I’m not much of a number cruncher; life is too short. Also, most of the things that detailed statistical analysis can 'reveal' are as clear as the nose on your face. But that doesn't stop overfunded think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation trying to drum up numbers to back up self-evident truths, in this case the negative effects of continuing mass immigration.
It is obvious that if America opts for "amnesty" – a nice-sounding word for open borders – that the country will be trapped in a "dysgenic cycle" of ever lower IQs, higher and higher fertility, and greater and greater welfare.
The children of such welfarism would then vote for their symbolic 'father,' the state. And because America is America, and gets a relatively free ride in the world through its hegemonic position and licence to print money, it would be able afford a lot more of this than anywhere else. In places like Mexico, Brazil, and even Africa, there are limits to such dysgenic effects that simply do not exist in affluent Western welfare states.
But why are we even faced with this choice between possible and probable "demographic Armageddon"? One of the ideas often encountered in the alternative right is that the ruling elites are strongly pushing this as a means of attaining more power and control. The theory seems to be that having a deracinated, dumbed-down, Third World populace will be a lot easier to control than White people. A touch of narcissism there, perhaps?
This is one of those immediately plausible ideas that barge their way into weaker minds, but that, under examination, have plenty of holes. An America of mass immigration would inevitably be a country of the democratically empowered underclass voting itself increasingly bigger benefits that would be paid for at the expense of (i) America's position in the world, (ii) the productive White population, and (iii) the rich themselves, in other words, the very same people whose supposed hankering for cheap labour created the situation in the first place.
As dumbed-down as any population may get, it still wants its goodies, and if all that is required is to vote for the politician who promises the most, they are at least intelligent enough to know which box to tick, as demonstrated by ANC landslides in South Africa and the voting patterns of American Blacks and Hispanics. Also, if rioting is needed to exert additional pressure on the lumpen-proletariat spoils system, they are more than capable of that too.
In an age of welfare-consumerism and inclusive deference to the lowest of the low, a simple sense of "me too" can fulfill the role of the "revolutionary class consciousness" of Marxist theory, so mass immigration, even with the drop in national IQ, threatens the power and privilege of the rich.
The idea that the less intelligent groups are the most malleable and quiescent is demonstrably false; in fact, quite the reverse. If American history over the past 60 years has proved anything, it is that the population easiest to control is the reasonably intelligent one that is characteristic of mid-to-late-20th-century America – the one with a collective IQ of around 100.
Could you have imposed the kind of existential changes on America on any other group with a different collective IQ? The answer would probably be 'no' in both directions. Both cleverer and stupider populations would not have put up with it. So, if it's control the evil elites are after, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by moving the average IQ south of a hundred?
This is the real reason why Cultural Marxists abandoned the White working class, and turned instead to the so-called "victim groups" with their lower IQs. They are not victim groups at all. In addition to being low-paid low-productivity drones and welfare queens, they are also potential rioters, palace stormers, looters of wealthy suburbs, and, given the chance, rapers of pampered little princesses.
Considering the seriousness of the existential threat, White America should be rising up in grim reaction, yet it is not. This proves that the 100 point mark on the IQ continuum, which we can call semi-intelligence, is something of a passivity 'sweet spot.'
There are two elements to this – denial intelligence and coping intelligence:
Revolutions have many factors, but a lot of these other factors are in fact tied to IQ. IQ is therefore one of the most important factors leading to revolution. The question then arises of where is the optimum revolutionary IQ level at which a flawed state can be expected to undergo a revolution.
Karl Marx famously discredited his entire theory of Marxism by wrongly predicting that the communist revolution would break out in the most developed economies, by which he meant Britain, Germany, and France. The reason he was so spectacularly wrong was mainly because these countries all had populations with IQs close to the "passivity sweet spot." In the event, communist revolutions broke out among groups with lower IQs, such as the Russian and Chinese peasantry and proletariat. In France, revolution occurred in 1789, at a time when we can assume that IQs were lower than they were in Marx's time.
The problems and dysfunctions that create the conditions of revolution are also powered by IQ differences. A good example is the Russian revolution, which clearly stemmed from military defeats in World War One. These were caused by throwing the lower IQ Russian peasant army, with its necessarily hierarchical command structure, against a sophisticated German army that could allow a high degree of initiative among its intelligent lower ranks. Whatever the absolute Russian IQ was, in relative terms it was pushed much lower by being opposed to the Germans, creating an effective drop in "coping intelligence" that then reverberated through the rest of Russian society creating the conditions of revolution.
If the Russian population had been as smart as they now are, revolution would have been unlikely, both because their greater intelligence would have limited the level of military defeat, but also because it would have strengthened their "coping intelligence" enabling them to deal with the effects of military defeat better.
In the case of 18th-century France and early 20th-century Russia, a rough rule of thumb might suggest that the IQ level was somewhere in the upper 80s or lower 90s, due to a number of factors like poor nutrition, health issues, and lack of education.
In the case of 21st century America, because of its in-built advantages, such as affluence and geographical flexibility (the ability of large parts of the population to move, flee, or otherwise self segregate), a much steeper decline in the nation's collective IQ may be required to spark off any kind of revolution or radical change. But it is more complicated than that.
There are many ways to measure, judge, quantify, and conceptualize intelligence. For example, intelligence must have an object and exist relative to a set of tasks. Even if the raw level of IQ is rising thanks to changes in nutrition, technology, and education, the strain that the much increased complexity of modern life places on these IQs might mean that there is an effective lowering in outputs or mastery relative to its object.
Many other factors interact on the revolutionary potential. For example, affluence, welfare, and even porn and sport may play major pacifying roles, but also such materialistic comforts and hedonism can suffer from an effect of diminishing returns, as they absorb a lot of intelligence. Also it is something of a truism that revolutions seldom happen when people are most oppressed or in direst need. There has never been a direct correlation between pain-pleasure and revolution.
Obviously we are dealing with a difficult equation here, but one thing is certain, that if America opens the amnesty floodgates – and even if it doesn’t – the projected decline in average IQ will push America closer and closer to the elusive IQ of revolutions – yet another example of an affluent Western nation inviting in someone else to do its dirty work.
It is obvious that if America opts for "amnesty" – a nice-sounding word for open borders – that the country will be trapped in a "dysgenic cycle" of ever lower IQs, higher and higher fertility, and greater and greater welfare.
The children of such welfarism would then vote for their symbolic 'father,' the state. And because America is America, and gets a relatively free ride in the world through its hegemonic position and licence to print money, it would be able afford a lot more of this than anywhere else. In places like Mexico, Brazil, and even Africa, there are limits to such dysgenic effects that simply do not exist in affluent Western welfare states.
But why are we even faced with this choice between possible and probable "demographic Armageddon"? One of the ideas often encountered in the alternative right is that the ruling elites are strongly pushing this as a means of attaining more power and control. The theory seems to be that having a deracinated, dumbed-down, Third World populace will be a lot easier to control than White people. A touch of narcissism there, perhaps?
This is one of those immediately plausible ideas that barge their way into weaker minds, but that, under examination, have plenty of holes. An America of mass immigration would inevitably be a country of the democratically empowered underclass voting itself increasingly bigger benefits that would be paid for at the expense of (i) America's position in the world, (ii) the productive White population, and (iii) the rich themselves, in other words, the very same people whose supposed hankering for cheap labour created the situation in the first place.
As dumbed-down as any population may get, it still wants its goodies, and if all that is required is to vote for the politician who promises the most, they are at least intelligent enough to know which box to tick, as demonstrated by ANC landslides in South Africa and the voting patterns of American Blacks and Hispanics. Also, if rioting is needed to exert additional pressure on the lumpen-proletariat spoils system, they are more than capable of that too.
In an age of welfare-consumerism and inclusive deference to the lowest of the low, a simple sense of "me too" can fulfill the role of the "revolutionary class consciousness" of Marxist theory, so mass immigration, even with the drop in national IQ, threatens the power and privilege of the rich.
 |
| Obama phones |
Could you have imposed the kind of existential changes on America on any other group with a different collective IQ? The answer would probably be 'no' in both directions. Both cleverer and stupider populations would not have put up with it. So, if it's control the evil elites are after, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by moving the average IQ south of a hundred?
This is the real reason why Cultural Marxists abandoned the White working class, and turned instead to the so-called "victim groups" with their lower IQs. They are not victim groups at all. In addition to being low-paid low-productivity drones and welfare queens, they are also potential rioters, palace stormers, looters of wealthy suburbs, and, given the chance, rapers of pampered little princesses.
There are two elements to this – denial intelligence and coping intelligence:
- A semi-intelligent population is adept at deceiving itself. It has enough smarts to construct elaborate and plausible explanations that miss the point and prognostications that defer the moment of truth and sacrifice. It effectively melds enough inventiveness and gullibility together to make continuous denial relatively easy. We can term this "denial intelligence."
- A semi-intelligent population is also smart enough to work around and ameliorate flaws and breakdowns in the socio-political fabric caused by a deteriorating situation. This is what is happening in America, as the intelligent, frugal, and hard-working portion of the population take up the load of the increasingly large and dysfunctional underclass. In a lower IQ society, this balancing act would already be breaking down. We can term this "coping intelligence."
Revolutions have many factors, but a lot of these other factors are in fact tied to IQ. IQ is therefore one of the most important factors leading to revolution. The question then arises of where is the optimum revolutionary IQ level at which a flawed state can be expected to undergo a revolution.
Karl Marx famously discredited his entire theory of Marxism by wrongly predicting that the communist revolution would break out in the most developed economies, by which he meant Britain, Germany, and France. The reason he was so spectacularly wrong was mainly because these countries all had populations with IQs close to the "passivity sweet spot." In the event, communist revolutions broke out among groups with lower IQs, such as the Russian and Chinese peasantry and proletariat. In France, revolution occurred in 1789, at a time when we can assume that IQs were lower than they were in Marx's time.
 |
| Uprising of the oppressed, aka "Kill Whitey" |
If the Russian population had been as smart as they now are, revolution would have been unlikely, both because their greater intelligence would have limited the level of military defeat, but also because it would have strengthened their "coping intelligence" enabling them to deal with the effects of military defeat better.
In the case of 18th-century France and early 20th-century Russia, a rough rule of thumb might suggest that the IQ level was somewhere in the upper 80s or lower 90s, due to a number of factors like poor nutrition, health issues, and lack of education.
In the case of 21st century America, because of its in-built advantages, such as affluence and geographical flexibility (the ability of large parts of the population to move, flee, or otherwise self segregate), a much steeper decline in the nation's collective IQ may be required to spark off any kind of revolution or radical change. But it is more complicated than that.
There are many ways to measure, judge, quantify, and conceptualize intelligence. For example, intelligence must have an object and exist relative to a set of tasks. Even if the raw level of IQ is rising thanks to changes in nutrition, technology, and education, the strain that the much increased complexity of modern life places on these IQs might mean that there is an effective lowering in outputs or mastery relative to its object.
Many other factors interact on the revolutionary potential. For example, affluence, welfare, and even porn and sport may play major pacifying roles, but also such materialistic comforts and hedonism can suffer from an effect of diminishing returns, as they absorb a lot of intelligence. Also it is something of a truism that revolutions seldom happen when people are most oppressed or in direst need. There has never been a direct correlation between pain-pleasure and revolution.
Obviously we are dealing with a difficult equation here, but one thing is certain, that if America opens the amnesty floodgates – and even if it doesn’t – the projected decline in average IQ will push America closer and closer to the elusive IQ of revolutions – yet another example of an affluent Western nation inviting in someone else to do its dirty work.
 |
| Citizen Smith: archetypal idiotic revolutionary. |
___________________________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.