MartyrMade

[SuburbanFarmer]

DrY fucking up a whole lotta narratives right now.

[Speaker to Animals]

Higher Intelligence is likely an outcome of the individualist west... I have posited an argument in terms of left over right brain dominance... above in this thread...

Whether genetics is involved is unproven... and most likely epigenetic given the relative short timeline of western cultural ascendancy.

I think you have cause and effect mixed
up on a number of points.

[GloryofGreece]

I posted a quote in the Nobel Prize thread a few days ago from a book some of you would enjoy.

It's by Hoppe, which is enough to make some of you preemptively wrinkle up your panties in disgust, and that's OK. It's a free book at the Mises library site, and it's a pithy look at what you all are arguing about ITT.

Speaking of inherited intelligence and regional/cultural differences, I was re-reading Hoppe's recent A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline last night, which I commend to you history buffs.

The Industrial Revolution, then, marks the point, when the level of human rationality had reached a level high enough to make the escape from Malthusianism possible. And the escape is reconstructed as a result of the “breeding,” over many generations, of a more intelligent population. Higher intelligence translated into a greater economic success, and greater economic success combined with selective marriage- and family-policies translated into greater reproductive success (the production of a larger number of surviving descendants). This combined with the laws of human genetics and civil inheritance produced over time a more intelligent, ingenious and innovative population.

Kindle edition, location 144/1859.

Want to help out sub-Saharan IQ and happiness? Figure out a way to trade with them in commerce. "Foreign aid" is the most certain way to put them in low-IQ bondage forever; it's not much different that the Dutch and British slave trade exploiting Africa centuries ago.

Free book (and free audio) link at Mises: https://mises.org/library/short-history ... nd-decline

A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline is nothing less than a concise revisionist history of man, skillfully presented by Dr. Hoppe. He addresses the rise of family structures, the development of private property, social evolution prior to the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of the state — all without regard for cherished myths. Dr. Hoppe will make you rethink your assumptions regarding man's development in this engaging book.

Does this Dr address the high IQ and success of East Asians?

[Speaker to Animals]

Troublesome Inheritance touches on the prevailing theories regarding Chinese civilization.

Another interesting one was the Jews in that the specific alleles that confer their higher IQ also give them a predisposition to a horrible genetic disease.

The weird thing about this civic nationalism ideology is how it takes often so-called "skeptical" people and forces them into magical thinking.

[DrYouth]

Does this Dr address the high IQ and success of East Asians?

East Asians have the benefits of being the first to break tribal ties within the bureaucracy of the Chin Dynasty... a bureaucracy that has continued in various forms with only a few breaks over these past two plus millennia....
They haven't moved as far to check executive power within the Chinese State as westerners have... hence their failure to expand beyond Asia... but those Asian states that have westernized most successfully... usually under US influence have moved fastest to approach western standards of living. Sadly they suffer some of the highest global suicide rates... the western lifestyle is a hard bargain.

[Fife]

Does this Dr address the high IQ and success of East Asians?

The thesis, generally, is that intellectual evolution occurred before the Industrial Revolution. More cause, not effect, of the end of Malthusian cycling in the West (and in East Asia as well).

This revolutionary change in the human mode of production is generally referred to as the “Neolithic Revolution”: the transition from food production by hunting and gathering to food production by the raising of plants and animals. It began about 11,000 years ago in the Middle East, in the region typically referred to as the “Fertile Crescent.” The same invention was made again, seemingly independently, less than 2,000 years later in central China, and again a few thousand years later (about 5,000 years ago) also in the Western hemisphere: in Mesoamerica, in South America, and in the eastern part of today’s United States. From these centers of innovation the new technology then spread to conquer practically the entire earth.

The new technology represented a fundamental cognitive achievement and was reflected and expressed in two interrelated institutional innovations, which from then on until today have become the dominant feature of human life: the appropriation and employment of ground land as private property, and the establishment of the family and the family household.

. . .

As well, the theory can explain what may at first appear as an anomaly: that it was not in the northernmost regions of human habitation where the Neolithic Revolution began some 11,000 years ago and whence it gradually and successively conquered the rest of the world, but in regions significantly further south — yet still far north of the tropics: in the Middle East, in central China (the Yangtze Valley), and in Mesoamerica. The reason for this seeming anomaly is easy to detect, however. In order to invent agriculture and animal husbandry two factors were necessary: sufficient intelligence and favorable natural circumstances to apply such intelligence. It was the second factor that was lacking in extreme northern regions and thus prevented its inhabitants from making the revolutionary invention. The extreme freezing conditions and the extreme brevity of the growing season there made agriculture and animal husbandry practically impossible, even if the idea might have been conceived. What was necessary to actually implement the idea were natural circumstances favorable to sedentary life: of a long and warm growing season (besides suitable crops, and domesticable animals). Such climatic conditions existed in the mentioned “temperate” regions. Here, the competitive development of human intelligence among hunter-gatherers had made sufficient progress (even if it lagged behind that in the north) so that, combined with favorable natural circumstances, the idea of agriculture and animal husbandry could be implemented. Since the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, then, the zone of temperate climates expanded northward into higher latitudes, rendering agriculture and animal husbandry increasingly feasible there as well. Meeting there an even more intelligent people, the new revolutionary production techniques were
not merely quickly imitated and adopted, but most subsequent improvements in these techniques had its origins here. South of the centers of the original invention, too, the new technique would be gradually adopted (with the exception of the tropics) — after all, it is easier to imitate something than to invent it. Meeting a less intelligent people there, however, little or no contribution to the further development of more
efficient practices of agriculture or animal husbandry would come from there. All further efficiency gains in these regions would stem from the imitation of techniques invented elsewhere, in regions further north.

There's analysis of the greater Neolithic (vs. hunter-gatherer) development of cultural intelligence as humans migrated away from the tropics to the north (and south). It's a free book, so check it out.

[Speaker to Animals]

To me, civic nationalism is nothing more than an ideology resulting from the urbanites' loss of group selection (basically, a rationalization for a group of people biased in a certain way due to their genetic dead end). What is civic nationalism if not the loss of group identity, and thus the loss of group selection? Group selection was critical in the rise to sapience.

Every time I read somebody shitting on the sacrifices of servicemen, for example, nine times out of ten they are feckless civic nationalists like SF. They shit on the armed forces not simply because they are cowardly (indeed, many urbanites actually are not cowardly at all, they just don't give a shit about other people)but because they possess no in-group bias and therefore no sense of duty to a group at all.

They inevitably paint normal human behavior as "tribalism". They want "diversity" not because they actually give a shit about foreigners, but because they want to destroy the group identity of the rest of us, whom they see as their enemies. This is why urbanites don't just want non-whites imported here by the tens of millions. They want non-Christians. Christian Syrians, for example, were told to get fucked by the Obama administration and democrats precisely when those people were being genocided. Instead the democrats actually went out of their way to select the genociders of Christians to bring here as "refugees", in my opinion, because they implicitly saw that as a fatal attack on the non-urban Christian population of the United States.

Which leads me to the implicit racism in civic nationalism and the people who hold to it. If these people actually believed the nonwhites they are encouraging to invade our country by the tens of millions actually possessed the potential to succeed, they'd not constantly laud and signal the group identities of the immigrants themselves. They'd set out to destroy those identities -- like they do to the African population of the United States.

[Speaker to Animals]

And that leads me to why I despise libertarianism so much. Libertarianism is the ultimate expression of this genetic dead-end. It is embraced by a group of people who loathe the very idea of giving a shit about anybody but themselves, who will never sacrifice for anybody else, and who embrace every form of moral degeneracy imaginable.

This is why the West is dying. We allowed cities to select for the worst genetic predispositions in our race's toolbox.

The cities are Sodom, or Babylon, or whatever other ancient expression you want to use. It is possible for whites and near easterners to select against group selection itself, which has side effects like the loss of a moral compass.

One way to look at the history of our civilization is through this lens. A battle against the degeneracy that always rises up in our cities.

[Speaker to Animals]

Another interesting aspect:

Some of the most charitable and caring people I encountered professionally while working in an urban area were from tribal parts of the world, and the local urbanites who got into that career field were generally stunted in sympathy and empathy for others.

I don't know how else to explain this, and it took me many years to see it and process it for what it really is, but urbanites (in general, not all of them) tend to only care about others in their group insofar as they see a personal benefit to themselves. If you just express that sentiment neutrally, I think most of them would agree with it. To them, everything in a group of any kind is like an economic contract where they need to conclude they are receiving a value in return for what they are giving. Even their personal relations they tend to see a kind of give and take contract.

But if you explain to them that there are people who do not think that way at all, I think most of them will disbelieve it.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Another interesting aspect:

Some of the most charitable and caring people I encountered professionally while working in an urban area were from tribal parts of the world, and the local urbanites who got into that career field were generally stunted in sympathy and empathy for others.

I don't know how else to explain this, and it took me many years to see it and process it for what it really is, but urbanites (in general, not all of them) tend to only care about others in their group insofar as they see a personal benefit to themselves. If you just express that sentiment neutrally, I think most of them would agree with it. To them, everything in a group of any kind is like an economic contract where they need to conclude they are receiving a value in return for what they are giving. Even their personal relations they tend to see a kind of give and take contract.

But if you explain to them that there are people who do not think that way at all, I think most of them will disbelieve it.

Such pure and noble virtue. Please tell us of your deeds of charity to strangers and heathens.