Saturday, 24 October 2015

This will be a long-running series in which I explore the intellectual foundations of the European Genocide, and the part Jews have played in laying those foundations. They are by no means solely responsible for what is happening to us, but they do bear a large measure of responsibility for creating an intellectual climate in which Europeans are afraid to defend their own existence as ancestral peoples. 

The fact that the societies created by Europeans are, almost exclusively, oases of prosperity, freedom and peace in a world racked by poverty, unfreedom and war would, prima facie, be a good argument for suggesting that Europeans might have some special qualities that set them apart. Clearly, for those driven by a spirit of anti-European animus, as many of our Jewish friends unfortunately seem to be, this is an argument that would need to be attacked. 

Step forward Jared Diamond, Jewish author of the global bestseller Guns, Germs and Steel. The thesis of this book can be stated very concisely: Europeans just got lucky. He argues that Europe's ascent to global domination was the result of a series of geographic accidents that facilitated the early emergence of settled agriculture, which, in turn, gave Europeans an advantage over everyone else, an advantage they ruthlessly exploited to conquer the globe and oppress the helpless brown people.

Here, close to the start of his book, Diamond explains why he believes that Papa New Guineans, like the ones torturing "witches" in the video above, are genetically more intelligent than Europeans. Note that if he had argued it the other way around, his academic career would have come to an instantaneous end, as James Watson's virtually did (see here) when he claimed that Africans were genetically less intelligent than non-Africans.
Today, segments of Western society publicly repudiate racism. Yet many (perhaps most!) Westerners continue to accept racist explanations privately or subconsciously. In Japan and many other countries, such explanations are still advanced publicly and without apology. Even educated white Americans, Europeans, and Australians, when the subject of Australian Aborigines comes up, assume that there is something primitive about the Aborigines themselves. They certainly look different from whites. Many of the living descendants of those Aborigines who survived the era of European colonization are now finding it difficult to succeed economically in white Australian society. 
A seemingly compelling argument goes as follows. White immigrants to Australia built a literate, industrialized, politically centralized, democratic state based on metal tools and on food production, all within a century of colonizing a continent where the Aborigines had been living as tribal hunter-gatherers without metal for at least 40,000 years. Here were two successive experiments in human development, in which the environment was identical and the sole variable was the people occupying that environment. What further proof could be wanted to establish that the differences between Aboriginal Australian and European societies arose from differences between the peoples themselves? 
The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong. Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking. In fact, as I shall explain in a moment, modern "Stone Age" peoples are on the average probably more intelligent, not less intelligent, than industrialized peoples. Paradoxical as it may sound, we shall see in Chapter 15 that white immigrants to Australia do not deserve the credit usually accorded to them for building a literate industrialized society with the other virtues mentioned above. In addition, peoples who until recently were technologically primitive—such as Aboriginal Australians and New Guineans—routinely master industrial technologies when given opportunities to do so 
An enormous effort by cognitive psychologists has gone into the search for differences in IQ between peoples of different geographic origins now living in the same country. In particular, numerous white American psychologists have been trying for decades to demonstrate that black Americans of African origins are innately less intelligent than white Americans of European origins. However, as is well known, the peoples compared differ greatly in their social environment and educational opportunities. This fact creates double difficulties for efforts to test the hypothesis that intellectual differences underlie technological differences. First, even our cognitive abilities as adults are heavily influenced by the social environment that we experienced during childhood, making it hard to discern any influence of preexisting genetic differences. Second, tests of cognitive ability (like IQ tests) tend to measure cultural learning and not pure innate intelligence, whatever that is. Because of those undoubted effects of childhood environment and learned knowledge on IQ test results, the psychologists' efforts to date have not succeeded in convincingly establishing the postulated genetic deficiency in IQs of nonwhite peoples. 
My perspective on this controversy comes from 33 years of working with New Guineans in their own intact societies. From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is. At some tasks that one might reasonably suppose to reflect aspects of brain function, such as the ability to form a mental map of unfamiliar surroundings, they appear considerably more adept than Westerners. Of course, New Guineans tend to perform poorly at tasks that Westerners have been trained to perform since childhood and that New Guineans have not. Hence when unschooled New Guineans from remote villages visit towns, they look stupid to Westerners. Conversely, I am constantly aware of how stupid I look to New Guineans when I'm with them in the jungle, displaying my incompetence at simple tasks (such as following a jungle trail or erecting a shelter) at which New Guineans have been trained since childhood and I have not. 
It's easy to recognize two reasons why my impression that New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct. First, Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries. In those societies, infectious epidemic diseases of dense populations (such as smallpox) were historically the major cause of death, while murders were relatively uncommon and a state of war was the exception rather than the rule. Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on their genes. Today, most live-born Western infants survive fatal infections as well and reproduce themselves, regardless of their intelligence and the genes they bear. In contrast, New Guineans have been living in societies where human numbers were too low for epidemic diseases of dense populations to evolve. Instead, traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems in procuring food. 
Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent. 
Besides this genetic reason, there is also a second reason why New Guineans may have come to be smarter than Westerners. Modern European and American children spend much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies. In the average American household, the TV set is on for seven hours per day. In contrast, traditional New Guinea children have virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment and instead spend almost all of their waking hours actively doing something, such as talking or playing with other children or adults. Almost all studies of child development emphasize the role of childhood stimulation and activity in promoting mental development, and stress the irreversible mental stunting associated with reduced childhood stimulation. This effect surely contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans. 
That is, in mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners, and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up.
Source: Guns, Germans and Steel by Jared Diamond


  1. He is correct about one thing: there is dysgenics going on in western societies.

    This phenomenon happens in all societies with high level of female influence/feminism, and high level of female participation in the labor force. Smart and "successfull" women have very few kids and are often childless, and dumb women, as well as the traditional stay at home moms have more kids (and are therefore genetically more succesful).

    This is happening even among white women - university educated white women have less kids than those with high school education, and women with masters degrees have less kids than women with bachelor degrees. Women in managerial positions are those with the highest probability to be childless.

    Even white countries such as Finland and Iceland, that are almost 99 percent white, are showing academic decline compared to male dominated countries with low level of female labor force participation rate, such as South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. You can see the decline in western countries performance here.
    Check year 2000 performance vs year 2012 performance. Also note that the decline is higher in countries with lots of of non-white immigration, so this is the second factor that is lowering western IQ. Asian students these days are totally dominating their western peers.

    There is also other data that shows decline in British and American IQ, but IMO the culprit in those countries is mostly the non-white immigration, and not so match the dysgenics among white women.

    The rest of what he wrote appears to be typical J propaganda.