Archive for April 26th, 2006
LibAnon says, beginning with a quote from me,
“centuries of church breeding for lower IQs”
But this same institution created what we now know as Europe, which conquered the world. So perhaps the priests were wiser than our latter-day (and extremely Jewish) obsession with IQ might lead us to believe.
Rather than preventing smart people from breeding, the Church’s main intent was more likely to have been to liberate the intellect from the burdens of economic necessity and domestic responsibility. This institutional sequestering of the intelligentsia therefore led directly to the invention of modern science, technology, and other achievements unique to European civilization.
Also, there is considerable evidence that “breeding for intelligence” is actually dysgenic, not eugenic. Centuries of this practice among the Jews, for instance, has led to moral and physical qualities that Jews themselves often find repugnant, together with disproportionately high levels of neurosis and mental illness. There is also evidence that today’s rapidly increasing rate of autism among children is linked to the increasing number of couples in which both partners are highly intelligent, to the point that autism has often been called “nerd syndrome”.
So perhaps the Church got it exactly right. The best “group evolutionary strategy” is to seek out the nerds and free them to think, but also to discourage them from biologically reproducing.
Comment by LibAnon
We have a fundamental historical disagreement here.
You say that the Christian Church created today’s Europe.
As you know, since you read my last book, I believe that Odin’t knowledge-based religion reflected the fact that a scientific Europe was already here.
In the so-called Dark Ages, the “barbarians” introduced a sane harness that did not choke a horse the way the Roamsn had done, they invented horse shoes. I can’t remember the rest of the list, but they revolutionized technology in a way Romans never could.
It took us a thousand years to reintroduce knowledge as a goal inthe middle eastern jungle known as Christian thought, and the job hasn’t been done yet.
If you have any illusions that this insanity has been overcome, read National Review.
Remember what my POINT was. It coincides perfectly with yours.
I was simply saying that church policy on the Ideal of Sterility has probably brought down the average IQ of whites. The simple fact that this would have brought down the average testable IQ has never been discussed by those who keep pointing out that AVERAGE IQ among Jews and Orientals is higher.
That is a matter of simple arithmetic.
That is usual Whitaker point. Something everybody else will soon consider obvious jumped out at me.
Nobody else would have noticed it, but it jumped out at me.
Soon evrybody will say it was obvious and they knew it all along.
That piece of simple arithmetic is Point One.
Now let’s go on to Point Two, YOUR point.
Whatever the churches did to average IQ, it did not affect the fundamental fact of race.
Rushton is an IQ fanatic. Bless him, he demands the preservation of our race because he sees our race as his family. That will do since he is on our side in terms of racial survival.
But Rushton sincerely believes that the higher average IQ of Jews and Orientals gives them a FUTURE, regardless of whether whites become brown or not.
Now let me digress again to show you my way of thinking.
I have said many times I have brought up what would happen if you tuned into a program on BBC or PBS and heard them saying, “They are One With Nature, they take only what they need. You may think they are cruel, but what they are doing is in tune with Nature.”
What would happen is that you would not know whether they were talking about wolves or Indians.
By exactly the same token, it is impossible to tell whether someone is commenting on Orientals or ants.
“They work hard. They deal with problems. They have highly complex societies.”
I defy you to know whether they are talking about Orientals or ants until they tell you.
Both Indians and wolves have enormous virtues within their static environment. They do not destroy nature, they fit into it. Both Indians and ants can routinely endure agonies that we award medals for.
Ants are heroic workers, asking nothing for themselves.
But neither Indians nor wolves nor ants nor Orientals are GOING ANYWHERE.
The cirle Orientals are going around in is much, much bigger than the circles ants go around in.
But if BBC or PBS left and came back to earth in a thousand years, they woud expect the ants, the orientals, the wolves and the Indians to be going around in the same Highly Virtuous circles. They would all be Highly Virtuous.
Raise the average Oriental IQ ten points and their circle will be wider than it was before.
Give them bigger, stronger legs and they will break Olympic records right and left.
They will go around the same track MUCH faster.
I did NOT say that Jews have benefitted greatly by pushing their testable IQ up to Oriental levels.
In fact, as LibAnon points out, the higher IQ that comes naturally to Orientals has produced neuroses in Jews who have articificially bred them higher.
Read Portnoy’s Complaint.
What I pointed out was a simple matter of arithmetic.
What LibAnon is talking about goes much deeper.
In fact, what LibAnon has to say requires me to do something desperate:
I am going to have to THINK about it.
Talking about my articles on the churches’ historical war against genetic intelligence, Kane says,
“A lot of those eastern european converts I was talking about converted to avoid wars between Christians and Muslisms. That’s a bit of an intellectual move right there. Of course, if you are one of those people who chooses not to believe in the conversion and believes that the Jews of today are the same ethnically as the Jews of the bible, this data won’t really help you reach any conclusions. ”
Kane, I have practically gotten a hernia from making hte point, over and over, that the so-called “Jews” today have no relationship to the Old Testament Jews.
Most of the Roman “Jews” were the Hellenized Jews who became the Christian Church in the first place.
I have said that so many times that others have told me they are bored with it.
Keep hitting me with the facts.
They’ll sink in eventually.
Shari put in two comments:
“Yes, Please don’t give up. As you said, a match will be lit. No matter how smart someone is they can’t know everything so you just never know when. ”
Comment by Shari — 4/23/2006 @ 6:25 pm | Edit This
“ps. I do know that there is a difference between a seminar and a lecture, so I should probably shutup entirely.”
Comment by Shari
Shari, I will make a deal with you.
I won’t give up if you will STOP PUTTING YOURSELF DOWN.
In an earlier comment you said something else about how your opinions were somehow ill-informed a little while back.
The guys here have already caught hell for doing that, and every one of them knows that if they did what you are doing I would come down on them like an avalanche.
You don’t see Elizabeth saying her opinions are somehow not worth while.
I approve every single comment that appears here.
That means that I approve everything you say here.
If you said anything really stupid or ingorant I would mention it, though I admit I would be nicer to a female than to a male.
Leave it to ME to correct you.
Bob is not the nicest guy in the world.
Bob also has a lot of confidence in his own judgement. You forget that when you apologize for what you say you are apologising for something I have approved and something I can comment on if I want to.
An apology on your part, though you sincerely do not realize it, is a hint that I don’t know how to do what I’m doing.
Shari, I KNOW what I am doing.
I made a very good living doing what I am doing.
I approve your comments and reply to them because I, Robert Walker Whitaker, consider them WORTH reading and WORTH responding to.
You just think about what you want to say and SAY it.
The rest is MY business.
Lisa shows the intellectual powers of the opposition by a one-sentence comment:
“What the f*** are you talking about?”
It would be the usual reaction for me to concentrate on the obscenity and her hostility.
But I try to notice the implications of the exact words people use.
When you hate somebody and you want to hit at them, you say soemthing about them or you condemn what they say. Lisa did netiher. Instead she used a form of condemnation which is common to “anti-racists.”
Her condemnation was that she did not understand what I said. If you think about it, that is a common “anti-racist” tactic. If you think about it a bit more you will realize that is a rather ODD tactic.
Obviously if she does not understand what I am saying I am supposed to immediately understand that that proves that there is something wrong with ME. You can understand a lot about those people if you think about this carefully.
In the 1950s, when all media and publishing was in New York City, it was not just assumed that New Yorkers were sophisticated, but that New Yorkers WERE sophistication itself. If you didn’t know your way around New York you were a rube.
In my teens I called that “New York provincialism” and absolutely NOBODY, even down South, could understand what I meant.
Honestly, they were mystified by the term “New York provincialism.”
Not just New York liberals but midewestern and Southern conservatives took it so much for granted that New York MEANT sophisticationthat they honestly could not understand what I meant.
Today everybody does. Then NOBODY did. Such is the gap I have to explain between now and then.
A lot of people would brag that they were just country boys at heart. They didn’t WANT to be sophisitcated New Yorkers. But it never occurred to them that New Yorkers who knew nothing about anywhere but New York, the people who later referred to middle America as “flyover country,” were not sophisticated.
Remember tha when New York began to recognize the West Coast as another sophisticated place, they used the term “flyover country” as a BRAG. They were sophisticated because they knew BOTH sophisticated places, the West Coast AND New York. Those who lived inthe flyover country in between were all hicks.
Can you put yourself into those times and understand exactly how they thought?
If you can, you can begin to understand why anti-racists think that the fact they cannot understand what I am saying should shame ME.
The New Yroker of hte 1950s took it for granted that if someone didn’t know his way around New York City, that person was a hick and a rube and should be ashamed of himself.
Believe it or not, the IDEAL sophisticate back then was someone who proudly knew about nothing BUT New York City. He had been sophisticated all his life. He knew nothing BUT sophistication.
Like people who said “flyover country,” someone who said he knew about nothing but New York City was BRAGGING.
I’m deadly serious here.
So the anti-racist always tells us that anybody who doesn’t agree with him is IGNORANT.
Ignorant of WHAT?
Everybody today who has been in the school system, and especially at the college level, knows all about the ideas the anti-racist, the proponent of “diversity,” is espousing. Anti-racists simply cannot believe that. They assume that the only reason we could possibly disagree with what they say is because we haven’t HEARD it all a hundred times before.
How on earht could anybody get a college degree witout being able to recite every single word the anti-racist says, from rote memory?
Butu they honestly don’t realize that. They believe we haven’t HEARD it all, at length, over and over and over and over, just as they hace when they were sitting in exactly the same classes. They couldn’t get a degree without being able to recite it all, but it never occurs to them that we couldn’t get a degree without being able to recite it either.
So they honestly believe that, degree or not, we never heard what they are parroting. They honestly believe we are “ignorant,” just as the person who proudly denounced “flyover country” genuinely believed he was showing that he was a Man of the World, a true sophisticate.
If you didn’t know New York, you were a rube. If you knew anything BUT New York, you were a hick.
That last sentence is IMPORTANT.
For the anti-racist, if you don’t agree with the line they are repeating, you must not have heard it, so you are ignorant. But remember the last sentence of that paragraph:
If you know anything BUT the “diversity” line they are repeating, you are a provincial, a hick, a racist, and a rube.
If you know anything BUT the “diversity” line, they take it for granted you should be ashamed of yourself.
So if you knew any place but New York or the West Coast, you were ignorant, a provincial, a rube and a hick to those who talked about “flyover country.”
So Lisa says that if I say anything outside of anti-racist orthodoxy, she is proud to say she cannot understand a word of it. She takes it for granted that we all know that I should be ashamed of myself.
So “What the f*** are you talking about?” for Lisa is exactly the same as the New Yorker in the 1950s who proudly proclaimed that he knew nothing about anywhere but New York City. It is a “flyover country” type brag on her part.
Someone who was raised in “flyover country” and knows a lot about it, like me, is proving that he should be ashamed of himself.
She thinks she has humiliated me.
She really does.
She HONESTLY does.
Today it is almost impossible for any literate person NOT to understand what I meant in the 1950s by “New York City provincial.”
Today it almost impossible for a literate person to belive that when a person referred to “flyover country” in the 1960s he was BRAGGING.
And if I am still around, I will trying to explain to people how, back at the turn of the century, when someone said he couldn’t understand anything that wasnt a repeat of hte “diversity” line, he was ctually BRAGGING.
Today we all take it for granted that New York City provincial who is proud of being New York City provincial is a moron. Nobody says “flyover country” any more, because they would be ashamed to be that provincial.
It won’t be all that long before everybody will understand that somebody who BRAGS that he cannot undertand anything but the Politically Correct line will be recognized as feeble-minded. The process is already under way.
It won’t be all that long before everybody knows how silly a person is who simply cannot understand an idea that Mommy Professor didn’t cram down their throats.
I knew that going in. I knew that fifty years ago.
But it’s nice to see that I’ve lived long enough for the world to catch up.
Derek jogs the poor old man’s memory:
I just wrote of something similar on myspace. I did, however, touch on your ideas…but I wanted to get something started.
Have you seen the myspace site yet? You might want to look into it. It is immensley popular. While I think that it mainly geared towards the youngin’s that is where your focus should maybe be as well.
Just a thought.
No, Derek, I did NOT look at your site. I will and I will keep up with it.
Give me the url again and I’ll put it here again.
Anybdoy else who has a site PLEASE give me the url again.
I just let it slip.
I was just looking over the article below, “The Church’s War Against White Intelligence.”
It is long and it is BORING.
There is a lesson in that.
It is a perfect example of what happens when I try to cover all the basis.
I tried to touch on Theology and then spent a lot of time trying to explain why I dared do such a thing.
What I should have done was to say to hell with it and make my point.
The point of the whole thing boils down to one sentence:
For at least a thousand years, the entire white race lived under churches that bred against intelligence. Anyuone who could be taught to read would become a priest or a monk and take vows to have no children. For centuries that segment of hte population was HUGE.
Every time a child showed a quick mind, he or she was selected for Church and made sterile.
In the meantime, Jews bred for higher IQs.
We have no difficulty with the idea that Jews were successful in raising their innate IQ. They certainly did NOT breed ofr creativity, but they did breed for the kind of pedestrian thinking that gets IQ scores up.
We have no problem with a higher AVERAGE Jewish IQ.
But nobody ever even mentions the possibility that the centuries of church breeding for lower IQs could have had any effect at all on US.