absolute insanity.
Agreed. Worth noting that the researchers designing and using the questions are different people.
As an example, would a purer definition of authoritarian look more at hypotheticals like this?
We want to create incentives to encourage a given type of behavior.
– Should we be wanting this?
– Should these incentives be positive (e.g. tax breaks) or negative (e.g. legal prosecution)?
– How large should these incentives be?
Once you start bringing in specific policy choices it is too easy to encourage tribal responses rather than truly looking at the dimension you are trying to measure.
P.S. Of course this approach makes your lower intelligence (and probably concrete vs. abstract thinking preference) point even more of an issue.
P.P.S. While writing this comment I ran across an interesting paper.
There Are Many Ways to See the Forest for the Trees A Tour Guide for Abstraction
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258179765_There_Are_Many_Ways_to_See_the_Forest_for_the_Trees_A_Tour_Guide_for_Abstraction
Correct. If you want to avoid being blacklisted and get better opportunities for career advancement it is very risky to be conservative. Much safer for your career to avoid expressing conservatives views. As we have seen, even moderates who like a tweet from the wrong person can get cancelled. While expressing conservatives opinions may not get one fired they may hurt your opportunity to get a promotion or result in being ostracized and missing out on social networking etc…
TL;DR Mass murder and genocide of innocents is acceptable to Jews if it’s good for the Jews.
Gaza is the new “COVID 19” in the iSteve comment section.
No matter what the topic, people keep posting about dear old Gaza.
At least with COVID it was affecting nearly every one of us in some bad way.
With Gaza, it is just an excuse to hate Israel.
Some topics are “comment meme cancers” which for a time grow and overtake normal functions.
In another year no one here will care about Gazans and their terrorist “government” just as the Uke-Russo war is winding down, comment wise.
Remember all of that? Ukraine was toast, some thought. Now Russia is slogging on to satisfy Putin’s dreams of modern Czardom. No one here is much excited about that.
I speculate that the Democrat election bait-and-switch scenario (upcoming) will be the next comment cancer. Or maybe the impending shift in the Earth’s magnetic poles. (No…)
Meanwhile iSteve will mine and unearth new tidbits of “noticing” for us. If he survives his upcoming book tour…
I was not able to find that zerohedge article, but this page has an animated map showing obesity by state from 1990-2014.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3056020/this-animated-map-shows-how-obese-america-has-grown-in-25-years
The interactive maps here might be easier to use.
https://stateofchildhoodobesity.org/demographic-data/adult/
Highest obesity in 1990 was Mississippi at 15%.
Lowest obesity in 2022 was the District of Columbia at 21.5% with Colorado second at 24%. Mississippi tied for seventh highest at 37% with West Virginia highest at 41.9%.
Agreed the rapid change in obesity was probably caused by dietary changes (and also agreed with your suspects) and not genetics. Though genetics definitely influences who is affected.
There is no ethnic cleansing.
Bought and paid for.
High IQ also indicates affluence, or promise of it. Richer we are, farther we are from life’s ugly romance. A lot of left-wing belief is held and nurtured by people far from inconvenient reality..
Yes, the American founding fathers weren’t perfect. We get it.
Yet over 200 years later the nation they helped create with their ideas attracts millions who struggle to crash our borders to get here every day.
“Revealed preference.”
I’m high on intelligence and on openness. In my case I think the combination moved me from far left to center left to populist center right.
All arguably true, it’s just that that is not the stuff that I was asking/talking about. I’m not trying to conduct a general forum on Mary Douglas, it’s just that some of her work sheds a particular kind of light on the thing Steve was discussing. If no one wants to go down that alley, that’s kool too.
For just one example, think of how much money some people made because of White flight from large East Coast cities. Endless suburban sprawl and real estate churn. Builders, real estate agents, furniture and home accessories manufacturers and retailers, . . .
I know first hand how much professors make and how much plumbers make.
You may be surprised at how much a plumber makes. If he has his own business then he is in a position to sell it when he retires, for a handsome sum. Professors only get their pension.
I am talking about someone who has his own plumbing business and not someone who works as an employee for someone else.
The political system put in place by the Founders helped to create a country where life expectancy doubled over the next 200 years. The same thing happened in other countries to the extent they adopted a similar political system. It really was superior to the feudalistic system which preceded it.
The problem is not with the political system itself but with the difficulty of getting any racial groups other than Whites to adopt it. NE Asians can understand somewhat that a country with property rights, the rule of law and a free market economy works. Africans, Muslims, dot Indians and Hispanics have more trouble grasping it.
Fair enough. Didn’t know you had first-hand knowledge, mine is only mostly anecdotal, although I know a handful of profs and plumbers. Let me make a wild-ass guess. Does a master plumber in greater Philadelphia make $200K per year on average?
“Conservative or traditionalist beliefs …often work better, because they are wiser, having been accreted by hundreds of years”
I would like to know more here on your line of thinking before I comment. Could you offer specific examples? Thanks.
Hayek-
The real bearers of constructivist rationalism and socialism…tend to be the so-called intellectuals that are second-hand dealers in ideas: teachers, journalist and media representatives who, having absorbed rumors in the corridors of science, appoint themselves as representatives of modern thought.
Departments of psychology and sociology, of education, and the characteristic intellectuals whom they produce, are pale reproductions of Rousseau and Marx, Freud and Keynes, transmitted through intellects whose desires have outrun their understanding.
The higher we climb up the ladder of intelligence, the more we talk with intellectuals, the more likely we are to encounter socialist convictions. Initial surprise at finding that intelligent people tend to be socialist diminishes when one realizes that, of course, intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence. We did not want to understand the development which has produced totalitarianism because such an understanding might destroy some of the dearest illusions to which we are determined to cling.
The evolving rules of civilization constituted a new an different morality that restrained the natural morality of instincts that welded together the small group.
Constraints on the practices of the small group, it must be emphasized and repeated, are hated. Disliking these constraints so much, we hardly can be said to have selected them; rather, these constraints selected us.
Our instincts, and the moral traditions that have survived cultural evolution and serve to restrain these instincts, are in conflict.
Intellectuals will of course claim to have invented new and better ‘social’ morals….but these ‘new’ rules represent a return to the instincts of the primitive order, and can hardly maintain the life and health of the billions supported by the extended order. An atavistic longing after the life of the noble savage is the main source of the collectivist tradition
Via observation only, higher intelligence increases ability to succeed in whatever context — meaning whether current ruling overclass is net-positive or net-negative to society — and thus is correlated with investment and support in the current regime. Put more simply, those who have succeeded in the system will defend the system. The current system is all about centralization of control and power wrapped in “liberal” feels.
HOWEVER, I’d bet further investigation would show that this effects drops off significantly above 120-130 IQ or some level of intelligence where people can see though the thin layer of propaganda **AND** do not feel compelled to align to it before they **KNOW** they can survive and thrive even when pushing against the current system.
You sort of missed the point of most of the comments here. Far from being tabula rasa, people are programmed by their genes to be conformists, to favor their in-group and dis-favor their out-group, to take self-flattering positions, etc. Many of the commentors are pointing to these other natural biological tendencies (i.e. character flaws) driving otherwise smart people to take transparently stupid liberal political positions.
The commentors are also arguing that liberal political positions are not, on the merits, more intelligent or better-argued than conservative ones, which has nothing to do with the nature/nurture debate.
You also seem to be under the impression that assortive mating is a nurturist explanation. It’s an HBD argument for how we are inadvertently breeding our way into separate social/biological classes.
Actually- nobody here cares about Gaza, save a few comments now & then. It’s Unz site that is chock full of Gaza, not the iSteve section.
Many people here are annoyed by American Jews, billionaires & Harvard, while hardly anyone gives a hoot about Arabs, Gaza, Israel etc.
My goodness, Bardon, as an Israeli Judaist, just do what you gotta do in Gaza. As your boy Dan Schueftan says, just clear the Gazans [Muslims and Christians] out!
Be honest, Bardon. Admit that all that post-WWII weepy UN Treaty crap about “refugees” is dopey. Don’t expect all the rest of us Westerners that have millions of “refugees” dumped on us every damn year to keep accepting and paying for them in perpetuity.
Are you jewish?
The right-wing-authoritarian construct arose from the Frankfurt-School’s (Adorno exiled to New York, with Horkheimer as inspiration) attempted explanation in 1950 of Nazism as a consequence of authoritarian family structure. Nazism was not caused by social, economic, ethnic factors but by the traditional family structure as understood by the cuckoo fantasies of nonempirical Freudianism.
Hence to prevent fascism and speed the revolution, the family must be destroyed (Marcuse – polymorphous perversity). You see the results in today’s descended-from-Frankfurt “critical” theories being taught to preschoolers and CIA wetwork teams.
For decades, conformist academics vociferously denounced the possibility of left-wing authoritarianism. Looking for left-wing authoritarianism would be like looking for the Loch Ness monster, they jeered. By definition, the revolutionary personality is liberatory and hence incapable of authoritarianism. Despite Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mengistu, etc.
Adorno’s children reigned for 70 years. LWA was not successfully defined and investigated until the late 2010s and has only reached the threshold of legitimacy as a topic since 2020.
If you enter left-wing authoritarianism into any search engine you’ll find several recent review articles on LWA, LWA vs RWA, etc. The Atlantic article is a good popular summary if you can breach the paywall.
Not central but of interest to some here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7365073/ “Both RWA and LWA predicted support for authoritarian pandemic-mitigation policies.”
She is not the only lady with that name with thoughts on the subject:
Ann Douglas admitted to a sympathy for fire-and-brimstone Protestantism.
Thanks. It seems there are degrees of authoritarianism, but not so much with totalitarianism.
Authoritarianism doesn’t necessarily require people to act in contradiction to their own beliefs and morals, where totalitarianism does.
I’m often reminded of the Rush song The Trees, and the arc of the lyrics:
Now there’s no more oak* oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw
*The maples being the oppressed.
Openness to experience is, as typical for a psychological trait, very large because is related from exploring different cultures/foods, to seek for new adventures,to apreciating arts and reflecting or thinking about intellectually charged topics. If lieberals are way more open to experience not necessarily means they are more “open minded”. Also, if you are leaning liberal since childhood and never change or challenge your beliefs, you are not really open minded but closed minded. That’s the problem to over simplify complex topics like this. Here we are lumping together adventurous hunks with nerds. There are different facets of openess and the intellectual openess seems obviously more correlated with IQ. Artistic openness seems comparatively less correlated and then sexual and other stuff.
Other possible problem is to lump economic liberalism to social liberalism, typical in USA, not in other countries like Brazil. While economic liberalism is mostly supported by Right wing, social liberalism is more by Left wing.
Even there is a study done here discovered the center right wing* students from universities tend to score the highest among this group (~105) while left wing ones score on the avg (99).
See Edmund Burke. And for him it’s a rebuttable presumption.
According to Burke, an institution or practice probably wouldn’t be around unless it worked for people over a long period of time. And we should be humble about our ability to confidently understand the origins and working of institutions. True, some traditions appear to become maladaptive. But, change from tradition should be cautious and piecemeal, not irreversible and total.
Schueftan is essentially saying the same thing for at least a decade. There is nothing new, just nuances (also, tons of his videos in German and Hebrew).
He is a political analyst & his job is not to chart some grand schemes for the future. Also, it seems he is temperamentally close to Russian revolutionary author Aleksandr Herzen who was clear about those things: The goal of life is life itself.
A character in one of those shows labeled “comedy-drama” by TV Guide around 1970– not Room 222 but something similar– explicitly made this plumber-teacher comparison, in a whiny voice. As if there was something wrong with a guy on call at 2am for emergencies with basic services being paid a lot.
Outside of ghettos, teachers have it relatively cushy, with vacation time that would impress Europeans. Lower pay indicates a greater desire for these positions.
Well, they don’t call these “State” (i.e., ag) schools “Moo U” for nothing!
What is California’s equivalent? Davis? New York’s is at Cornell, of all places. And one doesn’t get fat in Ithaca. Ann Coulter (’84) is the norm.
Miss Crooks is not unusual for being fat, nor for being good, but for being fat and good simultaneously. In hoops, no less. Who is the fattest soccer star?
Thank you for the info (I’m out of response buttons),
Not a clue. I was once a reader (and even a subscriber to the print version), but much of the current iteration of NRO appears to be behind a paywall.
What NRO content I do manage to read these days suggests that they are still trying to straddle the divide between the various GOP factions, but I haven’t exactly been willing to pay for a subscription to find out. Hell, I still need to send Steve my annual
ChristmasEaster donation.I have never been a Trump fan. I’m no great intellectual, but in my estimation Trump is a demagogue who is taking advantage of several decades worth of GOP failure to actually stand up for the Middle American, middle class values it frequently campaigns on but never governs on. The establishment GOP has utterly failed to stand up to the Far Left on one issue after another, in favor of pushing a Wall Street/Globalist/Neocon open borders agenda, and that’s why we are in the mess we are in. After years of abuse, conservative voters – unfortunately, but understandably – turned to Trump.
Trump is an utterly awful human being, but he is mostly the symptom, not the cause.
Got a link? “William Lind Tablet” doesn’t find anything.
The Chinese seem to do well in STEM fields. If you look at a list of Math Olympiad winners you see lots of Chinese names.
But that’s not the same as being smart politically.
Moderately elevated IQ = abstractionism > idealism.
Also = increased sociability (to ‘The Current Thing’).
On the right side of the Bell curve, right wing beliefs require a further layer of abstraction (ie, overlaying ideology and policy on the complex and indelible fabric of human nature and – at least in our current political environment – high disagreeableness. The disagreeableness is important because the left has taken over all of our institutions; ergo, to be a member of the professional middle/managerial class while stating heretical beliefs requires, shall we say, chutzpah (eg giantly massive balls).
Moderately intelligent = I read books and The Current Thing
Highly intelligent and disagreeable = because f*#% you
Maybe it’s this, Michael not William.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/end-of-citizenship
Defeated and irrelevant?
They took their stand. They failed.
The GOP now is MAGA, which is to say immigration-restrictionist, protectionist, anti-interventionist, and populist. I think that’s quite good overall (cutting off immigration encourages assimilation, a country should be run for the benefit of its people, American boys should not die for Israel or any other country, and the elites have gotten too big), but Trump’s cult of personality bothers me.
We found a continent barely settled with no real opponents. Britain had already started on the Industrial Revolution. Advanced agricultural techniques had already been developed in NW Europe. We owe more to Louis Pasteur and Dutch farmers breeding better cows than we do Jefferson et al for our increased life expectancy and James Hargreaves and other inventers for a better quality of life than the boys at Independence Hall. We should also thank Napoleon and all the other fellows kind enough to provide distractions for the European powers.
Your complains about capitalism are akin to people complaining about “urban” players ruining basketball. Indians must grasp free market capitalism, they are doing better than the average. Some of them, like Jains, have a very long commercial history. Nepotism isn’t an excuse, btw. At some point they were not in a position in this country to favor their kith and kin.
Also, if things were peachy, why did nice white Yankee ladies have to deworm the inhabitants of Louisiana back in the day (po’ whites included)?
Imagine Jefferson and Madison tinkering around with their ideas in Central Europe. How far would they have gotten? Imagine them tinkering around in a non-Temperate zone with few resources. I’m not arguing for magic dirt, we have proof that it doesn’t work. I’m just saying the founders hit the lottery and they and their descendants squandered it. They should have been far humbler in their claims. We’d be a lot better off if they had laid off the Enlightenment Universalism and actually paid attention to the rise and fall of peoples in the past. There were actually analogs to our situation in ancient Rome that would have been available to them. But they had their egos, so here we are.
It’s not quite that Liberalism is caused by genes for IQ. The process is like this: Western European populations haves been winnowed by various mechanism like the death penalty (see wiki quote below), and the debtor’s prison. These mechanisms remove the unproductive and irresponsible from the gene pool. So by the time the 20th century came around, these populations were docile, honest, trusting, intelligent, and also naïve because they believe (like all groups do) that others are pretty much like them. So they universalise their characteristics and act as though everyone is just an English gentleman if only they have access to the culture. In reality, there are stubborn differences both genetic, and cultural, that make this universal liberalism untenable. The rest of the world has not gone through the same processes.
And, of course, the causation is not direct. Intelligent people are more likely to be liberal because of indoctrination and immersion in left-wing doctrine. Jacques Elllul’s book Propaganda explains that the “educated” are the most susceptible to indoctrination.
The Japanese and South Koreans have them beat, I agree, and the current bunch of Chinese-Americans winning all those Olympiads is a group selected from scientists and engineers who got visas for just that reason. Americans think Chinese people are nerds because we got a whole bunch of China’s nerds. (The base culture does have a greater respect for scholarship, though.)
Our government exploits our citizens too, no? Or lets others in to exploit them. The greater level of centralization in China lets them do country-level things like ‘force most citizens to have only one child’, though who knows what the wokies will do to us.
From what I can tell the Chinese have an emperor checked to various degrees by a bureaucracy, just like for the last 4000 years. Western Civ was successful; more advanced non-Western cultures like China and Japan naturally copied what they could. From what I can tell the Japanese are still eating raw fish with chopsticks, going through ornate bowing protocols in social situations, and taking their shoes off indoors even as they defeated us in automobile and electronics manufacturing and animation, through creation of a superior product. If the Chinese manage to avoid importing any more awful Western ideologies I would expect them to do the same.
Thanks for digging that up.
The GOP now is MAGA, which is to say immigration-restrictionist, protectionist, anti-interventionist, and populist.
That is a reasonable platform to create a party. The elephant in the room is if it is sufficient to win elections. If not, it will die and leave an incoherent fuzzball in its wake that will be vaporized by the Democrat machine.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/war-on-citizenship
That’s what I was thinking. Ordinary, not especially well educated people know what will work and what will not work. Its not a question of labels, of “Liberal” or “Conservative”.
Not only has the concept of citizenship deteriorated, so has the concept of non-citizenship. From 1848 until 1926, one state or another allowed resident aliens to vote, provided they had lived in the state for a minimum period (as low as six months in some states) and had applied to take out citizenship. These were almost all states in the interior, and the intent was to attract homesteaders and others to their still-empty territories from among the more civic-minded abroad.
Today’s policy is a cynical, partisan parody of the older one.
The Founders were, to a large degree, just extending ideas which had already been tested previously in Europe, especially Great Britain. They understood that they were in a new continent where those ideas had a good chance to take root. They, who at the time only occupied a mere sliver of the continent’s eastern edge, referred to themselves as the “Continental Congress.” They knew where we were eventually going. It wasn’t long before Thomas Jefferson was snapping up additional land and sending Lewis and Clark off to explore what was there.
They weren’t nearly as idealistic as people now claim. They still allowed for slavery, even if many of them weren’t thrilled about it. Voting was still restricted to male landowners. Their first major immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, limited citizenship to free white men. Later on, just a few years after the Civil War, the nation’s leaders would vote – overwhelmingly, by 5-to-1 – to end Chinese immigration. These men were still quite rational about what was possible. Even as late as 1924 – several years before the Great Depression – we were tightening the spigot of mass immigration, fully cognizant of the danger it posed.
Believing all of their flowery language was our own mistake. That’s mostly the result of the unexpected wealth, and the soft-headedness it created, that came later.
“And Augustine and Aquinas.”
I would think that compared to the Romans, or the Normans, these love-thy-neighbor types who were against exposing even defective babies must have seemed pretty absurdly radical and idealistic. (In Roman times, it was the Jews and the German tribes who were regarded as oddballs for rejecting exposure of infants.) Neither Augustine nor Aquinas were right-wing apart from being morally uptight, and upright Christians frowned on even the kings’ catamites and concubines and mistresses, but plenty of liberals have been prudes throughout history. And praising chastity and worshipping a crucified dead man is pretty bizarre for just about anyone.
Christianity seems to have consistently been a mix of things that neither the left nor the right can tolerate — both sides have their own idols, and following a jealous god who brooks no competition tends to get in the way of that.
Rodney Stark points out that shunning the practice of exposing infants significantly boosted Christian TFR — census records show that pagan families rarely had more than one girl; they presumably exposed the rest.
The problem”inner naturist” is that the educated vote has slowly switched from right to whatever left means today. in the past half century.
The * behavior* of the intelligent has changed. Isolating genes at the “cause” of voting left is meaningless without a lot more context about interests and what left eight means.
If foreigners are good at capitalism, or law, or medicine, or science, or basketball, it’s all the more reason to keep them out. The White man has never needed much help in those areas. The immigrants therefore add little while competing against Whites for resources and women, crowding White men out of land and opportunity, and diluting White identity.
Poor old Soros. Another innocent, unworldly, jew outsmarted and exploited those wily goys.
“But, change from tradition should be cautious and piecemeal, not irreversible and total.”
You mean like expanding suffrage to men who do not own property?
You mean like abolishing chattel slavery?
You mean like giving women the right to vote?
Weren’t those “traditions”?
Perfectly reasonable that lobs might be smarter on average—some political side has to be smartest—but less authoritarian? Sounds like they’re coding for libertarians.
“Britain had already started on the Industrial Revolution.”
The same Enlightenment ideas circulating in America were also circulating in Britain. John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Trenchard and Gordon, Smith and Hume and so on were read in both countries. Britain, like America, was moving away from a feudalistic throne and altar conservatism and it was this that led to the Industrial Revolution in both countries.
If American success can be attributed to having lots of natural resources or a mostly White population then resource rich and mostly White Russia should also have become wealthy. It did not because Enlightenment ideas never penetrated there. Thinking you can have an advanced industrial society with a high standard of living without a political system based on Enlightenment ideas is a sign of a confused mind. Non-White countries may be incapable of understanding this but White Americans should be able to understand this, since their ancestors did in the past.
I’m kind of bemused with how DEI hiring infests our daily lives more and more, so its proponents will inevitably get to die along with everyone else.
It makes me wonder how many horrifically terrifying death events have to take place before DEI hiring becomes acceptably shameful? I’m thinking it will come to what I call “pride lag.”
That’s when you realize your opponent is absolutely right, but you take a long time to reluctantly acknowledge it, so you don’t look like the irrational evil reptile you are.
With liberals, pride goes after the fall!
I suppose we need some more falls…
Stupid people say A.
Smart people say B.
Really smart people say A.
That’s it, that’s the entire explanation.
Most of Russia isn’t Temperate Imagine if Jefferson and Madison started out in Montana. Russia still has issues developing resources in the Taiga. The only fertile areas in European Russia were in its south, including the Ukraine. Russia also had to content with neighbors that were far more powerful than Mexico.
Yet 18th and 19th-century Russia was developing economically. Lots of Europeans and Americans went there to make money. Russia’s problem was the First World War and Communism. Without those two, Russia might not have become the basket case it has been for the last 100 years. That said, it still had famines as late as the 19th century. Oh wait, so did Enlightened Britain in Ireland. How did so many people starve to death in an industrialized, enlightened country?
The German-speaking regions of Europe were examples of development not based on the Anglo model. They were doing fine, despite the Napoleonic wars, a little too fine, so Britain and her friends over here had to do something about that. The great tragedy of Western Civilization was the First World War and the destruction of Central Europe’s promise.
Finally, it remains to be seen how long they can keep it going and if they can reverse the 1 child policy, but China is currently doing better than us. They are operating off of the common good model, rather than individual rights.
I don’t think they were idealistic. Indeed, they were quite ethnocentric to use the current term. My point is, if they believed all that stuff they should have put it down, legally, where it counted in the Constitution. These guys were lawyers. I doubt they were as flowery and vague in their deeds and wills as they were with the most important document in the country. In their arrogance, they never thought that they or “their posterity” would lose their position. Idealistic, some were, but many probably weren’t, arrogantly myopic, yep. And they had to impress all those French liberals in Paris
Libtardism i9s hipsterism. A certain percentage of smart people, 20%?, need to differentiate
themselves from the pack and establish a unique identity. They invent ideas unhinged from reality to to this .
Can you name a single prominent national political figure who isn’t an utterly awful human being?
Trump is an egotistical nouveau riche vulgarian and a cynical opportunist, but a demagogue?
Once again, Corvinus, your failure to comprehend and apply plain English is pitiable.
What actually happens is that intelligent Whites are vulnerable to liberalism when little else is available for economic idealism. Christianity’s idealism is individualized while conservatism breaks down to “tough shit” on just about anything related to economics. Liberalism in many ways dominates an ideological vacuum within Western society by default.
Liberalism depends on Whites and especially idealistic White men to not ask questions and trust their liberal authorities on matters like race and gender.
Take all intelligent liberal White men and give them a 2 hour video on what we know about race that the media and schools will never discuss.
You would change US society overnight and this correlation would go away.
Liberalism is like homeopathy. It undoubtedly draws more White collar educated professionals than laborers but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a bunch of bullshit.
Being smart “politically” mean being rationally smart. Based on this, no people have showed high rational intelligence.
Just disagree about delicious Japanese culinary.
The reason why most intelligent people are small l liberal or Big L Liberal.
Naturally smart people tend to be curious and open-minded, less wedded to dogma. Thus, they’re small l liberals. These are individual liberals.
Such people abound in elite institutions but cannot hold power for long. Why? They are too skeptical and rational to have blind passions about everything. They prefer to be individuals than gang up into commissariat or cabal.
Thus, over time, they lose out to hardliners, whether on the basis of identity(Jewish, black, homosexual, etc) or ideology(or the latest school of thought).
Individual liberals are more likely to put principles above power, or less likely to do things just to gain an advantage. The hardline empowerment types believe anything is justified in the name of power.
But far from being praised for their principle, individual liberals are smeared as uncommitted or willy-nilly in the fight against Evil. Feeling alone and afraid, many individual liberals cave under pressure(usually from the Left or supposed Victim Groups) because liberalism has traditionally been left of center(though only moderately so).
Thus, even though elite institutions are ideal places for individual liberals, they’re eventually taken over by hardline types: neocons, BLM, homosexual cabal, and the like. And of course, money goes a long way. Ivy Leagues fired a bunch of people to appease super-rich Zionists.
This explains another type of intelligent people, the Big L Liberal type, or Institutional Liberals.
Smart people naturally attend elite institutions that, over time, aren’t controlled by individual liberals but by hardliners who work as a team. As the result of ideological influence and pressure from hardline dogma that comes to dominate elite colleges, smart people(though not all) are made into Big L Liberals.
Individual liberals are worthy of respect. Intelligence made them liberal.
Institutional Liberals are different breed. Their dogma is anti-intelligent and came by way of institutional influence. Institutions made their intelligence bend to unintelligence.
Winning!
How can you compare political views of 500 B.c with today’s? Plato and Aristotle were extremely “Left Wing” by the standards of their time.
For starters, just the fact that Plato wanted to put a cap on aristocratic power, during a time when aristocrats could literally kill and rape at will, was *extremely* progressive FOT IT’S TIME. You cannot compare today to then, because the World has become progressivly more pregoressive as time progresses(pun intended)
Also, Plato was a homosexual, so I hardly thinkt hat he would be a Right-Wing conservative if he were an American today. It’s hard to support an ideology that tells you that you are an inferior person, and should, at best, be shoved back into the closet.
Also for Aristotle, he actually complained about Plutocrats buying elections, and believed that Society should be led by “the best men”, which, in his view, would be men of wisdom and schlarship and not big farmers or owners.
But the entire argument is stupid because you are comparing an Iron Age Society to a contemporary society. Do you really think that the World hasn’t changed in 2,500 years, and that our moden notions of Left and Right apply here? Are you this stupid?
Yes, people in the distant past were more conservative than today, and even the most progressive thinkers of the past would be considered “conservative” by today’s standards.
Hell, we are talking about societies that not only had slavery and strict social classes, but on top of that women were *literally* property of their fathers and then of their husbands. That is, if we were to apply today’s political classifications, the Ancients would be considered *extreme* Right-wing conservatives. So, yes, even a progressive man for those times would still be a “conservative” today, not because he was actually a conservative, but because his epoch was so tilted towards what we would call today the “Right” that even a progressive for his time would be a conservative by today’s standards.
For instance, several of the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A owned slaves, and they would be considered extreme Right-wingers by today’s tandards. But FOR THEIR TIME, they were progressive, and the American Constitution is considered one of the most important liberal documents ever written. Voltaire and other leaders of the Enlightenement praised the American Constitution.
Arguing that thinkers from centuries to thousands of years ago were “conservative” just because some of their ideas resonate with the Right, when in reality they were actually extremely progressive for their time, is just so stupid. Here’s a newsflash for you: times move on, and the World today is ultra-Leftist by the standards of millenia ago. You cannot compare standsrds of thousands of years ago and apply them today.
No it won’t, though.
The two-party system is robust and designed to be impenetrable to thirds. They’ll just go on accumulating people annoyed at the Democratic base or leadership until the Dems eventually screw up and they get a majority.
I asked legitimate questions to extend the conversation. And what do you do? Soil on yourself.
It’s my vague impression that Mr. Sailer didn’t comment on this study because he is at a loss on how to address it within his narrative, so he’s going for some ideas from his supporters.
I seriously doubt that any Whiteman with an IQ of 125 ( with no connections ) can gain admission to the small admitted class aims of the Stanford Univ PhD program in materials engineering.
And that was Elon Musk in 1995 with supposedly a large student debt.
On one end, Islam utterly dominates local identity. This shouldn’t be surprising. Islam is a programmatic religion promising universal brotherhood in expectation of the final days. Loyalty to the umma prevails over your state. Cultures became Islamic, not the other way around, and temporal leaders always had a limited degree of influence over the mosque. Different cultures strive to be more Islamic, the more globalized things get, the more this intensifies. Even the languages morph. Just look at Bahasa. The culture of the Malay world (and particularly the Javanese-half of Singapore’s Malays have Javanese ancestry) culture is genuinely beautiful and elegant in many ways, and it saddens me to see them try and act like Arabs.
On the other end, what would be Mahayana Buddhism was adopted by the Sui and Tang emperors for some of the same reasons the Constantinians adopted Christianity. Don’t forget, unfiltered Buddhism is as much a clash with Confucian ethics (society modeled on family, reproduce, concrete focus on secular achievement) as Christianity seemed to be with Greco-Roman culture: polar opposite values from a different civilizational system. But Han China had the collapse that the Western Roman Empire would encounter centuries earlier, rather than coming in when the state survived. It got dominated by the legacy of Chinese culture, and was morphed into something unrecognisable. And it remained a tool of the state. Even the Ming, coming to power on the backs of a revolutionary apocalyptic anti-Mongol movement stemming from fundamentalist Buddhism (and Manichaeism), rapidly turned into upholders of Confucian orthodoxy.
I think Christianity struck a good middle ground. Aristotle’s mean is about mixing the best of both worlds while abjuring the worst, not become a neuter. It was changed by Greco-Roman culture: the aesthetics of the Roman Empire were that minority who could brook no compromise with Christianity’s countercultural values. They became the new holy men and women. Monasteries and Fortress Constantinople would preserve the classical world as it imploded. But it did change Greco-Roman culture back, in the wake of the 3rd Century when many Romans began to see something flawed with their value system. The Roman world was as hierarchal as ever, but the idea that no human being did not have the ability to connect to the divine couldn’t be ignored. The implications were… profound.
I wouldn’t bet on that. They completely lack legitimacy: Biden has shat on whatever was left. All it’ll take are a few elite defectors willing to ally themselves with the outsides, and we don’t lack for candidates there.
I’m interested in what comes next.
It is obvious that to get along in the upper echelons of the American economy and society, one must espouse liberal viewpoints. That is why liberal viewpoints correlate with higher IQ.
Similarly, it is obvious that people’s political beliefs are situational. Witness the Jews, who are leading advocates of a “liberal” system in relation to the United States and Europe but are unhinged ethnonationalists, white supremacists, and commissioners of genocide in relation to Palestine, despite their high IQ.
Thanks. I find that paper quite central. Some interesting associations.
Table 3 gives RWA and LWA coefficients for many different Covid questions. Interesting to see where the authoritarian aspect dominates and where the right/left aspect dominates. Two examples at the extremes (no prizes for guessing which is associated with RWA and which with LWA).
For as long as the COVID-19 pandemic continues…
Authority to public health experts – “…public health experts should be given more authority than elected politicians.”
Ban foreigners from entering – “…citizens of foreign countries should be banned from entering the United States.”
Yes. I alluded to this phenomenon in my comments about Amherst.
Smart Whites are indeed vulnerable to certain kinds of bullshit. It’s sad when closeted writers make fun of them and imply that they somehow created the infection itself. Those smart Whites created much of what people here claim to cherish and understand. In fact, our smart Whites here might not even be free to pontificate about any of this if not for principles and ideals bequeathed to them by their elders.
BTW let’s not misuse the term “liberalism” or its root, “liberal.” The deeper, older meaning is actually something quite fine. Yes, the word is a justified slur now, but it wasn’t always such.
“The Republican Party does represent the interests of a small group of high IQ people but the number of CEOs and engineers in the US is a lot smaller than the rest of the professional classes.”
CEOs are not universally or even mostly conservative in the way that the word is used. Examples: Warren Buffet and Bill Gates(huge Democrat supporters).
In fact, the elite of the old GOP were mostly upper midle-class and wealthy Libs in the past, especially from the northern U.S. These people have deserted the modern GOP and now vote Democrat because they don’t like the turn to the Right that the GOP took in the last 50-60 years. Their departure has left the GOP and the conservative movement in general unable to compete intellectually. most modern Republican voters are poor whites with a few genuine conservative billionaires thrown in that are not as intellectually as sophisticated as the old Yankee liberals that led the GOP.
Conservatives have this fantasy:
“Sure, the Libs have the academic and media elites and the professional class, but we have the Owner Class.”
The problem is that you do not have the owner class either. There are very rich people that are genuinelly conservative(Mitt Romney, the Koch Brothers), but they are not most of the Plutocrat class either. Most CEOs and ultra-rich actually have liberal views on *social* issues.
As for engineers, while it’s true that the dominance of liberals over the hard sciences and engineering is not as strong as that in the more verbal fields, they still domnate it as well. For instance, Sillicon Valley is even more liberal than Hollywood. The greatest physicist of our time, Edward Witten, was a Marxist in his youth and not is “only” a progressive Leftist. The physicists that worked at the Manhattan Project were mostly Leftists.
The overall intellectual superiority of Libs/Leftists is pretty clear. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.
I did the math about 15 years ago and found that Seattle Public Schools teachers make as much per hour as Amazon software engineers. That’s before benefits are factored in, which obviously put the teachers on top by a lot.
Teachers are overpaid by about 50%, as are most public sector workers these days. It’s a scandal that people only started to catch onto in the wake of COVID.
On every one of those questions, I agree with the “authoritarian” answer. I was once very libertarian in my late teens to early 20s.
What really woke up my authoritarian impulse was realizing that libertarians wanted to allow a billion low IQ browns and blacks to migrate and crapify the USA, and let big corporations sell everyone highly addictive drugs.
From age 17-22 I would do 10 hours of Internet research on Erowid and alt.drugs.psychedelics before ingesting in a careful manner and prudent dose some mind altering chemical. It was a blast!
I emerged eventually from that youthful solipsism and realized that’s not how most people approach drugs. But not wrickly leather-jacketed perma-teen Nick Gillespie.
Seems the main issue here is that academics who normally denounce (prior to any investigation) hereditarian connections between intelligence and groups have found a link that they might be willing to support. It will be interesting if any of them pull the thread that, once yanked, will get them thinking Badthoughts.
The two-party system is robust and designed to be impenetrable to thirds.
Impenetrable to third party does not mean two parties can be in balanced relationship. If due to all the shenanigans going on, if MAGA and paleo Republicans engage in MAD, Democrats will end up with an effectively one-party system. You don’t have to do any theoretical analysis on this. Out here on the West coast, Republican party is pretty much dead, and it is a one-party rule. Same in New England. And the roles are reversed in the South and some mountain West States like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming.
Japan has been ruled almost continuously from 1955 by LDP (Liberal Democratic Party). Taiwan was ruled by Kuomintang (Chiang Kai Shek’s party) from 1948 to 1996.
India was ruled for a very long time by the Congress party (Nehru – Indira Gandhi). Now, the opposition is very strong, and the Congress party has pretty much died out.
Polygamists beat everyone else to this– and on Valentines Day, no less. (Not that Val had any meaning to them, being the wrong kind of saint, i.e., a genuine one.)
The first woman to vote under conditions of equality– anywhere in the world– was Brigham Young’s grandniece Seraph. She later married and moved to points east, where she couldn’t vote again for almost fifty years. But at least she didn’t have to put up with “sister wives”.
It’s almost like polygamy and women’s suffrage deserve each other.
Assortative, not associative.
Both Lind and Murray have good arguments. But the fact is that there is now a significant amount of highly selected (“elite”) immigration as well. Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Krishna
And so on.
We have reached an insane point in immigration that we are simultaneously importing the (motivated elements of) Latin American (esp. Central American and Mexican) underclass while also importing alien overlords, particularly from India.
Even Blacks are objectively far-right on issues that matter most to them: they vote for the party most supportive of their racial group, most concerned with their historical grievances, most inclined to shift resources to them, most responsive to their demands for power. They are more religious than Whites, as are other minorities, and less tolerant of homo-tranny-feminist bullshit. But they get what they want most from voting Dem on balance.
Jews, other Asians, Hispanics, and the rest may vote, quote, *liberal* while having views that would be characterized as *Far-Right* for White voters. Have you heard of Israel, Steve? The whole system is nonsense, logically, except for it’s anti-White logic.
Get over your left/right hobble.
An Assist. Prof who for the past 10 years (I think) cannot pay the student loan interest let alone the principle. Bragging and whinging about compounding debt. Seems like potentially a life long economic slave.
Define liberal.
Smarter or Book Smarter people can be naïve and foolish and lack Street Smartness. This makes them susceptible to some evil ideologies which promise a better World. Many have this Western Christian White Man’s burden mentality of improving the World and solve all World’s problems. Globalist-Marxists exploit this childish emotion of theirs for brain-washing.
Why do you doubt that?
Every lever, every artificial incentive, every media and institutional message in America is geared toward the dispossession of Whites and the destruction of the White genome. The array of policy and power is stunning in its uniformity.
If they are the “alien overlords”, we should get more of them. In my neck of the woods, we have two (very) large companies (mis)managed by native overlords who are running the companies to ground leading to catastrophic consequences.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeings-long-fall-and-how-it-might-recover/
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/02/intel-shares-fall-after-company-reveals-7-billion-operating-loss-in-foundry-business.html
“Cultures became Islamic, not the other way around, and temporal leaders always had a limited degree of influence over the mosque.”
In the case of Indonesia and Malaysia and other Eastern realms, it was my understanding that temporal leaders practiced their Buddhism or Zoroastrianiasm as a kind of court religion, and they didn’t much care what the rabble believed in, which is how Sufi folk Islam eventually penetrated into the population, though being a folk religion, it was syncretic with local traditions. Nowadays, the Sufi “soft Islam” is being edged out by “truer” but harder and less local Sunni Islam. Another win for globalism, one might say.
“I think Christianity struck a good middle ground. Aristotle’s mean is about mixing the best of both worlds while abjuring the worst, not become a neuter.”
I was impressed by Holland’s book Dominion, the central thesis of which was the radical extent to which Christianity upended Roman ways of thinking, to the extent that even the many who tried to usurp it later on simply kept trying to out-Christian the Christians. So, even as early as when Julian the Apostate decided he had enough of Christianity, he set up Cybele as the “true” mother of the poor and oppressed (even though her cult, led by self-castrated priests, had no particular Christ-like concern for the poor, be it in spirit or material wealth). Even Marxism sought to be the true uplifter of the downtrodden that the opiate-dispensing Christian clerics never could be, at least that was the plan. None of that concern for the underdog would have been something a true Roman would have appreciated. And yet, Christianity somehow made that sink into Western Civ’s bones, to where even most apostates nowadays preach it. (And when they don’t — I’m looking at you Nietzsche and his many would be Ubermensch — well, God help us all.)
The biggest coup for the elites is they convinced a lot of people that illiberalism is liberalism.
Many people who think they’re liberal are actually illiberal. You can’t be for censorship and be liberal.
But it doesn’t end there.
Plenty of conservatives have been fooled that these illiberals are liberals and call them ‘liberals’, perpetuating the illusion, which is flattering to the ‘liberals’ who really think they’re liberal. After all, conservatives call them that.
Calling illiberals ‘liberals’ is one of the stupidest things conservatives do.
Next up!
A study of really intelligent people who ditched political beliefs, Right and Left.
Of course, this study won’t be done by the same researchers, for obvious reasons.
I don’t believe in that old book yet am still a conservative. My top issue is crime. More than anyone it seems I hate criminals (street/violent criminals not white collar). I want them off the streets permanently. I want them punished as harshly as possible and never forgiven. Democrats are on the side of the criminals and release them as soon as possible. Republicans can talk about Jesus as much as they like. I would rather live in a Christian country that punishes criminals than a secular country that let’s criminals run free even if I am a secularist myself.
Nietszche and Hobbes. And Richard Wagner.
If you’ve got to have immigration, this is the way to do it.
(given all the usual corruption proviso’s).
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-make-country-great-el-salvadors-president-offers-free-passports-highly-skilled
Looks like grounds for dismissal.
Why?
It is enough to know both destroy the societies built by Whites.
There may be a bit less to this than seems. IQ predicts academic ability, academia is entirely liberal. Educational attainment is thus strongly correlated with political liberalism, and IQ predicts the ability to do that.
My thesis is that if 99% of college professors were Republicans, the dominant ideology of the upper classes was conservative, and there were more self-described Nazis in academia than there were Democrats, then IQ would be correlated with political conservatism.
Since all those values are opposite, it goes with liberalism.
… and disagreeable”
But what about the agreeable and highest IQ??
Most high to highest IQ people are normies, and many them are ubernormies. Even thought, there are circumstancial and personality factors, what you pointed out, the difference between the disagreeable and the agreeable.
Lots of anger here. But this could be useful.
Intelligence counts for a lot in modern society and so has a lot of explanatory power as to individual outcomes.
It also (aside from few really destructive behaviours) seems pretty determined by the time primary/elementary school starts, whether by genetics or upbringing.
So it’s a big deal and we should do things like making life simpler for low IQ people and encouraging high IQ people to do useful things for society in the same way we encourage heirs to fortunes.
Unfortunately as intelligence is predetermined it is distributed unevenly between groups. If we look at the anger of those of us of a conservative bent at these findings, perhaps we can understand better the anger of blacks.
But if liberal beliefs are the marker of intelligence, then liberals will recognise intelligence as a thing. We may need other things to come into place before we get a sane view of intelligence and help the low IQ and harness the high IQ among us, but surely widely recognising intelligence as an individually fixed commodity is important.
If that means a bit of liberal smugness, so be it.
I so dumb Mr liberal, please change your world view to something less damaging.
Not to mention the banks. Of course, screwing over the middle class is a great business. Open borders, shuffling the Negro population around, those policies are not about the votes or the cheap labor. It goes deeper than that. It’s a business model AND a political tool to suppress and destroy ultimately the middle class, the only citizens standing preventing the elites from wielding absolute power over the population.
The current Speaker of the House is not an awful human being. Neither is Mike Pence, though he’s not good for much. I’m not seeing why you’d call Ted Cruz or Ron deSantis awful human beings.
There is no genocide.
The Indian National Congress is the principal opposition party in India and commands about 20% of the electorate v. shy of 40% for the government. The opposition in India is quite fragmented right now, and no component of it holds more than 10% of the seats in the national legislature.
And yet the reality is crime in the US is extremely low, far lower than when I was growing up. I just spent 4 days in NYC and never felt threatened once. Policy differences between Democrats and Republicans probably do tip the scale slightly in the direction of more crime under Democrats but demographics are far important than any policy you put in place. Honolulu has been Democrat run since forever and is not only one of the safest cities in the US, it’s one of the safest in the world. Can you guess why? Boston is also an amazingly safe city by most metrics, and even New York is extremely safe if you avoid certain neighborhoods and don’t stand next to the subway tracks.
A. it was 1995, much easier for whites to gain admittance
B. materials engineering is not theoretical physics, the admissions committee do evaluate work ethic in addition to genius, and no one can deny Musk has an exceptional work ethic.
C. 125 is still pretty damn smart. Fifth percentile, and how many people in the fifth percentile do you think tried to be materials engineers in 1995? Even then most of them were running off to get MBAs and make the big bucks in management consulting.
Agreed. There’s also our host’s corollary: everyone is conservative about that with which he’s most familiar. Most high IQ people are downright Victorian in their personal lives; the rules of social conservatism were not promulgated with them in mind. Richard Dawkins apparently saw where his rationalism uber alles was leading, and now calls himself a “cultural Christian.”
Which is to say, liberalism is an affectation at best and mental illness at worst.
In another vein, liberalism is enabled by the Industrial and Green Revolutions and the current Technological Revolution. We’re so productive we can print money and buy our own debt with it. That enables a lot of frivolous abstract policy which disappears when things get real (and they always eventually get real).
Well said Mark.
We (Americans–but other Anglos as well) are considerably *less* free than we were when I was a kid. If someone is babbling about “increased freedom” what they mean is the ability of some minority to demand–harass, sue–normies if the normies aren’t giving them proper deference and prevent normies from having community with their own normie norms. This is not “freedom” but a privilege enjoyed by some to make other people bow and scrape.
Enforcing all this the minoritarian super-state has laws and lawyering, regulations and bureaucracy that would amaze and baffle George III.
Disagree. I knew materials science Ph.D. candidates at another major research university at that time. They were considerably above 125 IQ. Obviously just an anecdote. But I can also tell you I doubt someone just “pretty smart” could have handled the curriculum, let alone the research. In any event, not everyone is motivated by making a lot of money. Some people just genuinely love knowledge.
“Conservatives” are practically automatic losers because, in large part, they accept the morality and use the charged language and ways of thinking of their putative opponents. Often they do not even appear to do so consciously.
Just one ridiculous example–how many times have you seen System conservatives attack leftists as being “The Real Racists”?
It’s not so much the absolute crime rate now versus the past; it is what it should be with modern techniques, versus what our political class allows.
Liberals are not, on avg, too rational, it’s mostly the opposite. Many them pretend to look rational as if rationality is a personality trait.
Rationality is all about being realistic and while they are more realistic in some topics, they tend to be quite off in others. They are right like saying political borders and money are human fictions but wrong that these two have no real importance because their fictious nature. It’s a kind of gross misinterpretation of human culture and intelligence, if like humans often adopt or create fictions for no functional reason at all or only to oppress.
There aren’t enough Jews and blacks to keep the Democrats in power. There are plenty of gentile whites voting Democrat too.
Who brought the blacks here to begin with? I recently visited Colonial Williamsburg and learned that in the colonial period the population was over 50% black. Is this the Jew’s fault too?
Professional-managerial types, schoolteachers, social workers, callow youths, and trashy single mothers.
Regarding that ship incident, is that the kind of thing which routinely happens but is not normally publicized? Or are things like that happening more frequently?
P.S. Compare AnotherDad’s comment about the Boeing incident in another thread.
What has liberalism as in John Stuart Mill got to do with liberalism as in Hillary Clinton? The word as used in the paper is essentially a proxy for upper middle class social attitudes. More interesting is the discussion of class as a possible confounder: I get the impression that it is becoming acceptable to say that class differences in intelligence are hereditary. Thirty or forty years ago, that would have been heresy. Perhaps the ice is cracking.
“Dr. Jacqueiline” Ha!
“Doctor” of Spookology…
It is hard to know if her cell phone graphic is correct.
Many reasons why a balance can rise. There were several “no payments needed” periods for these loans.
Some had special interest rates that may have ended or due to errors, weren’t applicable and later increased and added to balance. “Interest only” payments in some cases.
Certain categories of borrowers have these special deals “educators” like the Dr. here.
‘Paying consistently” isn’t the same as paying on time in the correct amount each month.
$300K seems like a lot of debt. Over a 7 year period (generous estimate of time needed for a doctorate) that’s about $43K per year. With interest accruing. She obviously didn’t work to pay for much for a very long time period. Eventually the mooching must end.
Of course Senile Joe is busy bribing over indebted leftist profs like her with pledges to “forgive” debt that was paid with tax dollars.
Bow Down to the Generous Man in the Big White House!”
The steady replacement of poor blacks by homo gym rats of the Andrew Sullivan variety helps a lot. That, and the large influx from Ethiopia and neighboring lands where nobody is fat.
What was DC’s ranking in 1990? It was much blacker then, and more American, too.
Psyop? Controlled opposition? He’s a dyed-in-the-wool hardcore Zionist. I hate the guy, but there’s nothing really covert about him.
A ship losing all power is somewhat unusual and not routine. It is not supposed to happen any more than your car is supposed to conk out while you are going down the highway at 60mph. However, it is not entirely unheard of. In most cases you are in the middle of the ocean and the engines get restarted eventually (which could be from seconds to days). Unless there is a big storm you drift harmlessly for a while and then resume your journey. Very rarely does it happen just as you are approaching a bridge and not under the control of tugs because 99% of the time you are not in that state.
Had there not been a recent bridge strike, it would not be so unusual as to be mentioned in the news unless there was some sort of hit.
Smart Whites are indeed vulnerable to certain kinds of bullshit. It’s sad when closeted writers make fun of them and imply that they somehow created the infection itself.
Someone said over 100 years ago that a flaw of Whites is that they are vulnerable to trends that make them feel modern.
I constantly saw this problem in college.
Smart White professors could easily dupe beta Whites into feeling smart while not actually thinking. They had completely mastered the craft to where they could turn a group of beta Whites against any skeptic. We all agree that the science is correct! You are obviously wrong!
They of course did this all the time in relation to race or gender. It’s actually built into the social science departments as part of critical theory. Doesn’t work very well with hard sciences or professional studies where you actually have to prove what you know.
BTW let’s not misuse the term “liberalism” or its root, “liberal.” The deeper, older meaning is actually something quite fine. Yes, the word is a justified slur now, but it wasn’t always such.
Yea well that is out. Sometimes word meanings change and you have to accept them.
In any case libertarians do not deserve the term liberal. The original liberals would find today’s libertarians to be a bunch of race denying degenerates.
Nothing wrong with a researching penis size except when a link between race and IQ is discovered.
“Research Square has withdrawn this preprint due to the problematic nature of the topic concerning race and intelligence”
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3816362/v1
Someone described liberalism as a “high-low” alliance as in educated Whites leading labor and other groups but that isn’t quite right.
It’s actually more of a beta intellectual led grievance alliance. Above-average Whites that resent their betters but also want to fix what they view as an unequal society.
I’ve even seen liberals discuss the problem of non-religious conservatives (meaning their real enemy).
They view conservatism or anything on the right as an unholy alliance of religious zombies led by a handful of “sticklers”. That is the term that left-wing professors use for White males that ask too many questions (aka figure out it is bullshit). They actually know the sticklers make valid points and discuss how to deal with them….as in suppress them. Liberals view the Christian right as pushovers that only exist because of dark intellectual evil triad White men that provide them with leadership. They will pretend to treat those triads with disdain but quietly fear them.
Liberals at the higher levels don’t actually believe what they teach. What they believe is that their lies are good for society and that the “sticklers” will make things worse by telling the truth. Thus they are in eternal conflict with trying to dupe the masses while staving off the skeptics.
A post deserving of appreciation.
Complex systems are typified by unintended (most likely negative) consequences to variable input changes and rewiring of internal relationships. But to survive in nature systems/lifeforms/biological groups need the ability to change to overcome novel challenges. How does nature best address this?
No capacity for change -> novel challenges prove insurmountable -> no progress is made ->failure.
Too much change -> out of control ->the system can no longer sustain ->no lasting progress is made ->failure.
We need agents to introduce change, and agents to retard change. Liberals/conservatives. But in what proportions? Well.. given the nature of complex systems and their ability to go awry with increasing and rapid change.. the retarding force must normally be dominant, but not the degree of fully cancelling out (positive) change.
Look at the stagnation of the Islamic world, vs the progress of the West. But note, the West while progressing was still conservative dominant. Whenever liberals gained ascendency and began to make rapid changes disintegration followed if conservative forces did not quickly find their way back to ascendency.
Imperial Rome lasted a millennia, Soviet Russia a few decades. The English Empire centuries, the post conservative West leaping toward the genocide/replacement of its own people, and on a trajectory for just that within a decade or two of liberal ascendency.
Intelligence correlates with being willing to depart from tradition, and also with being correct, but not necessarily meaning any chosen change will be beneficial or desirable once the ripples of change fully wash through. Liberals in the ascendency are smarter than average, but not smart enough to realise the *likely* deleterious consequences of their actions, or even to cognise they are doing something *incredibly* stupid, and that in the ascendancy they are a malignant force, not a force for good, and in fact are objectively far stupider than being unable to solve a complex logic problem,.. failing to realise that survival *is* important.
If a pack animal was acting in a matter totally inconsistent with the survival of its pack, we would say that there was something wrong with the behaviour of the animal. It would not matter how good it was at memorising the order of some task like identifying flashing light sequences (to show intelligence), the animal would be determined to be sick.
And this best describes modern liberals. They can be classed as smart, but they are decidedly unhealthy. Psychologically and mentally damaged (propaganda and trauma programmed) to orientate to and support obvious destructive outcomes. Things that are decidedly stupid to support.
Imagine a man who can solve exotic differential equations determining “eating is not important” and going on to starve to death in short order. That is the modern liberal. Intelligence may be present, but the more serious factor, and far more important, is their willingness to pursue catastrophically stupid approaches that can only have an outcome of harm.
High average intelligence may well be associated with being liberal, but this actually refining to real *lived* intelligence as expressed by the combined ability to rate high on IQ tests AND avoid catastrophic real world approaches to life requires, in the modern world, a mind that is willing to, and has.. tuned away from liberalism because of where it leads and what it is delivering.
Worth noting too, this balance between conservatives and liberals that normally works so well (when it proper conservative weighted balance) needs some ying/yang relationship which we also find in the real world. If Intelligence *extremely* correlated with intelligence, rather than mildly.. e.g. if it was that *every* intelligent person was liberal, rather than most/somewhat more than, than when liberals gained ascendency (and put us on a path of destruction.. complex systems).. it would be very hard for us to find our way back out of that loop. i.e. it would be very hard for conservatives ever to put themselves back in a position of ascendency. So rather we have a liberal overweight in the stocks of the highly intelligent, and a conservative overweight at the other end, but with both low and high intelligence being found in respective sub-cohorts of both conservatives and liberals. There are dumb liberals, and 180 IQ conservatives.
Liberals are very keen to jump on these things as if it proves they are right, but I would hope that above I contextualise how that very much might not be so, and even *likely* is not so. Conservatives may not always have the arguments for why something is best left as X, but they have the track record of knowing and being proven correct that X works. Liberals only have a hope and a dream that Y will deliver something better. But without sufficient intelligence to *know* that to be the case, only a willingness to risk (the lives of everyone else and themselves and much of the existing goodness in the world) .. to find out if it is so.
The Lancet: Dramatic declines in global fertility rates set to transform global population patterns by 2100
Just think what we can do about this!
“The implications are immense,” said co-lead author and Lead Research Scientist from IHME Dr. Natalia V. Bhattacharjee. “These future trends in fertility rates and livebirths will completely reconfigure the global economy and the international balance of power and will necessitate reorganising societies. Global recognition of the challenges around migration and global aid networks are going to be all the more critical when there is fierce competition for migrants to sustain economic growth and as sub-Saharan Africa’s baby boom continues apace.”
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/03/22/by-year-2100/
People like Lindsay Graham, Marco Rubio, Roger Wicker, etc. still dominate the GOP and are as bad on foreign policy as Cheney and Kristol. The only area where Trump would be better than Biden is on energy and environment policy, and hopefully he would stop the push towards EV’s and reverse the CAFE standards.
This is an imperfect analysis because part of the ‘high” in the high/low coalition is not just beta college professors but alpha billionaires like Reed Hastings and Chris Larsen.
This group also includes a lot of Jewish billionaires but its not JUST Jewish billionaires as the Men of Unz would have you believe.
I wouldn’t call Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates “beta”. These are men who led the some of the biggest private sector organizations around to market dominance, presiding over tens of thousands of subordinates not particularly given to rote obedience.
Depends on a lot of things. One of the surest ways to get admitted to this sort of graduate program is for a professor where you did undergraduate work, who’s known by one or more of the target department’s professors, to vouch for your ability to do research.
If that happened, it would likely be an experimentalist physics professor, plenty of them do work that’s not far if at all removed from materials science, and that Musk chose that field tells us something. Perhaps more than a little, see for example the decision to go with stainless steel for the new generation of SpaceX rockets. Someone capable with the ethos of the SpaceX cadence, build fast, test immediately [“the payload is the data” we get], iterate quickly certainly is the sort of thing many STEM graduate departments would love to get.
This is stupid. 3/4 of the US population was white in 1995, meaning 38% white men. It’s possible that there was SOME AA such that the % of Stanford PhD engineering students who were white men in that year was somewhat less than 38% but the idea that white men were COMPLETELY EXCLUDED (then or now) exists only in your fertile imagination.
This page gives the current demographics.
https://ideal.stanford.edu/data-reports/ideal-dashboards
Whites are 27% of grad students but international students are 35%. Probably most of the internationals are from Asia but not all so maybe another 9% white internationals. Some of the Hispanics are also probably white.
Of course intelligent people are socially liberal and anti-authoritarian. They don’t like less intelligent people telling them what to do.
Unfortunately they also really seem to enjoy using their intelligence to tell other “lesser” people what to do, but few can recognize their own lack of competence to do so.
Somebody should write a book about it, maybe call it The Fatal Conceit. Or maybe The Vision of the Annointed.
Gigantic inequality of Wealth is not just something someones believe they are seeing. It’s an objective truth. And also that this gigantic inequality doesnt reflect itself meritocratically and yes it doesnt cancel the fact many people who are attracted to this true perspective tend to be in disadvantageous or not so good positions in social hierarchy but it also doesnt invalidate the fact that our societies are not solely built in an ideal meritocratic way.
This is an imperfect analysis because part of the ‘high” in the high/low coalition is not just beta college professors but alpha billionaires like Reed Hastings and Chris Larsen.
It is indeed imperfect but the left would completely implode if this alliance was out of balance. It’s already been disrupted by the internet and the establishment left has no idea as to how it can counter. The Western left was designed with the assumption that certain ideas would never be publicly questioned outside the classroom. Within the classroom they can be suppressed by Good Whites that are protectors of the dark truths.
Billionaires on the left are good at writing checks but add few ideas. Soros has spent hundreds of millions on the left and the best plan he can come up with is to fund left-wing DAs that eventually get voted out by their own Democrat constituents (see the SF DA for example). Meaning even the Democrats get sick of these spineless Soros DAs. He has thrown millions at various Black organizations with little to show. Who knows how much of it went to Miami vacations or German cars.
It’s underestimated as to how much of the left within academia is not actually doing anything but repeating the work of others.
People on the right that haven’t been through college overestimate the abilities of these professors. They imagine them to be a lot more devious and of course Jewish.
The average professor is a White liberal female and completely mediocre. Meaning she would be completely lost without a book written by someone else. Academia is a gang. It’s a gang of mediocre White women and their allies that want to take out their betters. They know their side lies and it only increases their resentfulness. They start out believing in Wakanda but then later switch to the racial-realist left position of we have to get rid of Whites as a racial group for the sake of equality.
One reason I oppose race denial is because I have seen how much it can mentally tear apart the natural female idealist by making her back a long list of lies. It’s a heavy mental burden. I’ve seen these women take out their frustrations on White male students that were liberal. I saw one completely scold and humiliate a White male who was polite and trying to do his best. They are all a few steps from cracking. It’s very similar to the USSR where its defenders had to go through extreme mental gymnastics to defend what they knew was a massive system of lies.
Typical
JewIsraeli Total lack of self-awareness, which would seem to be a Darwin-level deficiency.This group also includes a lot of Jewish billionaires but its not JUST Jewish billionaires as the Men of Unz would have you believe.
Yes and those Men of Unz also won’t discuss how the worst are non-Jewish.
CNN was founded by a non-Jew who believed that the news should be liberal (as in biased).
The worst libertarian globalists that promote race denial are non-Jewish.
B Gates went on libertarian inspired spending spree to prove that teacher’s unions were the problem. Race doesn’t exist because the science says so.
Did he apologize to those public school teachers after going over the results?
Of course not. He quietly dropped his funding and went back to spending money on Africa.
Another nasty promoter of libertarian globalism/race denial is billionaire Betsy DeVos. Also a Trump supporter.
She inherited a huge amount of money and has spent her life trying to prove that charter schools are the answer. Race can’t exist so there must be a free market/Christian solution.
We know she has spent at least 200 million dollars on charter schools and yet she can’t point to ONE school as a model. NOT ONE.
The billionaire aussy that started a “non-liberal” media channel also promotes this garbage. Charter schools have been tried a thousand times and he still promotes them.
I HEARD ON FOX NEWS THAT TEACHERS UNIONS ARE THE CAUSE OF RACIAL GAPS IN SKOOLS
IT ISNT CNN SO IT MUST BE TRUE
I DONT FALL FOR MSM LIES
DERP
Too smart by half and they outsmarted themselves.
CNN was founded by a non-Jew who believed that the news should be liberal (as in biased).
==
He didn’t. Turner ca. 1985 was considered a maverick who did not subscribe to the regnant ideology of the network news divisions. It was after he married Jane Fonda he turned into a squishead. CNN did not slide into its current state until after he’d relinquished control of it.
Liberalism also correlates strongly with college attendance. In fact, I’ve heard that the best predictor for Liberal attitudes is the length and strength of your association with academia. Coincidentally (I am sure) this also correlates with IQ – academia being one of those fields where a high IQ gives you a big leg up.
If we eliminated college graduates from the survey, how would that affect the correlation between IQ and Liberalism?
a little too fine, so Britain and her friends over here had to do something about that.
That must be how the Krauts got to the Marne and Brest.
It seems like some people here believe everything taught in school and in the liberal media is wrong, so let’s invert it.
Yes, we’ve heard this notion that Jews are essentially parasites and evil personified. Over 50 years of this claim. What is more relevant and important now is what you and your “pro – white” brethren are prepared to do to remove this alleged scourge. Until you put forth a cogent plan and implement it, you and ilk are impotent.
“Polygamists beat everyone else to this– and on Valentines Day, no less”
This has nothing to do with women receiving the right to vote.
“It’s almost like polygamy and women’s suffrage deserve each other“
This is bizarre, even for you.
Just what we need: a sub-Saharan baby boom with a baby bust everywhere else and politicians who are enthusiastic about massive illegal immigration.
“Which is to say, liberalism is an affectation at best and mental illness at worst.”
Not so fast.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8698749/#:~:text=%5B64%5D%2C%20using%20the%20Psychopathic,well%20as%20positive%20associations%20between
Jonason [57], in the research described earlier, found a positive association between psychopathy measured with the Dirty Dozen and liberalism in the Texas student sample, but a positive association between psychopathy measured with the SD3 and conservatism in the MTurk sample. Lilienfeld et al. [64], using the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised-Short Form (PPI-R-SF; 56 items; [65]) and a single-item, five-point liberalism–conservatism scale with an international internet sample, found a positive association between overall psychopathy and conservatism, as well as positive associations between conservatism and facets of Fearless Dominance, Self-Centered Impulsivity, and Coldheartedness
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5680983/
Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism were associated with right-wing political orientation, whereas narcissism and psychopathy were associated with political extremism. Moreover, the relationships between personality and right-wing political orientation and extremism, respectively, were relatively independent from each other.
I wouldn’t call Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates “beta”. These are men who led the some of the biggest private sector organizations around to market dominance, presiding over tens of thousands of subordinates not particularly given to rote obedience.
Neither would I and they are not behind liberalism. They are private sector entrepreneurs that mostly vote Democrat.
They are at economic extremes and do not guide or control what is a mainstream movement. A movement that predates all of them.
Within the main three realms of liberalism (academia, journalism, politics) it is a high-low movement where the high is dominated by beta intellectuals. By beta I don’t mean “beta male”. I mean beta as in they are mediocre in ability. They are the middling middle. They don’t really excel at anything but want to control society and especially their betters.
These scheming middlers want to equalize society to better suit their driving feeling of mediocrity. By tearing down the top the middle moves upwards. Their appeal to groups below them is merely a stepping stone to power. Their drive for equality is really just a front. They want a higher place in society and in fact take pride in having people below them. It’s really just age old envy and resentment wrapped in a fake science they have created to serve them.
So if huge great white sharks are regularly devouring swimmers, or grizzly bears are devouring campers, does that make the victims of these attacks worthy of scorn as “impotent,” or these animals any less dangerous because the community of victims doesn’t have a “cogent plan” for dealing with these apex predators?
Answer: Nope.
They’re still dangerous, apex predators.
See, just cutting and pasting, ad nauseam – ad infinitum really – “What are you going to do about it” DOESN’T MAKE THE “IT” PART OF ‘WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT ‘IT’” ANY LESS BAD.
Cancer is BAD.
Saying, “What are YOU going to do about it” or “Until you have a plan, blah, blah, blah…” doesn’t make it less make it less bad.
It has everything to do with women receiving the right to vote in Utah. Wyoming gets all the credit, but women in Salt Lake City voted twice before any in “the Equality State” did once. Not to mention 48 years before any in Seneca Falls did.
The antisuffragists had a saying, “Not every suffragist is a Mormon, but every Mormon is a suffragist.” The elders knew exactly what they were doing.
A shining light of DIEharders. She has 2 loans for Master and PhD.
Dr. Jacqueline
@JM_Sievert
DEI data analytics. Former #PoliSci professor. Distance Runner. Buffalo Born & Returned.
What are you doing to oppose Zionism?
Huh? No they aren’t.
Blacks and Hispanics are:
1.) More likely to be LGBTQ and to support LTBTQ rights
2.) Higher rates of out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood than whites
3.) More likely to be on drugs or the sale of illegal street drugs
4.) More likely to oppose law enforcement or the judicial system
5.) Are less likely to support abortion access
Basically the only thing Blacks and Hispanics are more “conservative” on is church attendance, and they’re only going to church for the free meals.
“1.) More likely to be LGBTQ and to support LTBTQ rights”
So, rampant Black and mestizo”homophobia’ is just imagination??
The Palestinians have already done a very good job of clearing out all the Christians.
I think Corvy’s point is that if sharks were eating your children, you would do something about it other than kvetch. You would be out there like Richard Dreyfus in Sharks, going after them with your spear gun or something. So that the fact that you kvetch about Jews and never actually do anything about them shows that you are not really serious.
I have told Corvy not to pursue this sort of baiting because someone unstable, like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, might actually decide that he needed to rise to Corvy’s challenge.
This is how all ideological systems work. The white conservative is beyond redemption, a sub-human, not even worth talking to. But a liberal doubter is a threat to the system. He needs to stick with the party line 100% or be whipped. 99% is no good.
If it’s not the money people and it’s not the academics, who is driving this bus, if anyone?
and they’re only going to church for the free meals.
==
You’ve never been in a church except to go to a funeral.
They get their samples from psychology classes.
Scroll down at the news stories in the search reults when you search right wing universities [ps. I used duck duck go from a canadian URL. It has multiple images of whhite men in the middle of an altercation with the crowd – one of which includes a memorable image of an angry reporter pushing forward.]. Other than mentions of uniersities speecifically set up to be conservative and righy wings on basketball teams, they are all hostile.
Of course as others have pointed out that DIE enrollees are less likely to
I spent a good half a day reading articles – invlufinh from math, computer, biology departments developing rextremeluy elaborate and tools to track down, analys the networks of, gaslight, sabotage , interfere with the private lives and isolate sources of disinformation/misinformation/racism, ie. Engaging in leagal activities. Their training data sets for their attack dog AI include the spread of factually accurate information on the covidian mess.
Universities are a blatantly hostile environment for right wingers. While researchers are specificallu doing research in an outside field to prepare plans, do llong term preparation and build systems to go after rght wingers…. they are punished by faculty and pilloried b their teachers .
Nope, we will have to form our own education systems and depend on it, with all that money being spent in universities for anti-white anti-white cyberwarfare technology, it will be used against said insttitutions.
The Reform Party in the UK seems to be doing this. They’re de facto giving Hope Not Hate a veto over their candidates:
This seems to require some evidence.
I doubt that as a group they are more likely to be LGBTQ or supportive of “rights” for them.
Their original cultures/countries are for the most part not supportive and some are downright hostile.
Homophobia is quite common to both groups and “hate crimes” are noticeable in the news.
To the extent they are personally family oriented or religious, not supportive.
It is White suburbanites and females who are “more supportive.” Because many people encounter gays as a result of family connection, there is more “tolerance” but few regard this as a safe or healthy lifestyle. And don’t want their children to “become gay” either.
I agree. A 2017 Pew Poll found less support for same sex marriage among Blacks and Hispanics than Whites. When legalizing gay marriage came up for a vote in California it lost because of Black and Hispanic opposition.
Social conservatism is often religion based and there are many Black and Hispanic churchgoers. Blacks may not always practice what they preach but when it comes to legislation are more supportive of legal restrictions on gays, abortion and drugs than Whites.
The political opposite of Black political beliefs would really be libertarianism, a political belief system known for mainly attracting nerdy White males and not many minorities or women.
Corvinus is your typical “dissenter.” There’s at least one in every group.
“The Far Side” at its finest.
“The middle”–a/k/a Karl Marx’s hated “petite bourgeoisie.”
So in other words, your stated preference is that children should be eaten by sharks.
Like we’re watching right now.
And not just in Gaza, right?
“What are you doing to oppose Zionism?”
You assume that I believe this to be an issue that I must care about and thus to something of major consequence to stem its tide. Rather, it appears YOU are really concerned about it.
“They’re still dangerous, apex predators.”
Assuming of course that Jews are this type of problem that must be immediately dealt with.
If you are being allegedly being hunted by them, seeing them but not taking measures to stop them will get you killed. So the question remains what are you doing about it to make sure not just you survive, but that your children survive. Think of them and their future, right?
It really isn’t that complicated.
Democrats can get socially conservative Hispanics and Blacks with offers of government programs. For example on paper they don’t support gay marriage but they would like better access to health care. Giving Hispanics better access to health care doesn’t force them to marry a gay. That is still voluntary so on some level one can see logical self-interest at work.
Our doofus conservatives don’t have a counter-plan and try to maintain lies like how the “free market” will somehow fix healthcare.
California was already taken by this strategy and the doofus Con Inc conservatives have no recourse but “blah blah free market blah blah tax cuts”. Conservatives don’t have an answer. Best not to think about it and just turn on Fox News to complain about godless socialists.
Blacks vote Democrat 90% of the time and pathetic Republican strategies like “OH LOOK WE GOT A BLACK CANDIDATE” have failed. These are the same dopes that cited Cosby as a Black leader…..for years. Bill Cosby mumbled through a single speech about raising kids properly and the Republicans seemed to think he was MLK 2. Well at least they don’t bring him up anymore. Turns out he was a serial rapist and Hollywood knew it the entire time.
Racial diversity among college faculty lags behind other professional fields, report finds
“Black professional workers in industries such as law, science and engineering make up roughly 9.1% of the workforce, compared to 7.1% of college faculty, according to the report by the Government Accountability Office. Hispanic people represent 8.3% of professional workers, compared to 6.3% of faculty.”
No, my stated preference is that Jews be viewed as your fellow humans and not sharks.
That people believe liberal views have some sort of intellectual basis that is ingrained in nature itself is something that would be expected among liberals. They are “ordained” by nature to be in charge, the way Jews think about themselves. People in power want to believe they are supposed to be in power. Especially those higher in psychoticism. That this study was misrepresented when reported is just what you would expect from bankrupt institutions such as “the social sciences” and media.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/why-it-took-social-science-years-to-correct-a-simple-error-about-psychoticism.html
“I have told Corvy not to pursue this sort of baiting because someone unstable, like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, might actually decide that he needed to rise to Corvy’s challenge.”
And as I stated earlier, you’re giving me way too much credit for me being the final push for some whack job getting the stones to murder Jews.
The fact of the matter is that the res’, Another Dad’s, the Anti Gnostic’s etc. of the world will bitch mightily about those nasty Jews, but to my knowledge, have no specific plan are they are willing themselves to put into place to stop their pesky antics.
There are two separate questions that need to be answered: what works and what can be sold to the voters. A free market economy works better than a centrally planned socialist economy. However, you may not be able to convince large numbers of minorities of that.
Because of that you need immigration restrictions to prevent Whites from becoming a minority in this country. The 1965 immigration act was a mistake. Trump had flaws but the influx of illegal aliens was much lower under him than under Biden. Polling shows immigration is the big issue in this country and a immigration restrictionist candidate would do well in getting votes.
You have extremists on both sides. I have seen both Jews and Palestinians referred to in the comment sections here as subhuman. I myself am not totally innocent in this respect but try to avoid this type of thinking.
Of course the opinion formers who guide the conversation are intellectual betas. Their main conviction is that no real issue should be decided by public opinion but instead by… For the very reason that they have no factual opinions the answer is not themselves.
If you haven’t been paying attention to the new powers soon to be conferred on the World Health Organisation, get wise now. The betas want policy making to be contracted out to the organs of civil society, independent advisory bodies, the EU, the rules based international order, a world non-government which will take its policy from the wonderful Wizard of Oz.
Which is where the alphas come into it. Bill Gates. He is so wealthy that he has no option but altruism, he is not positively evil, and he makes such huge donations to the World Health Organisation that he has the main say in its policy. Elon Musk. The rich man’s Ayn Rand. His vast fortune cannot buy him a one hour flight to Australia, so he is selfishly squandering his billions on making it possible. Form your own opinion of them. You won’t be asked for it.
Do you oppose Zionism?
There are two separate questions that need to be answered: what works and what can be sold to the voters. A free market economy works better than a centrally planned socialist economy.
In general yes but for certain areas like health care there are problems with relying on free market capitalism to act in the best interest of the country.
Republicans should face that reality but they don’t have the balls. They can’t admit to themselves that for some areas their precious free market is better off with European style regulation.
It shouldn’t be framed as socialism vs capitalism. There should be out of the box thinking to improve the system.
But Republicans are clueless and will continue to lose the debate.
Because of that you need immigration restrictions to prevent Whites from becoming a minority in this country. The 1965 immigration act was a mistake.
Yes I would agree that the 1965 act was a mistake but we don’t have a time machine.
Republicans need a winning strategy for racially mixed areas and they don’t have one. Mumbling about the free market or abortion doesn’t work. I’m just pointing out a reality based pattern that has been observed in numerous states over a multi-decade period.
The belief that they can eventually win by having the Democrats drop the ball is false hope. They held that view in California and the Democrats have a supermajority. California is a preview for the rest of the nation and our Republicans are content to get on Fox and talk about how public health care is socialism while the Democrats win elections. For the record I’m not a Republican and I hate both parties. But the Democrats have the better long term strategy. I don’t think the Republican leaders even have a strategy. Half of them believe that God will fix everything. The Evangelical Right believes that the rapture will happen and America is supposed to be destroyed anyways. They view their own country as a sort of hopeless Sodom that can only be fixed by God.
I’ve been called both a Jew and Islam supporter so I guess that means I hate myself.
In reality I’m probably Whiter than most of the Jew hating White nationalists and unlike most of them I have a White family.
Objective vs subjective/emotional
A pick is to a guitar as a ___ is to a cello:
A)bow
B) blah
C) blah
Aftar wants to immigrate to America, but he abhors everything about the USA. Aftar wants to create havoc, and promotes jihad every single day.
Jim Bob works an 8-6 job, raises 3 kids, attends church, and stays out of people’s business. Jim Bob recently hears of Aftar’s brazen ambitions, and for the first time in forever goes online to reject his vile propoganda.
Even though the 1st Ammendment protects both men’s free speech, Jim Bob is still a white supremacist bigot, and must be censored:
True of False
Yes! Besides, emotional intelligence supersedes the cake walk that objective IQ tests measure. All the subjective jabbering about morality and subsequent authoritarianism is mental masturbation; which, imo, should have it’s own objectively subjective/subjectively objective construct.
The only use for intelligence is to not forge the future, but to predict it with all contrivances, etc
14.4%. Which was second highest. I would say you are on target.
Thanks. Is that paper real? Did you notice the names of the authors?
You want more of this?
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/19/korean-american-software-engineer-claims-discrimination-by-intel-managers-of-indian-descent/
https://www.reuters.com/article/employment-intel-idUSL2N24J20L/
Note: “flaccid” (i.e. “showers” vs. “growers”). 😉
1) Not correct:
2) Correct.
3) Correct.
4) Correct. (See: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-03/usat-ipsos_racial_injustice_topline_030421.pdf)
5) Incorrect. Blacks are more likely to support abortion access (see: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/).
Correct on higher church attendance (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/attendance-at-religious-services/by/racial-and-ethnic-composition/). Not sure about “free meals,” but with blacks and Hispanics, churches tend to serve community roles that are provided by other institutions or private means among the general public (or among whites and Asians).
A lot of Blacks! moved into Prince George’s County and even further out into exurban Charles County. Charles County is now majority Black!
High IQ may actually predispose its possessors to believe falsehoods, since such people live in a world of words and images, and that makes them susceptible to manipulation by those who know how to use words and images. As Chesterton said, “The problem with liberals is not that they’re ignorant; it’s that they know so much that isn’t true.”
Proposition 8 was on the California ballot in 2008. The shrill gay lobby called it “Proposition Hate”. Also on the California ballot in 2008 was…Obama. As such black turnout was high and while perusing the non-Obama related questions they’d come across Proposition 8 (defining marriage as between a man and a woman) and, thinking it obvious, voted yes.
Proposition 8 passed and, because blacks are They Who Must Not Be Criticized, the hysterical gays and the media figured out a way to blame it on Mormons, I forget the specifics.
Naturally a judge later decided that Democracy ™ required the will of the people to be disregarded and overturned Prop 8.
Convince me why I should, and why you support the other side so vehemently.
It’s an argument in bad faith and orthogonal to the point being made, like all his other arguments. It’s like asking the Jews why they didn’t fight to the death against the Nazis if they considered them an existential risk. Answer: because they had families and dependents, because the Nazi regime would squash them like a bug, because there was a shot at survival with passive resistance but zero odds with armed revolt, etc.
What most of us do is move the whitest neighborhood we can afford, buy firearms and ammo and post anonymously on the Internet. And we vote for Trump, which the regime apparatchiks clearly see as a huge threat.
Indeed. It was a black day when he hung up his pencil.
Vaughan Walker, a gay corporate lawyer appointed to the federal bench by GHWB.
Correct.
You take reasonable measures to avoid the danger. That doesn’t mean exterminate sharks, or take away their habitat, or even smear them as some sort of demons when they’re just part of the natural order and have every right to live here with us.
No pogroms, no smears, no discrimination.
But be wary.
Just like when tourists to Europe are advised to be wary of gypsy pickpockets, or when people avoid certain dangerous neighborhoods, if Bernie Madoff is pushing a get rich quick scheme, or someone like Ben Shapiro is pushing open borders for us but not for Israel, or a group like the ADL is calling for it to be illegal to boycott Israel, or, most sinisterly, you can get thrown in jail in some European countries just for talking about certain events during WWII, appreciate where these folks are coming from and evaluate accordingly.
Do any Jews live in these neighborhoods?
If Jews are an existential risk akin to sharks the way that Patrick claims, why would you be willing to live in the same community with them? Shouldn’t you move to some place where no Jews live, such as your local ‘hood, in order to protect your children from Jewish influence? Who knows what nonsense your children’s Jewish classmates are teaching them. Also be sure to avoid all Jewish doctors, lawyers and other professionals.
If you give me your address, I will gladly steer you to the closest Jew-free ghetto in your area. You will also be able to save on renting or buying because having Jews in your town and schools drives up the real estate prices.
I think revealed preference shows that most American whites DON’T actually consider Jews to be an existential threat at all.
“You take reasonable measures to avoid the danger”
Again, you assume that Jews are this danger to the existence of whites.
Furthermore, what are these “reasonable measures”? Please be specific.
“It’s an argument in bad faith and orthogonal to the point being made, like all his other arguments.”
No, it’s a position that calls your narrative into serious question. You claim that whites are being exterminated as a result of Jewish policies, thus we remove them from power. It’s 50 years and counting of suppose Jewish dominance. Yet, when push comes to shove, rather than once and for all to remove the threat, you punt. The threat is supposedly real, and isn’t going away, so you think hiding in your redoubt will solve the problem. Until they are at your front gate. Oh, then just watch out, right? You got your gun and your steely aim. LOL.
“It’s like asking the Jews why they didn’t fight to the death against the Nazis if they considered them an existential risk.”
I didn’t say fight to the death, “counselor”. Jews did fight back. Hard. And they still got butchered. But in the end, the Nazis fell. Are you sure you can say that about Jews?
“What most of us do is move the whitest neighborhood we can afford, buy firearms and ammo and post anonymously on the Internet.”
And meanwhile, your fellow whites die by the truckload. Great strategy.
“And we vote for Trump, which the regime apparatchiks clearly see as a huge threat”
He loves Jews. He hates you. Everything he does is transactional.
If you need to be convinced, it means you support Zionism.
Most commenters here are US residents. You are committing a horrific atrocity, a crime against humanity in Gaza.
This too is an orthogonal reply.
He’s hated by all the right people: sexual deviants, tax-eaters, neurotic women with purple hair, you, Bill Kristol. It’s a useful proxy.
“He’s hated by all the right people: sexual deviants**, tax-eaters, neurotic women with purple hair, you, Bill Kristol. It’s a useful proxy.”
Your knack for mischaractization was prevalent on your now shuttered blog and it rears its ugly head on this fine opinion webzine. You didn’t include in your list average, normal Americans who see right through his Noo Yawk bravado and pathological liar personality.
**Ironic you say that given Trump’s own history.
“If you need to be convinced, it means you support Zionism.”
No, it means that you need to convince me. Tell me why from your perspective.
“You are committing a horrific atrocity, a crime against humanity in Gaza.”
LOL, that is simplistic logic. Might as well blame me for your female problems as well.
Since when have you cared about Gazans?