A Conversation with White Nationalist Jared Taylor on Race in America

[RiazHaq]

http://www.riazhaq.com/2017/02/a-conversation-with-white-nationalist.html

Is there an established link between race and intelligence? Are whites inherently more intelligent than people of color? If so, why did Europe suffer a rapid decline during the Dark Ages after the Fall of the Roman Empire? Did the Europeans' intelligence (IQ) precipitously drop? Or did the IQ of the Arab-Persian Muslims experience a meteoric rise during the Golden Age of Islam while Europe was in the Dark Ages?



World IQ Scores Map Source: American Info Maps

Where did the term "Caucasian" to describe Europeans come from? Does it suggest that Europeans originally migrated from Caucasus region in Central Asia? Didn't most Pakistanis and North Indians also come from the same Caucasus region to their new home in South Asia? If so, why is the IQ for Europeans (100) higher than the IQ of 82 for Indians and 84 for Pakistanis? Is it dealing with the harsh winters than has increased European IQ? If so, why do the Eskimos have lower IQs than the Europeans?

Is race a biological or a social/cultural construct in America? Does the one-drop (of blood) rule suggest it's more cultural than biological? Why does a person with even a single drop of African blood considered Black even if he/she looks and acts white in every way?

Why is the fertility rate (TFR) among whites declining rapidly below replacement levels? Is it because the whites are feeling threatened by immigrants of color and not wanting to bring white children into the world? Or is it part of the worldwide declining trend that has cut Japan's TFR to 1.44? With total fertility rate of less than 2 children per American woman and declining, how long can the United States continue to maintain its primacy as an economic, political and military superpower? With the aging population and workers per retiree down to 2.9 already, how will the US government continue to honor its commitments of social security benefits to the elderly? Would liberal immigration from non-white countries help resolve these issues?

Is immigration good or bad for America? Are non-white immigrants helping or hurting America? Are non-white immigrants a threat to White America? Why is California with its 40% white population doing so much better than France with its 80% white population? Why is California with a population of 38 million has slightly bigger economy than France with its 68 million population? If you claim America is only for white Europeans, how would you react to the native Americans claim that America is only for them?

Viewpoint From Overseas panelists Ali H. Cemendtaur and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com) discuss these questions with Jared Taylor, White Nationalist founder and editor of American Renaissance.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Are People of Color Less Intelligent?

Golden Age of Islam

Harvard Genetics Study of South Asians

Pakistan Population Growth: Blessing or Curse?

Massive Support For Muslims in Silicon Valley After Trump Ban

Minorities Are Majority in Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley Pakistanis

Rise of the West After Industrial Revolution

http://www.riazhaq.com/2017/02/a-conversation-with-white-nationalist.html

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

In scientific terms, there is only one "human race", and the genetic differences between say, a black Somalian and a white Swedish person are basically nothing.

Sweden has been rich and stable for much of the past century, while Somalia has been poor and unstable for much of the past century. If their conditions were reversed over the course of the past 100 years, then the outcome would also have been reversed. We are all human beings after all, and we are a product of our environments.

There is a book called "The Lord of the Flies" which gives a fictional (and somewhat exaggerated) account of how easily human beings can lose their civilized nature when there are no laws and no institutions to manage their behaviour.

 

[django]

Perhaps the bubonic plague in Europe killed off the dumb folks, smarter folks survived and copulated to produce smarter babies, then later on industrial evolution encouraged innovation.....what you think @The Sandman @Nilgiri

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Very elegantly stated by Chinese user,

Your Education and national stability provide the best avenue for yoru nation to move forward.

Color of your skin means nothing , without school or education a white man or black man , both can live in cave and hunt or farm for 100,0000 year with no significant change

Only education or desire to do research move your forward

Africa , Egypt for example was a hub for education across the world for many years as it use to house many research scrolls hidden away or kept in the chambers of its now destroyed libraries.

• Egypt created the Alaxandria library to make up for lost time one of largest libraries in Muslim world
• Iran also is conducting massive amount of studies in Science

Similarly knowledge was also attained and lost in other civilizations

What changed the fate of Humans as we know them know was the inventenion of paper and ink , which allowed Humans to preserve their knowledge for future generations.

Ever since skrols came up and then they turned into books that could be preserved for 50-100 years, humans started to ehance their knowledge exponentially

The more books they had , the more knowledge they had , it turned into more wealth by people taking advantage of the knowledge in farming or commerce.

 

[Zibago]

According to him people like @mike2000 is back are race traitors

Whites are not facing a genocide its just that when whites marry outside their race and have kids the white genes are not dominant and their kids end up being non-white well except for few rare cases

 

[Nilgiri]

Perhaps the bubonic plague in Europe killed off the dumb folks, smarter folks survived and copulated to produce smarter babies, then later on industrial evolution encouraged innovation.....what you think @The Sandman @Nilgiri

a) Intelligence is not fully measured by IQ

b) Climate differences produce a lot of variation in IQ, given warmer climates generally do not need the same level of food harvesting (for winter) and thus the same attitude development of sustained security/warfare etc.. However overall intelligence comes from a variety of adaptation responses, it is a very varied spectrum. The correlation of IQ to industrialisation certainly is high and makes much sense in theory (given the attributes are largely transferable... given that is what essentially drives humans to turn from tribes to civilisations).

c) Plagues and other diseases killed off people almost randomly (esp before the days of modern medicine). So there was no greater normalised intelligence per se before and after such calamity.

d) The IQ tests/methodology of the source (Lynn, Vanhanen IQ and the wealth of nations) found in the OP has very flawed data collection methods. A read of " IQ and the Wealth of Nations. A Critique of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's Recent Book" by Thomas Volken will give you an idea of this if anyone is interested.

e) Thus several IQ tests done independently have shown different results:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000925

summary here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-of-5-year-olds-in-uk/

Not saying these are 100% accurate either (and would also be influenced by specific migration patterns from the host countries varied socioeconomic profile)....but they do show the marked variation stemming from the methodology used.

f) Many "spark" factors as to why civilisations get created and why they collapse. Sometimes you just need the right combination for it to happen and take hold like it did in the industrial revolution in Europe (which in itself came about mostly because of the protestant reformation which were caused by various factors happening at the same time almost by coincidence)

g) Thus I feel many of the IQ level differences are quite skewed in many cases...and the claim that IQ represents intelligence fully to be false.

So with all these points said, I do feel there should be a lot more studies on the matter. Diversity in intelligence spectrums (IQ, EQ and myriad others that should be developed) all around the world are more what make the human species strong overall. I for one do not believe its a zero sum game where having lower normalised IQ in a population means they automatically lack in other intelligence profiles. What is the aggregate measure and relative importance of all these factors? Such studies have never been done unfortunately....IQ is often treated as the be all end all.

It is why this subject should not be a sensitive one wrapped by political correctness (and thus the IQ studies become unnecessarily political and explosive in contrast). The debate room must be opened and science must be allowed to fully explore this realm....pursuit of truth is ultimately the highest endeavour of intelligence...in my opinion the only worthwhile one.

 

[django]

a) Intelligence is not fully measured by IQ

b) Climate differences produce a lot of variation in IQ, given warmer climates generally do not need the same level of food harvesting (for winter) and thus the same attitude development of sustained security/warfare etc.. However overall intelligence comes from a variety of adaptation responses, it is a very varied spectrum. The correlation of IQ to industrialisation certainly is high and makes much sense in theory (given the attributes are largely transferable... given that is what essentially drives humans to turn from tribes to civilisations).

c) Plagues and other diseases killed off people almost randomly (esp before the days of modern medicine). So there was no greater normalised intelligence per se before and after such calamity.

d) The IQ tests/methodology of the source (Lynn, Vanhanen IQ and the wealth of nations) found in the OP has very flawed data collection methods. A read of " IQ and the Wealth of Nations. A Critique of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's Recent Book" by Thomas Volken will give you an idea of this if anyone is interested.

e) Thus several IQ tests done independently have shown different results:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000925

summary here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-of-5-year-olds-in-uk/

Not saying these are 100% accurate either (and would also be influenced by specific migration patterns from the host countries varied socioeconomic profile)....but they do show the marked variation stemming from the methodology used.

f) Many "spark" factors as to why civilisations get created and why they collapse. Sometimes you just need the right combination for it to happen and take hold like it did in the industrial revolution in Europe (which in itself came about mostly because of the protestant reformation which were caused by various factors happening at the same time almost by coincidence)

g) Thus I feel many of the IQ level differences are quite skewed in many cases...and the claim that IQ represents intelligence fully to be false.

So with all these points said, I do feel there should be a lot more studies on the matter. Diversity in intelligence spectrums (IQ, EQ and myriad others that should be developed) all around the world are more what make the human species strong overall. I for one do not believe its a zero sum game where having lower normalised IQ in a population means they automatically lack in other intelligence profiles. What is the aggregate measure and relative importance of all these factors? Such studies have never been done unfortunately....IQ is often treated as the be all end all.

It is why this subject should not be a sensitive one wrapped by political correctness (and thus the IQ studies become unnecessarily political and explosive in contrast). The debate room must be opened and science must be allowed to fully explore this realm....pursuit of truth is ultimately the highest endeavour of intelligence...in my opinion the only worthwhile one.

A dissertation for a post, and a well thought out post at that indeed bhai, I too agree with you that Intelligence is far too complex to be measured by some flimsy IQ test, at best these tests will tell you that one may not succeed in academic studies if they score terribly low, also as you pointed out their is diversity in intelligence between various groups ie Aboriginal children scored very poorly on math based questions yet excelled at those requiring spatial awareness, it does not surprise me as Aboriginals in their known history have had little use for numbers but plenty of use for navigation.Kudos
@WAJsal @waz @Khafee superb and very informative post from Nilgri bhai.

 

[RiazHaq]

In scientific terms, there is only one "human race", and the genetic differences between say, a black Somalian and a white Swedish person are basically nothing.

Sweden has been rich and stable for much of the past century, while Somalia has been poor and unstable for much of the past century. If their conditions were reversed over the course of the past 100 years, then the outcome would also have been reversed. We are all human beings after all, and we are a product of our environments.

There is a book called "The Lord of the Flies" which gives a fictional (and somewhat exaggerated) account of how easily human beings can lose their civilized nature when there are no laws and no institutions to manage their behaviour.

Flynn Effect, named after researcher James Flynn, says that IQ depends on both nature and nurture.

Better education, nutrition and health are known to increase IQ.

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ce-iq-myths-does-your-family-make-you-smarter

Study in post war Germany where both white and black American GIs left many children born to white German girls.

Here's what Flynn said about it: “when American troops occupied Germany at the end of the second world war, black soldiers left behind half-black children and white soldiers left behind all-white. By 11, the two groups had identical average IQ"

It's also known that high disease burdens force children in poor nations to use up all of their resources in fighting disease. This impairs their cognitive development.

It's also known that lack of iodine in diet causes mental retardation. Similarly, exposure to lead and other toxins also causes lower IQ.

Infections cause low IQ University of New Mexico

http://www.riazhaq.com/2010/07/infections-cause-low-iq-in-south-asia.html

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

a) Intelligence is not fully measured by IQ

b) Climate differences produce a lot of variation in IQ, given warmer climates generally do not need the same level of food harvesting (for winter) and thus the same attitude development of sustained security/warfare etc.. However overall intelligence comes from a variety of adaptation responses, it is a very varied spectrum. The correlation of IQ to industrialisation certainly is high and makes much sense in theory (given the attributes are largely transferable... given that is what essentially drives humans to turn from tribes to civilisations).

c) Plagues and other diseases killed off people almost randomly (esp before the days of modern medicine). So there was no greater normalised intelligence per se before and after such calamity.

d) The IQ tests/methodology of the source (Lynn, Vanhanen IQ and the wealth of nations) found in the OP has very flawed data collection methods. A read of " IQ and the Wealth of Nations. A Critique of Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's Recent Book" by Thomas Volken will give you an idea of this if anyone is interested.

e) Thus several IQ tests done independently have shown different results:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000925

summary here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-of-5-year-olds-in-uk/

Not saying these are 100% accurate either (and would also be influenced by specific migration patterns from the host countries varied socioeconomic profile)....but they do show the marked variation stemming from the methodology used.

f) Many "spark" factors as to why civilisations get created and why they collapse. Sometimes you just need the right combination for it to happen and take hold like it did in the industrial revolution in Europe (which in itself came about mostly because of the protestant reformation which were caused by various factors happening at the same time almost by coincidence)

g) Thus I feel many of the IQ level differences are quite skewed in many cases...and the claim that IQ represents intelligence fully to be false.

So with all these points said, I do feel there should be a lot more studies on the matter. Diversity in intelligence spectrums (IQ, EQ and myriad others that should be developed) all around the world are more what make the human species strong overall. I for one do not believe its a zero sum game where having lower normalised IQ in a population means they automatically lack in other intelligence profiles. What is the aggregate measure and relative importance of all these factors? Such studies have never been done unfortunately....IQ is often treated as the be all end all.

It is why this subject should not be a sensitive one wrapped by political correctness (and thus the IQ studies become unnecessarily political and explosive in contrast). The debate room must be opened and science must be allowed to fully explore this realm....pursuit of truth is ultimately the highest endeavour of intelligence...in my opinion the only worthwhile one.

The bottom line is that IQ tests are only particularly useful in measuring how good people are at doing IQ tests.

It's not really a comprehensive measure of intelligence, and it never really claimed to be.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Whites are not facing a genocide its just that when whites marry outside their race and have kids the white genes are not dominant and their kids end up being non-white well except for few rare cases

Exactly, recessive genes are ninjas of the Human Genome.

 

[django]

The bottom line is that IQ tests are only particularly useful in measuring how good people are at doing IQ tests.

It's not really a comprehensive measure of intelligence, and it never really claimed to be.

Exactly, all they indicate is that one can think in similar ways to the psychologists who devise them.Kudos

The bottom line is that IQ tests are only particularly useful in measuring how good people are at doing IQ tests.

It's not really a comprehensive measure of intelligence, and it never really claimed to be.

Exactly, all they indicate is that one can think in similar ways to the psychologists who devise them.Kudos

 

[Nilgiri]

The bottom line is that IQ tests are only particularly useful in measuring how good people are at doing IQ tests.

It's not really a comprehensive measure of intelligence, and it never really claimed to be.

Yah I'm talking from the perspective of the argument posted in the OP. It just seamlessly wandered back and forth with IQ and intelligence....implying they are 1:1 equivalents. It happens a lot, its quite frustrating.

 

[RiazHaq]

White nationalist terrorism deaths vs. jihadi terrorism deaths in America after 9/11. https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth...nited-states-today/#americas-layered-defenses

It’s not just the Quebec mosque attack that occurred last month or the 2015 Charleston mass shooting at a black church. They have occurred so frequently that Ben Mathis-Lilley managed to compile a list of 32 fatal white extremist attacks since Timothy McVeigh carried out the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, including attacks by Ku Klux Klan leader Frazier Glenn Miller in 2014, neo-Nazi Keith Luke in 2009, and white supremacist James von Brunn in 2009. (And it doesn’t even include attacks outside the US, like the 2011 Norway attacks by far-right extremist Anders Behring Breivik.)

And the statistics, in fact, show that right-wing extremist attacks, often carried out by white supremacists and nationalists, have typically killed more Americans in most years than Muslim jihadist terrorist attacks since 9/11. (Although deaths from terrorism are very rare in the US: As my colleague Zack Beauchamp noted, deaths from terrorism by Muslims, as one example, make up one-third of 1 percent of all murders in the US.)

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/8/14552098/sean-duffy-white-terrorists

 

[takeiteasy]

I've read Europeans (or British?) did human taxonomy like they do for dogs etc. The politically incorrect view which includes Human races NOT, but Human "breeds". The cranial capacity of each races measured etc. Thus, Zanj/Negro, Aboriginals etc are considered sub humans not so long ago.

May be this could be a good read: https://www.amazon.com/Erectus-Walks-Amongst-Richard-Fuerle/dp/1604581212

 

[RiazHaq]

What Scientists Mean When They Say 'Race' Is Not Genetic
A new paper explains why it can be dangerous to think otherwise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/race-is-not-biological_us_56b8db83e4b04f9b57da89ed

If a team of scientists in Philadelphia and New York have their way, using race to categorize groups of people in biological and genetic research will be forever discontinued.

The concept of race in such research is "problematic at best and harmful at worst," the researchers argued in a new paper published in the journal Science on Friday.

However, they also said that social scientists should continue to study race as a social construct to better understand the impact of racism on health.

So what does all this mean? HuffPost Science recently posed that question and others to the paper's co-author, Michael Yudell, who is associate professor and chair of community health and prevention at the Dornsife School of Public Health at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Why is it problematic to view race as a biological concept?

For more than a century, natural and social scientists have been arguing about whether race is a useful classificatory tool in the biological sciences -- can it elucidate the relationship between humans and their evolutionary history, between humans and their health. In the wake of the U.S. Human Genome Project, the answer seemed to be a pretty resounding "no."

In 2004, for example, Francis Collins, then head of the National Human Genome Research Institute and now director of the National Institutes of Health, called race a “flawed” and “weak” concept and argued that science needed to move beyond race. Yet, as our paper highlights, the use of race persist in genetics, despite voices like Collins, like Craig Venter -- leaders in the field of genomics -- who have called on the field to move beyond it.

We believe it is time to revisit this century-long debate and bring biologists, social scientists and scholars from the humanities together in a constructive way to find better ways to study the ever-important subject of human diversity.

The race concept should be removed from genetics research for the following reasons: Genetic methods do not support the classification of humans into discrete races, [and] racial assumptions are not good biological guideposts. Races are not genetically homogenous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries. And because of this, using race as a proxy to make clinical predictions is about probability.

Of course, medicine can be about best guesses, but are we serving patients well if medical decisions are made because a patient identifies as part of a certain racial group or are identified as belonging to a specific race? What if, for example, the probability is that if you are white you are 90 percent likely to have a beneficial or at least non-harmful reaction to a particular drug? That sounds pretty good, but what if you are that 1 in 10 that is likely to have a harmful reaction? That doesn’t sound so good, and that is the problem with most race-based predictions. They are best guesses for an individual.

We also believe that a variable so mired in historical and contemporary controversy has no place in modern genetics. Race has both scientific and social meanings that are impossible to tease apart, and we worry that using such a concept in modern genetics does not serve the field well.