Category: IQ

It’s all in the Genes

Plain facts.  Excerpts presented. Emphasis added.

Establishment Lie:

Environment is everything; nurture (or lack of it) is the key.

Truth:

Now, one of the country’s top psychologists and behavioural geneticists, Professor Robert Plomin, of King’s College London, offers an emphatic conclusion.

It is drawn from 45 years of research and hundreds of studies. He says the single most important factor in each and every one of us — the very essence of our individuality — is our genetic make-up, our DNA.

The basic building blocks of life that we inherit from our parents are what determine who we are — not how much they loved us, read us books or which school they sent us to.

And this, by extension, must also apply to ethnic and racial differences.  All the societal manipulations in the world won’t make a Negro into a Dane.

DNA accounts for at least half the variance in people’s psychological traits, much more than any other single factor. Put simply, ‘nature’ trumps ‘nurture’ every time, and not just marginally, but by a long, long chalk.

Our DNA, fixed and unchangeable, determines whether we have a predisposition not just to physical traits — from how tall we are to how much we weigh — but also to our intelligence and our psychology, from a tendency to depression to having resilience and grit. 

Plomin’s revolutionary conclusion — outlined in a challenging and thought-provoking new book, Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are — is a game-changer, he claims, with far-reaching implications for psychology and for society.

Chicago-born Plomin’s startling conclusions come from two of his long-term studies. Over the course of 40 years, he tracked 250 adopted children in Colorado along with the birth parents who gave them their genes, and the adoptive parents who raised them. After moving to London in 1994, he launched a 20-year study of more than 12,000 pairs of twins.

From these studies, it was possible to unravel the relative importance of genes as opposed to environment when it came to their development.

Millions of pieces of data were amassed from the parents, teachers and the children themselves, about psychological traits such as hyperactivity and inattention, talents such as school achievement and the ability to learn languages, and physical characteristics, such as the propensity to put on weight and become obese.

From all this, he found overwhelming evidence that adopted children are similar to their birth parents, not the parents who raised them. Identical twins (ie, from a single egg and therefore with the same DNA) develop much more similarly to each other as compared with non-identical twins (from separate eggs and with different DNA). 

The conclusion was clear — DNA makes us who we are. In the long term, the environment you grow up in has little impact on the way you turn out.

In fact, what really matters in such situations is our genes, because it is our genes that determine how well or badly an individual deals with such setbacks. And whether we’re resilient to life’s catastrophes or cave in is determined by our DNA, too.

Why shouldn’t the same apply to population groups?

In fact, Plomin argues, there are genetic influences in virtually everything we do. Those differences determine how we perceive and interpret the world we grow up in, and how we modify our behaviour accordingly.

As his research developed over the years, Plomin was taken by surprise by the all-pervasiveness of genetic influences he discovered in almost every aspect of human behaviour — even down to being a nice person or not.

Altruism, caring and kindness are components of what personality researchers call ‘agreeableness’, and for years it seemed logical to him that these traits had to be the result of the environment we live in and the influence of those around us.

But his research showed this was not the case. Being nice is also something in our DNA. The same goes for grit and determination. Nurture and example do not teach some children to be tougher than others, their genes do.

Consider differences between population groups in these traits.  Sorry, you cannot cherry pick and only apply these findings to atomized individuals.

All this leads Plomin to a conclusion that is hard to take: the family, he tells us, far from being the monolithic determinant of who we are, the bedrock from which we learn and grow, actually makes little difference to our personalities and the way we turn out.

The same applies to societies and races.

‘Each child is their own person genetically. We need to recognise and respect their genetic differences. If we go against the grain, we run the risk of damaging our relationship with them.’

Let’s rewrite:

Each race is their own population genetically. We need to recognise and respect their genetic differences. If we go against the grain, we run the risk of damaging our relationship with them – and risk damaging ourselves trying to fight Mother Nature.

Schools, he says, matter in that they teach basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. They also dispense fundamental information about history, science, maths and culture. But choice of school makes very little difference to a child’s achievement.

‘Genetics is by far the major source of individual differences in school achievement.’

As any multiracial society should be aware.

The same principle applies in the debate about private and state schools. If, as Plomin claims, schools have little effect on individual differences in achievement, then those 7 per cent of parents who pay huge sums to send their children to private schools in the belief that it will give them an advantage may well be wasting their cash.

Plomin writes: ‘Expensive schooling cannot survive a cost–benefit analysis on the basis of school achievement itself.’ 

If your genes fit, you’ll do well; and, if they don’t, no amount of cash can change the abilities you’re born with.

Negroes don’t perform badly because their schools are “bad.”  Their schools are bad because they’re the students in them.

Not that the influence of our DNA is confined to our early years when we’re growing up.

Indeed, Plomin shows that it gets stronger as we get older. More and more, we revert to type. Yes, other factors impact on us, such as our relationships with partners, children and friends, our jobs and interests. All contribute to give life meaning.

Which is why “Head Start” gains and other nonsense dissipate over time.

The same applies to anyone with a genetic propensity to depression, learning disabilities or alcohol abuse.

‘Genes are not destiny,’ says Plomin. You don’t have to succumb.

Perhaps, but you have limited options to change course, dependent upon your genetic blueprint.

It’s also good, he argues, that we can know our limits — those things that our DNA just won’t let happen, however hard we try.

Plomin quotes with approval the observation of American comedian W.C. Fields: ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no use being a damn fool about it.’

Can we then give up attempting equal outcomes on the basis of race?

Plomin’s radical new world may force us to bow to our genetic limits but, on the plus side, it will encourage us, like Alastair Cook, to do the best we can with the talents we’ve been given.

Some folks can land on the moon, others can layup basketballs.  It’s all in the genes.

Three implications of this story:

1. The predictive value of gene pool to phenotype correlations will be greater for populations than for families, since the intra-family variability in phenotypic expression – due to the “meiotic lottery” – would tend to be averaged out over the millions of people making up typical ethnies.  Thus, one could more reliably predict phenotypic expression from the allele frequencies in the genepool when considering (large) populations.

2. Significant and long-term improvements in various psychometric performances would require genetic change – and the most rapid and directed approach to achieve this change (other than futuristic gene editing) would be via eugenics.

3. This all underscores the mendacity of globalist shills who tell us that people who lose their jobs due to free trade, outsourcing, immigration, and automation can simply be “educated” and “retrained” to perform the more challenging, information-based “jobs of the future.”  No, that middle-aged coal miner is not going to become the next Bill Gates or Elon Musk (and, besides, some of these “advanced jobs” will themselves be eventually lost to the same processes that have hollowed out the American [blue collar] working class and middle class).

Advertisements

Rushton: The Rotten Empire Strikes Back

The pushback, lies, and spin about randy Blackjack Phil begins.

Absolute HBD scum try to salvage the reputation of the execrable race-mixing fraud Rushton by giving Dutton’s book bad reviews at Amazon.  Two examples are below, with my response.

This is a scholarly abomination, in which one of the worst “scientists” of recent times, Edward Dutton, endeavors to savage the reputation of the great J. Philippe Rushton. Dutton has hardly written a thing that wouldn’t cause anyone with an IQ over 115 to feel embarrassment for him. He is a blight on the HBD world with his sorry attempts at hereditarian research. Rushton, despite whatever personal flaws he may have had, left psychological science an original, important, and seminal body of theoretical and empirical work. By contrast, it seems Dutton’s sole notable effect in life has been to sully HBD with inane, maladroit, and logorrheic text. One must wonder how such an incompetent sees himself fit to accuse as fine a scientist as Rushton of academic misconduct.

First, and most importantly, is what Dutton wrote true or not?  If it is, then all this hysterical Type I defense of Rushton – himself the “scholarly abomination”- is so much hot air.  Second, how is it possible for anyone to “sully” HBD, when it is a laughably stupid pseudoscience, a pro-Jewish and pro-Asian political movement masquerading as “science?”  It’s no coincidence that so many HBDers have Jewish or Asian wives, girlfriends, or family members.  Rushton and his Jewish wife.  Derbyshire and Brand married to Asians.  Ray’s son involved in a relationship with an Asian.  Sailer once suggesting he had Jewish ancestry (his wife investigated his biological parents, according to a Sailer post from many years ago).  Hart and Levin are Jewish.  I don’t know about Lynn, but if he doesn’t have some sort of Jewish-Asian ties, he’s the exception that proves the rule.  Third, if Dutton is such a terrible scientist and an incompetent, then why does the “great man” himself – Richard Lynn – coauthor work with Dutton?  Does this reviewer consider Lynn to be a “scholarly abomination” as well (if so, perhaps the only good judgement shown by this reviewer)?

This book is trash. I knew Phil Rushton for a number of years, and he was a kind, honorable man, and a brilliant researcher.

Yeah, that’s great. But are Dutton’s accusations true?

Vintage Der Movement, Inc.  Hide from the truth.  Defend the good old boys network.  And be incredible hypocrites.  The hypocrisy is at many levels.  These guys like to quote Jefferson about valuing truth above all things and needing truth to be known by the world, but when it comes to criticizing Rushton (or Jews), then all of a sudden truth is out the window, and personal loyalty (or political expediency or monetary donations) is valued above all else.  In other cases though, personal loyalty is jettisoned, not for the sake of truth, but to peddle HBD lies.  The value of truth and of loyalty is on a sliding scale – as Sailer would say: Who?  Whom?  To defend a corrupt quota queen HBDer like Rushton, the personal loyalty triumphs and truth goes out the window.

Der Movement Inc. is absolutely despicable, utterly corrupt, skin-crawlingly loathsome, disgustingly degenerate, horrendously hypocritical, and based on a foundation of lies and corruption.  How could a cause so right and so pure be sullied by such absolute trash, such moral turds?

Genes for Intelligence and TOO Doubles Down

Keeping you informed.

First read this, emphasis added:

Intelligence is highly heritable 1 and a major determinant of human health and well-being 2 . Recent genome-wide meta-analyses have identified 24 genomic loci linked to variation in intelligence3-7, but much about its genetic underpinnings remains to be discovered. Here, we present a large-scale genetic association study of intelligence (n = 269,867), identifying 205 associated genomic loci (190 new) and 1,016 genes (939 new) via positional mapping, expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) mapping, chromatin interaction mapping, and gene-based association analysis. We find enrichment of genetic effects in conserved and coding regions and associations with 146 nonsynonymous exonic variants. Associated genes are strongly expressed in the brain, specifically in striatal medium spiny neurons and hippocampal pyramidal neurons. Gene set analyses implicate pathways related to nervous system development and synaptic structure. We confirm previous strong genetic correlations with multiple health-related outcomes, and Mendelian randomization analysis results suggest protective effects of intelligence for Alzheimer’s disease and ADHD and bidirectional causation with pleiotropic effects for schizophrenia. These results are a major step forward in understanding the neurobiology of cognitive function as well as genetically related neurological and psychiatric disorders.

Do any of these variants differ in frequency by race or ethnicity?

It looks like TOO and MacDonald are doubling down on their direction of recent years, emphasis added:

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, as American intellectuals were coming to grips with large-scale immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, the optimistic views of the future that were so typical of the nineteenth century were more and more difficult to defend, especially because a large number of the immigrants were (correctly) seen as politically radical and inassimilable.

Note the word “correctly.”  Thus, the position of TOO is that Southern and Eastern Europeans (which includes Tom Sunic also, I suppose, who writes for TOO) are inassimilable aliens who do not belong in America.  While I realize that is the implicit view of Der Movement, it is refreshing to see TOO so explicitly expressing an open disgust toward a significant fraction of Europe’s peoples.  That’s consistent with Amren, which praises Jews as HuWhite Men of the West, while attacking ethnies such as those hora-dancing Romanians, no men of the West they!

If anyone wonders why I stopped writing for both sites, that’s your answer.  And if that is the attitude in Der Movement, can you deny the validity of the existence of the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program?

IQ and Leadership

Part of the explanation?

Why “movement” leaders tend to be, in general, incompetent mediocrities leads to a number theories.  There is of course Der Movement’s stringent ethnic affirmative action program. The dominance of Der Movement by Type I activists, who favor their own, for leadership, also is a factor.  Dissident movements tend to draw in marginal personalities, while the elevation of defective freakishness repels the less marginal; the lack of suitable candidates leads to marginal leaders. Leaders are almost always overt and public activists, typically attracting people who have “little to lose” IRL (unless they are trust fund babies or the retired wealthy).

Another mechanism is that even when other variables are controlled for, the perception (perception, NOT reality) of who is an effective leader is related to the leader’s IQ, but in a curvilinear and not linear fashion.  Thus, assuming an average IQ of 100, the peak for optimal perceived leadership is an IQ of 120 – not only are dumber people perceived as less effective, but smarter ones as well. One can theorize mechanisms for this phenomenon, but it is what it is.  Emphasis added:

Although researchers predominately test for linear relationships between variables, at times there may be theoretical and even empirical reasons for expecting nonlinear functions. We examined if the relation between intelligence (IQ) and perceived leadership might be more accurately described by a curvilinear single-peaked function. Following Simonton’s (1985) theory, we tested a specific model, indicating that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership will appear at about 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group membership. The sample consisted of midlevel leaders from multinational private-sector companies. We used the leaders’ scores on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)-a measure of IQ-to predict how they would be perceived on prototypically effective leadership (i.e., transformational and instrumental leadership). Accounting for the effects of leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects, analyses indicated that perceptions of leadership followed a curvilinear inverted-U function of intelligence. The peak of this function was at an IQ score of about 120, which did not depart significantly from the value predicted by the theory. As the first direct empirical test of a precise curvilinear model of the intelligence-leadership relation, the results have important implications for future research on how leaders are perceived in the workplace.

This may be another explanation for “movement” failure.  120 IQ people are intelligent no doubt, but have limitations.  Most prominent “movement” leaders would tend to be in this range (Hello Alt Right!  Hello Alt Wrong!) and more intelligent and capable people are weeded out (and for other reasons such as those discussed above).

But, but, but…”what about William Pierce?” Der Movement mutters.  There are those other variables to consider: “leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects.”  Pierce benefited from ethnic affirmative action, although not particularly charismatic he had certain alpha male personality traits, he was tall and physically imposing, people respected him for giving up his academic career to associate with Rockwell, and there was a time/era effect – he came to prominence in an America more appreciative of the science/technical men; today’s Beavis-and-Butthead “movement” is unlikely to value an “egghead” physicist.

And consider Strom, likely equally intelligent, but never considered as leadership material even before his legal troubles.  Although ethnically acceptable, Strom’s personality and other traits could not compensate for a high-IQ (and likely contributed to a more negative view).  Gliebe was much more acceptable to the rank-and-file: how did that turn out?

Historically: Hitler was likely less intelligent than Goebbels, Mussolini less intelligent than Gentile or Evola, Codreanu less intelligent than Cuza, etc.  Francis Parker Yockey failed as a practical leader, and a careful reading of Coogan’s book suggests reasons why, some of which relate to Yockey’s own personality quirks and personal failings, but also because of jealousy over his obvious genius as well as the inability for him to effectively explain his concepts to the Type I riff-raff.

Getting around this problem would entail the high-IQ leader compensating like Pierce if possible, or surrounding himself with high-IQ advisers and listening to them, or a fundamental change in the “movement” that would allow it to overcome the societal prejudice against the higher-IQ.

Asian Invasion

Sallis right again.

Strom on the Chinese-Asian threat, which includes miscegenation.

That underscores the genocidal, anti-White evil of HBD “race realism” and the Derbyshire school of thought, never mind the masochistic yellow fever Silk Roaders.  Racial imperialism, indeed.

Please read this.

After writing about race-mixing Alt-Righters, we get this passage (below), and if you ignore the pathetic anti-racist screed sections and instead concentrate on the main message of Der Movement’s (sometimes literal) lovefest for Asians, it might as well have been lifted from posts at this blog (emphasis added):

But the nebulous acceptance of Asian people goes beyond the so-called “alt-right’s” dating preference; it’s baked into much of the ideology of white nationalism. Take, for example, the far right’s obsession with IQ tests, which builds off of junk intellectuals like Charles Murray, author of the infamous 900-page book, The Bell Curve, and Jason Richwine, a scholar who was fired from the Heritage Foundation after his racist dissertation was dug up (Richwine now writes for the National Review). With this, the far right loves to peddle the thoroughly debunked argument that differences in IQ tests show that black and Latinx people are genetically disposed to be “less intelligent” than white people.
The use of pseudo-science by racists to make their ideas sound more respectable is nothing new. Intellectual racism persists, but the guises change. While Bell Curve-era “race science” was once all the rage, now the online alt-right bangs out WordPress blogs about “human biodiversity” written by users with monikers like hbdchick.
But one pesky problem for racists is that East Asians actually score higher on IQ tests than white people. (As do Ashkenazi Jews, a fact rendered even more complicated when dealing with neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic segments of the far-right.) “It’s almost like [the alt right] having to make that sacrifice,” Keegan Hankes from the Southern Poverty Law Center told me. “If your whole world view is based on this idea that there are meaningful genetic differences, you have to acknowledge that Asians score higher on IQ tests.”
Jared Taylor, who runs the white nationalist website American Renaissance and is one of the most avid hawkers of racist IQ theories, expounded on the “good culture” of East Asians in an interview with Splinter. Taylor spent the first 16 years of his life in Japan and speaks fluent Japanese. He told me that “if whites are to be replaced by some populations other than themselves, it would be better that they be replaced by Asians.”

Now, let’s see: where have you read someone warning you about the HBD Alt-Wrong, and their yellow supremacist ideology?  Where have you read someone warning you that HBD is a political movement meant to advance Jewish/Asian interests over that of Whites?  Where have you read about the IQ obsession of Der Movement’s HBD precincts, the stupidity of taking a disgusting creature like HBDCunt seriously?  Yes, you are correct: at EGI Notes.  Sallis, and only Sallis, will tell you the truth about the HBDers and their lickspittle admiration of, and promotion of the interests of, West Asians (Jews), East Asians, and, to a lesser extent, South Asians.  It’s all Asia, all the time.  Interested in what’s good for Whites?  This is the blog for you. If you are instead interested in self-hating yellow supremacist Whites, race-mixers, sexually deranged masochists who want to be ordered around by Chinese girls with guns, idiots who think Chinese “maidens” and deep state Japanese “shady ladies” are their allies, who are led by the nose (or another body part) by Asiatic honeypots, who value Asia over Europe, who do the bidding of their Jewish/Asian masters – well, you know where to find them.

It’s your choice.

Some Great News! And Some Derbyshire Bits

How did I miss this good news?  Another HBDer and race-mixer bites the dust.

From the tear-stained ramblings of the execrable John Ray:

IN MEMORIAM: CHRIS BRAND 

The last 12 hours have been very tearful for me. After a long battle, Chris Brand has just passed away…Something that upsets me about Chris’s death is that I could have prevented it if I had known earlier what I know now.  He died in an NHS (government) hospital of hospital-borne infections. He got one after another, progressively weakening him until he had nothing left to fight with.  NHS hospitals are riddled with hospital borne infections and Scottish NHS hospitals are said to be worse even than English ones…Curse and goddam the NHS! 

…Chris’s wife, Dr. Shiou-Yun Fang…is from Taiwan…

All I have to say is bless and all praise the beloved NHS!


I know there are some who will say it is “unpleasant and unseemly” to be cheerful over someone’s death.  No doubt this will be ascribed to my “insanity” and/or “bitterness.”  No, it is completely logical. As readers of this blog are well aware, I consider (and with good reason) HBD as an anti-White political movement that delegitimizes White racial nationalism in favor of a pro-Jewish and pro-Asian “cognitive elitism.”  I have, in great detail, analyzed this aspect of HBD; thus, I view a White male HBDer married to a Chinese female as functionally equivalent to a White male traitor who spies for China at the behest of a female Chinese “honeypot” agent.  Question: if Merkel were to suddenly die of an illness, what would the “movement’s” reaction be?  You know very well there would be significant joy in many quarters; to my mind, there is no real difference between Merkel and Brand.  I’m not going to mourn the passing of someone who attacks White racial interests, and supporters of HBD do indeed, in my opinion, attack those interests.

On a side note: if it was so obvious, even to Brisbane Johnny, that NHS hospitals are unsafe, why didn’t Brand’s high-IQ waifu realize this?  And if Ray and Brand were such close friends why didn’t Ray know what hospital Brand was in?  All these folks are such cognitive elitists, and the most fundamentally basic and important facts just pass over their heads.  Are these the betters of all you pro-White activists out there?

This VDARE post is full of all sorts of amusing tidbits (and the great news about Chris Brand of which I was unaware – thank you Mr. Derbyshire for brightening up my day and providing the topic for the first part of this blog post), including an item Derb mentions about which I have some inside information – information of which Derbyshire is quite obviously completely unaware – but of which I’m not at liberty to write about.  On a wholly unrelated (of course! of course!) matter, here’s an interesting book.

Some other items about, or relevant to, Derbyshire:

Merry HBD Christmas, Suckers: 2017

Some observations.

I have previously written, repeatedly, on how HBD is a political movement, with concrete political objectives, including, but not limited to, hostility to White nationalism and promotion of the competing ideology of cognitive elitism, which is a thinly disguised attempt to enhance the status and power of Jews and Asians in the USA and throughout the West as a whole.

In this regard, the obsessive promotion of the “Hajnal line” narrative can be reasonably seen as an important component of the HBD political toolkit, designed to turn Europeans against each other, and disrupt the organic solidarity of Europe, the West, and the racial nationalist project.

It is certainly interesting that one never observes HBDers – or their sycophants in Der Movement – using the Hajnal narrative against, for example, Jews (huWhite Men of the West), East Asians, or others of interest (e.g., certain non-White HBD bloggers and their offspring who look like they were expelled from their mothers by defecation rather than by parturition). No, it is always used against rowdy Russkis, drunken Micks, swarthoid Afrowops, Iberian dagoes, greasy Balkanoids, and all those nasty Cuman-derived alien Romanians dancing the Hora – all the flotsam and jetsam of Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as that of the extreme Celtic fringe.

Speaking of ethnocentrism, for example, to the extent that trait actually differs within Europe (and the refugee crisis and the European response raises the question as to whether it actually does), it’s a mysterious coincidence that the more geographically peripheral areas of Europe that have historically been the subject of multiple invasions and occupations (by both Europeans and non-Europeans) are precisely those regions thought to be more ethnocentric.  It’s almost as it – perish the thought! – that an ethnic memory of repeated invasions, occupations, repressions, etc. by various peoples, including but not limited to Mongols, Turks, Moors, Saracens, etc. (never mind the French and German invasions of Russia and the enormous loss of life those, particularly the second, caused), have left behind a population distrustful of outsiders and more willing to defend the group from such outsiders.  Baffling it all is!  And, it’s almost as if regions of Europe historically secured against repeated AfroAsiatic invasion, and which never suffered the sort of trauma inflicted on Russia from Western Europe, would naturally be – shocking it all is! – less sensitive to being “triggered” by outside incursions.

No, let’s invent all sorts of HBD theories to explain it – as long as the extreme ethnocentrism of Jews is never, ever discussed (they are huWhite, after all).  Likewise, by analogy, the “Napoleonic complex” would be explained by HBDers as some sort of “genetic inherited behavioral trait biochemically linked to shortness” and not as the result of a learned behavioral reaction to the manner in which male height differences are dealt with by society.

Curiously, the HBD propensity to explain everything biologically stops at the entrance to the synagogue or to the Chinese restaurant (with the notable exception of constantly praising Jewish and East Asian high IQ).  Certainly, we will look in vain for a treatment at Amren about how Jews are alien to the West or about how East Asians reflect Down’s syndrome phenotypes.  After all, those degenerate Romanians are still dancing the Hora – long may it turn.

It are, by the way, Type I activists who are almost exclusively the ones so easily manipulated by the HBDers; Type II activists are for the most part immune (one can only imagine what Yockey would have thought about it).  This is yet another reason why the dominance of Type I activists in Der Movement is such a disaster and why more equitable power-sharing with Type II activists is absolutely required.

Merry Christmas, all you Type I suckers!  Long may you turn on your puppet strings manipulated by your HBD puppeteers.