Ethnocentrism and neoconservatism vs. Islamism

[Aquamarine]

You have failed to produce a single peer-reviewed study that shows that ethnocentrism by different races are genetic or that whites have low and Jews high. Books and articles that have theories are no evidence. In fact, you ignore the studies available that show that whites have high. These studies should be criticized and shows nothing about genetics, but they certainly do not support your theory.

Neither have you shown any support for the theory that Jews make other people poorer. In fact, you have not answered to the historical examples given before in this thread that persecution have had the opposite effect.

Nor can the theory about voluntary separation and selective breeding by the Jews explain why the 500 years that Jews lived in relative peace in the Ottoman empire (and much longer if also those who lived for a long time before that in Islamic Spain are counted), produced a much lower IQ than among the Jews who survived the persecutions in Europe. A much better explanation is that a harsher environment selected for a higher IQ, as it may have done in whites and East Asians who survived the ice age.

More anecdotes: Living in a very sparsely populated area will not automatically make people more altruistic. The Yanomami indians in the Amazonas live in a very sparsely populated area but no one would describe them as altruistic:

In general, warring villages are usually several days walk from each other, where as tranquil ones may be less than a day.

About 40% of adult males have killed another person and about 25% of adult males will die from some form of violence. Violence will vary from chest pounding, in which opponents take turns hitting each others on the chest, to club fights, to raids which may involve the killing of individuals and abducting the women, to all out warfare.

http://www.crystalinks.com/yanomami.html

 

[nuenke]

You have failed to produce a single peer-reviewed study that shows that ethnocentrism by different races are genetic or that whites have low and Jews high. Books and articles that have theories are no evidence. In fact, you ignore the studies available that show that whites have high. These studies should be criticized and shows nothing about genetics, but they certainly do not support your theory.

You seem to fail to understand the scientific method. When you are in college, you read books, not research papers. Likewise, I rely on books, not as simplistic or biased as textbooks, but books that are produced from symposiums by researchers, who critique each other's research papers. I especially like books from the American Psychological Association where numerous researchers contribute to a subject, and all sides are heard. When you want to get the latest research, bound in a single source where you can see differences between researchers, rather than rely on one researchers position, it becomes far more reliable. Any one research paper is usually highly biased and flawed in some respects, whereas academically sponsored symposiums tend to be more unbiased because of divergent views. When a view cannot be supported, it is appended as an area requiring more research. I provided you with two books by numerous researchers, that believe that ethnocentrism is in fact a combination of genes and culture, you then reject these results from symposiums that are in fact a result of research papers, and feel somehow you have deflected an observation. I have seen this tactic used too many times. Mostly in the area of human differences like IQ, behavioral differences, when life begins, etc. These highly contentious areas are constantly being reported on by the media that uses single studies for a splash effect, only to find out that there are numerous studies that show just the opposite. Academically reviewed books are in fact much more reliable than research papers, especially books compiled by the leading researchers in an area of study.

Of course, there are some areas of study that are in fact being attacked for not being scientific at all. Social scientists and cultural anthropologists, as well as many postmodernist studies, have taken the positions of naïve environmentalism - they totally ignore any genetic component in their studies.

Now, for that research paper you wanted, I will provide you with a recent one on ethnocentrism show you why it is invalid. http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/6/749

Note first that it is from Sage Publications, and Sage is noted for taking the naïve environmental stance. In the paper, they use questions like "Do you think Blacks are less intelligent than other groups?" Of course, if Blacks are in fact less intelligent than other groups, which is the position of the APA and behavior geneticists, then it is not biased but truthful. But social scientists repeatedly use this technique to show bias, by assuming that there is no difference in average intelligence between races. That is, the research is flawed. This is the most common flaw on the part of the Left when it comes to research of this kind, genetic components are not only left out, they are assumed not to exist.

Now, in my original post "Understanding Jewish Influence III" by Kevin MacDonald, there are provided 450 references and endnotes. Some of them are Internet links and you are free to do what anyone does who needs to refute a position or attack the data. That is usually done not by amateurs, but by other academics who have access to large databases and the research staff to try and find flaws in the data. I am unaware of very many people who have these types of resources or time. Again, for me, I then rely on books by researchers, preferably very reputable ones. But a final note on ethnocentrism. I too find very little in the way of hard data showing how races differ. But that is only because this type of data is hard to collect. But the little data there is, seems to show what MacDonald has described as differences between Europeans and Semites. His 1994 book references the some of the same researchers who contributed to "Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Findings and Evolutionary Theory" edited by Frank Salter, 2004. The book is based on over 40 years of research, and again it is far more substantial than relying on a couple of studies that may or may not be free of extreme bias.

Neither have you shown any support for the theory that Jews make other people poorer. In fact, you have not answered to the historical examples given before in this thread that persecution have had the opposite effect.

I don't think I stated that "Jews make other people poorer." That assumption would be highly contingent on the place, time and circumstances. I would be far more inclined to think that Blacks in the U.S. make the average American poorer, by transferring funds from the well-off to the underclass. As a race, they seem to bring any economy down rather than improving it. On the other hand, I see little data on the influence of minorities impact on societies economic positions when those minorities have most of the wealth, like the East Asians in the Philippines.

Nor can the theory about voluntary separation and selective breeding by the Jews explain why the 500 years that Jews lived in relative peace in the Ottoman empire (and much longer if also those who lived for a long time before that in Islamic Spain are counted), produced a much lower IQ than among the Jews who survived the persecutions in Europe. A much better explanation is that a harsher environment selected for a higher IQ, as it may have done in whites and East Asians who survived the ice age.

I agree. But in addition, culture as well as natural ecologies can have selection pressures. I just saw a documentary on the Amish. Apparently they are allowed to do what ever they like when they turn 16, and must return to the church and make a full commitment to conform to the ways of the church or leave it altogether. The Amish also try to under educate their children, believing hard work is far more useful than academic studies. It then becomes extremely difficult for the young to leave their communities, they are not equipped educationally. However, the most intelligent (and less religious) probably do leave proportionately more than the others, and over time, this will have a genetic impact on those left behind.

If you want to understand these cultural impacts of breeding patterns, you have to consider the population group as a coevolving one, where many factors are taken into consideration. MacDonald has done this in greater depth, using mostly Jewish resources and references, to explain the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews. For ethnocentrism, we need to do similar studies.

I will say that indoctrination does have a significant impact on ethnocentrism. Whites seem to be highly tolerant of other races in the last fifty plus years because of the medias impact on our culture. That is, we are highly indoctrinated into naïve environmentalists positions of looking at people, believing in the blank slate, all races are equal, etc. That is starting to erode now with our increasing understanding of genetic influences, but it is slow to trickle down to the masses. For example, I have not seen even one even minor insinuation that the No Child Left Behind disparities between races might be due to genetic differences. Every story I have read conveniently leaves out any reference to genetic differences, even though it is firmly established within academic circles that dare to look at the data, including the APA.

More anecdotes: Living in a very sparsely populated area will not automatically make people more altruistic. The Yanomami indians in the Amazonas live in a very sparsely populated area but no one would describe them as altruistic:

http://www.crystalinks.com/yanomami.html

This again is why I do not like to rely on a single researcher's position. Chagnon's work was the first to reveal the violent nature of the Yanomamon people, but then his research was attacked by others as highly flawed. It was asserted that Chagnon actually supplied them with weapons and encouraged them to fight. If I remember right, Chagnon was finally vindicated. However, it is just as likely that the Yanomamon people fight not because of dense populations and a lack of resources, but it is more a "sexy son" phenomenon like the peacock's tail. Tribal men, individuals, who kill other men have more mates and leave more children, thus selecting for brutality. That is, it may have evolved into an arms race. Once started, it escalates on its own. The females preferably mate with those who murder others. This may not be anything like ethnocentrism, because they are just as happy killing one of their own - just like Blacks in the hood.

 

[ke1n]

i have not read the entire thread, but for those who use the term 'islamists' and 'jews' whe n reffering to enemies:--

Islam is a religion. Muslims are followers of Islam. Now there are muslims, then there are fanatic, extremist muslims. You must know the difference.

I doubt all Jews hate muslims, Zionists certainly do.

Learn the difference between extremism and moderation.

 

[nuenke]

Islam is a religion. Muslims are followers of Islam. Now there are Muslims, then there are fanatic, extremist Muslims. You must know the difference.

Over the weekend I read a good book on Islam, but then I left it at work because I want to scan in excerpts. However, from the very beginning, Mohammad's religion is based on war, genocide, rape, pillage and plunder in the name of Allah. That is, true Islam is extremist. You either fight infidels to convert them or kill them - and the spoils of a jihad rightly belongs to Muslims who undertake such wars.

Actually Islam and Judaism are more similar to each other than to Christianity when it comes to tolerance for genocide, slavery, spoils of warfare, etc. The primary difference is that Judaism is a particularist, non-proselytizing religion. Islam is similarly a particularist religion but it is hyper-proselytizing - become a Muslim or die. If you read about the life of Mohammad it is a real hoot. He basically (though he was also epileptic) used religion for conquest (sex, money, power, etc.). So in reality, a peaceful and tolerant Muslim would in fact be the extremist because they do not adhere to the tenets of Islam.

 

[ke1n]

Over the weekend I read a good book on Islam, but then I left it at work because I want to scan in excerpts. However, from the very beginning, Mohammad's religion is based on war, genocide, rape, pillage and plunder in the name of Allah. That is, true Islam is extremist. You either fight infidels to convert them or kill them - and the spoils of a jihad rightly belongs to Muslims who undertake such wars.

Actually Islam and Judaism are more similar to each other than to Christianity when it comes to tolerance for genocide, slavery, spoils of warfare, etc. The primary difference is that Judaism is a particularist, non-proselytizing religion. Islam is similarly a particularist religion but it is hyper-proselytizing - become a Muslim or die. If you read about the life of Mohammad it is a real hoot. He basically (though he was also epileptic) used religion for conquest (sex, money, power, etc.). So in reality, a peaceful and tolerant Muslim would in fact be the extremist because they do not adhere to the tenets of Islam.

That is Insane!

Mohammed dealt with war during his time because at the time people who rejected his beleifs wanted him dead. Do you know what Jihad means? Not Holy War or some stupid crap like that. It simply states that muslims have the right to defend their country and/or their religion and if they die while doing so they go to heaven.

I bet your book didn't tell you that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Quran, huh? The Quran and a book of quotes from Prophet Mohamaed would be heavily hypocracized if what you are saying is true.

So NO, Islam is not extremist. Unfortuantly there are too many brainwashed muslims who are mislead to believe that what you are saying is partially true. While in reality, people such as my father and so many others are moderate, true muslims who are respected.

The word Allah simply means God; the same God Judaism and Christianity believe in (but no Holy Trinity). In fact, when I took Islam in school in english the teacher just reffered to Allah as God because it is the same thing. there is a huge similarity between Islam Judaism, and old-fashioned Christinanity.

Not once was I encouraged to commit violence, rape, pilage, or plunder in the name of Allah because I was taught Allah rewards those who are good.

Take your head out of your ass.

 

[plus]

Europe is not in decline relative to the US due to the jews getting persecuted.
There has been no evidence to suggest this is true. If you wanted a comparison you could also compare western europe to russia. In Russia, the jews have persecuted and taken from the ordinary everyday Russian. In nowhere is this more obvious than at the break up of the soviet union in which case the zionist puppet Yeltsin gave most of the country's assets to his jewish friends who subsequently became very rich. This would not have happened if the jews were not there.

 

[loseyourname]

It should be noted that group evolutionary tactics are not limited to ethnic groups. Research suggests that humans have an "in-group/out-group" ethic built into them genetically, but there is no constraint placed on what can be considered an "in-group." As Aquamarine stated, it can be Republicans, ice-cream truck drivers, the NSF, or evangelical Christians. There is no reason to believe that humans are any more likely to group themselves ethnically. This might have been done historically because there wasn't necessarily a whole lot more of a distinction to make, but this clearly isn't the case anymore. I, for one, identify far more strongly with those who share my ideological views and with my country than I do with any ethnic group, despite the fact that the one I am descended from has historically been faced with a great deal of persecution and genocide.

The suggestion by nuenke that humans should group themselves by ethnicity and then fight for the benefits of that ethnic group at the expense of others is absolutely absurd. We should be promoting the benefits of the entire human species, not anyone subset.

One last thing: it was suggested that blacks are a drain on the US economy because they take from the wealthy without contributing much themselves. What do you expect when the whites of the nation first enslaved them, then subjugated them, still discriminate against them, and created a welfare system that encourages dependence rather than self-sufficiency?

 

[plus]

One last thing: it was suggested that blacks are a drain on the US economy because they take from the wealthy without contributing much themselves. What do you expect when the whites of the nation first enslaved them, then subjugated them, still discriminate against them, and created a welfare system that encourages dependence rather than self-sufficiency?

This statement is grouping together people by ethnic groups. There are no ethnic europeans in USA who enslaved the africans. The europeans do not discriminate against the africans to any large extent, and the africans discriminate against the europeans far more than the other way round as it is encouraged by the media. They are taught to be proud to be black, where the europeans are always taught to be ashamed of the wrongdoings of their ancestors and not proud of the scientific and cultural achievements.
You are still pointing the finger at a certain ethnic group, so surely this goes against your statements saying it is ludicrous to group people together in this way.
Incidently, I would not be surprised if the blacks have a larger percentage of slave owner ancestry as the whites as the blacks are more than 20 % white (mostly from slave owners), and after slavery was abolished there was heavy immigration from Europe. So the blacks should be angry at themselves.

 

[loseyourname]

This statement is grouping together people by ethnic groups. There are no ethnic europeans in USA who enslaved the africans. The europeans do not discriminate against the africans to any large extent, and the africans discriminate against the europeans far more than the other way round as it is encouraged by the media. They are taught to be proud to be black, where the europeans are always taught to be ashamed of the wrongdoings of their ancestors and not proud of the scientific and cultural achievements.

True. I probably shouldn't even use the words "black" and "white" since they are almost entirely meaningless. I was encouraged to do so because nuenke said that "blacks" are a drain on the economy, seeming to imply that this was simply by virtue of their "blackness." There are certainly mitigating factors worth considering here.

You are still pointing the finger at a certain ethnic group, so surely this goes against your statements saying it is ludicrous to group people together in this way.

Can you produce a statement of mine saying it is ludicrous to group people by ethnicity? I did imply that it was ludicrous to think that this grouping is any more likely to produce a herd mentality than any other form of grouping a priori.

Incidently, I would not be surprised if the blacks have a larger percentage of slave owner ancestry as the whites as the blacks are more than 20 % white (mostly from slave owners), and after slavery was abolished there was heavy immigration from Europe. So the blacks should be angry at themselves.

I would imagine anyone descended from both slaves and slave owners are angry at those ancestors. I'm descended from both Spaniards and Native Americans and I'm very angry at my Spanish ancestors.

 

[nuenke]

It should be noted that group evolutionary tactics are not limited to ethnic groups. Research suggests that humans have an "in-group/out-group" ethic built into them genetically, but there is no constraint placed on what can be considered an "in-group." As Aquamarine stated, it can be Republicans, ice-cream truck drivers, the NSF, or evangelical Christians. There is no reason to believe that humans are any more likely to group themselves ethnically. This might have been done historically because there wasn't necessarily a whole lot more of a distinction to make, but this clearly isn't the case anymore. I, for one, identify far more strongly with those who share my ideological views and with my country than I do with any ethnic group, despite the fact that the one I am descended from has historically been faced with a great deal of persecution and genocide.

You make a good point about ingroup-outgroup coalitions. But you left out some facts. Coalitions and conforming to norms have two different driving forces. Coalitions can be based on anything, but kinship is still a strong attractor. But when one leaves their kin and goes cosmopolitan, coalitions are based on two separate components. Coalitions are formed for the benefit of the members. Then there are ideological coalitions that are based on indoctrination. But where kinship is still salient, such as in Iraq or in the case of Zionists, kin still trumps trumps other commonalities.

The suggestion by nuenke that humans should group themselves by ethnicity and then fight for the benefits of that ethnic group at the expense of others is absolutely absurd. We should be promoting the benefits of the entire human species, not anyone subset.

But the vary fact that you agree that ingroup/outgroup formations takes lace indicates that you are NOT for promoting a universal equality. I am simply stating that I have a preference for supporting my own race over others, and I recognize that this is a personal affective emotion based on evolutionary programming that is no different than nepotism. If you do not strive to give advantages to your children, so that they can compete and win in life's conflicts with others, then you are a very strange person and in terms of evolutionary fitness, your genealogy will probably die out.

One last thing: it was suggested that blacks are a drain on the US economy because they take from the wealthy without contributing much themselves. What do you expect when the whites of the nation first enslaved them, then subjugated them, still discriminate against them, and created a welfare system that encourages dependence rather than self-sufficiency?

It may be true that Blacks have had a rough time of it, but a great deal of that unfortunate history has to do with their low intelligence. They have been given plenty of time to get over their oppression. But over 100 years of research on intelligence shows that they are and will remain a standard deviation below Whites, as Ashkenazi Jews are a standard deviation above Whites. General intelligence, especially fluid intelligence, goes from about 40% heritability in childhood to 80% in adulthood. Anyone, like myself, who deals with Blacks on a daily basis recognizes their lack of intelligence, even when they have had every opportunity with regards to education and affirmative action. They are and remain a drain on any nation where they exist.

 

[loseyourname]

But the vary fact that you agree that ingroup/outgroup formations takes lace indicates that you are NOT for promoting a universal equality. I am simply stating that I have a preference for supporting my own race over others, and I recognize that this is a personal affective emotion based on evolutionary programming that is no different than nepotism. If you do not strive to give advantages to your children, so that they can compete and win in life's conflicts with others, then you are a very strange person and in terms of evolutionary fitness, your genealogy will probably die out.

I talked about a certain distinction between the way things are in nature and the way they ought to be in the course of human endeavor. In short, I don't agree that because an action is in accordance with the law of the jungle, that it should be performed. Perhaps it is because I don't fit into any of the established racial groups listed by the US Census, but I could personally care less about a person's race when considering whether or not I will preferentially enhance their fitness above that of another racial group. Personally, I identify more with people of similar ideological motivation more than anything else, but even then, I don't agree that one should seek to manifest this preference in everyday affairs. I'm not very nepotistic either. I want my children to succeed, but I want them to do it on their own merit, and the success of the entire human species ultimately matters more to me than the success of any individual other than myself. If this means my geneaology dies out, so what? We are no longer relegated to being animals controlled by the impetus of our genes to proliferate. We are enlightened to the point where we can realize that it really makes no difference, ethically speaking, which family line makes it and which does not.

Anyone, like myself, who deals with Blacks on a daily basis recognizes their lack of intelligence, even when they have had every opportunity with regards to education and affirmative action. They are and remain a drain on any nation where they exist.

I'd like to see testimony from everyone who deals with blacks on a daily basis say that they recognize their lack of intelligence. All of the blacks I have ever worked with are highly intelligent. This may not be indicative of a statistical mean, but so what? There are undeniably reasons that low intelligence genes would happen to proliferate more in organisms with dark skin genes, and it has nothing to do with the intrinsic dismerit of the dark skin genes. Furthermore, I don't want to get into a political discussion here, but I feel (and I am not alone) that affirmative action and other such social welfare programs has done nothing but further the subjugation of racial minorities. They have taken away opportunities more than they have given them.

 

[nuenke]

I talked about a certain distinction between the way things are in nature and the way they ought to be in the course of human endeavor. In short, I don't agree that because an action is in accordance with the law of the jungle, that it should be performed. Perhaps it is because I don't fit into any of the established racial groups listed by the US Census, but I could personally care less about a person's race when considering whether or not I will preferentially enhance their fitness above that of another racial group. Personally, I identify more with people of similar ideological motivation more than anything else, but even then, I don't agree that one should seek to manifest this preference in everyday affairs. I'm not very nepotistic either. I want my children to succeed, but I want them to do it on their own merit, and the success of the entire human species ultimately matters more to me than the success of any individual other than myself. If this means my geneaology dies out, so what? We are no longer relegated to being animals controlled by the impetus of our genes to proliferate. We are enlightened to the point where we can realize that it really makes no difference, ethically speaking, which family line makes it and which does not.

What you are stating is obvious to anyone familiar with universal Darwinism. We have a sex drive, but priests (at least try) to self-indoctrinate themselves to embrace celibacy. Humans can self-indoctrinate or be indoctrinated by the media, education, or the current zeitgeist--to embrace almost any world view. You embrace all humans as universally worthy. I, as a eugenicist see humans as highly flawed and in need of improvement through both education and genetic improvement--in primarily intelligence--but also rationality. So just as your world view is personal, so is mine. Both are equally valid--and can be altered both from without or from within.

I'd like to see testimony from everyone who deals with blacks on a daily basis say that they recognize their lack of intelligence. All of the blacks I have ever worked with are highly intelligent. This may not be indicative of a statistical mean, but so what? There are undeniably reasons that low intelligence genes would happen to proliferate more in organisms with dark skin genes, and it has nothing to do with the intrinsic dismerit of the dark skin genes. Furthermore, I don't want to get into a political discussion here, but I feel (and I am not alone) that affirmative action and other such social welfare programs has done nothing but further the subjugation of racial minorities. They have taken away opportunities more than they have given them.

I agree, but also note that the "dark skin"="low intelligence" is a straw man argument. The intelligence genes one carries is strictly a matter of who your ancestors were. It just happens that one's ancestors also is how we define racial categories or mongrels alike. But even the APA, back in 1995 put together a task force entitled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." In that committee report, that was in response to The Bell Curve, they concluded that on average in the United States, Blacks have consistently scored a standard deviation below Whites, and also declared there was no longer any bias in testing. They did hedge on the percent that is genetic versus environmental.

Since then, further research has grounded the Jensenist position within the APA where there are no other viable alternatives: intelligence, as one approaches adulthood, is about 60~80% genetic, and the remaining is largely due to the non-shared environment.

 

[Charles Darwin]

My belief has been to only dispense altruism upon those who not only appreciate it, but who also reciprocate the altruism. Welfare recipients for the most part don't appreciate altruism bestowed upon them, and they don't reciprocate it or show any concern for the well-being of society, they only demand more and more altruism. I think John Bryant says it best: "Third World: A place that has a great love for whites, provided only they are baked, boiled or roasted."

 

[Aquamarine]

It may be true that Blacks have had a rough time of it, but a great deal of that unfortunate history has to do with their low intelligence. They have been given plenty of time to get over their oppression. But over 100 years of research on intelligence shows that they are and will remain a standard deviation below Whites, as Ashkenazi Jews are a standard deviation above Whites. General intelligence, especially fluid intelligence, goes from about 40% heritability in childhood to 80% in adulthood. Anyone, like myself, who deals with Blacks on a daily basis recognizes their lack of intelligence, even when they have had every opportunity with regards to education and affirmative action. They are and remain a drain on any nation where they exist.

Don't be ridiculous. Black slaves were imported because they produced, not to be a drain on their owners. Today the black unemployment rate is 10.6%, that means that about 90% have a job and are contributing to society.

Interesting that you mention that iq in childhood is not adult iq. That is one of the large holes in "Iq and the wealth of nations", which use many iq studies on children.

My belief has been to only dispense altruism upon those who not only appreciate it, but who also reciprocate the altruism. Welfare recipients for the most part don't appreciate altruism bestowed upon them, and they don't reciprocate it or show any concern for the well-being of society, they only demand more and more altruism. I think John Bryant says it best: "Third World: A place that has a great love for whites, provided only they are baked, boiled or roasted."

Well, then you are probably satisfied that the state organizations the IMF and the World Bank have managed to make Africa pay more in debt payment to the rich world from loans to former dictators than they receive in aid. No altruism here.
http://www.afsc.org/africa-debt/cancel-debt.htm
http://www.africaaction.org/docs99/dbt9903b.htm

 

[loseyourname]

You embrace all humans as universally worthy. I, as a eugenicist see humans as highly flawed and in need of improvement through both education and genetic improvement--in primarily intelligence--but also rationality. So just as your world view is personal, so is mine. Both are equally valid--and can be altered both from without or from within.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I see all humans as universally worthy. First we'll have to clarify what is meant by "worthy." I do think that all humans universally have the right to live and create more life if that is what they wish to do. I certainly do not value all human life equally, though. The real difference us may be that you seem to be advocating that we evaluate the worth of a human being strictly by her intelligence and/or race, whereas I really don't see that as highly relevant.I value good people that contribute to the well-being of the human race and its individual sub-populations, whether they be intelligent or not. Unintelligent people can certainly still contribute, sometimes a lot more than people who are highly intelligent. I make my judgements of people on an individual, holistic basis. I don't judge arbitrary groupings nor do I judge based only on a small number of criteria.

I certainly don't think that any two views are "equally valid," either. Now that's a load of egalitarian crap if I've ever heard it.

In that committee report, that was in response to The Bell Curve, they concluded that on average in the United States, Blacks have consistently scored a standard deviation below Whites, and also declared there was no longer any bias in testing. They did hedge on the percent that is genetic versus environmental.

See, I just don't see the relevance of knowing this. If a person is a drain on society, then we need to figure out why that one person is a drain and see what we can do about it. When we try to blame the failing of large numbers of people on one statistic, we inevitably end up glossing over reality. I really don't see the point in linking race to intelligence in these studies, either. A person is either intelligent or unintelligent and the value they take on is not caused by their race, regardless of any correlations found. Probability tells us nothing when actually have the knowledge we are seeking; that is, what good does it do us to know that a person of given ancestry x has a y chance of being one z-score above the mean when we can simply test that one person? Once we know whether or not a person has a certain factor being tested for, what difference does it make what probability we could have calculated prior to the testing based on whatever parameters you can find that show a correlation to the factor?

I'm just not sure what your position (blacks are a drain on society) accomplishes. You seem to be advocating a general improvement of society based on the improvement of mean intelligence. So under this position you should want to retain and encourage the breeding of any person of high intelligent, and likewise either deport or forbid the breeding of any person of low intelligence. The person's race doesn't seem to make any difference here. A black person of high intelligence is just as valuable under your system as a white person of high intelligence and more valuable than a white person of low intelligence.

Since then, further research has grounded the Jensenist position within the APA where there are no other viable alternatives: intelligence, as one approaches adulthood, is about 60~80% genetic, and the remaining is largely due to the non-shared environment.

I don't doubt this. Most behavioral or cognitive biologists that I know of generally hold a similar position.

 

[nuenke]

Don't be ridiculous. Black slaves were imported because they produced, not to be a drain on their owners. Today the black unemployment rate is 10.6%, that means that about 90% have a job and are contributing to society.

Black slaves were brought to the United States, and many other countries, for manual labor. Today, as we can see by the low wages paid around the world, that type of labor is easily bought. After slavery was abolished, there were many attempts by government representatives to try and send them back to Africa because it was felt they would be a drag on the nation - so far they have been exactly that. The question is, would the United States be more prosperous if we did not have ex-slaves? Undoubtedly yes, because that is the main impetus for business interests to encourage immigration from Mexico so they have an abundant supply of compliant/cheap labor. Most businesses would rather hire Mexicans than Blacks - for a myriad of reasons aside from just intelligence. As for 90% of them having a job - how many would have jobs without affirmative action or being employed by the public sector? Unless it is a level playing field where everyone competes on their individual merits rather than their race, we will never know how much they are worth in a free and open market for workers.

Interesting that you mention that iq in childhood is not adult iq. That is one of the large holes in "Iq and the wealth of nations", which use many iq studies on children.

In fact it is not a "hole" at all. Lynn uses numerous proxies for intelligence, and childhood intelligence is one of them. All the book asserts is that according to the best data available and the best estimates based on the data they have about average intelligence, intelligence is the primary social capital that makes a nation prosperous. Social and natural scientists use whatever data is available for testing altering hypotheses. In "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," they clearly show that no other model is as predictive as theirs for why nations differ in prosperity. There are many academic papers and books that have shown that intelligence is the primary factor in how well one does financially and in terms of SES. Lynn and Vanhanen have merely generalized that known fact to nations as well as individuals. They have used the same type of data as any other researcher would have used - triangulating on as many sources as possible to try and estimate a nation's average intelligence.

Well, then you are probably satisfied that the state organizations the IMF and the World Bank have managed to make Africa pay more in debt payment to the rich world from loans to former dictators than they receive in aid. No altruism here.

I believe nations should be independent, and that other nations should not interfere in their affairs in any way.

 

[nuenke]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I see all humans as universally worthy. First we'll have to clarify what is meant by "worthy." I do think that all humans universally have the right to live and create more life if that is what they wish to do. I certainly do not value all human life equally, though. The real difference us may be that you seem to be advocating that we evaluate the worth of a human being strictly by her intelligence and/or race, whereas I really don't see that as highly relevant. I value good people that contribute to the well-being of the human race and its individual sub-populations, whether they be intelligent or not. Unintelligent people can certainly still contribute, sometimes a lot more than people who are highly intelligent. I make my judgements of people on an individual, holistic basis. I don't judge arbitrary groupings nor do I judge based only on a small number of criteria. I certainly don't think that any two views are "equally valid," either. Now that's a load of egalitarian crap if I've ever heard it.

I think we are in complete agreement then. I look also at individuals, and wish that race would not be a factor in making judgments. An open market for human worth is probably the best avenue for a just world - one makes what one is worth. A highly intelligent but lazy person has less monetary value than a low intelligent but exceedingly talented athlete. The market place should determine worth - not what racial group one belongs to.

See, I just don't see the relevance of knowing this. If a person is a drain on society, then we need to figure out why that one person is a drain and see what we can do about it. When we try to blame the failing of large numbers of people on one statistic, we inevitably end up glossing over reality. I really don't see the point in linking race to intelligence in these studies, either. A person is either intelligent or unintelligent and the value they take on is not caused by their race, regardless of any correlations found. Probability tells us nothing when actually have the knowledge we are seeking; that is, what good does it do us to know that a person of given ancestry x has a y chance of being one z-score above the mean when we can simply test that one person? Once we know whether or not a person has a certain factor being tested for, what difference does it make what probability we could have calculated prior to the testing based on whatever parameters you can find that show a correlation to the factor?

Again I agree. But why do we then relate "a person of given ancestry x has a y chance of being [unemployed] z-score above the mean when we can simply test that one person? Why not just use an intelligence test to see who gets the job and who doesn't, rather than setting hiring quotas based on race. As far as I am concerned, that is the only reason race enters into the debate: because race is used as tool to get more than one deserves based on individual merit. We should all compete without consideration of race, and that includes establishing tests to determine the best candidate for a job without knowledge of the applicant's race.

I'm just not sure what your position (blacks are a drain on society) accomplishes. You seem to be advocating a general improvement of society based on the improvement of mean intelligence. So under this position you should want to retain and encourage the breeding of any person of high intelligent, and likewise either deport or forbid the breeding of any person of low intelligence. The person's race doesn't seem to make any difference here. A black person of high intelligence is just as valuable under your system as a white person of high intelligence and more valuable than a white person of low intelligence.

That is correct.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, it does look like we're mostly in agreement. I guess I had you pegged wrong. You were coming across as if you were singling out certain ethnic groups. If all you're advocating is a true meritocracy, heck, that's exactly what I'd like too!

 

[Aquamarine]

Black slaves were brought to the United States, and many other countries, for manual labor. Today, as we can see by the low wages paid around the world, that type of labor is easily bought. After slavery was abolished, there were many attempts by government representatives to try and send them back to Africa because it was felt they would be a drag on the nation - so far they have been exactly that. The question is, would the United States be more prosperous if we did not have ex-slaves? Undoubtedly yes, because that is the main impetus for business interests to encourage immigration from Mexico so they have an abundant supply of compliant/cheap labor. Most businesses would rather hire Mexicans than Blacks - for a myriad of reasons aside from just intelligence. As for 90% of them having a job - how many would have jobs without affirmative action or being employed by the public sector? Unless it is a level playing field where everyone competes on their individual merits rather than their race, we will never know how much they are worth in a free and open market for workers.

You make statements without any support. Provide the scientific evidence that 1) most business would rather hire Mexicans than blacks (Mexicans who in most cases do not speak English. 2) blacks are a drain and that removing them and and replacing them with whites where possible and simply not do the many unreplaceable jobs would benefit the majority of US whites.

Furthermore, black Botswana has had the strongest growth rate in the world since its independence. Another black capitalistic economic success debunking your " always a drain" theory is Uganda.
http://cf.heritage.org/index2004test/country2.cfm?id=Botswana
http://cf.heritage.org/index2004test/country2.cfm?id=Uganda

You seem to have the naive layman economic notion that there are a fixed number of jobs, and that those should be better done by whites. Note that the enormous immigration to the US in the nineteenth century did not create unemployment. More people create more jobs, there is an endless demand for products and services and thus more jobs, not a fixed demand leading to some fixed number of available jobs. There would be no involuntary unemployment in a free labor market. Note also that private companies are willing to pay for low-skilled jobs are proof that theses jobs are profitable and contributing to society. The capitalistic system is right now raising the living standards rapidly in the developing world thanks to creating enormous numbers of new low-skilled jobs. The percentage of people living on less than 1 dollar a day, have halved in 25 years. Since the number of people have increased greatly at the same time, this means that an enormous number of new jobs have been created and provided a better living to workers. There is no need to create an an ethnically determined state due to lack of jobs.
http://www.worldbank.org/research/povmonitor/

Even if the theory about the iq superiority of some groups ares true, this only means that those groups will have better jobs with higher salaries organizing the others. Expelling the others would in fact then be enormously stupid, forcing the more intelligent subgroups to do menial jobs with low pay.

In fact it is not a "hole" at all. Lynn uses numerous proxies for intelligence, and childhood intelligence is one of them. All the book asserts is that according to the best data available and the best estimates based on the data they have about average intelligence, intelligence is the primary social capital that makes a nation prosperous. Social and natural scientists use whatever data is available for testing altering hypotheses. In "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," they clearly show that no other model is as predictive as theirs for why nations differ in prosperity. There are many academic papers and books that have shown that intelligence is the primary factor in how well one does financially and in terms of SES. Lynn and Vanhanen have merely generalized that known fact to nations as well as individuals. They have used the same type of data as any other researcher would have used - triangulating on as many sources as possible to try and estimate a nation's average intelligence.

I believe nations should be independent, and that other nations should not interfere in their affairs in any way.

There is only one other study that I know of and it use the Lynn data and thus fails when that data is wrong. And that other study do not claim that iq is the primary factor. Please provide which peer-reviewed studies you refer too.

Using bad data because no other is available do not somehow make the study acceptable. They make no special provision for that much of the iq data is from young children but use it in the same way as if it were iq from adults, invalidating all of their conclusions.

There are many other objections, see this thread for some which have never been answered.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=11207&page=1&pp=40

 

[hitssquad]

Positive outlying nations in the IQ and the Wealth of Nations analysis

black Botswana has had the strongest growth rate in the world since its independence.

Like many positive-outlying (in terms of income relative to IQ) nations, Botswana is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Botswana is a diamond-mining and tourism nation that suffers from high unemployment and high poverty rates.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html#Econ

• In Botswana, the per capita income is much higher than in other parts of sub-Saharan Africa. During the time when it gained independence in 1966, Botswana was one of the poorest countries in the world, with a predominantly subsistence economy. During the 1980s, however, Botswands economic performance exceeded that of all the other non-petroleum producing countries in Africa. The principal factor behind its high economic growth is the discovery and development of valuable mineral resources, especially diamonds. Large-scale mineral exploitation began in 1971. The diamond mines are owned and operated by the Debswana Diamond Co., a joint venture owned equally by the Botswana government and De Beers Consolidated Mines of South Africa. By 1997, diamonds accounted for approximately 70 percent of Botswana's exports and for some 30 percent of the GDP (, pp. 207-211). The contribution of European people and technologies has been crucial. Because the prospects of the mining industries remain good and because Botswana's government has used new resources to improve education and infrastructures of the country, we predict that Botswana will remain a positive outlier.

[/color](Lynn & Vanhanen. . Chapter 8: National IQs and Economic Development in 185 Countries. Chapter section: Countries With Minor Deviations. p151. [Emphasis mine -Hitssquad])


Without the decades-long help or interference provided by the European company De Beers and its teams of high-IQ European geologists, engineers and managers, how might Botswana's economy be doing today?
http://www.debeersgroup.com/debeersweb/About+De+Beers/De+Beers+World+Wide/Botswana/History.htm

• In early 1967, after a 12 year search, a team of De Beers geologists found abundant quantities of ilmenite and garnet - two of the chief indicators of diamondiferous kimberlite - near the village of Letlhakane in north-central Botswana. After further exploration, the pipe at Orapa was found later that year... In 1973, De Beers geologists discovered the Jwaneng pipe, which would become the richest diamond mine in the world... The lucrative Debswana mines have contributed enormously to the economic growth of Botswana, not only in terms of direct foreign exchange and government revenues generated by diamond sales, but also through the multiplier effect on taxes, employment and infrastructure in remote areas.

[/color]

Another black capitalistic economic success debunking your " always a drain" theory is Uganda.

Like Botswana, Uganda is also blessed with abundant natural resources and also suffers from a high poverty rate. (Like many low-IQ nations, Uganda is plagued by corruption. Lynn and Vanhanen theorize that higher-IQ populations are more competent at selecting competent leaders.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ug.html#Econ

• In 2000, Uganda qualified for enhanced Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief worth $1.3 billion and Paris Club debt relief worth $145 million. These amounts combined with the original HIPC debt relief added up to about $2 billion.

[/color]

 

[Aquamarine]

Regarding natural resources, North Korea and previously China and many other communist nations had and has great such and a supposed high iq. They still failed miserably economically.

Regarding Botswana, tourism is not a natural resource but something one create. Diamonds are important but still only provide 1/3 of GDP and cannot explain more than a part of economic growth. GDP/capita has increased from 50 dollars to 9000 since independence. The government has a budget surplus. 24% of GDP goes to investments, comparted to 15% for the US. It has higher literacy, lower infant mortality and better access to safe water than the african average, that from being one of the poorest nations in the world.

Regarding Uganda, is has only more recently embraced capitalism and started growing. Its debt belongs mostly to the earlier period and the the debt relief come as a reward for the economic reforms. There is a growing industrialization.

You seem to think that there is something wrong with foreign investment and people from more advanced countries providing skills. But the same thing happened in the Asian Tigers and now China and in other rapidly growing countries. These thing are not showing some weakness in the country but that they have managed to create a capitalistic system. There would be no foreign investment if the country did not create suitable climate for that. They have fought crime and violence, built infrastructure and education, secured property rights, have regulations and promote free trade.

These countries shows that also Africa can organize capitalism, have economic growth and increasing prosperity far beyond what existed during the colonial times.

But it should be noted that Africa have great problems which discourage investment and will probably make it the last continent to get investment and get developed, even apart from the little capitalism: thousands of languages and cultures; numerous diseases more rare further from the equator, often chronical like parasites which continually produce weakness; especially for foreign people, Africa was the last continent colonized due to the diseases which killed all foreign people going away from the coast; much area is drylands, mountains and rainforests unsuitable for development; little infrastructure or eduction; climate which not suitable to high productivity agriculture from for example wheat or rice; and much malnutrition in childhood which may decrease iq and vitality for the rest of the persons life.

 

[hitssquad]

Lynn & Vanhanen's second-most-important factor - market economization

Regarding natural resources, North Korea and previously China and many other communist nations had and has great such and a supposed high iq. They still failed miserably economically.

North Korea and China are negative income/IQ-regression-line outliers. China has recently adopted a market economy and is experiencing strong economic growth.

• The major systematic factor affecting national rates of economic growth and development, apart from intelligence, appears to be the extent to which countries have market economies...
  
  The best chances for strong economic growth are for countries with large negative residuals, which indicate that the country has not fully utilized its population's mental abilities. Such is the case with the former and present socialist nations of eastern Europe and eastern Asia, which can be expected to catch up with the rich nations once they have adopted market economies and have achieved political stability.

[/color](Lynn & Vanhanen. . Chapter 10: The Future of the Wealth of Nations. pp195-196.)

You seem to think that there is something wrong with foreign investment and people from more advanced countries providing skills.

If a population's IQ curve is not sufficient to support economic growth, high-mental-ability resources have to be imported. Lynn & Vanhanen state that this is the case in Botswana, and that this is also the case in Arab nations that sit on oil resources:

• Kuwait's prosperity is completely based on petroleum industries that have been established and operated by European and American oil corporations since the 1930s... It seems justified to conclude that for all of these countries with large positive residuals, the much higher-than-expected level of GDP per capita is principally due to the contribution of foreign people and technologies.

[/color](Lynn & Vanhanen. . Chapter 8: National IQs and Economic Development in 185 Countries. p145.)

There would be no foreign investment if the country did not create suitable climate for that.

Harry Oppenheimer assembled Botswana's mining-investment-friendly infrastructure. Harry Oppenheimer was not Botswanan.
http://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/chap2.htm

• Except for the fact that Orapa is in the middle of nowhere, it might have been any suburban city. I could see ranch houses with green lawns and rectangular swimming pools laid out along a cross-grid of paved streets. There were also a shopping center, football fields, parks and high rise apartment houses.
  
  The De Beers engineer sitting next to me explained that most of the city of Orapa had in fact been prefabricated in Johannesburg in 1971, and then, piece by piece, reassembled on this stretch of desert. It had been an enormous undertaking. A road had to be bulldozed through the trackless wasteland so that trucks could move the mining equipment in, an artificial lake and a pipeline had to be constructed to bring water into Orapa, power lines had to be strung some 160 miles to the South African border, and an airstrip had to be built so that diamonds could be flown out. "This was the first mine De Beers ever developed outside of South Africa," he continued.

[/color]

These countries shows that also Africa can organize capitalism

Botswana seems to show that Harry Oppenheimer, with help from other Europeans, could organize infrastructure necessary to support his own mining operations:
http://edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/chap2.htm

• At the Orapa airstrip, it took only a moment to go through Botswana customs. Oppenheimer's headquarters had telexed ahead that I was arriving, and I was immediately issued a red badge. Without such a badge, not even a citizen of Botswana is allowed into Orapa. I remarked to the engineer about how quickly we were admitted into Botswana, considering that we did not have visas and that he was a South African citizen.
  
  "No problem," he laughed, "Harry Oppenheimer owns Botswana lock, stock and barrel." I later found out that he wasn't far wrong. Botswana, a republic with some 6 million citizens, most nomadic tribesmen, derives more than 50 percent of its national income from diamond, manganese and copper mines controlled by Harry Oppenheimer. The Botswana government is dependent on these mines for almost all its revenues and foreign exchange.

[/color](Emphasis mine.)

 

[Aquamarine]

It is mostly embarrassing to quote from "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" as evidence for the economic importance of anything when you have failed to give any answer to earlier critique in this and other threads about their failure in use of statistics and source material.

Again, in the beginning foreigners provided almost all the investment and technical expertise in the Asian Tigers. And earlier, the same thing took place for example in the Nordic countries in Europe.

Swimming pools, roads and power lines is not the important thing in capitalism. The important thing is the legal structure: The rule of law, property rights, few regulations, free trade and little violence. If the country has that, then industry and prosperity will follow. And that is what Botswana and Uganda has built. And what Argentina, Uruguay, North Korea and other high iq and resource nations did not build or broke down. Again, the black government has presided over the largest economic growth in the world for decades. And has a much more captalism than most arabic states which speaks well for the future.

Population growth rates are falling in Africa; cheap factory workers elsewhere will come to an end; the Flynn effect is increasing intelligence. In the end also the rest of Africa will have great growth and prosperity. And the western world can make this go faster by removing the enormous subsidiaries to western agriculture, removing the trade barriers for African products, stopping the environmentalist ban against DDT for malaria which induce almost continuous sickness in hundreds of millions of people each year and cancelling the debt for loans given to corrupt dictators by the western states.

 

[hitssquad]

The diversity of Botswana's economy

Swimming pools, roads and power lines is not the important thing in capitalism. The important thing is the legal structure: The rule of law, property rights, few regulations, free trade and little violence. If the country has that, then industry and prosperity will follow.

Then why is there no export industry in Botswana, besides the De Beers mining projects?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html#Econ

• Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest growth rates since independence in 1966... Diamond mining has fueled much of the expansion and currently accounts for ... nine-tenths of export earnings... Long-term prospects are overshadowed by the expected leveling off in diamond mining production.

[/color]
http://www.abacci.com/atlas/economy3.asp?countryID=152

• Agriculture still provides a livelihood for more than 80% of the population... Subsistence farming and cattle raising predominate.

[/color]

 

[Aquamarine]

Then why is there no export industry in Botswana, besides the De Beers mining projects?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html#Econ

• Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest growth rates since independence in 1966... Diamond mining has fueled much of the expansion and currently accounts for ... nine-tenths of export earnings... Long-term prospects are overshadowed by the expected leveling off in diamond mining production.

[/color]
http://www.abacci.com/atlas/economy3.asp?countryID=152

• Agriculture still provides a livelihood for more than 80% of the population... Subsistence farming and cattle raising predominate.

[/color]

Still, the diamonds only accounts for 1/3 of GDP, leaving most of the growth due to other sectors. Note that growth in the non-mineral secotors have been and continue to be high. Manufacturing have had great growth, although still small in terms of employment and export. Still, about 5% of exports is products like vehicles, spare parts and textiles.

There is no doubt that diamonds have been important and that a decline would have negative effects. The same can be a said for Iceland and fishing or Norway and oil.

The British left Botswana one of the absolutely poorest countries in the world, so even decades of very high growth still means that the country is a long way from the western world. I have in the previous posts listed some factors affecting Africa negatively, meaning that it will in all likelihood be the last place to be industrialized. Still, Botswana shows that black government and black population can and have organized society in order to gain great economic success and growth.

Furthermore, you ignore the economic success stories now taking place in for example Uganda and Namibia. And contrary to the doomsayers, economic growth in South Africa is accelerating this year.

And you are ignoring that Africa as a whole is now having accelerating growth.
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bq/Qimf-africa-economy.RVsX_DSI.html

 

[nuenke]

You make statements without any support. Provide the scientific evidence that 1) most business would rather hire Mexicans than blacks (Mexicans who in most cases do not speak English. 2) blacks are a drain and that removing them and and replacing them with whites where possible and simply not do the many unreplaceable jobs would benefit the majority of US whites.

The research I used for making the statement came from "Urban Inequality: Evidence from Four Cities" published by the Russell Sage Foundation, 2001. They interviewed businesses around and in the four cities and reported that in interviews, businesses said they preferred to hire Mexicans over Blacks.

As to question two: I think Michael Levin in "Why Race Matters" has documented how Whites have to continually transfer wealth to Blacks, and that is an economic drain--not to mention the higher crime rate of Blacks, out of wedlock births, etc. Overall, Whites flee areas where Blacks live because they do not want to live around them. The two primary factors are crime (well documented) and not well documented is the genetic distance between Whites and Blacks (see "On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration" by Frank Salter, 2003). Salter et al. has extended Hamilton's kin relationship model to include ethny relationships, and tries to show that it is in the interest of close genetic ethnies to protect there territory. Simply stated, as do whales and chimpanzees, humans are protective of their own racial kinds, and desire their own territories.

Western nations however, unlike most others, have defied our genetic interests and have adopted open borders. If this is as maladaptive as evolutionists think it is according to the models, Whites will (and possibly deserve) to cease to exist in terms of evolutionary outcomes for subspecies. If this maladaptive policy is due to our own self-indoctrination however, and if a world war breaks out between us and Islam, I think Whites will quickly lose there universal altruism and return to a more particularist group evolutionary strategy. Nonetheless, if the "genetic interest" model continues to hold up, it does show that aside from any economic benefit, there is a genetic bias in nature to protect subspecies for extinction. The single best way of preserving diverse races then is separation and non-belligerent trading and commerce between nation states.

Furthermore, black Botswana has had the strongest growth rate in the world since its independence. Another black capitalistic economic success debunking your " always a drain" theory is Uganda.

One successful nation does not "debunk" a theory, nor does one failing nation. Look at the overall trends over time. It is a little more complicated than that. That is one reason I will not quote or use any single research study or method--I like to see academic books with either a consensus from many researchers or a book with numerous references of other researchers along with cautious speculation about the validity of such research. That is how science progresses, with highly biased individual researchers battling it out between themselves until the best research, expunged of human bias, stands on its own. If "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" is flawed, it will sink into oblivion amongst other competing models. I have not seen that as yet, that is a better model, but I'm sure better models will follow, either overturning it or building upon it.

You seem to have the naive layman economic notion that there are a fixed number of jobs, and that those should be better done by whites. Note that the enormous immigration to the US in the nineteenth century did not create unemployment. More people create more jobs, there is an endless demand for products and services and thus more jobs, not a fixed demand leading to some fixed number of available jobs. There would be no involuntary unemployment in a free labor market. Note also that private companies are willing to pay for low-skilled jobs are proof that theses jobs are profitable and contributing to society. The capitalistic system is right now raising the living standards rapidly in the developing world thanks to creating enormous numbers of new low-skilled jobs. The percentage of people living on less than 1 dollar a day, have halved in 25 years. Since the number of people have increased greatly at the same time, this means that an enormous number of new jobs have been created and provided a better living to workers. There is no need to create an an ethnically determined state due to lack of jobs.

Simply stated, without welfare, affirmative action, quotas, high crime rates by Blacks, etc. that would be true. But you make my case for me. We do not have to import labor to be prosperous; we merely have to export jobs so the other countries can prosper. That is how Japan has maintained its homogenous state while competing in the international market place. Why would the United States want to further despoil its land by and destroy the environment by increasing its population? A stabilized number of people in each country is the best way to slow down population growth and give the world time to bring everyone into a the first world before too many people lead to a catastrophe. We don't how many people the world can hold, but if it grows too fast we do not have the time to test the adequacy of its holding capacity.

Even if the theory about the iq superiority of some groups ares true, this only means that those groups will have better jobs with higher salaries organizing the others. Expelling the others would in fact then be enormously stupid, forcing the more intelligent subgroups to do menial jobs with low pay.

Again, this would be ideal in a libertarian state but not in a welfare state. As technology expands, the need for intelligent labor is outpacing the need for low intelligent labor (if such a thing even exists). There are in fact quite intelligent people who because of personality or lack of drive, simply prefer simpler or more manual labor rather than being cooped up in an office or research lab. Last night I was talking to a friend who got a college degree, then spent the next 40 years working outside on the street crews for gas main repairs. He is very brilliant, but hates being inside. I come across these people all the time in blue collar jobs, and they enjoy their work because even lower skilled jobs can be fun. Not everyone intelligent needs a high IQ demanding job. Check out Mensa, find out have many of these geniuses have chosen less demanding jobs because of personality types. There is no reason why a need for more manual than intellectual jobs calculates into the need for a less intelligent work force. All of the research shows that the more intelligent a person is, the better they will do in life.

There is only one other study that I know of and it use the Lynn data and thus fails when that data is wrong. And that other study do not claim that iq is the primary factor. Please provide which peer-reviewed studies you refer too.

Link me to the study and I will take a look.

Using bad data because no other is available do not somehow make the study acceptable. They make no special provision for that much of the iq data is from young children but use it in the same way as if it were iq from adults, invalidating all of their conclusions.

Again science does not work that way. Especially in studies of human behavior, proxies, quasi studies, etc. are used all the time and as long as the data points in the same direction it holds unless it is overturned. Virtually all of the research by the social sciences would be invalid under your criteria, including those trying desperately to show that poor performance in academics by minority students is caused by the environment rather than fluid intelligence. In fact, from reading the papers on "No Child Left Behind," all one gets are ad hoc excuses why the program is failing, but never a mention about the different average intelligence of groups being the cause. Now that is PC science, and it is endemic in the social sciences. The Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) has been shown to be invalid not because of research using proxies or quasi studies or anything of that sort. It has been attacked because it has bed rock model of humans being infinitely malleable, and insular, rejecting research from other fields. For science to work, it must open to all and not condemnatory of opposing views because they are politically incorrect.