Picking our battles

Some dogmas of the modern world are evil, and some are merely stupid.  A few might actually be true.  As reactionaries, we often face the choice of how widely to spread our quarrel.  Do we fight all the beliefs of the Leftist establishment with which we disagree, or only the evil ones?  The answer depends both on the extent of a given reactionary’s passions and also his current social status.  Is it a case of saving one’s ostracism for that one issue closest to one’s heart, or a case of already feeling so cut off from one’s fellow men that one might as well let loose on everything?

I lean toward the first position myself.  Patriarchy–the principle of “embodied personal dependency“–is “the hill to die on” for me, and I don’t want people getting distracted over things I don’t care about.  Maybe this says more about my personality than anything else, but that’s how I see it.  Staying on topic means sometimes sacrificing the pleasure of skewering bad arguments.  For example, I sometimes run across bad arguments for the proposition that all races simply must have equal average intelligence.  Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that the claim is wrong or that most arguments for it are bad.  But some are really bad arguments, and I’ve even read them coming from actual anthropologists who presumably know better.  “Intelligence has nothing to do with skin pigmentation, so all races are equally smart.”  (Compare:  Dogs have wet noses.  Humans have dry noses.  There’s no connection between intelligence and nose moisture.  Therefore…?)  “Evolution is really slow and couldn’t possibly have affected humans differently since they left Africa.”  (Therefore, all races have the same skin color?)  It’s as if they’re taunting me, deliberately flashing that soft underbelly,  making absurd arguments, just daring me to point it out.  Do I want to offend people?  Yes, but not over that!  I don’t care about negro IQ.  White IQ was a standard deviation lower less than a century ago (and rapid variations of IQ does seem to me a reasonable argument, by the way, for the great importance of  environmental influence), and whites then were a more intelligent, creative, and civilized people than we are.  Stick to the point and hate me because I want to take away your condoms and reinstate patriarchy!

The traditionalist movement should avoid unnecessary and distracting commitments, so I would recommend avoiding the formation of a conservative orthodoxy on the following:

The cause of homosexuality.  Who cares?

Foreign policy.  I have no beliefs here, only two strong prejudices.  First, I am in favor of killing communists.  Second, I oppose going to war with anyone else who isn’t already in the process of invading the U.S.  I may be the only person in the world who favors neither side in the Israel-Palestine dispute.  Conservatism as such has no foreign policy, except for fighting communists (which–just to make sure we’re all clear on this–I support).  Since the USA is farther down the road of Leftist degradation than the PRC, even that imperative doesn’t have any straightforward application in the world today.

Global warming.  We don’t have a dog in this fight.  My own quite bland Throne and Altar posts on AGW generated more hostility than anything else I’ve written (anything else, that is, not having to do with our “elder brothers in faith”), but the degree of animosity seems entirely disproportionate to the degree of disagreement.  (Read my consensus posts on climate change here and here before you disagree.)  A climate change skeptic is someone who thinks that humanity doubling the world’s CO2 concentration (which we are doing) will raise the world’s average temperature by about 1 degree Celsius.  The conventional wisdom represented by the IPCC is 2-4 degrees.  These are not order of magnitude differences.  To say that one of these estimates is right is to grant that the other must be plausible.    Yes, there are large systematic errors in the computer models, but that doesn’t mean that they are overestimating the problem; they could be underestimating it.

Our elder brothers in faith.  Few on the Right, including among the Orthosphere’s readers and contributors, can imagine that there might ever be any good reason to criticize the Jews.  Compare this, for instance, to the nasty things writers and commenters here routinely say about Puritans, Episcopalians, and liberal Catholics.  I disagree with your Jews-can-do-no-wrong mentality–it seems to me that they have all the foibles of a standard liberal Protestant sect, and my opinions on their influence are basically the same as Larry Auster’s–but I also realize that it’s not worth fighting and destroying the Orthosphere‘s readership over this ultimately unimportant point.  Regarding this one victim minority as off limits doesn’t prevent us from making our larger case.  Also, I am hopeful that demographic changes among the Chosen People, i.e. the rise of a more Orthodox strain of Judaism, will remove my apprehensions about their enormous cultural power.

Those other monotheists.  There are good Christian conservatives with a variety of beliefs about Islam.  Of course, all would agree that Islam is wrong to reject the revealed truths of the Incarnation and the Trinity, also that it is wrong to allow polygamy.  Most of us would grant that to the extent Islam is an evil, it is less evil than liberalism, but I know some of my colleagues (e.g. Lydia) won’t even agree with that.

Obamacare.  Of course, I oppose the forays of the government into subsidizing evils like contraception and abortion, but the idea espoused by some of my colleagues that forcing people to be on health insurance is somehow tyrannical is something I don’t follow.

52 thoughts on “Picking our battles

  1. Bonald,

    The Patriarchy’s eternal nemesis is “Butch.” In modern America, “Butch”gets to prance around in “feminist” garb creating what appears to be a man/woman war with tomorrow’s “patriarchs” bowing out in favor of MGTOW, i.e., de facto homo-ism.

  2. Per your point on Obamacare – how do you define the term tyranny?, I guess would be the logical question for those of us who do consider Obamacare to be tyrannical by definition.

    • I would define tyranny as commanding evil or usurping the authority of fathers or priests. Things like forcing people to purchase health insurance and forcing insurers to carry people at a certain level of coverage don’t obviously fit my definition of tyranny. (National school curricula, on the other hand…)

  3. Conservatism as such has no foreign policy, except for fighting communists (which–just to make sure we’re all clear on this–I support).

    Conservatism has a foreign policy that entails recognition of the independence and sovereignty of other states — which means non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, even for the purpose of “fighting communism”. In the world in which conservative foreign policy prevails, the United States does not care what type of government another country has. If they go communist, so be it.

    You cannot fight “communism” (or any other -ism) abroad without a large military-industrial complex at home. There was a time when such a thing was anathema to conservatives, believe it or not.

    Conservatives should oppose everything the Leftist establishment wants or does, period. That Leftists want it, whatever it is, is reason enough to oppose it.

    • Revolutionaries in other nations are an infectious disease, as conservatives since Burke have understood. It is certainly right and conservative that the forces of Christendom should stand together against godless Jacobins and their heirs.

      • I just wish there was a way to make it more voluntary. I wouldn’t mind storming the beaches of Somalia right now, setting up a benevolent theonomy of some kind – but using taxes, conscription, and other public resources? Not so much.

      • I agree, but Christendom would need to reemerge first.

        For the past 2 centuries our good ol’ USA has been the world’s primary exporter of revolutionary ideology. The Cold War was little more than Stateside-Communism fighting Soviet-Communism for failing to be sufficiently communistic: Harvard and Foggy Bottom scolding their bratty Slavic children.

      • “I agree, but Christendom would need to reemerge first.”

        You mean, like, by storming the beaches of Somalia and setting up a benevolent theonomy? Could you see it? Lol. Private Christian military forces occupied stateless Somalia, established government to create hospitals, schools, orphanages, and food distribution networks for all Somalis regardless of race, clan, or tribe with express purpose to evangelize the nations around the globe – U.S. sends carrier group with tomahawks and special forces to obliterate evil hateful Christian white people. God bless America!

      • Interesting idea, Earl. It would actually work pretty well… until the US Dept of State decided it had better not. Global sovereignty is not as easy as it looks on TV. But for now, it still works.

      • Burke was a Whig — i.e., not a conservative.

        In any event, for a modern reactionary to want to “fight communism” in foreign countries is absurd to say the least. The country that is exporting communism is the United States itself. We need to shake off that virus in California and New York (just to begin with) before we start marching off to cure the foreigners.

  4. It is dangerous to distill politics to a battle over highly abstract principles, but all but one of the issues you mention are expressions of egalitarianism: women are equal to men, Blacks are equal to Whites, gay is equal to straight, foreigners’ interests are equal to nationals’ interests, Judaism and Islam are equal to Christianity, and obligations to strangers are equal to obligations to kith and kin. So the basic problem is treating things that are different as if they were the same. So far as the Left is concerned, this is a matter of erasing “false distinctions”; so far as we are concerned, it is a regression into barbarism. All of these things may be equal in some respects, even in some important respects, but we insist that they are also in non-trivial ways different.

    You are right to ask whether we should fight only one of these battles, the one against feminism. It seems to me that this is the battle in which victory is least likely, but also that this would the victory that would obviate the need to fight most of the other battles. Except for the ones who want to be fire-breathing lizard queens (not a few), women want to be nice. If it doesn’t involve a sacrifice of personal comfort, and especially if it promises to increase personal comfort by avoiding conflict, most women are happy to treat different things as if they were the same. They are naturally egalitarians. So the more power women possess, the more egalitarian society will be; the less they possess, the less.

    Incidentally, refusal to discriminate is what they mean by “justice.”

    • Here’s something I’ve been thinking for a long time but haven’t written about, for reasons given in this post. Individually, the average woman is as moral as the average man, but a female collective will tend to be morally inferior to a male collective. When men come together in a public sphere, they imbue it with ideals of public virtue and duty to the common good. Of course, few fully live up to the ideals they publicly espouse, but a man would be appalled by a polis that didn’t demand he subordinate his interests to its ideal of justice. Women collectives become reciprocal affirmation in selfishness pacts. Compare patriarchal society to feminist society. In a patriarchal society, men demand more of each other than they can live up to. In our feminist society, female selfishness cannot be criticized at all. Thus, most women are hypocrites in reverse. In their private lives, they still make sacrifices for their husbands, parents, and children, but in public, they affirm a selfish creed of personal autonomy and self-actualization.

      • Morality and the “high ground” is part of patriarchal families and the male hierarchy. Women, innate female/feminine language in particular, are dirty, backstabbing creatures and amoral in their natural state. One should tend to look under the mask, because that type of tyranny is camouflaged with a smile.

        Also, I’m paging manospherian hedonist cad Roissy but this is a great point, most women will do everything and anything to snag a higher status male (through lying, deception or putting up a show of false virtue) and to bring down a higher status female (check out the current mainstream movement celebrating sluttiness, fatness/obesity, rudeness/domineering manners as being a “strong modern woman” and so forth).

  5. My hill to die on is immigration/race/the national question. Demographic replacement is permanent i.e. it can’t be undone. It’s a divisive issue for us, of course.

  6. To decide which issues we should engage on, it seems important to lay out why we are engaging at all (and not engaging at all is an option on the table). I don’t really see that here, except implicitly (Bonald seems to mostly endorse point 3 below, with some 6 in the case of Those Who Shall Not Be Named).

    So, for which reasons should we engage?
    1) We might engage out of simple loyalty to the truth, and the truth being seamless and whole that would likely entail engaging against falsity where we find it
    2) Or out of a desire to seek the truth, to understand better what is happening to us, and to formulate our strategy accordingly
    3) We might engage out of a belief that our engagement itself will change beliefs on the particular matter we engage on
    4) We might engage out of a desire to be seen to be right while our enemies are wrong
    5) We might engage out of a desire to create as completely as possible an alternative set of truth claims and policy ideas on the chance that some future reformer is looking around for ideas.
    6) We might engage out of a desire to build a coalition (intellectual or political) by articulating areas of agreement or to poach people from rival coalitions
    7) We might engage for rhetorical reasons, to motivate ourselves and others to act

    Given how pathetically weak we are and how overwhelmingly strong our enemies are, 3 seems pointless to me. I favor 4 and 5. Showing that our enemies are wrong, absurd, venal, dishonest, incompetent, vicious, and contemptible seems the best route forward. Easy, true, and possibly effective. The scenario in 5 happens rarely but not never in politics. Politicians say “We must do something about X, bring me an egghead with powerpoints and talking points” or “I am a charismatic reformer, what shall I reform?” This is also one of the few scenarios in which intellectuals get real influence.

    I don’t disagree with Bonald much on the underlying significance of these issues. Patriarchy is critically important, substantively. Which race is smarter than which other race, the etiology of homosexuality, and climate sensitivity are all technical issues with no programmed rightist position (though there are true positions). Other than saying, as he does, that we should fight just wars and not fight unjust wars, foreign policy is also not an area of deep intrinsic concern. But “no intrinsic interest” and “no instrumental interest” are not the same thing, and the latter is not inconsequential.

    Human biodiversity, psychometrics, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, homosexuality, immigration, and a number of other issues are places where our enemies have placed big, public bets on losing positions. Forgiving them their losses is insane.

    On ethno-cultural conflict, I don’t agree that the issue is of little importance. It’s important to know whether we are fighting people or ideas. Whether progressivism is a sword or a swordsman. For myself, I can’t decide which of the two is the most true, but it is important to figure out. The intensity of the taboo against even noticing that there is anything to discuss has to count as evidence in favor of the ethno-cultural conflict theory. The fact that the thing we call the left and fight today has so few ideas in common with the thing we called the left and fought sixty years ago is a pretty strange phenomenon for the conflict-of-ideas theory, as well.

  7. Why does global warming arouse such passions among the traditionalist right? As you say, it’s not obviously a traditionalist issue.

    A few thoughts:

    1. The other team (leftists) is aggressively pushing this, so team psychology gets activated.
    2. The proposed solutions mostly involve some intrusive worldwide bureaucracy.
    3. Some people want to see science humbled and put in its place.

    • I think this is correct, and it resembles what happened with natural science generally, and Darwinism in particular. In the 19th century, Christian opinion about NS&D was divided, and not dissimilar to that found in the secular population. Anti-science attitudes didn’t become distinctively Christian until the turn of the 19th century, and this was partly because science was being used as a stick with which to beat Christianity. If one is a CC skeptic on scientific grounds, that is fine, but none of us should be a skeptic out of a sense of team loyalty.

      • All religion is based on the idea that there is something irreducibly personal to reality. Science, on the other hand, reduces everything it can to mechanism.

        Now on a purely logical level they don’t need to conflict. Some aspects of reality may be irreducibly personal, while some others can be explained mechanistically, at least at a certain level. But the religious and the scientific are two very different ways of looking at the world and people often have trouble switching between them.

        So, there is this underlying psychological (not logical) conflict between the two outlooks.

        Then science started to explain some things mechanistically that we didn’t want explained mechanistically, like the origin of species, particularly the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. That hit a little too close to home, and ever since the religion/science conflict has been on high.

        Then this starts to leak out into other scientific disputes.

    • Why does global warming arouse such passions among the traditionalist right?

      It is the latest and best example of the complete politicization of science under Cathedral Clerisy.

  8. I’d agree with most of your list: the etiology of homosexuality is irrelevant to whether it’s a sin, foreign policy is mostly about prudential concerns, so is global warming, so is the healthcare policy, secular Jews are a minor nuisance and religious Jews aren’t even that, Islam is purely an immigration problem.

    The race/IQ/immigration nexus though does seem to warrant more attention than you’ve given it. As Bruce notes above, it can’t be undone and will have serious consequences for our patrimony. The assault on our culture and the potential reduction of our own ethny to a minority in our own homelands is not a minor issue. Demonstrating that certain kinds of people, at least in large numbers, are destructive of our society and not capable of fitting in can help with this. The poor performance of blacks and some other groups around is also pretty central to the left wing narrative about the oppressive past. Demonstrating that these differences are largely due to genetics would deprive them of a major propaganda tool. Which is why this fight is one that they fight so viciously.

    I’d agree that the restoration of traditional gender roles is equally important.

    Notice how both have to do with family, kith and kin as someone has phrased it here.

  9. Restoring patriarchy (authority of the male head of the family) is just a part of the wider goal of restoring normal hiearchy and authority.

    If a society has a properly functioning heirarchy, then the race/IQ/immigration question becomes irrelevant because A) it has a proven ability to handle diveristy B) one person will be able to make a prudent decision on proper immigration levels.

    So I would agree with Bohemund, DESTROYING DEMOCRACY and RESTORING HIERARCHY is the one thing needful. Everything else falls into place after that.

    • Hmm, not so sure. A hierarchical form of government needs to be restrained by an orientation to the right among the people. Otherwise the monarch or whatever will often just do what is best for himself. Lack of hierarchy, for example, would not seem to be the problem in China or the former Soviet Union.

      • Communist and former communist countries are poor examples. Communism is democratic logic taken to an extreme, not rightful hiearchy.

        And I didn’t just mean a hierarchal form of government. A return to hierarchy’s rightful place in society means it will be respected in all forms of social organization. Within the family (patriarchy), within the Church (catholicism/orthodoxy), in the economy (apprentice/master relationships), and within the government (monarchy).

        I do agree with your point; though, that an orientation to the right or to the good is also needed among the people; but, this orientation to do and be good cannot come from argumentation or political manuevering; but, by Christian evangelism and the Holy Spirit.

      • China and Russia caught a very nasty variant of demotism. It almost killed them but they are now recovering. The US has barely entered the worst phases of the disease.

  10. One that Bonald forgot is the restoration of religion (and not just watered down civil religion) to it’s central role in society, including in government. In particular, we have to put an end to the idea that government can ever be neutral when it comes to religion. This is crucial.

    (Of course, none of this need mean that we should attempt a full blown theocracy, and dealing with religious dissent and lapses in public morality is a prudential matter that calls for considerable restraint.)

  11. The traditionalist movement should avoid unnecessary and distracting commitments

    What traditionalist movement?

  12. Seems to me Jews are just non-Christians, just like any other non-Christians whether secular, muslim or Zoroastrian. And Bonald, you’re not the only one who doesn’t care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

  13. I think we should focus on promoting the three things that leftists seem to reflexively, instinctually hate: Roman hierarchy, the Germanic world, and especially Christ Himself.

    Their fears can be summarized in three words:

    Holy. Roman. Empire.

    Tell me I’m wrong.

  14. Thanks. Were Obamacare/The [un]Affordable Care Act an authorized federal power under the Constitution, I would have no other choice than to (reluctantly) agree with you that it is not, in strictness, tyrannous – although such a power wouldn’t be requisite for the purposes of legitimate government in any case. But it isn’t a (federal) power authorized by the Constitution, thus it’s a usurpation, and a violation of our fundamental law. Which is to say “tyranny.” (Roberts’s justification per the general revenue raising power in Article I, sec. 8 is a joke, especially in light of Federalist no. 41.)

  15. What if Obamacare, US global hegemony, gay legitimization, and HNU were, among other things, all quite specially aligned against the preservation of patriarchy?

    • I can usually figure out TLAs (three-letter acronyms), but this one’s got me stumped: what’s HNU?

      Please, everyone, spell out your acronyms at least once, so that we can follow what you’re saying.

      • Sorry, trying to cram too much into one sentence: Human Neurological Uniformity. Snarfed it from Moldbug’s three great questions to his hypothetical open-minded progressive: HNU, AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming) and KFM (Keynes-Fischer Macroeconomics). These things are Unquestionable Official Truth (as of 2008… AGW is cracking but something even stupider is likely to take its place), and yet they are prima facie absurd.

  16. To be honest, I think the Orthosphere can be principled and should not seek out “compromise” (aka watering down the message to appease one’s enemies or disregard the truth), but neither should it engage the enemy and accept it on their terms.

  17. The best thing is to avoid criticizing religions such as orthodox Islam or Hinduism. While at the end one may not agree with them, if they are against MEWSL (modern enlightened western secular liberalism), then they are part of the team and along for the ride for some time.

    • I cannot agree with this. While it might be strategically wise to avoid criticism of Islam and Hinduism—at least in certain venues and in certain forms—both provide un-Christian and anti-Christian models of religious belief that are harmful to our spiritual and political health.

      Hinduism is false because of its belief that all is one, i.e., what Dr. Peter Jones has called “one-ism.” Christianity, or “two-ism,” preaches the truth that on the one hand, there is the Creator, and on the other, the created. Working with Hindus to defeat liberalism will only strengthen Hinduism; then we will have to fight its falsehoods that will have grown deeper roots.

      Islam is our perpetual enemy—not because we say so, but because they do. No good can come from “teaming” with Moslems. If we work with Moslems to defeat liberalism, we will have strengthened Moslems and have an even more difficult fight with them thereafter. The only sensible approach to Islam is Lawrence Auster’s Separationism.

  18. White IQ was a standard deviation lower less than a century ago (and rapid variations of IQ does seem to me a reasonable argument, by the way, for the great importance of environmental influence)

    This is debatable. That’s even assuming by IQ we mean an actual measurable thing (like midichlorians) and not merely the distribution itself, which shows relative differences between identifiable groups to be remarkably stable over time. Certainly environmental factors play a role, and much effort has gone into removing the big physiological hurdles. Which is why today (and not 100 years ago) it seems quite clear that IQ is 60-70% hereditary.

    To step back from the question, yes, one may very well be agnostic about the implications of black vs. white vs. NE Asian IQ, one may very well have “bigger fish to fry”. But, irrespective of how, if at all, obvious facts ought to be considered in debates of public policy, you have to ask the larger question of how and why such facts are absolutely forbidden, piously ignored, and/or derided as patent racist lies in today’s (supposedly rational, inclusive) public discourse.

    And oddly enough, these facts are treated with about as much respect (i.e., none) as similarly embarrassing facts about sex differences, which if acknowledged would lead to public policies much more favorable to Patriarchy.

    Could it be that the power or powers suppressing blatant truths in one domain (race realism) are related to those that suppress blatant truths in another (sex realism)? Might they even be one and the same entrenched power? If so, you no longer have a simple problem of tearing down and/or suppressing Patriarchy, but a problem of Generalized Embarrassing Truth Suppression. Even if you and your allies happen to win a victory for Patriarchy (good luck with that, I am definitely on your side there), you still have a machine very much in place that kills truth.

    And if that’s the case, you might not very well get to be a Single Issue Reactionary.

  19. I think that Bonald has misunderstood the Flynn effect. If whites of the 1930s really were only as smart as blacks are now, then it means that the Founding Fathers had IQs in the shoe size range, and that Plato and Aristotle were amoeba-like in their IQs.

    Clearly, this is wrong.

    The Flynn effect has (at least) two parts. One, as has been noted, is that the bottom has been raised due to environmental factors. Things like better nutrition and less lead poisoning have reduced the downward pressures, so there are fewer people now than in the past whose intelligence has been damaged.

    The other part, the part that few without experience and training in testing (i.e., test development and analysis) seldom know or understand, is “test fatigue.” The longer a test is used, the more that scores go up on it. It’s part of why the SAT keeps getting revised, and it’s why organizations that use tests on large populations need to update, revise, and replace tests on a regular basis.

    What has not changed between 1917 (when the Army first conducted large-scale IQ tests) and now is the gap between black and white IQ test scores. Despite the overall increase in standards of living (especially for blacks), the Flynn effect, Affirmative Action, and billions of dollars spent (wasted?) on Head Start, welfare, and the like, the gap of one standard deviation (15 points) between black and white IQ test results remains the same.

    The Flynn effect is noise that is not relevant to the results of IQ testing. What is relevant is that most environmental factors work to depress IQ, and there is precious little that can be done to raise it. (About the only thing that seems to raise IQ is musical training from an early age, but even that research isn’t definitive.)

    The Bell Curve remains an excellent resource for further understanding of IQ and IQ testing.

    • It’s fairly clear to me that the Flynn effect can’t be a real increase in intelligence (which, last I checked, was also Flynn’s basic position on the matter — though the effect was actually discovered by Richard Lynn). First, it seems preposterous that, e.g., white Americans of a century ago were no more intelligent than black Americans are today. Second, the one obvious “environmental factor” that would raise measured intelligence all over the world at about the same rate is… the practice and standards of measuring intelligence!

      • My understanding of it would be

        1) The change in the average mostly comes from improvements at the left end of the curve. A big part of this could be environmental: better nutrition etc.

        2) It could well be that the moderate-to-low end of the spectrum actually are smarter in the way that the test is measuring. People may be being taught or forced to think abstractly more often, and this sort of skill is easier to pick up on a test. Things like intuition, moral sensibility, and alertness to symbolism could be (and probably are) degrading.

        3) Even if most people a century ago were a lot dumber in every sense than most people now, that would have little effect on the collective intellectual level of the society, which is set by the elite. IQ distribution not being perfectly Gaussian, it is possible for average intelligence and elite intelligence to do different and unpredictable things.

        4) Therefore, it’s not implausible to me that the average American a century ago had no stronger abstract reasoning ability than the average black today. The difference is that America a century ago had a cognitive elite on top of this mass, and the black community today seems to lack that. There could simply be proportionally fewer cognitive elite blacks out there. Another major factor is whether cognitive elite blacks achieve the level of influence over their community that cognitive elite whites do in theirs. As long as there is some critical mass of very smart blacks, and a somewhat larger mass of average intelligence trainable subordinate blacks, there is a potential for a black community with an overall high intellectual tone. Only elites really matter.

      • Replying to Bonald’s points.

        1. Yes.

        2. No. Abstract thinking is the part of the IQ test that is harder, and least influenced by cultural factors—or training, for that matter. However, your sub-point—the degradation of intuition, moral sensibility, and alertness to symbolism—is right on the spot, but those have little to do with IQ itself.

        3. The IQ levels of the elite and those of the hoi polloi are always going to differ; modern American society is much more efficient at getting the cognitive elite into college and the kinds of careers that leads to than it once was. Even so, a society needs a certain collective level of intelligence to perform well. For example, most mundane office work needs an IQ in the 100-110 range—not quite bright enough for college (at least as it once was), but slightly above average. Societies with small populations in this range will not be able to fulfill those functions as efficiently as societies with large(-ish) populations in this range.

        4. You really need to read The Bell Curve. You might also benefit from perusing View From the Right’s selections on intelligence and IQ.

        Simply put, people with average IQs in the black range—85—cannot even sustain, much less build, complicated technological societies. The percentage of cognitive elites from such a base will be about the same as those with a higher average IQ, but the overall level will be lower, and there are not enough in the critical 100-110 range to keep things running.

        Evidence for this position can be summed up in one word: Detroit. Detroit was built by white invention and industry; it is now decaying and falling back into wilderness under black mismanagement. There simply are not enough blacks with adequate intellectual capabilities to keep it going. The same applies to any majority-black city or country.

        “Only elites really matter.” Absolutely not. There must be a mass of people in the 100-110 range to keep things running. Without them, the elites cannot keep things going. Besides, for blacks, 100 is already one standard deviation above average, and 115 is two, with all that implies for the paucity of people in that range and above.

        Finally, have you looked at textbooks from a century ago? It’s likely that you couldn’t even answer some of the mathematical word problems that were expected of eighth graders (I can’t!). The idea that our immediate ancestors were no brighter than today’s average blacks is belied by Joseph Sobran’s famous observation: “In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college.”

      • Hi Bruce,

        First, since you’re arguing that phenotypic IQ has risen while genotypic IQ has fallen, you will agree with me that arguments along the lines of “obviously people a century ago weren’t dumb” aren’t right, because these are presumably referring to phenotypic IQ.

        Second, let’s then be consistent in our rejection of IQ as too environmentally tainted. Is there any data on difference in reaction times between races?

  20. Hey Bonald, ever read what Pope Pius XI had to say about racism?

    “During the course of the last two years of his pontificate, Pius XI had publicly characterized racism as scientifically unsound, a religious apostasy or heresy, and a totalitarian tendency in violation of natural law as well as the Christian creed.161”


    If anyone here is bothered by miscegenation, they should learn that in America, Catholics were the ones who organized launched the court proceedings which got the American laws against miscegenation struck down. This took place in the 1940s, so no, it has nothing to do with Vatican II.

    “What people are surprised to learn, however, is the extent of Catholic involvement in the California Supreme Court decision that led the Nation away from institutionalized racism when it held in Perez v. Sharp (1948) that the state’s constitution prohibits race-based marriage laws. Professor Fay Botham tells the story of Perez in “How a Catholic Theology of Marriage Crushed California’s Anti-Miscegenation Law.”

    Sylvester Davis, an African-American, and Andrea Perez, a Hispanic woman of Mexican descent, were members of St. Patrick’s Catholic Church in Los Angeles. They became engaged and asked Father Joseph Della Torre about getting married in the church. He told them that the county would not issue them a license because the bride-to-be was a white woman and her fiancé was a black man.

    The couple and their priest turned to Daniel Marshall, president of the Catholic Interracial Council of Los Angeles, a group that met at St. Patrick’s. Marshall became their lawyer. Their case gave the California Supreme Court the opportunity to score a victory for racial justice by reaffirming the meaning of marriage.

    Davis knew that a frontal attack on racism was impossible. Racism and eugenic theory were deeply embedded in American law. In a spring, 1947 letter to Auxiliary Bishop Joseph McGucken, Marshall explained that his case against the law would rest on religious liberty, not racial equality.

    Ms. Perez and Mr. Davis were Catholics. Pope Pius XI’s 1937 encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge, had expressly condemned eugenic theories of racial purity as a “myth of race and blood.” (MBS 17) The encyclical pleaded with Germans to remember that the “real common good ultimately takes its measure from man’s nature,” and argued that any law or policy that ignores human nature will “shake the pillars on which society rests, and … compromise social tranquility, security and existence.” [MBS, 30] The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia made the same point. Governments cannot define and regulate marriage in a manner inconsistent with human nature because “human society … originated by marriage, not marriage by human society.” A religious liberty approach would allow Davis to use Catholic teaching to argue that racism is inherently irrational.

    All four justices in the Perez majority accepted Davis’ argument that marriage is “something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the State; it is a fundamental right of free men.” Quoting Skinner v Oklahoma, which said “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” they made clear that the fundamental right was related to the fundamental right to procreate. They accepted his argument that racism is based on a “myth of race and blood.” But the all-important, fourth (and deciding) vote in Perez, cast by Justice Edmonds, rested on “a broader ground”: the “fundamental principles of Christianity.”


    • It’s a fair point (though an encyclical unpublished because of the Pope’s death is not an encyclical at all). Blaming Vatican II for things may never get old, but it isn’t literally true that every bad thing ever is rooted in it. The Papacy started its slide with Benedict XV, continued with Pius XI, Pius XII was a bit of an uptick, then things completely fell apart.

      Also, the American bishops, desperate as they were and are to fit in with America’s evil elite, have always been largely wet. FYI, by the 40s, our elite’s plan to use blacks as a hammer to destroy Catholic neighborhoods and culture was well underway. Those insular, racist Catholics were being taught a lesson all across the rust belt. The effort to get on the “other side” of the black issue was a stupid gambit in the 40s to the extent that Catholics did it, and it is a stupid gambit now when neocons do it. “The left are the REAL racists” is a tactic which can’t work.

  21. Disagree. Some of these are important issues. Especially the legitimization of sodomy. Sodomy must be ended, and those who practice it forced to the margins of society. They are the tools of satan. On the cause, I’d agree it makes no difference. It is an affront to God, and an unnatural practice ALL Neoreactionaries should oppose vehemently.

    I would agree on the Jews however. Historically, Jews became very rich during the Medieval period. When the crusades were conducted, a lot of loans had to be paid out, but at the time it was viewed as un-Christian to lend money to a fellow Christian, so Jews were designated to be the prime loan-givers. With this money came power and corruption followed, undoubtedly.
    But this is not an ethnic thing, its a money thing, and there are many poor Jews today. Not much point going after Jews or Israel when we have a million and one problems caused by white secular tyrants in the west.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s