Saturday, June 30, 2007

"Better Green than Dead"

My plan was to change to other topics, but there has been so much cognitive dissonance from Christian readers in my comments section, that they force me to stay on the topic of Christianity/Islam for a while. I started my blog with criticizing Christan ethics, with which I specifically referred to its inversion of values--weakness as virtue and strength as evil--which is also shared by liberalism. Recently I've brought up the issues of anecdotal conservatism and the monotheistic connection. Obviously the Christians, coming to my site, are eager to force me to have these defects generalized, to hold for Christianity in general. Each of them have their different touch to it, but they are all entangled in anecdotal conservatism and the monotheistic weakness, one way or the other.

In his exchange with Geza1, Desmond Jones writes:

How can whites in ultra-liberal England be any worse off under Sharia than they currently are? England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Wales and the North of England, still overwhelmingly white, have illegitimacy rates over 50%.
A Sharia society is clearly preferable to Desmond Jones over the contemporary West. His motivation lies in miniature issues of anecdotal conservatism. A corollary to Jones' proposition is that something is won if an "ultra-liberal" non-Christian converts to Islam.

- - - - - - - - - -
Desmond Jones continues:

However, as abhorrent as Islam may be, it's still the case that religions come and go, however, extinction is forever. And if mass immigration from non-European lands continues,and low fertility rates persist, competition with various tribes or races, through violence or absorption by inter-marriage ultimately means extinction. Better Islam, than extinction.
Jones' attitude is a surrender. It is parallel to the "Better Red than Dead" meme of the Cold war. In fact Jones' position is an illustration of how Islam is to Christians, what Communism is to liberals. In both cases they see Islam/Communism as bad and objectionable, but not as bad and evil as some aspect of the West; what they perceive as the prevailing order of the West. This prevailing order of the West is so bad in their eyes, that it is not worth fighting for, and they are prepared to surrender before an external enemy. An external enemy, which they do not even see as much as an enemy as a rival. A rival whose rule would be an improvement in their eyes, a step in the right direction to fight evil, as they perceive it.

If European civilization is going to be saved, we need to be prepared to die for it, not surrender because we are perplexed by the presence of drugs and hookers in Amsterdam. The conservative Christians involved in this debate have shown their preference for monotheism and anecdotal conservatism before European civilization. The Christian god of goodness and universalism, thus, does not provide a substance for a defense of European civilization. It's more likely to become a Trojan Horse for letting in Islam. The Christian god is already a foreign god, so the step for letting in the Arabic god is not such a huge step. Especially since the Christians tend to see the Muslims as brothers in Abrahamic monotheism and anecdotal conservatism (issues about homosexuality, abortion, birth control, etc.)

Modern liberalism, as bad as it is, is temporary. It's naively universalist, but does not have the special connection to Islam which Christianity has. What's happening in the present is that we see more and more liberals being mugged by reality and coming out calling for a moratorium on immigration, all while, at the same time, we see more and more Christians coming out saying "better Islam than liberalism".

Desmond Jones, as so many conservative Christians, is panicking about low birth rates. He uses this panic for associating the present West with "extinction". He see the contemporary West as the culture of death (cf. anecdotal conservatism). And he see Islam as life. Therefore his preference of Islam over modern liberalism. But as I have shown in my two articles about Catholicism and birth rates (part 1 and part 2): Low birth rates is a problem, but a problem with a very slow demographic effect, compared to the demographic invasion of Islam, which will dominate us in the mid of this century, even if we would change to birth rates above replacement level already tomorrow.

Furthermore, the Western countries with high number of Christian believers generally have the lowest birth rates, while the secular countries generally are on a much healthier level. But I have learned so far in this debate, that Christians seldom let themselves be confused with facts. Logic seem to be alien to them too, as we see in the cognitive dissonance of Desmond Jones and Jim Kalb when they say that modern liberalism with its mass immigration is so bad, that it is better we are invaded by Islam. They really need to make up their minds on whether they want to be invaded by aliens or not. This position of Desmond Jones and Jim Kalb is an intellectual and mental collapse.

38 comments:

xlbrl said...

A few minor, even useless, points jump at me from Jones writing.
Absent any immigration whatever--not an change I ever expect to see--the unsustainable European birth-rate would be self-correcting in two or three generations. Those people who had no children or one child would mathematically eliminate themselves not only from the population, but from the culture, however torturous that ending was. In fact, the only way for them to continue, essentially, dominating the culture, is through immigration, however noxious.
Jones asks how an Islamic Europe could be worse than that of welfare, illegitimacy, obesity, drug use, and crime. Use your imagination, man, or look at Palestine, if you don't have one.
There is nothing modest or conservative about a repressed culture. There is more pure perversion and truly sick behavior in Islamic societies than anywhere.
Finally, perhaps we do not need to accept that we have monotheism in common with Islam. I have avoided reading the Koran and other Islamic sources, unlike you, Swede. But I am confident in Hoffer's assertion that to understand a man's religion we need not listen to his professions of faith but must find his brand of intolerance. So, I see Islam as the worship of an idol, Muhammed. I do not see where Allah has nearly the significance of Muhammed, at least as it affects our lives. It would seem the worship of many gods or idols is preferable to one, judgeing by the results. The concentratin of power, or dysfunction, has been lethal in one.

Tobbe said...

It took a break with Auster to make you see that these people are really traitors. You compare them to the left during the cold war. A more appropriate comparison may be the marxists in the Weimar Republic or perhaps the global anarchist in our own time who welcome every challenge to the peaceful order and status quo no matter where it comes from.

The Nationalist said...

Millions of Muslims have arrived to Europe.

Do you want that those people adopt Western ways and abandon Islam or should they continue to practise Islam and isolate themselves from the rest of the society?

I presume that Conservative Swede and other neo-cons would pick the former alternative. However, we should blame the existence of those Muslims who assimilate and become economically if not socially productive members of the community for the continuity of liberal policies.

A real patriot would pick the latter alternative. It has numerous advantages.

When the Muslims do not assimilate they are less likely to marry native women which helps to preserve the ethnic identity of the people.

The Muslims retain their culture and language which justifies the humanity of resettling them to their native countries.

The Muslims are more likely to engage in crime, terrorism and other forms of anti-social behavior which fuels anti-immigrant sentiment in the native population.

The only hope of Europe is to have authoritarian nationalist governments in power. This cannot happen unless a substantial segment of the population defies existing social order. In the 1920s and 1930s the Communists were that segment and consequently many European countries embraced Fascism or other forms of authoritarianism.

Muslims have all the potential of being the modern Communists. But their acts need to become more outrageous and unacceptable.

Conservative Swede said...

@ xlbrl

You share many interesting thoughts here. You've got the right idea about Islam. Regarding birth rate it will have to go up, but this is not nearly as urgent a problem as the one with Islamic population explosion inside the West. And the way to solve it is definitely not by adapting Islam.

Anyway, having a second look at Desmond Jones comments, there is another angle to it. As when he writes "at least a white Islamic [European] country will see increased birth rates". His main interest might instead be in the preservation of European genes, no matter what the culture is. (A future with white supremacists shouting Allahu Akbar.) But an obsession with genes or an obsession with monotheism, both give the same result here, in that they find European culture a secondary issue, and not the thing they are ultimately concerned about preserving.

@ The Nationalist

You call me a "neo-con"? You got me all wrong. Go back in my archive to the posts I made in April and read about my criticism and denunciation of democratism and Wilsonianism. And you will realize that you made a mistake.

And of course the issue is not whether the Muslims should assimilate or not! We should simply reverse the Muslim immigration; making them leave. There are many ways.

The only hope of Europe is to have authoritarian nationalist governments in power.

Yes. I think it might come to this. This is definitely a possibility. The only way to save the current system , as I see it, is to declare a state of war. As proper war, not the phony kind that Bush is fighting. A state of war would trigger the war laws of our constitutions, which would allows us to deal with the problem without overthrowing the system. But I'm not holding my breath...

But [the Muslims] acts need to become more outrageous and unacceptable.

Yes we should use that as part of our tactic. The Muhammad burning in Denmark is a good example. Something that a site as Gates of Vienna approves of (read here). Something it has come to my attention that the Christians in general (and I assume including Lawrence Auster) shun away from.

Conservative Swede said...

Tobbe,

Your comment is crazy. Emotional gibberish verging on hysteria. Since you claim that Christians in general are traitors. Also you imply that there should be a community where this view is already held, something that would be obvious, but that I missed due to my friendship with Lawrence Auster (why don't you provide us with sources?)

I would like to remind you that two of the best fighters against Islam that we have are Christians: Robert Spencer and Lawrence Auster. Are you suggesting that they are traitors?

Yes, I do criticize Spencer and Auster for not going deep enough, in different aspects, quite as the two of them criticize Daniel Pipes for not going deep enough. To generalize and denounce a whole group of Westerners as traitors in this way is crazy and counterproductive. Yes, there seems to be a treasonous seed in Christianity with regards to Islam, and this is what I am investigating. This is a complex issue. But way to deal with it is not to cause divisions within the West. This will only make us weaker toward Islam. My prime ambition is to have a dialog and convince these Christians that they are wrong.

It took a break with Auster to make you see that these people are really traitors.

By making the connection to Auster, Tobbe makes it clear that his "them" does not merely refer to the Desmond Joneses, but to Christians in general.

A more appropriate comparison may be [...] the global anarchist in our own time who welcome every challenge to the peaceful order and status quo no matter where it comes from.

Hysterical gibberish.

The Nationalist said...

"And of course the issue is not whether the Muslims should assimilate or not! We should simply reverse the Muslim immigration; making them leave. There are many ways."

I agree. But I must ask you why your focus is specifically on Muslim immigrants?

The real threat is not that Muslims are going to vote an Islamic party to power. There are too many liberal constitutional safeguards and the Muslims lack the real political will and cohesiveness to do so. If Sharia law was enforced in Europe 50 percent of young Muslim men would be punished as thieves and lose their hands.

Other Third World immigration is actually just as bad as Muslim immigration. The unemployment rates among the immigrants are abysmally high. They also act as a political block pushing for more immigration and welfare. The prime motivation of immigrants is actually ethnic solidarity as they invite their countrymen to share the European riches.

The result is that there will be too few tax-paying citizens to support the large population which is not working. This leads to rising taxes and an exodus of talented workers and industry.

Ultimately, European societies will collapse economically.

sbchurl said...

I believe Lawrence Auster is Jewish, not Christian.

The Nationalist said...

Auster is a Christian born to a Jewish family.

Desmond Jones said...

You liberals, as might be expected, do not account for racial/ethnic differences. At least one reason a white Islamic Europe would not resemble Palestine is that the European mean IQ is at least one full deviation above the Arab IQ. Using your analysis, the Christian Jamaica comparison would condemn all white Christian nations to poverty, illegitimacy and high levels of crime. Did Pagan Europe surrender to Abraham's second act? Should Pagan Europe have fought to the death in resistance to Christianity?

Christianity, as David Sloan and Kevin MacDonald have shown proved adaptive for Europeans. More Christians than pagans survived plague, war and displacement. Ultra-liberalism is maladaptive. It portends ethnic extinction for all the reasons listed above. How long can whites in the West endure race-replacement before, as Darwin explains they are diminished, displaced and ultimately made extinct? A Western syncretic white Islam, appears at this point in time, to be the equivalent of the highly invigorated Abrahamic faith that won Europe over, so many years ago.

The Nationalist said...

@Desmond Jones,

Islam is repressive and unattractive to the vast majority of White Europeans who have generally embraced the liberal style of life and value system.

They are not going to convert to Islam in significant numbers in the foreseeable future because of its religious content.

95% of the White people converting to Islam do so because they marry (usually non-White) Muslims. Their children will not be White and are likely to marry other non-Whites.

In an Islamic tyranny conversions would have sufficient (economic) benefits that they would become common. However, the European states are not going to become Islamic before they are bankrupt.

Thus, Muslims of European descent will always be oddities like they are today.

Dean McConnell said...

As a believer in Biblical orthodox protestant Christianity I would actually prefer a secular Europe to a Muslim Europe.

The issue is still truth. I maintain the truth of Biblical Christianity. Secular Europeans will eventually recognize the moral bankruptcy and lack of virtue in their nihilist lifestyles. When that occurs they may be open to a reconversion to real Christianity instead of the liberal pseudo-Christianity or secularism they are familiar with now. But a decadent liberal Europe will likely still have the right to discuss and convert. An Islamic Europe may have better outward moral tone but will repress truth and discussion and conversion just as Islam does everywhere.

But I also reject the notion that Islamic societies are actually especially moral. they reject some of the favorite sins of the west, but they have their own sins and blindness-es that are just as bad.

The success of the west is due to the legacy of living Christianity. Now that Europe has dead Christianity it is slowly dying. If it becomes Islamic it will not revive - it will become like other Islamic societies to the degree it really accepts Islam.

Conservative Swede said...

The following sequence of comments, generated by the off-topic comment by Desmond Jones, has been moved here from the thread Like Night and Day, where they didn't belong.

There are some people here who have their pet topic, that they will try to wedge into all and any discussion threads. In the future, such comments will just simply be deleted by me, along with any answers to it. So if a comment is way off-topic, it might be a good idea not to answer to it. Stay within the topic. A topic may of course diverge (within reasonable frames) as the discussion thread evolves. Initial comments that are off-topic are likely to be deleted though.

-----

Desmond Jones said...

How is Auster throwing over his race (a point of contention in his case)? How was Charlemagne throwing over his race by campaigning for Christian conversion, often brutally?

The option is loony, liberal, multicultural hell-hole versus Islam. Modern paganism versus Abraham's third chapter? Which is more likely to ensure reproductive fitness? Which is likely to move whites to survival levels of fertility and a greater sense of in-group altruism? Which is more likely to eschew the disastrous belief in the supremacy of atomism and move whites to a greater sense of the collective good? Which is more likely to ensure whites have the numbers to face migratory threats, most likely from the ever burgeoning populations of Africa, whether Muslim or Christian?
July 03, 2007 5:56 AM

The Nationalist said...

@Desmond Jones

"Which is likely to move whites to survival levels of fertility and a greater sense of in-group altruism?"

Nationalism and racialism are forbidden in Islam. This is not the case with Christianity.

Islam is not going to solve the fertility problem because the vast majority of liberal Westerners are not going to convert to a religion they consider repressive and Medieval.

Those who convert do so because they want to marry a Muslim and have non-White babies. How does that help us?
July 03, 2007 6:59 AM

geza1 said...

The claim that Auster is throwing over his race was never made. Charlemagne did not throw over his race either since he was working with the same gene pool and decided not to import, let's say, Ethiopian Christians to teach Europeans about Christianity.

Liberalism has more in common with Christianity than paganism. Paganism is relativistic and self-contained whereas Christianity is universalistic and expansionist. Liberalism is the secularized form of Christianity.

Abraham's third chapter? Why not skip that chapter and go to the fourth (Mormonism) or the fifth (Baha'i)? Mormons have a high birth rate, more racial consciousness than other Christians, and out of non-Jewish Americans, the highest mean IQ. Converting to Islam would be dysgenic.

Via Inductivist:

Religion/IQ/n

CHRISTIAN 94 (46)
- Protestant 97 (10,513)
- Catholic 98 (4,710)
- Mormon 104 (19)
- Orthodox 87 (14)
- Internon 100 (32)

JEWISH 107 (433)
- Orthodox 102 (14)
- Conservat 107 (79)
- Reform 107 (113)
- Other 103 (51)

NONE 101 (1706)
- Atheist 105 (50)
- Agnostic 104 (82)

MUSLIM 86 (21)

HINDU 90 (17)

BUDDHIST 93 (22)

Christianity is not hostile to the idea of peoplehood and nation but it can be. Islam most certainly is, unless you are an Arab or Persian. Islam is more inclined towards Empire, but the colonial powers forced it into nation states, and the Muslims resent that. European paganism would actually be the best route for increasing in-group altruism since race has a cosmic significance.
July 03, 2007 5:11 PM

Desmond Jones said...

The Nationalist;

Nationalism and racialism are forbidden in Islam. This is not the case with Christianity.

Nationalism and racialism are forbidden under liberalism as well.

Those who convert do so because they want to marry a Muslim and have non-White babies.

Secular whites marry interracially far more than whites who desire to marry a Muslim. However, in each case whites are intermarrying more because of mass immigration and the growing proximity of non-whites. The choices are two; mass non-white immigration that if left undeterred by liberal white elites, and continuing low white fertility rates, will end in the diminishment and/or absorbtion of whites. Islam will bring greater upward pressure on fertility than the progressively asexual ultra-liberalism.

geza1;

Although both visions of the future seem bleak, I could not see throwing over my civilization (and race) to avoid the ghastly twilight of liberal utopia.

The quote from the CS frontpage.

Liberalism is the secularized form of Christianity.

Liberalism is godless and eviscerates any adaptive features of Christian morality. Examine Nordic pagan sexuality patterns and it will be apparent that liberalism is modern paganism, currently less violent, however, progressively less civil. It's Clockwork Orange writ large.

Mormonism is very attractive from an evolutionary perspective however, it too, is suffering the effects of its proximity to atheistic liberalism, showing declining birth rates. In its current form, it is not nearly as aggressive and vital as Christianity was and Islam currently is.

Islam is not dysgenic. Liberalism is. The most intelligent secular women are having the least number of children. Islamic mean IQ is low because it is focused upon low mean IQ groups. Overlay a mean IQ map of the world and compare it to an Islamic map of the world and view the correlation. The Christian mean falls below the European mean because it includes Metizos/SS Africans.

European paganism would actually be the best route for increasing in-group altruism since race has a cosmic significance.

Are you advocating National Socialism? Hitler raised German birth rates by 18%.

Desmond Jones said...

That's the whole point though Mr. McConnell a secular Europe will become a Muslim Europe.

Why does CS wish the diminishment and extinction of his own people? Ultra-liberalism is slow motion genocide and those who wish to preserve it are genocidal.

Conservative Swede said...

Thank you for your sensible words, Mr McConnell. With your tempered disposition you here express important features, the essence, of the Christian West. The Christian West as we once knew it, as it should be, and as we would hope for it to be in the future. Your words mean a ray of hope, in a time of darkness and dissonance.

The Nationalist said...

Desmond exaggarates the problem of low fertility. Europeans aren't going to die out; our numbers will just be smaller.

Europe could never become so weak that it couldn't defend itself from external threats. European nations have the the power (but not the will) to stop the immigration. The population explosion in Africa facilated by Western aid is not a threat as the Africans are hardly going to raise an army and invade.

There are already enough non-Whites in Europe that if the populations are going to amalgamate White people as we know them will be gone. Intermarriage and mass immigration would continue in an Islamic Europe.

There is nothing more ridiculous than a White racist who wants that Europe will be Islamized. Desmond, Stormfront may be the place for you.

Desmond Jones said...

Power + no will = impotence
Will + no power = impotence
No will + no power = impotence

What's the difference?

The power of nuclear deterrence is imbedded in the will to use nuclear weapons.

Africans, like Mexicans/Mestizos, don't need an army. Mass immigration will suffice. If Islam intermarries racially, then why are all those Pakistani Muslims in the UK returning home for brides?

Au contraire; what's worse than a white racist who wishes to preserve European peoples in their homelands, a white liberal who advocates their genocide for abandoning the remnants of Western "civilization".

Isn't liberalism wonderful? :)

geza1 said...

Desmond Jones,

Again.

Nobody is calling Auster a race traitor. Kalb isn't one either. The problem I have with Auster is that he has no problem criticizing Buchanan when he takes the side of the Muslims against the secularists but his criticisms of Kalb for taking an equally awful position viz Islam and liberalism are anemic. Kalb isn't a race traitor because he simply doesn't understand what would happen to Europe if it converted to Islam. It would not stay white for long, especially in the age of globalism.

"Are you advocating National Socialism? Hitler raised German birth rates by 18%."

I was talking about pure strategy, since that is what you are clearly intersted in judging by your comments on Islam. Whatever your thoughts on paganism are, I think it is undeniable that as far as religions go, paganism would guarantee the best chance for racial cohesion. Isn't it funny how you are concerned about pagan sexual mores but not Islamic ones which, in my opinion, are far far worse?

"Islam is not dysgenic."

The highest IQ Muslims can be found in Malaysia (92), Turkey (90), Indonesia (89), Iraq (87 - Same IQ as Mexico!), and Lebanon (86 - 40% Christian). I would also add the higher caste Muslims from South Asia. The best Muslim professionals come from there. Other than Turks, and SE Asians, they are probably the only Muslims capable of breaking 100 consistently.

The highest IQ Muslim nation is only 60% Muslim and it ranks below such intellectual juggernauts like Uruguay and Portugal. Other than SE Asia and Turkey, the rest of Muslim countries have the same IQ as the Mezos or lower.

"The Christian mean falls below the European mean because it includes Metizos/SS Africans."

And who's bright idea was it to spread Christianity to these hell holes?

Desmond Jones said...

geza1,

You can call Auster whatever you want. He is like the Jewish father, who believes consistency is the hob-goblin of small minds.

Even if we accept your position on paganism, the paganism you describe is 1)much different than liberalism, (where white/black/brown and yellow birth rates are falling like apples on a ripe tree and 2)is not even on the horizon since WWII. Christianity, during it's ascendancy, strictly denied non-reproductive sex and enforced monogamy for reason beyond this discussion, resulting in higher survival rates than the pagan world. And yes Islam's polygany and misogyny are problematic, however, from an evolutionary perspective Islam has been highly adaptive; i.e. enhances reproductive fitness.

Strategically then, low birth rates, some interracial marriage and mass immigration equals displacement and absorption. However, higher birth rates, some interracial marriage and mass immigration (which may be slowed by a higher white birth rate) equals a fighting chance for survival. It's not the best solution by any means, however, it beats extinction.

Islam did not produce low mean IQs in these countries, evolution did. In the same fashion, Christianity did not create high IQ Europeans. Evolution was the driver.

Spreading Christianity to these "hell-holes" is not problematic. Compare pagan Mestizos, i.e. Aztecs, to Christian Mexicans. Christianity did not make them Mensa students however, it was adaptive.

The problem is bringing distant genetic elements from these lands to Europe or the European diaspora countries.

xlbrl said...

Well, Swede, I'm off in the woods three days and I see your blog is getting jammed up quickly.
No, I had not noticed Jones desire to keep European genetic numbers up at even the cost of being Muslim. That provides a self-evident example of the disconnect between intelligence and reason. I am tending toward the often stated observation that reasoning skills actually decrease as intelligence increases. If true, I do not know if it would be due to physiological reasons, or merely that a very bright individual's vanity is more likely to get in the way of clear thinking.
It is well to remember, as we are being proud of IQ's and accomplishments, a few other things.
That caucasian genie didn't escape from the lamp with Socrates, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, and all those Enlightenment thinkers plus that little genius bastard Hamilton, without dragging some nasty cats in. Very nasty. They are pretty close to running the show right now, and we barely have a plan for stopping them. Proud of Marx too, are we?
As a number of my boys point out, our vices and virtues are so close together, you can't kill the one without killing the other. Maybe that's what the Europeans are up to--killing them both. Civilizations end by suicide, not murder.
That, and it takes a great mind to create a truly horrible idea.
This IQ issue as it is expressed often by some writers here is really stupid. Why mince words? The IQ's of immigrants into this country from Portugal, Italy, and Spain in the 1920's was between 70 and 80 with the Portugese being the lowest. One generation of food and other stimulation in America--not the schools, surely-- changed that.
Undoubtedly there are significant differences by ethnic group in intelligence and talents, all things being equal, but those numbers being quoted are meaningless to our purposes. When we exaggerate our argument, we weaken it. A difference of five or ten points in groups is quite large enough to create notable differences. It is only the genius who runs far ahead.
One thing you may be absolutely certain of--the higher the intelligence, the higher the likelihood of mental defect of moderate to grave degree. Michael Weiner is correct in saying that liberalism is a mental disorder, not a point of view. Weiner is himself an example that of intelligence and madness thin partitions do those bonds divide. That is exactly the issue we are constantly addressing, like it or not. The Muslims only exist as the factor they are because of the great weaknesses we have created in ourselves. We have sucked them into our character vacum. The vexing problem is us. The Muslims are simple.

The Nationalist said...

Few European women would be willing to bring a child to an Islamic Europe. Would the European women be relegated to sexual slavery? Granted, it is a possibility in Islam.

Birth rates in the Islamic countries which are economically developed are relatively low. For instance, in Algeria the fertility rate is 1.89 children born / woman which is below the replacement rate.

For comparison, the fertility rate of Finland is 1.73. Would it be worth to sacrifice whole Western heritage for some imagined benefit?

Desmond Jones said...

Firstly, the discussion was Europeans, nor Caucasians. Marx, genetically speaking, is a semite, more closely related to the people of the Levant and Jewish diaspora than Europeans.

Portuguese, Italian, Spanish IQs at 70/80 is a flat out lie, especially Northern Italians who have one of Europe's highest mean IQs.

According to the recent Norwegian study on first borns a 2-3 point difference is significant.

Mental defects & intelligence; what does that say about the Jews, who have the highest mean IQ and are enormously over-represented in intellectual endeavours. Read La Griffe du Lion's Smart Fraction piece. The size od a society's smart fraction, >108, determines much of it's success.

The Muslims are simple alright. Simply overwhelming if mass migration continues.

Nationalist,

It a good point vis-a-vis Algeria. However, as you go deeper into Africa, Nigerian birth rates are what 6, 7, 8?

Sex slaves or just living in an environment that encourages women, if with high IQs, to have babies.

Finland has no immigration to speak of, does it? The point was to address those societies overwhelmed or becoming overwhelmed by mass immigration.

Make the ghost of Enoch Powell the UK's PM and embraced England's modern day maladaptiveness, but that's not the case. The English people are already living in dhimmitude, second class citizens in their own homeland, while we wait for a great polar wind to blow away the stench of liberalism.

xlbrl said...

No, Mr. Jones, I don't post flat out lies. Mistakes, occasionally. This isn't one of them.
I didn't write that the Portugese, Spanish, and Italians had IQ's in the 70 to 80 range, but that those immigating to America, in the 1920's, were so measured by the U.S. Government at Ellis Island. Got it? Your quarrel isn't with me.
If you actually have one, because you make my point in your next sentence. A difference of a few IQ points is significant. So, twenty or thirty points in large groups represent cultural and sensory deprivation, not genetic differences.
You apparently also misunderstand, or I was unclear, about mental defect rising with intelligence. Mental defect does not imply less intelligent. Schizophrenia, for example, is a disease almost unknown outside the highly intelligent. The list of maladies and peculiarities among the intelligent is really quite extensive. That is the price paid. Nobody is lining up asking to be stupid.

The Nationalist said...

xlbrl,

IQ tests were biased against people who didn't speak English well and came from other cultures in the 1920s. If those Spanish and Portuguese immigrants had been tested with modern tests they would have scored well.

However, there is no evidence that the Western society will ever have a positive impact on the Muslim communities living in Europe. Just look at the inability of even 3rd-generation Turkish immigrants to assimilate to German mainstream society.

culture fair and predict scholastic achievement well.

xlbrl said...

nationalist,

Actually, the immigrants being assesed for IQ didn't speak English at all. Therefore, language was not a factor in the test.
My information is from a long examination presented in the Wilson Quarterly thirty years ago that was an investigation not into the IQ's of immigrants, but the accuracy of IQ tests in the past. There were many questions, and undoubtedly some fraud around the issue. What was found, howver, was that in this case the tests were sound.
It is possible for entire groups of people to be far under their potential due to environmental factors. I expect a couple days in Liverpool might convince most of us that caucasians are not immune to this unfortunate fact even at this moment.
I hope I did not leave the impression I believed Muslims could have a benificial impact upon any culture. Rather it is my belief that it is the intellectually dysfuntional part of Western culture that has attracted this desease, as a weakened host always does. That is why I disagree with many posters--it is to me not the desease of Islam that is the issue, but the suicidal conceits of the host.
If there is anything that can be said for Islam, it is that there is some compensation for great evil in that it enforces great lessons.
Colton- There is this of good in real evils, they deliver us while they last from the petty despotism of all that were imaginary.

Desmond Jones said...

"I didn't write that the Portugese, Spanish, and Italians had IQ's in the 70 to 80 range, but that those immigating to America, in the 1920's, were so measured by the U.S. Government at Ellis Island. Got it?"

No. It's not what you wrote. Read it again. And now you've dropped the allegedly marvellous effect on Italian immigrant IQs, of US Big Macs. You're dissembling.

The schizophrenia relationship may be backwards. Like Tay-Sachs, in the Ashkenazim, schizophrenia may be adaptive; i.e. aid neuronal growth in the heterozygotes.

It's fanciful to believe that the variance between sub Saharran Africa means and European and Chinese means are somehow due to sensory deprivation. Do SSAs suffer because they live on the "dark" continent? ;)

Weakened hosts don't attract anything; i.e. HIV/tuberculosis. Either the pathogen is present and dormant, or it's transferred to the host. It makes little sense. If there was an intellectually dysfuntional part of Western culture that portends suicide, it would have been selected out, because a penchant for suicide is not adaptive. A species or sub-species or sub-group that tends to suicide will not survive to pass on its suicidal genes. And if its a pathogen, it will either have to weaken, like syphillis weakened, became less rapacious in short order, or die with the host.

Darwin's theory of altruism is better suited. As man advances in civilzation, he adapts altruistic values. Sacrifice for the family, tribe and ultimately the nation, ensures the advancement of the genes that he shares with his ethnic group. It's adaptive, enhancing reproductive fitness. Re-enforced by public opinion eventually it becomes an evolved trait. The question then becomes is this advanced stage of outgroup sympathy, that allows the introduction of genetic patterns foreign to his people, then become maladaptive. Mass migration of foreign genes to the host homeland portends displacement, absorption, and ultimately extinction, especially for Europeans, because the phenotypes of Europeans [fair skin, fair hair, multi-clooured eyes] are based on recessive genes which Mendel showed are dominated in cross pollination. Or is altruism beyond the ethny somehow adaptive?

xlbrl said...

Yes, nationalist, it is what I said. We often do not see things as they are, but as we are.
As a better man than I once put it, I am obligated to provide you an argument, but not an understanding.
That being so, I am obligated to attempt understanding your arguments, but I keep failing. It may be I do not have the intellectual capacity to do so, but I don't suspect that alone could explain my failure, for it is not often an opinion worth expressing will not explain itself. As far back as Euripides it has been noted that the language of truth is usually simple, and even elegant.
The wise man questions himself, the fool others. Western Civilizationi cannot use it's strengths if it will not fully question its grave weaknesses. Our weaknesses are almost to the point of ruling us by now, and the Islamists are indeed only a symptom of that. A healthy Western society would never have permitted this to develop in the first place. This is not self-evident?
Disease is ever present, both already within the body although under control, and waiting outside as well. When we are weakened the disease will find its success. I didn't know that was an issue in play.

Fred Scrooby said...

"[IQ gaps of] twenty or thirty points [between] large groups represent cultural and sensory deprivation, not genetic differences." ( -- xlbrl, 5:28 AM)

IQ-testing such as that extensively documented in Herrnstein & Murray's The Bell Curve and elsewhere controls for differential environmental influences (by means of studies on identical twins raised in different environments, for example), leaving the genetic ones. This objection to the existence of group differences of IQ was disposed of long ago.

Conservative Swede said...

I do not find the issue of IQ so interesting. It's a reductionist viewpoint that often is taken too far. For example Sweden always ranks high, and I'm not too impressed by the intelligence of the Swedes.

While I agree with Geza that Islam is dysgenic, e.g. due to the many cousin marriages, this is not reflected in national IQ figures. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh all have a national IQ of 81. The clear difference in behaviour and performance between Hindus and Pakistanis which is so starkly visible, is not caught by the measure of IQ.

Apart from this minor detail (which happened to be blown up to a main theme in this thread) I agree with everything Geza said. Except that I do not consider Latin America a "hell hole". Latin America is a lovely place in many ways, a place where life is good. Latinos have a good understanding of the "poetry" of life. Nevertheless, Mestizo culture does not create "first world" countries. So it is a particularly bad idea to turn United States into a Latin American country (for so many reasons), which is what Bush/McCain/Kennedy is pushing for.

xlbrl said...

Well Swede, I don't believe you! But to be sure, I will consult the tarot cards and yes, yes, I can see IQ fascinates you as with many things, but it is also distessing for the many factions and fictions running for attention; and without the slightest care for caution and truth on what would otherwise promise to be a subject full of surprises.
I, for example, linked to your IQ chart and was further illuminated and confused. Still, one of these days we'll figure it out--right about the time science understands how to make our under-utilized brains run at fully fifty percent capacity, and making monkies out of all of us in the here and now.

Conservative Swede said...

@ The Nationalist

There is nothing more ridiculous than a White racist who wants that Europe will be Islamized. Desmond, Stormfront may be the place for you.

I couldn't agree more. And now we've got another one of them here. They come from a site called majorityrights.com.

But I must ask you why your focus is specifically on Muslim immigrants?
The real threat is not that Muslims are going to vote an Islamic party to power. There are too many liberal constitutional safeguards and the Muslims lack the real political will and cohesiveness to do so. If Sharia law was enforced in Europe 50 percent of young Muslim men would be punished as thieves and lose their hands.


You need to study more Islamic history. Most recently in Kosovo and Lebanon (and Nigeria, Sudan, Thailand, etc.) You have a naive idea of how this works. First of all there will be no vote among the Muslims of what they want, the are commended by Allah. You should know that Islam is not what the Muslims want it to be (as the liberals claim). And they won't respect our institutions of elections. And "liberal constitutional safeguards" won't stop the Jihad. Muslims wage war wherever they come, demographically, psychologically and eventually physically. You definitely need to read more about Islam.

Other Third World immigration is actually just as bad as Muslim immigration.

No.

However, it is triggered by the same mechanisms of Western self-hate, multiculturalism. Something that has to be reversed.

The unemployment rates among the immigrants are abysmally high. They also act as a political block pushing for more immigration and welfare. The prime motivation of immigrants is actually ethnic solidarity as they invite their countrymen to share the European riches.

There should be a general moratorium on all non-European immigration in most Western countries. Welfare money should be cut, and many who are here will leave. I'm not principally against all non-European immigration, but it should be devised completely differently than today. Skilled people could come here and work, but they should only get temporary visas (and no Muslims). No mass influx of a specific ethnic group of any kind should be allowed, such as Mexicans in America. This is a way of creating big, and unnecessary, tensions for the future.

There's obviously much more than this to be said on the subject of immigration.

Conservative Swede said...

Xlbrl,

I was, of course, expecting you to say something intelligent in this "IQ thread", but now I got this:

Well Swede, I don't believe you! But to be sure, I will consult the tarot cards and yes, yes, I can see IQ fascinates you as with many things, but it is also distressing for the many factions and fictions running for attention; and without the slightest care for caution and truth on what would otherwise promise to be a subject full of surprises.

What kind of answer is THAT?

You, yourself, obviously have more opinions about IQ than myself.

IQ simply does not fascinate me. Instead I find too often that it becomes one of those reductionist prisms that we've seen too many of recently, e.g. white genes or monotheism.

IQ does have a value among other social/psychological/economical data, such as e.g. GDP. But quite as with GDP, it does not serve well as a prism through which to explain the world.

xlbrl said...

Yes, probably IQ often serves as a prism and vehicle to mis-explain the world more than to explain it, but for that reason alone it would be fascinating to me. The brain, especially in all its diverse ways and eccentricities, is inseperable from IQ, even if it is not the major influence upon our combined talents and characters.
However, I do not objected to being corrected from the source, so I accept, with surprise, your lack of interest in IQ.

Conservative Swede said...

IQ only looks at one of the many dimensions of the brain. IQ only measures primitive mathematical/logical skills and to a small extent language skills. One and a fraction of the "The Seven Intelligences".

The most idiotic association I think is Mensa. A self-collapsing concept. If these people had indeed been intelligent they would have seen that this is not the intelligent way to define intelligence. IQ is a brutish way of defining intelligence. Nevertheless, it has its uses in social studies, due to what it does measure, and due to its correlation to other things.

The Nationalist said...

CS,

I predict that the first consequence of the immigration policies will be the collapse of the Swedish state. All Third World immigration is so harmful economically.

After that minor emirates may spring up but in that point most Swedes will have emigrated and the nation no longer exist.

Also, at least in the Netherlands Muslim immigrants from Turkey and Morocco actually contribute more to the economy than Christian, Dutch-speaking Black immigrants from Surinam. It would be a mistake to ignore the racial and economic aspect.

rebelliousvanilla said...

I find it hilarious that someone who cares about the preservation of the European people find Islam as the solution. I mean, no offense, but by us adopting Islam, we would destroy all our cultural heritage and we also wouldn't be the masters of our land since the Arabs are the 'alphas' in it. The birth rate is a problem of more than one factor and the answer isn't religion. Religious people have more chilren for completely other reasons, like having more stable family units. In order to solve the birth rate problem, you need to fully grasp the reason why we had a demographic implosion and it's not casual sex that doesn't result in off-spring either.

The most important factor is the welfare state. Basically, generous retirement provisions replace the need to have children to care for the older part of the family. Who didn't reproduce, starved when old and some might say that a person doesn't consider this when they have a child, but it's utterly false because the whole idea behind preferring to have boys over girls is that men have a higher capacity to care for you when you are old. Now, children are obsolete due to the welfare state - before having kids was an investment with a ROI when you were old, now it's a complete liability since you can leech on the children of other and due to higher taxes, they're also more expensive in relative terms to raise, which lead to the situation when the young maintain the old, instead of having children of their own - this is the case in my country, for example. Now, this also reduced families to the nuclear unit, instead of the extended family because before the parents had a vested interest in who their children married in a different way than now and they also put pressure on the couple not to divorce - just look at how the British marriage tradition worked. When the parents were removed from the equation, there was a lot less pressure on the couple to stay together in tough times because nobody pushed them together. Since we are at the economic part of it, also children now are more expensive due to higher taxes, as I said, but when the US had the baby boom, the tax deduction for a child was the equivalent of today $10,000 per year adjusted by the CPI(which is lower than it should be anyway, since the government rigs it). With those rules, if a man who is married to his wife makes $100,000 an year and has four-five children, he would basically pay no taxes at all.

Now, I will get into the social component. Besides all the over-population myths, feminism portraying motherhood and homemaking as demeaning and inferior didn't help either, but these myths could have been kept in the mental narrative of the people only if they didn't suffer the economic consequences. The biggest blow to fertility was probably given by the no-fault divorce and the man being obliterated financially in divorce. No-fault divorce gives both spouses a degree of uncertainty over how their relationship will pan out and probably the biggest problem of them all is the idea that it is ok to raise children outside of marriage. I won't go into how dysfunctional those children will be, but I doubt that a single mother has the same odds of having a second child as a married woman. Another problem is that people see all races and ethnicities as equal and if we can import Africans to Europe and they will do the same as we do, why bother and spend money to have kids? Most people would look at out of wedlock sex for pleasure and contraception as the cause, but they are not - they make it possible, but people would be forced to not stay in this state due to how their older age would fair out.

rebelliousvanilla said...

My solution is a lot better than adopting Islam, which is an irrational and defeatist idea. Probably I have a bigger aversion to Islam than just giving up on Europe completely. I want Europe to stay European and with all the European components of culture, art and the rest. I mean, really, I wouldn't marry a Muslim European man and stay in a dysfunctional culture. I'd rather marry a Chinese man and move to a country that will be the world superpower in this century, that is actually a nation in the old sense of the world and that has a huge demographic imbalance. Also, as a European woman I have fair skin, hair and eyes, which studies proved to be attractive(fair features) in women. This would guarantee I can marry a Chinese pretty high on the dating scene. But I don't want to move to a country that is foreign to me, not only because I prefer to be around people of my own race on average(I have non-white friends), but mostly because I want to feel at home culturally. Anyway, leaving this rant aside and getting to the solution. I would do the following:
1)Do away with retirement provisions, which would make people retire when either they saved enough or had kids to maintain them while not working and maybe help their children raise their grandchildren, while the kids work. This works pretty well.
2)Do away with welfare for single mothers. This is basically a subsidization for women to kick their men out of their lives and stay on the dole. I do think that single mothers should be helped, but charity has that purpose and this would also force them to actually seek a man to marry them. Children being raised inside a family should be the only accepted norm of raising them.
3)Do away with no-fault divorce, wealth redistribution in marriage and child support for out of wedlock pregnancies. Now, the former is a no brainer and actually the current marriage contract is immoral. Basically, when someone gets bored they can walk - I wish a car leasing would be the same and not have any repercussions on the person voiding it. Actually women gain from divorce and this is why they make most of the no-faults. Still, marriage is an empty and without meaning if people can just walk out and ignore their commitments. The second would remove the incentive of women to divorce and the proceedings in the case that someone has fault will be like this. If it's the fault of the woman, she gets nothing from the man and he can simply kick her out. If he cheats, beats her up or whatever, she gets half of his stuff, alimony and the like. I don't write this in general terms because removing the subsidization of the current lifestyle would force people back in a position closer to the old gener roles. About the third, it would constrain out of wedlock sex, which indeed has a negative impact on society when it's at the rate it's in the West now. Women afford to slut it out because they know that they can either abort the child or just hook the guy to pay while they're single mothers. About divorce, also the person who is to blame for the marriage failing should have a disadvantage in getting custody.
4)Do away with affirmative action. This would have a lot of results and it would decrease the participation of women in the workforce - it would reduce the participation of the women who aren't productive to begin with.
5)Make a $10-15,000 tax deduction for each child a married couple has, while giving another tax deduction for people who homeschool of the value of the average public education cost in their state/county/whatever. This would be in the form of a voucher that they can cash in if they homeschool or use to pay part of the costs of private education. This would also destroy the liberal indoctrination camps. Also, giving tax deductions instead of money would lead to the permanent underclass to stop reproducing at this rate and it would give an incentive for smart, high investment in child rearing people to reproduce.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Whites have such high degrees of out of wedlock pregnancies because some whites are disproportionately having kids out of marriage on the council estates or as I call them breeding farms. ConSwede, I agree with Desmond though that the current way is one of death and extinction. I don't think it will stay this way. And xlbrl makes a great point - the birth rate would self-correct provided the people who didn't have kids would face a horrible death in poverty. Desmond has a legitimate concern that I share with him, but he goes in the completely wrong direction. For example, I'd like to have a big family, but I would simply not reproduce, no matter how painful this would be for me on an individual level if my children had to be Muslim. The situation as it is makes me depressed about having children because I will not be able to look in their eyes and tell them about what a great civilization their ancestors created and how coward we were to not fight for it.

The Nationalist, the main focus is on the Muslim immigrants because their culture is diametrically opposed to everything that means being European. If I was the EU dictator(ha), I would ban non-European immigration for 20-30 years and start to do away with the things that makes these people stay. I agree with ConSwede that racial purity is a stupid concept that is doomed to failure, what we need is a tough European culture that makes European people identify with it and see themselves as a distinct group, empowered over it's homeland. In that context and with higher birth rates, we could have marginal non-European minorities. I don't need a country to be 100% white, 95% is enough. Still, if you'd do away with welfare, have big jail punishments for crime and so on, a lot of non-Europeans would just leave. I agree though, the racial and economic aspects both need to be considered, but as I stated before, the racial purity thing is ridiculous. Still, if Europeans saw themselves as a distinct group, interracial marriage would be a thing of the past mostly.