Accepting racial differences is the only way to stop society fragmenting under the continuous burden of hatred and accusation. As long as we promote the fantasy of equalism, we are living on borrowed time.
INTELLIGENCE CAN BE DEFINED as our ability to map reality. The higher our intelligence, the better maps we have. And the more accurate our maps, the more likely we will survive and leave progeny. At least, this applied for most of human history. Nowadays, the evolutionary pressures are off and intelligence is no longer necessary for survival and reproduction; indeed, it is now inversely correlated, so that the most intelligent in our society are the ones that generally have fewer children.
Race can be defined as our genetic heritage identified by salient physical features such as skin colour and facial features. And culture can be defined as our cultural heritage — the type of societies through which we and our forebears have been civilised.
So we all have a level of intelligence, a particular racial type and a culture (sometimes more than one) that we grew up in. And these qualities are what largely define us as human beings.
The problem with these defining factors are threefold:
- Like other animals, we instinctively favour our own kind and reject those unlike ourselves, and so obvious physical differences such as race and culture (which affects how we present ourselves) can lead to conflict, especially when living in close proximity and when resources are considered scarce.
- In our political correctness, we mistakenly believe that race and culture are entirely relative, so that no single race or culture is superior or preferential in any way to another. This is unfortunately false.
- We are also indoctrinated into believing that IQ is not correlated to race or culture, and that IQ is a culturally biased measurement. Unfortunately, both these beliefs are false.
And the consequences of the above is the situation we have today:
- Nobody dares admit, for fear of being branded racist or supremest, that the multiculturalism being pushed on most developed nations today is causing great division and disharmony. (Different races can certainly live together in harmony but only if they share a culture.)
- The pluralist democratic culture of Western societies is being equated with intolerant theocratic cultures. As a consequence, the democracy and freedoms that form the foundation of developed nations are now being eroded by cultural relativism.
- As racial and cultural differences in IQ are denied, the consequences of these differences, such as disparity of wealth and general success, are being ascribed to resource distribution unfairness and criminal activity. This enormously increases racial and cultural disharmony and the fragmentation of society. (Note, this is not to say that resource distribution is not a problem. Only that the major causative factor — intelligence — is being denied for reasons of political correctness.)
As a result of these consequences, developed democratic nations are starting to disintegrate as room is being made for intolerant parallel cutlures. And the reason this is important for those that pull the political strings is that it allows for ever greater authoritarian rule as the solution to increasing chaos and disorder. This way, nations can be increasingly controlled and directed so that long-term political ideals of totalitarianism can be realised. (It is one of the wonders of the human psychology that those with power are always looking for ways to increase it, even at the detriment of society at large.)
That is the modern world in a nutshell.
Of course, such a view is mostly denounced as racist and supremacist conspiracy theory. People scoff at the idea that there is an elite pulling strings, despite copious historical precedence.
Why the controversy?
Why are these three factors — intelligence, race and culture — so controversial? Because they are defining factors for human beings, separating them into specific groups. And we have collectively witnessed the violence and oppression that has been perpetrated by dominant groups. Humanity’s track record harmonising different flavours of humanity is appalling.
As a consequence of this track record, there is a global political movement focused on trying to erase the differences between humans so that there are supposedly less reasons for one individual or group of humans to reject another. This political movement is not associated with the political parties we vote for, but is entrenched at a deeper less changeable level in our educational systems and the mass media. Indeed, all major political parties, except right-wing extremists, support this agenda. (Nobody actually likes true right-wing extremists, but these days anyone who stands up against socialist policies is labelled a right-wing extremist, thereby diluting the meaning of the label and making right-wing extremism to be almost fashionable.)
Whereas once identity depended largely upon intelligence (my social network and professional success), race (my people or tribe) and culture (my god or nation), today identity is increasingly based on less fundamental differences such as physical appearance and fashion sense, our sexual identification (including non-binary), our material belongings, the sports teams we support, our social media presence and popularity, and our politics. These are more "choice" factors rather than innate factors. We feel more comfortable identifying ourselves by what we can choose, than by what we cannot.
The message here is that we are all fundamentally the same regardless of intelligence, race and culture, and as such there are only superficial reasons not to form a single harmonious society.
This political push to engineer social harmony is commendable, but when reality is denied, even for the highest of ideals, the fantasy that takes its place becomes even more pernicious. So instead of clearing the way to a harmonious society, the denial of these innate differences between humans is actually causing a disintegration of society.
The reason for this is that you cannot deny differences that still have real consequences. So you cannot deny differences in intelligence or cultural value if differences in intelligence or culture are expressing themselves. When they do express themselves, a supposedly equal society is no longer equal, and so a false but politically-consistent reason has to be given for this inequality.
At the moment, these differences are written off as the remnants of racist cultural bias and historical theft. But because the real differences are fundamentally innate, this diverting of attention away from the real innate cause foments an endless war against Western culture and its values. And because we are all increasingly indoctrinated into this politically correct worldview, the majority seem quite willing to destroy their own culture of freedom in order to assuage their guilt and self-hatred.
And those that fight for the preservation of Western culture — who dare to be proud of modern democracy — now receive a barrage of derogatory epithets: racist, white supremacist, extreme right-winger, colonialist, anti-feminist, fascist and so on. You really have to have a thick skin to stand up for Western culture.
But why is Western culture worth preserving, and why is it important that innate difference be acknowledged rather than denied?
Why Western culture is worth protecting
Western culture is far superior to any other culture on planet Earth today because, in its ideal form, it offers citizens maximum liberty with minimum oppression. Western societies are democratic (which prevents despotism and unpopular policies); have a separation between religion and state (allowing a free choice of religion and a state free from outdated religious rules and law); have a capitalist structure which incentivises unbridled creativity and entrepreneurship; and make each person — whatever their sex, race, religion and culture — equal in the eyes of the law, the state and the educational system. This setup is ideal for individual human expression and happiness.
Of course, this is the ideal, and in reality there are many faults with Western democracies. But still… it is FAR superior to any other cultural system in its general workability for massive populations, and its support for individual differences and fulfilment. This cannot be denied.
There are those who strongly believe that a socialist system would be better, whereby freedoms are rescinded in favour of overriding state control and collective ownership. Whilst this may sound fair and just on paper, all countries foolish enough to go down the socialist route have destroyed their economies, enslaved and murdered their people, and created oligarchical tyrannies. The only people who seem to be enamoured by socialism are Western students who have never set foot in a socialist country and who do not realise this ideologies diabolical consequences, including mass murder on a genocidal scale and hellish labour camps.
The simple fact is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And so big government can never be trusted in any form; Big Brother is never benignly avuncular. It is no coincidence that the fall of Western nations is happening at the same time that their governments are ballooning.
Where Western culture does fall down is with corporate abuse, which is now on a massive scale. Because corporations have been afforded the same protective rights as people, they can spread with immunity through democratic nations like aggressive cancers, destroying communities, small businesses and individual rights and freedoms… anything for profit. The most dangerous corporate abuse comes from the military-industrial complex which President Eisenhower warned the American people about in his 1961 farewell address. This clandestine industry, which tries to keep away from the media spotlight, flogs arms worldwide and actively encourage wars and unrest for their enormous profitability. This causes eventual "blow back" in the form of "unexpected" terrorist attacks.
Massive-scale corporate abuse like this is caused by corporations taking advantage of the laissez faire opportunities afforded in Western democratic nations to create monstrous systems of profit (with of course a nod from the government due to the wealth and employment they bring to society). Other non-Western nations produce arms too, and you can be sure that, if they could, they would sell the same amount globally too, without a thought for the consequences. But Western culture provides a better environment for innovation and corporate growth, and so it is here that the best killing equipment is developed and manufactured. This is a problem of uncontrolled human greed and corporate irresponsibility rather than a problem of democracy per se.
This laissez faire Achilles' Heel of Western nations not only allows for corporate abuse, but also cultural abuse.
For example, Islamic culture is theocratic and intolerant, and as such has no place in Western culture outside of being just another religion. But those that are ardently Islamic cannot accept this separation of church and state, which to them is ungodly — a blasphemy. And so they fight and campaign for their religious intolerance, facilitated by our cultural milieu of tolerance. In other words, we are so tolerant that we are tolerant even of intolerance! So welcoming mass Islamic immigration from more primitive theocratic and/or totalitarian societies, and allowing them to set up parallel cultures in the name of multiculturalism, may be compassionate but is also myopic at best. For in being tolerant to intolerant ideologies, tolerance itself becomes a potential victim.
It is not the immigrants fault that tolerance itself is being challenged in this way, but the politicians who have decided that multiculturalism is a good thing. If you are a fundamentalist Muslim who has grown up under the strict rules and guidance of the Koran, and then migrated to a Western nation, of course you are going to consider anyone breaking God's rules as being ungodly and an affront to your religious sentiments. So naturally you do not want to integrate into an ungodly culture, but will try to set up a parallel culture that insulates you from these heathens. And fortunately for you, the host nation actually allows you to do this in the name of multiculturalism. But multiculturalism only works if all the cultures involved respect and uphold the ideals of democracy and free speech. In other words, religion is regarded an add-on belief system to a democratic and fundamentally secular societal base. (It has to be secular in order to impartially allow for multiple religious expression, as well as atheism.)
But as a fundamentalist, you are not going to understand this idea that other people can have different religious beliefs and still be okay. Indeed, the Koran itself decrees that you try to convert those who are not Muslim, and to kill those who refuse to convert. (Yes, that may seem allegorical to non-fundamentalists, but we must remember that theocratic nations do not interpret the words of Mohammad allegorically.)
So inviting in millions of fundamentalists from a completely different culture, and then allowing them to continue their fundamentalism within your boarders, is nothing less than national and cultural suicide.
This is why it is so vital to defend our Western culture at all costs from ALL those who take advantage of it, including religious fundamentalists. Western culture is VALUABLE for everyone. And if that statement makes you cringe in embarrassment then you need to take a good hard look at yourself and your indoctrination. Yes, many will label you racist for rejecting mass immigration, but that is just unfortunately a price you will have to pay for trying to preserve a free and open culture for your children.
For all its faults, Western culture is a highly developed culture that represents the crowning achievement of humanity at this time. No other cultural system that has ever existed would work for the number and variation of people that we have today in our societies. So for us to buckle under the pressures of political correctness and allow Western culture to be eroded is a travesty.
We know that Western culture is not the oldest culture, so how did it become the best system? This is where we approach an even more politically incorrect fact: different races have different baseline levels of intelligence or IQ.
IQ and race
IQ or the intelligence quotient is a numerical measurement and representation of overall intelligence. There are a number of different IQ tests, but relatively speaking, someone who is strong at one test is strong at another. Those that do better on IQ tests tend to be more successful at whatever profession they chose and in whichever country they live. Basically, if you have more processing power, you generally have a BIG advantage irrespective of culture or society. (Even in ancient gladiatorial Rome where physical strength rather than intelligence was most admired, you can be sure that with two physically matched gladiators, the one with the higher IQ probably had a better chance of victory.)
Western culture is the most inclusive culture and the one that promotes the greatest liberty because it was developed by nations with high baseline IQs. You need a high degree of intelligence not to be threatened by others who have different beliefs and political allegiances, and to allow them to express and practice their own particular beliefs in the same society and community. This takes real understanding and tolerance, not something you will usually find in fundamentalists of any nature.
Saying that Western nations have high average IQs may sound pompous, but it is backed by solid scientific evidence. IQ tests are specifically designed to be culturally independent, and so they can be used to quantify and compare the intelligence of populations worldwide. The research, however, is so politically incorrect, that it is largely ignored in favour of all-are-equal ideology.
What the researchers find is that there is a large disparity in mean IQ measurements not only within nations but between nations and races as well.
This, of course, goes against everything we are taught about race only being skin-deep. But if there are obvious differences between races visually, why should there not be variance on unseen internal aspects, such as brain function? In other words, why are we willing to admit the superiority of Blacks in the 100 meters (which is undeniable), but unwilling to admit to the cerebral superiority of Chinese, Japanese and Ashkenazi Jews (who have been shown to have the highest IQs worldwide)?
The reason for this is that racial IQ differences can very easily form the basis for real racism and discrimination, so as a general policy these differences are buried by any nation championing the doctrine of equality. We have seen the terrible crimes of slavery and eugenics in past centuries, and the sickening willingness of humans to dehumanise other humans. So we collectively believe that if we ignore the evidence and stick with the equality doctrine, we are safer from the evils of true racism.
However, if racial IQ differences are denied, then, as has been stated above, a fictional narrative needs to be circulated in order to account for the obvious consequences of IQ differences — such as wealth and power distribution. And that narrative holds that people with lower IQs are not inferior intellectually but are victims of both discrimination and theft. This worldview justifies low IQ individuals receiving apologies and recompense from high IQ individuals, whilst denying IQ differences altogether.
It is in following this fictional narrative, that has been put out to hide intellectual differences, that accusations of racism are now so commonplace in Western culture today, and why the white population, which is usually the target of those accusations, are becoming so ashamed of their own culture and skin colour. It seems to be the cost we are willing to pay for the denial of IQ differences. But is it worth the cost?
I am sure there are many arguments for hiding cerebral differences behind false accusations of racism and theft. After all, real racism does exist and is extremely pernicious and harmful in society, and so many believe that we must avoid giving it scientific validation, even if that means a denial of reality. But whilst this may be a good policy short-term, what will be the effect of this false narrative of racism and theft in the longer-term?
We know that this false narrative fragments society by encouraging racial hatred and division, and it also dumbs down society. But is this acceptable price to pay for avoiding the reality of real racial differences that could be used to justify unacceptable discrimination and prejudice? At the moment, our politicians seem to think that the false narrative is preferable to race reality. But in time this hiding of the truth may have to stop if the inter-racial hatred it generates reaches boiling point and society fragments.
Ironically, true racism is much more prevalent in those with lower IQs, so this racism in the name of anti-racism is largely being pushed by the intellectually challenged regardless of race.
An dumbing down example of this dilemma is the employment stats of the web giant Google which disclosed in 2014 that it employs a whopping 34% of Asian Americans in its company and yet this demographic only accounts for a little over 5% of the population. We have two choices here: either other races (including Whites) are being discriminated against, or those of Asian extraction have the highest IQs. The reality is the latter, but because the acknowledgement of IQ differences is so politically incorrect, Google is now trying to “correct” the figures, which actually means hiring less intelligent people to keep up the pretence that all races are equally intelligent. Is this dumbing down in their advantage? Is is to the advantage of society at large?
A conspiratorial example of falsely pointing the finger at systemic racism is in Hollywood, the Mass Media and the banking systems which are largely owned and controlled by Jews. This has lead to many to believe in some kind of Zionist conspiracy. There may well be a Zionist conspiracy, but we also need to consider the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are up their with the Chinese and Japanese with the highest global IQs, which means that they are likely to be overrepresented in corporate positions and industries that require high degrees of intelligence. That is not to say that IQ is the only factor, there will be a cultural bias that encourage a clumping together of those from similar cultures into specific industries, but IQ is likely to the the predominant factor. Jews are successful because they are, on average, extremely intelligent and also come from a culture that is ambitious. And this is to the benefit of all. Indeed, as of 2017, 22.5% of the all the 892 Nobel Prizes awarded so far have been awarded to Jews, and yet Jews account for only 0.2% of the world population. (This writer, by the way, is NOT Jewish or Japanese or Chinese, but is quite happy to acknowledge the baseline cerebral superiority of these other races.)
And finally a societal fragmenting consequence of pushing the fiction of systemic racism is the #BlackLivesMatter movement. Whilst it is a fact that Blacks in 2015, for example, was 2.45 times more likely than a Whites to be shot and killed by the police, it is also a fact that Black violent crime rates are many times higher than that of Whites, which accounts for this higher statistic. Overall, the data shows that Asians have the lowest crime rates, followed by Whites, then Hispanics, and finally Blacks at the top with the highest crime rates. So if the Black Lives Matter movement really cares about Black lives then it should really be focusing on the violence and crime rates of Black culture itself, which is responsible for the murder of the vast majority of Blacks (and other races). But because it is considered racist to highlight the enormity of Black crime, the statistics are generally buried, and where they do see the light of day they are dismissed by a chorus of "racist bias". source
In the next section, we will look a little more closely at IQ, race and immigration. If these topics together make you uncomfortable (it certainly was not a breeze for me to write, although I always follow the logic) then just skip ahead to the section after it.
Immigration and IQ
There is a normal distribution of IQ in any given population. That means that IQ can be represented by a bell-shaped curve, with the vertical mid-point of that curve representing the mean or baseline IQ of that population. This means that if, like me, you are from a race that has a lower baseline IQ, you can at least draw comfort from that fact that you may individually be right of the baseline with a higher-than-average IQ. So stating that Chinese have a higher baseline intelligence than Blacks, for example, does not mean that the next individual Black person you meet is not more intelligent than the average Chinese, or even a genius. It is all down to probability and statistics.
The spread of an IQ distribution is called the standard deviation and is generally found to be about 15 points higher and lower than the mean or average for IQ. (If you can remember your stats from high school, you will know that this means that approximately 68% of any population have an IQ within a standard deviation of the mean.) But this throws up the concerning thought that 16% of any population (100-68/2) have IQs below one standard deviation from the mean. If we are talking about nations with moderate IQs of around a 100 baseline, then 16% of its population have an IQ below 85. What does that mean to the population?
And IQ of 85 has been classified by the American Association on Mental Deficiency as the threshold for “retardation”. This classification dates back to 1959, but since then this threshold has been lowered to reduce the stigma and social prejudice of being labelled “retarded” (the term “retarded” is so pejorative that low IQ is officially now referred to as “intellectual disorder”).
This gives us an idea of the liability of being significantly below the mean in IQ. It is a major life disadvantage. And if a full 16% of Western society (approximately) could be categorised with “intellectual disorder”, what does that mean for society in general when such individuals are very strongly correlated with violent crime, social welfare, poorer health and lower life expectancy? Indeed, at this level of IQ, there is real difficulty in basic reading and writing; an IQ below 85 makes a person almost unemployable in modern societies (even the minimum IQ for the US army is 83). So, to be a productive member of a modern democratic society absolutely requires a minimum level of intelligence. If you are below that level, you unfortunately have very little to offer.
But now consider this: most immigrants currently flooding into Europe are from Africa and the Middle East where baseline IQs are generally very low. A proper breakdown of immigrant countries of origin is hard to find as governments and media are trying to paint the immigration as a refugee crisis rather than the economic migrant crisis it predominantly is. We do know that most migrants are from actually from Western Africa. Here are some of the baseline IQs for primary countries of origin of these migrants and refugees (listed alphabetically):
- Afghanistan - 84
- Algeria - 83
- Bangladesh - 82
- Chad - 68
- Cote d’Ivoire - 69
- Eritrea - 85
- Gambia - 66
- Guinea - 67
- Iraq - 87
- Libya - 83
- Nigeria - 84
- Nigeria - 84
- Pakistan - 84
- Republic of the Congo - 78
- Senegal - 76
- Syria - 83
If we know that 85 is around the limit for someone to be able to participate productively in a Western society, and was even regarded at one time as the threshold for “retardation”, what affect will the immigration of millions of individuals from countries with mean IQs at that level or even below have? And this influx of low-IQ immigrants is only going to increase, especially from countries in Africa, the continent with the lowest global IQ scores.
Also, we must bear in mind that those with lower IQ scores for their particular country are likely to be the ones looking for work and therefore most desperate to migrate. Therefore, those migrating are likely to have below average IQs for their countries. What does it mean to Western nations to have an influx of people, most of whom will not be able to make a contribution to society no matter how hard they work?
In the US, immigration is primarily from Middle and South America. Here are some of the main countries of origin of immigrants into the US and their mean IQ values (listed in order of immigrant numbers):
- Mexico - 88
- China - 105
- India - 82
- Philippines - 86
- El Salvador - 80
(It is easier to find stats for US immigration than it is for EU immigration. The EU has turned into a social experiment and so governments are spinning all information in favour of their insane immigration policies, whereas in the US, there does appear to be much more transparency.)
We can see from here that the average IQs of most immigrants into the US are higher than those entering the EU. China’s high IQ figure is still completely overpowered by a disproportionately large number of Mexican immigrants, but it does mean that net contribution of immigrants to the US is likely to be higher than those flooding into the EU.
Because most immigrants on average have significantly lower IQs than the national average in the Western nations they are moving to, if they do get jobs it they are most likely to be manual labour jobs (the type of work associated with low IQ). However, most will end up on welfare. We must also remember that with the rise of robotics and AI, it is the manual labour jobs that are first to be automated. So welcoming in a large number of low-IQ immigrants at the dawn of the new robot/AI age is concerning.
Also, it has to be said, as IQ is very strongly correlated with crime, this sort of low-IQ immigration will most definitely raise the crime rate, and this is certainly in evidence in the EU where crime rates in those countries with the highest immigration, such as Sweden and Germany, have soared (although their governments, that encourage this migration, do everything they can to hide the figures). Add to this the vast majority of immigrants being young men, and you have a recipe for social disorder on a grand scale. EU officials refuse to address this issue because of their strong socialist indoctrination.
And don’t think that once integrated into Western societies that IQ levels of immigrants will rise with the better education. Unfortunately, IQ levels are almost entirely genetically determined so even the best educational programs will not raise IQs. (Prof. Jordan Peterson has stated that anyone discovering how to raise IQ rates would win a Nobel prize!) This is why even multi-generational immigrant races retain their IQ differences, with increases happening only through genetic mixing: Black Americans, for example, have an average IQ around 85 and Chinese Americans have an average IQ around 105.
Above, we saw how crime rates of the primary racial groups in the US have Asians at the bottom with the lowest crime, then Whites, then Hispanics and finally Blacks at the top. This inversely correlates with IQ. What is more, if you normalise for IQ — comparing low IQ with low IQ — then racial crime rate differences largely disappear. So violent crime IS an IQ problem, which makes it a racial problem. And nobody dares address this in a culture that refuses to acknowledge racial differences for fear of being called racist.
Those that are courageous enough to actually look at the data, such as Edwin Rubenstein of the New Century Foundation, uncover a huge disparity between crime rates according to race. This was cited above but will be cited here with a more explicit full link: https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/. The reports they produce are entirely data driven which is why they are invariably ignored rather than refuted. As an illustration of the higher levels of Black violent crime, for example, the author writes: “If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.” And whilst Black poverty is an issue, it cannot be blamed for higher crime rates because similarly poor non-Blacks do not behave the same way.
Please note: There is no correlation between IQ and morality, which explains why corporate bosses, scientists and inventors, who generally have very high IQs, can still make very immoral decisions. But there is a strong correlation with IQ and actual criminal activity.
One final point: most of the new immigrants coming in to Western countries originate from nations with totalitarian and/or theocratic leadership, with some democracies but in name only. And the majority are Muslim entering the EU, which means that there is the added problem of cultural difference.
In the US, there is better assimilation, so that those entering the US are forced somewhat to integrate with US values and customs. In the EU, however, the belief in multiculturalism is strong and so integration is rejected as “colonialist” and immigrants are left to their own devices to create parallel cultures similar to those of their home nations. The result is fragmentation of society and elevated levels crime and terrorism. A parallel culture will naturally not respect Western culture, values and laws as much as it will respect its own. In the UK, for example, there are over 85 (2009 data) Sharia Law (Islamic Law) Courts, and the number is rising. Sharia Law is positively Medieval and has no place in any modern civilised society. And yet, this outdated import is being allowed to proliferate in Western nations because governments are afraid of doing anything that might get them labelled racist and culturalist.
I would like to look now at the effect of IQ on “how” we believe rather than “what” we believe.
Some epistemological considerations
Our IQ rating directly affect “how” we believe our beliefs. I am not aware of any research on this, but it is very likely that those with significantly lower IQs than the Western mean are unlikely to understand the realitymapping process. And this process is actually fundamental to understanding democracy.
If your IQ is low, you are likely to confuse your beliefs with reality, rather than seeing them as “just” beliefs. This makes you far less tolerant of those with differing beliefs because, from your perspective of thinking you know reality directly, you are right and they are wrong, period. This could be a reason why countries with low average IQs are more likely to be totalitarian and theocratic.
This implies that a nation needs a minimum mean IQ in order to successfully be democratic and free. And this probably explains why countries “liberated” from dictators — such as Iraq and Libya — seem completely unable to sustain a normal democratic government. In other words, the mean IQ of these nations (87 and 83 respectively) is just too low to fully sustain a democratic system of government. And as Syria has a mean IQ of 83, trying to depose a dictator to set up a democracy is a waste of time. (No doubt, Assad is being targeted for other reasons, such as his independence from the Western banking system and his oil reserves, as well as the fact that he is trying to stamp out ISIS, which are a marketing wet dream for the arms industry.)
The reason why a relatively high IQ is needed for a democracy to function is because separation of church and state, and ascribing equal value (one person one vote, and all equal in the eyes of the law) to our fellow citizens — regardless of race, sex, culture, religion, sexuality and IQ, is not obvious to a person who equates their beliefs with reality. It requires some real imagination — which is why it is such an enlightened concept.
If you have a low IQ and were educated in a democratic country, then although you may not fully understand democracy, you will be conditioned to respect and uphold it. But if you have a low IQ and were educated in a totalitarian and/or theocratic country, then democracy will not only make no sense to you, but you will actively reject it because you already have a foundational set of beliefs that you are confusing with reality. Combine this naive epistemology with political or religious activism, and you will be constantly and vociferously proselytising and trying to overthrow democracy.
With the EU, the vast majority of immigrants are Muslim, originally from theocratic and/or totalitarian nations. This means that their Muslim beliefs are not seen through a proper democratic lens, but are regarded as absolute and unquestionable reality. So although for democracies to work, members are required to understand that different people with different beliefs have the same value and the same rights of expression because all beliefs, including religious beliefs, are equivalent, you are not going to be able to understand this. And rather than seeing democracy as a system through which you hold your beliefs, you will regard democracy as a lie trying to usurp what you know is absolute truth — the words and instructions of Mohammad. This will set you up against democracy itself, and whether you are politically active or not, you will certainly become an agent of democratic dissolution.
Effectively, the naivety of multiculturalism has allowed a fifth column to form in democratic nations which will always seek to undermine democracy because, through political correctness, it has been allowed to compete with it on an equal basis. This is a suicidal mistake because nothing should be allowed to compete with democracy, liberty and human rights in a democratic free country, but because of the fear of offending other cultures, democracy has been demoted by the multicultural perspective to just another choice rather than a national mandate.
Because IQs can slightly raise in time after immigration, predominantly through intermingling with the local populations, there is always the possibility that, some day when IQs raise enough, the words of Mohammad will be taken more allegorically rather than literally. Only when this happens will holy wars be off the cards and democracy saved. But unfortunately this may take many many generations.
Next, I would like to look at aliens and IQ. If you don’t believe that aliens are visiting our planet at this time, you can always view it as a “what if” scenario and read it anyway as it does bring up some interesting points. [For the purposes of this essay, I will use the all inclusive term “aliens” to mean all the different alien species visiting Earth at this time.]
Dealing with aliens
If aliens are here, and the stories of abductions and saucer crashes etc. have any truth about them, we have to accept that aliens have much higher IQs than humans do. Indeed, most drawings of aliens involve over-sized heads and astonishingly high technologies. (Any alien species from another star system would have had to have created a technology that beats the light-speed barrier for inter-stellar travel to get here. This would necessitate extreme intelligence.)
What is more, from the testimonies of abductees and cattle mutilation evidence, it would appear that the aliens are running full-blown eugenics programs. Indeed, many believe that alien-human hybrids are intermingling with humans today, and a growing number identify more strongly with off-planet species rather than the human species.
Disclosure of alien presences on this world is supposed to be imminent. Whether this is all true or not, it is interesting to consider what would happen if the presence of these super-advanced alien species were suddenly disclosed. What would it mean to humanity in terms of intelligence, race and culture?
First off, with disclosure we would suddenly have two different high IQ species on the planet — humans and aliens. (Dolphins and whales are highly intelligent, but due to their physiology they are unable to physically create technologies that would allow them to effectively accumulate knowledge. That said, they may have an oral tradition of accumulated knowledge that we do not know about.) Suddenly, humans would no longer be at the pinnacle of creation as there would be another species present that would be vastly superior in intelligence and knowledge. How would we cope with this fact?
Human psychology has developed on the assumption that we are God's supreme creation (from a religious perspective), or that we are at the very top of the evolutionary tree (from a scientific perspective). Either way, we feel we have lordship over the rest of creation, and this justifies out terrible abuse of "lower" animals (which have developed nervous systems and so can feel pain in much the same way we do).
How will this psychology change when we realise that we definitely are not the top species anymore? Will White or Black supremacy mean anything anymore? Will we put the aliens on a pedestal and denigrate ourselves as their chattel? Or will we try to invent a compensatory fantasy such as claiming that although the aliens are much more intelligent and scientifically advanced (which is undeniable), they have no soul, they lack emotions or they are the Devil's spawn. This way we can keep our superior position in the grand scheme of things.
That said, it would present the perfect opportunity for us to acknowledge a species' superiority without feeling less than ourselves. To respect ourselves without holding the position of contrived superiority or acknowledged inferiority. You can learn that already by spending time with different species of animals… but a superior alien presence would provide that lesson for all humanity as it would be so paradigm shattering.
What would be particularly interesting would be how we would determine the truth of any communication from a much more intelligent species. With other humans, at least we have body-language and empathy to go on. Because our physiology and nervous systems are so similar (being members of a single species) we can model another person and get a feel for whether they are telling the truth. But with aliens we would have none of this context to their communications. We may as well be talking to a computer over a keyboard. In other words, face to face communication with an alien has no greater advantage than keyboard to keyboard communication with an alien, or indeed telepathic communication with an alien. When a species is that advanced, potential misdirection and manipulation becomes impossible to detect.
Given this scenario, it would probably best for humanity to take a precautionary stance. And that is precisely what seems to be happening, much to the chagrin of alien supporters and identifiers. When the difference in intelligence is enormous, the one with the least intelligence is completely in the dark. Your dog, for example, might wonder why you are taking him to see this nasty woman in a white coat that causes him great pain. He is unlikely to realise that she is a vet and doing it for his own good. On the other hand, she might also be putting him down, an action which might seem cruel but has been deemed as the best course of action for the long-term.
Although it would seem that we are in the dark, there would be a way forward in communication. In humans, as has been postulated above, a higher IQ is associated with an understanding of mapping reality and how beliefs are merely models of reality. This is likely to be someone that aliens understand as they will no doubt be above the threshold of intelligent to understand that. So rather than attempting to establish a shared reality, the communication must first focus on establishing a sound epistemological foundation. So asking about intentions, hybridisation and home planets etc. is not the place to start. Indeed, asking these sorts of questions pushes communication into a reality-fixated dialogue. If the aliens have studied us then such questions might well indicate low intelligence and the response might be a matching distorted response rather than an insightful response.
Far better to ask how they map reality. For in doing so, the context is set for whatever is being communicated as being a map that is useful to them for whatever reason, and which we can then decide whether it is useful for us too. In other words, we can have dialogue without needing to take someone’s word on something by getting lost by insisting on literal perspectives. This sets up a much more open, less manipulative and more honest line of communication that does not get lost in a fantasy of your "facts" against my "facts".
A more down-to-earth analogy of this would be someone coming from a theocratic society and migrating to a Western country. If they have a low IQ and cannot separate their beliefs from reality, then we would immediately realise that everything we communicate to them is being measured against the fixed reality of their religious worldview. So we can either just let them get on with it — in which case they will set up a parallel culture (which is fine in a multicultural society) or we can familiarise ourselves with their worldview in order to create the right story to get them to do something we need them to do, such as living in peace by presenting our understanding of their religion to them as a "religion of peace" (even though their religion is best described as a religion of war and persecution). This way, we tell a lie to try to get them to conform to Western standards.
If, on the other hand, they have a high IQ for their originating country, they are likely to understand that their religious outlook is just a religious realitymap and that others can have different maps without it being a point of consternation. With this level of epistemological sophistication, we can be honest with them about their religious paradigm without them being offended, because there will be a mutual understanding that we are talking about perceptions and not realities.
It is vital, therefore, in communication between two beings from very separate cultures and with very different IQs to set the epistemological stage, basically agreeing on the limits of knowledge and communication. So as a general rule of thumb: if you find yourself communicating with a being of higher intelligence in a literal sense, that being is probably lying to you. (Of course the intention could still be good, whatever that means!)
We must also remember that if communication is telepathic, then this establishment of a sound epistemological base is even more important because there is so much subjectivity involved. So stop asking aliens “what” they think or are doing and start asking them “how” they think. Then we go forward.
In the next section, we will see how equalism is a deceptively dangerous philosophy that can push a free Western society towards Big Brother totalitarianism.
Equalism and Big Brother
The interesting thing about the word “racism” is that it has two definitions:
- (Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
- (Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief
- (Collins English dictionary)
The second definition is, in my opinion, the more useful one. Anyone who is abusive or aggressive towards members of another race because of race is abhorrent. That said, if the term “abuse” is self-defined, then it is possible to label any behaviour as racist, just as it is possible to label any behaviour as offensive. And this is precisely what is happening to hide the reality of the second definition — genuine racial differences.
As we have seen, there are distinct characteristics that endow some races with intrinsic advantages over other races. We only have to see the lineup of a 100m sprint to see that Blacks are superior sprinters. In the same way, Chinese, Japanese and Jews have the highest IQs on the planet. Clearly, speed and IQ are both endowing a facet of “superiority” to the race or races that they apply to, so given these undeniable facts, the term “racism” used in the first definition is redundant. It would be like saying that anyone who acknowledged the fact that people are different heights is “heightist”. Labelling statements of fact pejoratively is ridiculous, and its only purpose can be to discourage truth. The prejudice should not be with the term of fact, but with the term of denial of fact.
Far better, therefore, to label those who deny statements of facts, rather than those who accept statements of facts. So instead of “racist” for those who accept proved racial differences, we should perhaps use the term “equalist” for those who insist on everyone being equal despite evidence to the contrary. That way, we are not penalising science and creating a research no-go zone (which the term “racism” by the first definition has done).
It is the second definition that really saddens me. When I see it, my blood boils. I have always stood up against anyone I felt was abusing another out of some prejudice. But at the same time, I am forced (reluctantly I might add) to accept the scientific research that shows racial differences. And hopefully, I have shown why it is important to acknowledge these differences, especially regarding IQ/intelligence.
In the short term, equalists have a point: it may well be better to hide racial differences behind a wall of prejudice as there are so many low IQ people around who will look for any opportunity to be racists by the nasty definition above. (Prejudice and low IQ go predictably hand in hand.) But in the long-term, all the misguided hatred and mistrust that equalism needs to generate in order to deny and hide the consequences of racial differences reaches a point where it starts to fragment society.
The problem is that in our politically correct Western societies, accusation has become the means by which minority groups, which do not have democratic voting clout because they are a minority, further their political agendas.So accusations of racism will continue to be used as liberally as accusations of offence, accusations of culturalism and accusations of sexism, because accusation itself carries so much traction in society. All the different pejorative labels used in accusation only increase the hatred and fragmentation in society, pitting one group against another or against society as a whole. And as society fragments, insurrection and chaos start to reign, so that in the end the desperate majority welcome in Big Brother government in order to stamp out insurrection with his iron boot.
It is a bit like putting the lid on a pressure cooker to stop the water boiling dry: accusation is the heat source, the water is society, and the tight lid is the Big Brother solution to prevent the total dissolution of society. When that lid goes on, as it must eventually if the heat source continues to escalated hatred and fragmentation, democracy and liberty will be dead as they will be too fragile for a society that has lost all cohesion. And freedom of expression will be rescinded because it too easily triggers offence in the easily-offended. Is this really the future we want? If you are offended by those of another race, sex, religion or even species, how much more will you be offended by the Big Brother future of “a boot stamping on a human face – forever”? Now that really will be something to be offended about!
So in the short term, equalism can be beneficial. But in the long term, like staying on a medication too long, the side-effects out-weigh the benefits, and society is destroyed. This is why it is important to acknowledge racial differences. Such disclosure may not be pleasant for anyone concerned, and it may play into the hands of a truly racist minority, but the alternative of not disclosing the reality of racial differences will tear apart society and destroy the free and open nature of our current democratic system.
The ideal for Western democracies is for them to provide every citizen, regardless of race, sex and religion, with a tolerant, safe and stimulating environment, so that every citizen can reach their highest potential. That is the theory anyway. And compared to other societies around the world, Western democracies are certainly a relative paradise, which is why so many millions of migrants are flocking to them.
In our Western societies, all are equal in the eyes of the law and all adults have a single and equal vote. But this principle of equality is only an abstract for running a nation successfully, and we cannot extrapolate it for the entire human experience without grave consequences as we will be denying realities of differences. And whenever reality is denied, the fantasy that takes its place turns out to be more dangerous.
There are fundamental differences between the different races of human on this planet, and these differences must be acknowledged because they have real consequences. If the differences are denied, then their consequences, which cannot be denied as they are in our faces, will end up fuelling hatred and fragmentation because they will not make any sense outside of the fantasy of omnipresent racism and cultural theft.
Only if we acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that there are fundamental differences in different races and nationalities — such as with intelligence — then we prevent reality-compensatory fantasies from destroying our open and free societies. It is not a pleasant acknowledgement, but at the same time it is mandatory if we are to continue forward with a civilised, democratic society.
Perhaps like the aliens, we need to drop our short-term point-scoring and take a long-term intelligent perspective for the sake of our children and their children. And this will require us to accept unsavoury realities, but realities nonetheless.
I am surprised just how politically incorrect this essay turned out. As a free thinker, I am compelled to go where the ideas and research rationally and logically take me, and often I am surprised and sometimes discomforted by where I wind up. In this case, my discomfort is strong because I know this perspective deeply offends and upsets many people, but if we do not accept the unsavory reality of differences, the unreality of equalism will most certainly destroy free democracy. It might seem paradoxical that equalism fragments, but in the end, reality can never be denied even for the very best of ideals, and unification can never be ideologically enforced without turning into a tyranny.
If you want more info on IQ and race, without the politically correct spin, I would recommend watching one of Jordan Peterson's lectures on Youtube or one of Stefan Molyneux's videos. Both are highly rational and evidence-based thinkers.