Sunday, January 10, 2010

IQ and Human Accomplishment — The Debate Continues

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

Fjordman has joined in an interesting discussion over at Mangan’s place. Some of his assorted comments are below:

Regarding the Germans, this is an intriguing question. I am quite convinced that IQ is an important variable and I have seen several rankings listing the Germans as having the highest average IQ in Europe. Nevertheless, IQ does not explain everything. No single factor ever does. For instance, it does not explain why Europeans and people of European origins outperformed East Asians by such a wide margin, despite the fact that the latter match us in average IQ.

It is interesting that very roughly speaking, IQ increases the further north you get. This means that Europe as a whole has higher IQ than the Middle East, and much higher than tropical Africa. However, there are also minor differences within Europe, and not necessarily statistically insignificant ones. Europeans north of the Alps have slightly higher IQs than those in southern Europe. It is possible to argue that the Swedes and Dutch have outperformed some of the Balkan peoples because of this. The Italians are often listed as having the highest mean IQ in southern Europe, which is consistent with the fact that Italians make up the southern European nation that ranks the highest in modern human accomplishment. The greatest riddle are the Greeks, who in ancient times could produce great geniuses such as Aristotle, Archimedes and Hipparchus, but today have one of the lowest IQs on the European continent.

The fact that average IQ seems to increase the further north you get is consistent with the “cold weather” hypothesis for the evolution of human intelligence in prehistoric times championed by Michael Hart in Understanding Human History, which I have commented upon previously.
- - - - - - - - -
The nations that had the biggest impact on the development of chemistry were the usual suspects: France, Germany and Britain, followed by the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Russia, Switzerland, Belgium etc. However, if you look at per capita contributions you could claim that Swedes did more per person to develop modern chemistry than any other nation on Earth. The average person would be familiar with Alfred Nobel because he invented dynamite and established the Nobel Prizes, and he does receive a very high ranking in the Technology index. However, by far the most scientifically important Swedish chemist was Jöns Jacob Berzelius, who also receives by far the highest ranking of any Scandinavian in the Combined Sciences index by Murray. I suspect that the Swedish scientist closest to him in importance would be Linnaeus. Sweden does well in chemistry and biology and to a lesser extent in astronomy, technology, physics and medicine.

Denmark does well in astronomy and astrophysics, with individuals such as Tycho Brahe (born in southern Sweden), Ole Rømer and Ejnar Hertzsprung. The only science category where Norway performs best among the Nordic nations is mathematics, with Niels Henrik Abel receiving by far the highest ranking. If I recall correctly, number two on the list is also Norwegian, Sophus Lie. Both are correct, in my view. Henrik Ibsen is ranked highest from the Nordic countries in Western Literature, followed by August Strindberg from Sweden and Hans Christian Andersen from Denmark. Edvard Munch is ranked highest in Western Art and Edvard Grieg in Western Music, only rivaled by Jean Sibelius.

I don’t think there is much of an IQ difference between the Nordic peoples. If Denmark and (southern) Sweden rank highest in the sciences I suspect this has partly to do with population density and different levels of urbanization; you don’t just need a few smart people sitting on separate mountain tops, you need a cluster of smart people to create innovation. Finland would probably receive a higher ranking now with Nokia and telecommunications, Linus Torvalds and Linux etc.

If we are approaching a discontinuity in Western history then we will probably witness selection pressures in favor of ethnocentric warrior creeds. Europeans, and arguably people from the Germanic-speaking regions of northwestern Europe in particular, have for centuries been among the least ethnocentric people on Earth, which is why we invented archaeology, comparative linguistics etc. I don’t think any single factor ever explains everything, not even genes or IQ, but if we assume that Europeans, and Germanic Europeans in particular, have a genetic profile which favors altruism then we will probably be facing a bottleneck in the coming generations where only those whites capable of carving out a land exclusively for them and expelling intruders will survive and pass on their genes.

For hundreds of thousands of years, early humans became more intelligent very, very slowly due to evolutionary pressures as average IQ rose, probably more in colder regions than in tropical ones. What we have witnessed during the past century is the unprecedented situation where the global human population has exploded, but mainly in dysfunctional Third World countries. If high-IQ countries such as Germany and Japan have stagnating populations and low-IQ countries such as Nigeria and the Yemen have booming populations, does that not mean that the global average IQ is declining? It probably does. What kind of effect will this have on world civilization? This question is perhaps the greatest possible taboo that exists in the modern West, but in my view it needs to be asked.

Have we arrived at the unprecedented situation of “survival of the least fit”? I suspect that this question stems from a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. The most “fit” are the ones who successfully pass on their genes. End of story. Survival of the fittest is first and foremost survival of the survivors. If we don’t survive then we are by definition not the most fit. Around WW1, people of European origins made up at least a third of the world’s population. Now we’re soon down to single digits and still falling. This is rapidly turning into a question of survival.

Personally, I am quite confident that whites possess the necessary genetic skills and intelligence to survive the coming bottleneck, but it is possible that whites in the future will come from fewer bloodlines than we do today. We should remember that most of the population growth in the Third World has been caused and sustained by the global impact of Western technology. When the West is no longer willing or able to carry these countries on our backs then many of them will simply implode. I am not sure that the global population will be ten billion or more at the end of this century. It may well be substantially lower than it is today when all is said and done.

I have seen the claim of a larger standard deviation for whites than for East Asians referred to many places and have quoted it myself, but I must say that while it remains plausible I haven’t seen conclusive proof that this claim is true.

The Germans usually come out on top, followed by the Dutch, the Swedes and others, with the Balkan peoples having the lowest average IQ in Europe. However, some of the details in between vary considerably. One ranking referred to in the London Times in 2006 listed the Germans and the Dutch as having an IQ that was 13 points higher than the French. I just don’t buy that.

Notice, by the way, that you can state even in the respectable London Times that the Germans have higher IQ than the French. However, if you state that the Germans have higher IQ than Arabs then you’ve suddenly become a crypto-Nazi. We shouldn’t have to put up with this kind of totalitarian anti-scientific nonsense.


Sean O'Brian said...

Henrik Ibsen is ranked highest from the Nordic countries in Western Literature, followed by August Strindberg from Sweden and Hans Christian Andersen from Denmark.

I'm surpised by that. Andersen should really be first. Ibsen is overrated.

mephju said...

Fjordman is surely one of the most important persons in our times.
There is no one like him in this movement. I wonder if there is a biography about him or anythinglike that? I would love to read it.
However, good to have you on our side, boy!

mriggs said...

Just a small point: The greeks of antiquity and modern greeks are hardly genetically related at all.

Ron Russell said...

I have often thought about the qestion of IQ and its relationship to civilizatrions past and present. And I have noticed the lack of any great civilizations in the equitorial areas, with the possible exception of a few places in that zone that have high elevations thereby negating the temperture factor.

As for the achievements of the ancient greeks and their modern ancestors that could be because of the influx of peoples from the east and south and the intermarrying over the many years.

It seems there are so many variables that one is left scratching his head when seeking an answer. One thing does however remain quite clear those on the African continent south of Sahara and those in central and south America seem to fall into the lower grouping along with those in pre-historical Australia. It does seem that one could generalize the darker the skin the lower the IQ, but with many exceptions. Guess that statement makes me a racist. I would like to point out however that I have a black grandson who is at the top of his class. So just maybe I'm one who does not tow the PC line.

Fjordman said...

Mephju: Thank you for that. I may consider writing under my real name some day, but I don't have any plans to do so in 2010.

RR: It is interesting to notice that in virtually all cultures, women with light skin color are considered attractive. Light skin is the hallmark of the northern peoples, in other words those who have high average IQ according to the cold weather hypothesis championed by Michael Hart in Understanding Human History. I have seen articles where men from all over the world rank European and Northeast Asian women as the most physically attractive. They also happen to be the women with the highest average IQ, if you ignore Ashkenazi Jews who constitute a special case. This could mean that light skin color is viewed as attractive because it is often a visual indicator of high IQ. Speaking as a Scandinavian I have noticed the extreme fascination many men from other parts of the world, even from Southern Europe, have with Scandinavian-looking women. From what I have heard, prostitutes in the Roman Empire had to bleach their hair or wear blond wigs.

One of the greatest taboos is applying this logic to interracial relationships. It is a well-known fact that various combinations of men and women of different races are not equally common. The rarest combination is probably Northeast Asian men with African women. I don't think I have ever seen a Korean or Japanese man travel to Kenya to pick up a wife, for instance. Contrast this with the white man/Asian woman phenomenon. While men almost universally prefer women with light skin color, women react a bit differently. Women go for aggressive and dominant men, often muscular ones, because they are perceived as being good protectors. These things are rooted in evolutionary biology.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

Specialist faculties in Western Universities should be closed to enrichers, why educate the enemy in preference to the indigenous people - Scottish Government take note.

Anonymous said...

The fascination with white (paler) skin is not necessarily (not always) linked to Northern Europeans. Another explanation is that darker skin indicates its owner makes his living working outside, suggesting lower social status. And vice versa – the paler the person, the more delicate the skin, the more likely he or she comes from the top of society.

We might also add a related universal fascination with blonde women – no one will deny that. Here, I think, another explanation is that blonde hair is associated with the color of gold… The customs commingle in strange ways.

S said...

Blonds don't seem to value themselves as blonds enough to have blond haired children. Although other races seem to value them.

When a blond has children with a black the child is black. Is that the end of their white racial line? Just curious how that is thought of. Example Heidi Klum. The child of such union often marries black, like Barak married Michelle, and from then on there is no interracial mention. Their grandchild is just *black*.

Really don't see a future for the white race in general. When grocery shopping, there's always lots of blond girls with black children. (Is that because they are in a mixed relationship or is because there's lots of hit and run by some charming guy or two who gets around the whole area? Sorry for that question, not nice).

And all those BNP street thugs are too drunk to have babies.

Maybe that's why the girls get with another race? They are prized?

(BTW - have same in my cousins family and friends but don't dare ask.)

mace said...

Ron Russell

The Maya lived in equatorial areas and more or less invented their civilization including a written language,a positional number system including a notation for zero. Of course their culture was, by our standards, deficient in many areas,however they had few metal sources and no suitable draft animals.Not a bad effort, at relatively low altitude, as well. I wonder what their average IQ is.


Yes, the tendency to favor light skin has ancient origins, both the Egyptians and Minoans portrayed women with light skins.
I don't see many ethnic East Asian women getting a tan on the beach,they, unlike Caucasians,wisely avoid the sun.


I doubt IQ is the reason why men prefer blondes,they are preferred because they're subjectively more attractive to men from societies where blondes are rare,this is the same reason why modern women are not as hairy as men.I live in a country with, historically,a high % of blondes,so they're not so exotic.
Perhaps the Greeks' IQ is not such a riddle when we consider the barbarian invasions of Greece in late antiquity and the Greek diaspora.

Cobra said...

Not only the median level of the IQ counts in society, but also the mean deviation.
While some of the East Asians may have higher IQs than whites, their mean deviation is smaller, which means they are more prone to "group think".
Another point is that in white populations the IQ peaks are really, really above the median value, facilitating innovation.

The Sentinel said...


What is this supposed to mean…

“And all those BNP street thugs are too drunk to have babies.”

…if it is not just a rather odd smear perhaps you could present some evidence or examples for your contention?

EileenOCnnr said...

Fjordman said: "It is interesting to notice that in virtually all cultures, women with light skin color are considered attractive.... I have seen articles where men from all over the world rank European and Northeast Asian women as the most physically attractive."

When women are ovulating, their skin lightens in color. This is, no doubt, a biological signal that men notice, albeit unconsciously.

It's not surprisingly, then, that fair-skinned women are considered more attractive in general. Even within African societies, fair-skinned African women are typically considered amongst the most attractive.

The subconscious, sexual areas of non-White men's brains must just go ballistic when they encounter White or East Asian women! All the "Alert!: Ovulating woman!" bells must be ringing at full volume. ;-)

Armance said...

Whites are not considered attractive, intelligent and desirable today. The fascination for blondes is a thing of the past. It’s mainly due to the influence of pop culture: in countless movies, magazines, TV shows, music videos, comics, blondes are portrayed as stupid, boring and whorish and blonds as wussies, ridiculous or evil. After all, it’s the only race unprotected by PCism so it’s a competition who can humiliate and ridicule whitey more. Whites themselves have lost any self-confidence and pride in what they are and look at themselves as „white trash”. Some symptoms are the endless praises to the qualities of other races and cultures while diminishing your own, the obsession to darken one’s skin with artificial tan or makeup and interracial marriages and relationships – which were considered unacceptable by the majority only 30-40 years ago, when people were still racially aware. It’s not Black and Arab men or Asian women who chase after white partners: it’s the whites who see a partner of other race as a trophy. More or less consciously, they try to escape the shame to be what they are and a way to redeem the white guilt.

Fjordman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fjordman said...

Armance: For once I disagree with you. A strikingly large proportion of non-white men would like to get their hands on a white woman if they can, especially a blond one, first of all because they find them sexually desirable and second of all to stick it to the white man. The Western anti-white brainwashing first and foremost targets whites themselves.

When it comes to Asian women: Yes, quite a few of them find white men attractive, for various reasons. Generally speaking Asians, especially East Asians, are the only serious challengers we have economically. The same goes for the women. The strongest competitors white women have in the dating market are East Asian women. If some Western men prefer Asian women this is often because white, Western women are considered attractive, but hostile. Asian women are perceived as attractive and non-hostile. I would personally rate Scandinavian women as being objectively speaking among the most beautiful women in the world, yet an increasing number of Scandinavian men travel to the opposite side of the world to find a partner. If you ask me, they are refugees from Western Feminism.

This is why it is ridiculous to hear Western women complain that men nowadays "don't want to commit." Many of them still want to commit, they are just reluctant to commit to Western women. It's not about white vs. Asian, as can be witnessed from how popular Russian women still are.

Unknown said...

While I generally agree, I think perhaps the main reason why Germany is so over represented is that during the time periods where these disciplines were mostly developed, "Germany" was many semi-independant states competing with each other. If you also believe in small government then you cannot ignore this.

I think the same pattern shows up in the over representation of Scots in engineering during the height of the British Empire (i.e. competing with the English).

Unknown said...

In my above comment I said "the main reason". Perhaps I meant "a significant contributor" (vis-a-vis other Europeans at least).

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

What maybe going on in the U.K. is that white females may have already subconsciously recognized that the British white race has already reached a tipping point as to its future survival therefor they are giving their genes the best chance of survival via mixrace births.

The fashion to tan the skin by the use of sunbeds or to archaically paint the skin maybe viewed as a form of competitive camouflage. It is amussing to see young white woman walking about a dark shade of orange rather than brown after using these body paint products.

EUCLID said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EUCLID said...

Blogger mriggs said...

‘Just a small point: The greeks of antiquity and modern greeks are hardly genetically related at all’.

How do you know?

Siegetower said...

I would argue the Greeks of today share so little with the Ancient Greeks because of a large elephant on the Greeks' back: the Turkish Ottoman Empire. You try to resist ethnic change for almost 600 years of enslavement, rape of your women by the Turks and Albanians and compulsory acquisition of the brightest and fittest children (with the best genes) into the brainwashed Janissary slave army.

gsw said...

You are missing the point peoples!

IQ tests are extremely slanted towards "things a north-western-educated person" would know.

Some are worse than others. Odd man out using unknown vegetables is obviously biased.

But asking about a number series using cube roots in an area where the children know the names and properties of every plant, tree and edible root - except those pesky cubed ones - is biased.

Try it sometime. Do a culturally-foreign IQ test and compare it with your results in a culturally-similar test. (Been there, done that, blushed ashamedly).

Ethnically varied children, all being given the same education, tend to balance out.

Oh, and the standard German IQ test includes memorising lists of unpronounceable town names. How's that for intelligence?

Anonymous said...


Both knowing the properties of roots and learning town names are simple rote learning and do not appear on IQ tests that count for anything.

A culturally biased IQ test would be, for example, a US test saying "a nickel" instead of 0.05. Maths, logic, map reading, etc., are all universal. You can't then say it's not fair because x culture doesn't use maths often, because that's the whole point. If you don't use it; you don't evolve it.

gsw said...

I just wish you were right.

Official German IQ test, used by certified Psychologists to measure IQ of school children includes both a cubed root serie:
"Was ist der nächste Nummer in der Reihe: 1,9,25,49,81,?"
And also the "Lesen Sie die Stadtnamen durch, danach blättern Sie um und antworte die Fragen."

The questions are then "Welche Städte gab es, die mit "L" anfingen"

The point is that IQ test should actually measure the potential rather than the memory of children. It rarely does this.

Actually, given the prevalence of nickels and dimes on TV, most know this. But you are right that most Brits today have never heard of a groat, a tanner or a bob.

EUCLID said...

Siegetower said...
‘You try to resist ethnic change for almost 600 years of enslavement’

True they were enslaved for 600 years. However the one’s that were forced to convert to Islam is where you will find these changes you describe. That is in Turkey where there is such a genetic mix. The vast majority in Greece did not mix and kept their ethnicity & culture. They certainly did resist and succeeded. A similar situation occurred in Britain when it was enslaved by the Roman Empire yet only 5% of the genes in modern Britain can be traced back to Ancient Romans. Britain, just like Greece succeeded in maintaining its ethnicity. Indeed there are scientific papers that have been published that reinforce this argument. It is so easy to come to ‘must have been’ conclusion. See for example

As for the I.Q. in Greece: Well all I can say is make time and effort and seek out Science based arguments which show that the allegation that the Greeks today have one of the lowest IQs on the European continent is to say the least based on misleading data that was used to come up with this alleged conclusion.

As an aside I would like to point out that a 35 year old Greek, who is a maths and computer science professor in the University of Lyon, France is the man with the highest IQ in the world. He is Nikos Ligeros, with an IQ of 189, the highest ever Mensa recorded IQ in the world.

It is also true to say that whilst a brutal Islamic conquering empire occupied Greece, it would hardly be expected to have contributed much to the Sciences etc during its occupation.

Unknown said...

" The fascination for blondes is a thing of the past. "
Step outside of your ivory tower and take a look at the magazine covers at your newspaper vendor. Zillions of dumb-blonde jokes notwithstanding, the blondes still command superior bucks in the media market... Money talks. Propaganda walks.

Baron Bodissey said...

gsw --

Those are not cube roots. Those are simple integer cubes. Anyone with basic numeracy skills can look at them and discover relationships. The intelligent people who take the test will recognize that each of the first few odd cardinal numbers has been multiplied by itself, and then the multiplied again.

Basic numeracy skills are indeed required to take the test. So cultures which don't impart basic numeracy skills to their children aren't testable by these means.

That is one of the problems with IQ tests. However, some information can be gained from members of the same cultures who have migrated and been educated in European-based systems for several generations. Then there is some validity to the tests.

IQ tests measure certain things and not others, and in that sense they are culturally biased. They were devised by White Europeans to measure how well people can think using the intellectual norms developed by White Europeans.

Success at thinking according to genrally accepted White European norms is thus commonly termed "intelligence". I don't object to that ethnocentric bias: people who think most like White Europeans will be the most adept at analyzing and solving practical problems effectively, which is what I personally define as "intelligence".

gsw said...

@Baron Bodissey
True that they are. Badly phrased.
It is however, useful if you can:
a)recognise that they have integers as their cubed root ... and
b) extract said root in order to recognise that they are the cubes of ODD numbers only.

However, I agree that once one has the concept of CUBES cubed roots are not far off.

Alvaro de Esteban said...

Please, "keep it simple" but no sooo simple.

Cold & IQ? North & IQ? Have the innuits higher IQ than Frenchs? Did you find higher IQs in Mongolia than in Singapore?

If you go to a bank in London sure the relationship manager is British but if you take the elevator to the trading hall you´ll find it full of people from India.

Education, enviroment, and a little genes is the key. And I say a little genes... Look the old Hilton & Paris, the old Hearst & Patty.


Unfrench Frenchman said...

The fact that the Germans have a higher collective IQ than the French may be something to do with the fact that most immigrants to Germany are from Eastern Europe while most immigrants to France hail from Africa.

Conservative Swede said...

The numbers in the series are not roots, and not cubes, but squares (of odd numbers).

We just had 9*9=81, so next is 11*11=121.

Very nice comments by Fjordman in Mangan's thread, btw. Especially what he writes about the USA -- being the Diversity Empire, and also that "Perhaps the simplest explanation for why the USA is currently dying is because it was founded on a lie."

Baron Bodissey said...

Swede, you're right -- LOL!

I didn't even look at the actual numbers. It just goes to show that neither gsw nor I have a high enough IQ to be classified as Europeans...


Anonymous said...

Alvaro de Esteban, actually intelligence is mostly heritable and the environment plays a secondary role. According to genetic studies, inside a population group 79% of the intelligence of a child is genetic, while only 21% is from the environment.

I took an IQ test in a foreign language(my 3rd actually - English) and I scored an astounding 139 and it wasn't some crappy online test, but one taken at a clinic. It didn't seem that biased to me in any way and I didn't feel that it being in English hindering my ability. And it wouldn't explain why non-European descent people still score lower after they live here for generations or why black children or mixed race children still score lower when they're raised by white parents(on average). There was a study done on this in the US and I can look it up if you feel like it.

Even if there is some bias, the record of history shows that most of the invention was done by high IQ people, which shows a correlation in between IQ and invention, which requires intelligence. Another thing is, if they are biased, North East Asians wouldn't have a similar IQ nor Ashkenazi Jewish score a lot higher.

4Symbols, believe me, as a woman, I do feel like not giving a shit and marrying someone from NE Asia and moving there so that my children will live in a determined environment and my genes be mixed in a population that actually has a shot at success(compared to the crap that Europe will be). Leaving fairness aside, a lot of women will find it easier to forgive the Muslims for their violence against them than the European men for being wussies, even though European women have a lot to do with that.

And I tan. I don't do it because I dislike my whiteness, it's just natural to get vitamin D. Obviously I hate orange cakes.

Armance, Fjordman is right. Non-white men love white women and Asian women love white men(I have a friend who's girlfriend is Asian and she is super jealous on how white women look and loves how he looks and he prefers her due to Western Feminism). In terms of personal experience, I'd say that Middle Eastern men and black men like my 'whiteness' a lot and I didn't chat much with Asians about this. So I'd say that my light brown-reddish hair, green eyes and pale skin are nice regardless of ethnic background. :P

Oh, and the rare theory doesn't stick. There are far less green eyed people on Earth, yet blue eyes are considered more desirable(I couldn't inherit my father's grayish-blue eyes, just his myopia lol).

And I disagree, men want to commit. At least from personal experience, after 2009 I can say that Western men are desperate to commit to a woman that is worth it and that is willing to appreciate them and not have everything just about herself. I was quite shocked at how marriage even works there with the wedding being 'my day', getting an expensive ring and stuff. Most men in the West are actually amazed by the fact that I don't want an expensive wedding ring(anything over white gold and a small diamond is an overkill to me and you can get this for a couple thousand) and that I care about what they want for the wedding day and so on. What a crappy way to even begin a marriage for a man - with her day. And I don't know how, as a wife, I could enjoy a marriage starting with a day that my husband would hate. I know a few American men that told me that they'd never marry an American woman and I don't even live there and from my experience with the average younger American woman, if I was a man, I wouldn't commit either because they don't provide anything besides access to her cunnie and you don't need to marry for that anymore.

mriggs said...


The Anglo-Saxons perpetrated genocide on their Breto-Roman conquests, largely annihilating them. This has been established through genetic research. That 5% still originate from Rome does indicate that Romans were indeed a sizable portion of the Breto-Roman genepool.

Also be advised that the article you linked has marginal scientific value.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

Would a high IQ result in a more complex psychosis than in a person with an average IQ and would this be more difficult to diagnose and subsequently treat?

Conservative Swede said...


Don't worry. I'm confident your IQ will sky rocket, in any test, if you only look at the numbers ;-)

hangarbumdotcom said...

rebelliousvanilla called it dead on:

"women will find it easier to forgive the Muslims for their violence against them than the European men for being wussies, even though European women have a lot to do with that."

There's a whole movement (under the radar mostly) of people groping their way out of the confused wussy males/ confused vengeful shrews folderol.

Some women don't even know why they are unhappy, and blaming their man, as you say. The men meanwhile are so patient and modern and desperate.

And I suspect there are some women reverting to The Religion of Peace (tm) because they have a need for a firm hand - and many of these unhappy women will be trapped in a medieval nightmare from which only death will release them.

As long as we're being incorrect here, I'll admit 'taken in hand' works a treat. I wouldn't go back to my 'sensitive new age guy' role for the world. When I think of all the arguments about nothing that could have been sorted so easily...

Anonymous said...

hangarbutdotcom, I know the truth because I'm a woman and unlike most women, I tell it how it is, not how it's the best to insure me having enough providers while I shag the men that I want. Sure, we want romantic, sensitive men as long as they are the dominant ones too, not the weaks.

Unknown said...

Interesting is the phenomenon of the Jews. IQ by itself is not tantamount to success or survival of the fittest in terms of IQ. You have to look at the success of a "group" of people not only by a baseline OK IQ, but rather, at other social factors (example, the Jews.) The latter are very close people with a preservation of their culture through their "glue" that binds them together (their religion and traditions.) Einstein did not possess 100% Northern European genes, yet the product that produced him, gave him an IQ far greater than most humans that have ever lived in the past 500 years. There is a factor here that may be hidden (Jews "stick" with each other, this produces a people with $, which foment education and in doing so, produce a people that have a baseline high intellect, that does not contaminate itself with an inferior (IQ speaking) gene pool. Jews when compared to the rest of other cultures, have produced more advancement in our species, than any other group.

Then again, Cubans (I'm a Cuban American) have more professionals per population here in the USA, than any other group combined (if we seperate Jews from their country of origin.)

Again, a group of people, "sticking" with themselves with culture and tradition.

We have delved into the politics of the USA, and have gotten our way with respect to our needs.

Unknown said...

BTW, would greatly enjoy feedback on this very interesting polemic.


Unknown said...

Unknown said...

May I also include that a group of "farmers" on the notion of freedoms of expression, fought against the most powerful empire of its day, and developed an experiment that became the "strongest and healthiest" country in the world, where those very Germans, Scands, et cetera, flocked to, to produce the USA. Now, because of the liberal debauchery, it's imploding....

Johannes Ardea said...

Richie, what do you know about Einstein's genes? Our genes won't save us Europeans anyway, God will, so we must revert to the one and only that pleases Him, which is the only one which He founded.

Johannes Ardea said...

read: to the one and only religion