Friday, November 11, 2016

Classification by IQ

I don't mean to be wholly facetious; it's a serious philosophical issue pertaining to classification. If there is justification for segregating human subgroups based upon various competencies, perspectives, and predictable behavior patterns--and of course there is; it's ridiculous to say that there isn't, in a world in which chimpanzees are not permitted to, say, drive cars on public streets, or unattended grizzly bears to enter shopping malls--then the question of where we draw that line is an important one. If you think you're in the middle of a bell curve, or on the good side of the bell curve, maybe you think you're safe from being expelled. All of that presumes that you know where you are on the bell curve, or that the criteria which established the bell curve are accurate. More importantly, it presupposes the existence of less-identifiable subgroups which are on an entirely different bell curve.

Say we've got sub-Saharan Africans forming the left bell curve of IQ--what is the average, around 80? Pygmies at 65, and whites at 100, and Chinese and Ash Nazis at 105. How do we compose "white," though? By mixing in light-skinned mestizos and unidentifiable octoroons, which would mean that excising those and trimming the group down to "pure" whites would result in "white" not taking third place to northeast Asians or Ash Nazis, but instead taking first place. And you could do different things with "Nordics," or "Episcopalians," or "Germans," and maybe pump that number up even higher.

That still leaves open the issue of uncountable groups. The group of people with a bell curve where the lower left side is in the hundred-twenties, maybe--that is an identifiable sub group, and it will eventually (if not, secretly, already) be trackable and verifiable based upon certain patterns. The "racial mean" may tug the descendants of "whites" inexorably toward 100, such that even the grandchildren of a 170 might end up dropping down to 135 and then 100, but what about the subracial mean of that higher subgroup? Why should they have to put up with a society that includes 130-IQ whites, who are comparatively as dangerous, shortsighted, and as welfare-dependent as to the more intelligent subgroup as the Africans are as to normal "whites"?

This quandary was arguably what began destroying Europe. By instilling the idea of cultivated eugenics, absolutist philosophies were able to cause royals to inbreed for success, which resulted in the mangled creatures who brought about the decelerating shame of c. 300-2000 A.D. That period only looks like advancement if you don't account for the opportunity cost, and if you think there was no loss, you're engaging in a philosophy essentially as accurate and valuable as the we-wuz-kangz line of thought.

The question of line-drawing seems to settle, necessarily, on power, as this one alluded in the immediately preceding post. The ability of mestizos to establish Aztlan creates a society intellectually superior to, say, pygmy society, but inferior to, say, "historic American nation" society. The establishment of the "historic American nation" society, though, pales in comparison to a different subgroup, which is being dysgenically outbred by that very melting pot which comprises said historic American nation. Ergo the achievement, in either case, is not a moral one: it is a pragmatic act; an achievement of temporary power rather than inherent justice.

How far on the left of the bell curve do we have to accept, this time, for the practicality of a slight improvement? Perhaps the Eurocucks resist citizenship restrictions not because they are actually cuckolds, but because they see the writing on the wall for those on the left of the "white" bell curve: e.g., they are harboring the Muslims, not out of a misguided and self-defeating moral sense, but for use as a shield to protect the least intelligent Euros. Kebab populations ensure that working-class whites are not next on the chopping block, whereas functional walls and Operation Wetback II mean that the logical next conclusion is sterilizing all the idiots who can't break three digits on an IQ test.


  1. High Arka --
    Good post. This is somewhat OT, but it's been amazing the extent to which IQ and the bell curve have simply disappeared from public discourse. It's not even as if it's controversial, or unsettled, or mentioned in the context of, oh those horrible racists think there's a genetic difference. It's simply disappeared. It's almost as if the Left realizes that they lost the nature/nurture argument, so feel it's best to just not bring up the subject. And so since they have the bullhorn, IQ as a concept is simply never even mentioned. this hadn't really struck me until I read this post.

    1. That's true. There was a point when a single bell curve (i.e., one that looks like a bell curve irrespective of sex/race) was held up as the ideal, but then such a concept became vulgar, and now everyone has to hit the same exact point of achievement. I guess the Cold War took the idealized bell curve with it.

  2. It's been a while since anyone in the Official Public Eye asked about possible confirmation bias in the methods used for testing a supposed Intelligence Quotient.

    1. That's not just because they don't want people thinking about when and where IQ is effective, but also because they don't want people thinking about ways to test for different kinds of quality, which latter tests might, like Voight-Kampff, tell us more about TPTB than they would prefer.