Friday, April 21, 2017

Libertarian Nationalism — Rockwell on von Mises

In case you missed it, I call myself a "libertarian nationalist," instead of just "libertarian" because the SJWs (liberals) seem to have taken over the Libertarian Party and most public expressions of libertarianism. Since nationalism is the sine qua non of libertarianism, or, indeed, any meaningful degree of freedom, those who reject nationalism are opposed to liberty, whether they think deeply enough to realize it or not.

One libertarian who does not reject nationalism is Lew Rockwell, and here [link] he writes about Ludwig von Mises, another libertarian who also didn't reject it:

Mises on Open Borders

Joe Salerno’s brilliant and comprehensive article, “Mises on Nationalism, the Right to Self-Determination, and the Problem of Immigration” shows that Mises rejected the extreme anti-nationalist, open borders position.
As Salerno shows, Mises supported “liberal nationalism,” one of the most important political movements of the 19th century. For him, the choices of individuals were bedrock.   People belonging to a single language community did not want to be ruled by those who spoke a different language. They wanted to form nations in which they could govern themselves.
As Mises said, “[T]he nationality principle includes only the rejection of every overlordship; it demands self-determination, autonomy. Then, however, its content expands; not only freedom but also unity is the watchword. But the desire for national unity, too, is above all thoroughly peaceful. . . . [N]ationalism does not clash with cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring peoples, but peace and friendship.”
Why did people want self-rule? Otherwise, they would be dominated by those who spoke another language. They would be like colonial people ruled by an oppressive empire. Because the ruling class spoke another language, minority groups were doomed to be outsiders looking in.
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Illustrated by Nyotalia mascots for some of the more prominent nations from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Civic Nationalism v. Ethnic Nationalism

It's popular on the so-called right to say that we're all for immigration, as long as the immigration is legal, and the immigrants assimilate. This is technically true, sort of. Of course the immigration should be legal, but we need different laws than the ones we have now about what immigrants we will accept. And implicit in the statement is that immigrants are all able to assimilate if they want to. That is dead wrong.

This concept can be called "civic nationalism," and it sort of harks back to the Roman concept of "Roman citizen," wherein the Roman government granted citizenship for whatever reason to people who weren't ethnically Roman at all. That's one reason the place collapsed, of course.

Another concept is quite contrary to all this, and can be called "ethnic nationalism." That basically requires that if you want to be an American you need to have American ancestors, or at least be cousins to Americans, like Brits or Swedes or Frenchmen.

The first concept is erroneous and unstable, and the second is accurate and stable.

A guest post on the subject from KC:

There needs to be a balance between civic and ethnic nationalism, because pure civic nationalism is based on egalitarianism, which is a false god. Ethnic nationalism is hyper-collectivist and civic nationalism is hyper-individualistic.

While individualism is always preferable to collectivism, one must be careful not to overflow - hyper-individualism is, pretty much, the ultimate form of collectivism, where one views the human kind as one group. This is, as you can imagine, more destructive than any ethnic nationalistic idea.

Reality must never be ignored for the sake of feels, as bad as that may feel.

Human beings are not all the same, they differ greatly. There are differences that are very noticeable on individualistic scale and there are differences that can only be noticed on a scale where we are looking at groups of people (demographics) and not just individuals. A good analogy is high frequency noise vs. low frequency noise. Or a simpler one: if you stand right in front of a tree, you can't see the forest.

One can ignore reality, but one can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Facts like the one that over 50% of all violent crime in the US is committed by members of a certain group that constitutes about 12% of the population (and they are not Amish, I can tell you that much). Demographics matter.

Another thing that civic nationalists tend to ignore is genetics. Human behaviour is, to a significant degree, determined both by nature and nurture. Every government action is reflected in the gene pool of the next generation, because it changes selective pressures on different groups. For example, the welfare state creates domesticated humans which are unable to survive without the state. In essence, every government programme is a eugenics programme (or dysgenics, depending on your perspective).

We also must consider the phenomenon of regression to the mean - unless the evolutionary pressure is applied throughout many generations (say, 10 or more), the next generation reverts to previous characteristics. Even if you have extreme vetting for immigrants from different ethnic groups and they all pass the test of cultural compatibility perfectly, their children will regress to the mean and you will end up with unrest. The fact is, as much as you want it, you will never have a racially diverse nation without an increase in crime, poverty and unrest.

This is why a nation built on purely civic nationalistic ideas will, in a generation or two, end up with the cancer of communism. Ethnic nationalism prevents that, but does so very unfairly on the individualistic scale, so the balance of the two is necessary and very difficult to accomplish.
Quibcag: Illustrated by Sensei of  Denkigai no Hon'ya-san (デンキ街の本屋さん?, lit. "The Electric Town's Bookstore"), who has lots of feels.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

The Mother of all Quibcag Dumps

I may have used some of these before, but they're all good and worth repeating.

This one is aimed at my "pure" libertarian friends, who, when they figure out that the Non-Aggression Principle means that we have no right to prevent our country from being overrun and destroyed by third-world savages ready to rape, murder, and sign up for generous welfare benefits, do not drop the obviously idiotic principle but cling to it and drop reality instead. Of course it applies to all such idiots, not just libertarian idiots. It's illustrated by the kids from Detective Conan (Meitantei Conan  名探偵コナ). Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

This is a quote from the Anonymous Conservative [link] and is a splendid, succinct description of the liberal mentality, explaining both their eagerness to send our troops to die overseas and their intransigent advocacy of the importation of millions of third-world savages. Illustrated by Sumomo of Chobits (ちょびっツ Chobittsu), who is herself a robot of sorts. A cute one, though.


And here I have three versions of the same Enoch Powell quote. The one at the bottom, illustrated by characters from Little Witch Academia (リトルウィッチアカデミアRitoru Witchi Akademia), seems frivolous now, and the first one from Neon Genesis Evangelion (Japanese新世紀エヴァンゲリオン HepburnShin Seiki Evangerion?, literally "Gospel of a New Century") only slightly less so. I think the best is the middle one, and I found that illustration on Photobucket.

And a marvelous quote from that least feminist of women, Clare Boothe Luce. Some speculation about her here [link]. Illustration from Inuyasha (犬夜叉).

Found this one on the net. Can't hardly argue with it.

Matt Bailey says something apparently paradoxical but not really. An old Oscar Wilde trick. Illustration found on the net.

Sent in by a reader. Gotta love it!

I did this awhile ago, and just redid it, substituting "political correctness" for "socialism." Gogatsu of course meant self-proclaimed socialist parties and their ideology, but some people misinterpreted it to refer to something intrinsic in the theory of socialism, which it is not, of course. So I changed it to clarify matters. Illustrated by Hinagiku of Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!).

Chateau Heartiste is a sharp cookie. Read him here [link]. Illustrated by one of the girls from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) 

This is a quote by a commenter at somebody's blog. Steve Sailer's or somebody's. I forgot. Ilustration found on the net by Googling anime girl communist.

And another undeniable observation from another commenter. Illustrated by characters from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul").

And old Fred Reed, who, when he's right, is very, very right. Illustrated by some version of Azumanga Daioh (Japaneseあずまんが大王 HepburnAzumanga Daiō?, lit. "Great King Azumanga") characters.

And Karol Traven reminds us that the left used to love Russians, until they dropped communism. Communist girl I found on the net.

And another Traven quote on the nature of leftists. Illustrated by Akane of Ranma ½ (らんま½), who isn't acting ladylike here at all.

Another Traven quote, just kidding around. Illustration found on the net.

This is a gif on my blogroll, but it was suggested by Jay's TeeVee [link] that it be a quibcag, so now it is. Illustrated by the girls from Joshiraku (じょしらく).

And this quote explains why judges keep finding flaky liberal ideas in the Constitution. You know the illustration.

Matt Bailey offers this up as an argument against flaky (that word again) liberals who think Jesus wants them to import babies from Africa instead of having their own. Illustration from the net.

Monday, April 10, 2017

The Purpose of it all

The old joke is that we've been developing technology for millennia so that we could watch funny cat videos 24/7. But that's just a joke. Far more serious is the fact that we're using technology developed by civilized people for the benefit of relatively uncivilized people. Making their lives easier and more enjoyable without their having contributed to the creation of the technology. That's bad enough all by itself, but looked at internationally, it also encourages an outrageous population explosion among the least civilized of us. Which, is what the word "unsustainable" actually means, I point out to my liberal friends.

Karol Traven cynically comments.

Reminder: this is what America does. it uses unprecedented and unsustainable prosperity to import illegals to slaughter animals and fry their meat so that we can stuff it down African-Americans' throats until they're too fat to walk. America literally trains people in the cutting edge of math, science, finance and management to erect offshore platforms to suck up the carbonized remains of extinct species in order to provide the necessary fuel for the Hispanic/African-American cycle. I guess i never really grasped the goal of civilization before. why did Newton discover calculus? what are Maxwell's equations for? why did Mendeleev deduce the periodic properties of elements? the answer to these and to all questions: to stuff African-Americans with fried meat until they become crippled from overeating, then to provide them with heroic medical care until they gracelessly expire
Quibcag: the nurse with the heroic syringe I found on Photobucket.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Let's hope Trump is all talk on Syria

That's what I hope. It's interesting to me just how often Trump's knee-jerk reactions to event are similar or identical to mine. And my reaction to alleged events in Syria is that it's not our business and we should stay out of that particular bar, because there's always a fistfight going on there. And I can't help thinking that Trump feels the same way, but also sees that he has to pay lip service to the situation, expressing horror, etc., at the alleged atrocities. More on that in a minute. Now, I'm not indifferent to the plight of Arabs, Muslims, or, in particular, Syrians. I'm related to Syrians. They're much less of a mystery to me than they are to most people, evidently. And if these atrocities are real, I'd like to prevent them or make them unnecessary. If I had the power. That is, if I had the power to stop the atrocities without causing even worse atrocities. As the Bard said, there's the rub. Syrians are probably better off under Assad than they would be in a country without a central authority to keep the factions from murdering each other. And yes, Virginia, they have factions. Lots of factions.

Assad is one of those strongmen the Arab world and environs keep ending up putting in charge of countries. And it ends up that way because only a strongman can hold on to power most places there, because if he isn't tough enough to rule, there are many others on deck, and he ends up getting overthrown. Hell, sometimes we overthrow Arab leaders, though our favorite seems to be overthrowing strongmen who rule fairly stable countries. You know. Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi, Mubarak, and now the American* chicken hawks want to crush Assad and turn Syria into another basket case.

So I think Trump is reacting publicly and verbally to demonstrate the proper horror at the atrocity photos (see my last post for the atrocity stories we fell for and blundered into World War I as a result [link[). I think and hope hope hope that Trump knows damn well that intervention in Syria would be idiotic, and I also think he knows damn well that Assad or someone just like him is the best leader Syria could realistically hope to have at this point in history.

And I feel especially good that Scott Adams [link] pretty much agrees with me on this. He writes:

The Syrian Gas Attack Persuasion

According to the mainstream media – that has been wrong about almost everything for a solid 18 months in a row – the Syrian government allegedly bombed its own people with a nerve agent
The reason the Assad government would bomb its own people with a nerve agent right now is obvious. Syrian President Assad – who has been fighting for his life for several years, and is only lately feeling safer – suddenly decided to commit suicide-by-Trump. Because the best way to make that happen is to commit a war crime against your own people in exactly the way that would force President Trump to respond or else suffer humiliation at the hands of the mainstream media.
And how about those pictures coming in about the tragedy. Lots of visual imagery. Dead babies. It is almost as if someone designed this “tragedy” to be camera-ready for President Trump’s consumption. It pushed every one of his buttons. Hard. And right when things in Syria were heading in a positive direction.
  • Interesting timing.
  • Super-powerful visual persuasion designed for Trump in particular.
  • Suspiciously well-documented event for a place with no real press.
  • No motive for Assad to use gas to kill a few dozen people at the cost of his entire regime. It wouldn’t be a popular move with Putin either.
  • The type of attack no U.S. president can ignore and come away intact.
  • A setup that looks suspiciously similar to the false WMD stories that sparked the Iraq war.
I’m going to call bullshit on the gas attack. It’s too “on-the-nose,” as Hollywood script-writers sometimes say, meaning a little too perfect to be natural. This has the look of a manufactured event.
My guess is that President Trump knows this smells fishy, but he has to talk tough anyway. However, keep in mind that he has made a brand out of not discussing military options. He likes to keep people guessing. He reminded us of that again yesterday, in case we forgot.
So how does a Master Persuader respond to a fake war crime?
He does it with a fake response, if he’s smart. 
Watch now as the world tries to guess where Trump is moving military assets, and what he might do to respond. The longer he drags things out, the less power the story will have on the public. We’ll be wondering for weeks when those bombs will start hitting Damascus, and Trump will continue to remind us that he doesn’t talk about military options.
Then he waits for something bad to happen to Assad’s family, or his generals, in the normal course of chaos over there. When that happens on its own, the media will wonder if it was Trump sending a strong message to Assad in a measured way. Confirmation bias will do the rest.
There is also a non-zero chance that Putin just asked Assad to frame one of his less-effective Syrian generals for going rogue with chemical weapons, and executing him just to calm things down.
I don’t think we’ll ever know what’s going on over there. But I think we can rule out the idea that Assad decided to commit suicide-by-Trump.
For more Adams on the subject, thanks to Matt Bailey, go to:

A wonderful reason for our not intervening in Syria:
*American, though many hold dual citizenship.
Quibcag: Illustration is Ba'athist-chan, "enemy of ISIS." Read about her here:

Denazification was just practice

It's always been a popular exercise to try to determine which American President has been the worst. Lincoln usually is in the lead, because of the sublimely stupid and destructive civil war he presided over. FDR gets votes for his putting in place a lot of bureaucratic nightmares and for getting us involved in WWII. Lyndon Johnson, especially to my generation, is often picked as the worst because of the whole Great Society mess, which included the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Bill, and the 1965 Immigration Act, to name but a few.

But many of us vote for Woodrow Wilson as the worst, and if everything else he's ever done had been wonderful, his dragging us into World War I would be sufficient grounds to brand him as the worst President we've ever had. And it's not that we had huge American casualties. On the contrary, the Civil War and World War II were much worse. It's the effect our entry had on history. First, it led to a virtually unconditional surrender on Germany's part — never called that, but in effect that's what it amounted to. Without our participation in the war, chances are the defeat would have been less overwheming, or the war could even have ended in a stalemate. In either case, a new war twenty years later would have been less inevitable. It was the aftermath of the war that led to future disaster, including World War Two and the aftermath of that.

I've been saying for years that denazification was just practice. The bolshevik-style brainwashing of the German people after World War II was just a test. If they can do it to Germans, they can do it to us, and they've been doing it to us for decades now, and political correctness is just its latest incarnation. And we have our own campus Red Guard enforcing it all.

You know what today is the 100th anniversary of? This is from the Occidental Observer [link]:

The War to End All Peace

F. Roger Devlin and Stephen J. Ross

Today, 6 April 2017, marks the one hundredth anniversary of America’s entry into the First World War, probably the decisive factor in the eventual outcome of that war a year and a half later. Most schoolchildren, if they are taught anything at all about this event, hear it attributed to the German sinking of the Lusitania with American passengers aboard. Many do not know that the Lusitania was a British ship, that its sinking occurred nearly two years before our entry into the war, and that it was carrying a substantial amount of munitions, making it fair game under the laws of war. The existence of the munitions was only publicly acknowledged in 1982 after a salvage operation was announced; the British government finally admitted the truth, citing fear that explosives still inside the wreck might claim a few lives even yet.
Anti-German propaganda made much of the fact that the Lusitania was not a warship, but failed to mention that Britain had commonly disguised its warships to look like merchant ships and even to fly the flags of neutral nations. It was in response to such illegal practices that the German navy adopted a policy of treating any and all ships heading for Britain as potential enemy combatants. In the case of the Lusitania, the German Embassy in Washington even issued public warnings to potential travelers that if they sailed on any ships headed for Britain, they did so at their own risk.
A prominent representative of the New York German-American community also tried to take out ads in 50 major American newspapers, warning Americans of the risk of embarking on any transatlantic voyage to England. Only one paper, the New York Tribune, ran the warning—on the very morning the Lusitania sailed, too late for anyone to make new travel plans.
Also absent from the usual accounts of the Lusitania is the information that it was a response to the British blockade of the Central Powers, illegal under the laws of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as well as the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War. This blockade led to terrible shortages of food and medicine for German soldiers and civilians alike. The people were largely reduced to subsisting on turnips from 1916 onward, and by the end of the war, malnutrition had contributed to over half a million deaths. Unrestricted submarine warfare was a desperate effort to break through the blockade, and the attack upon the Lusitania was consistent with that announced policy.
These were not the only falsehoods that helped nudge America toward involvement in the bloodletting. The outbreak of war was accompanied by copious propaganda about fictitious German atrocities, such as bayoneting Belgian babies, raping nuns, and nailing Entente prisoners on barn doors. The present authors know of a recent case where a US Marine recruit heard the “bayonetting babies” story in boot camp just within the last few years!
Another atrocity story destined for a great future, was the supposed German Corpse Factory. This lurid tale claimed that the Germans used the corpses of their own war dead for industrial purposes such as producing tallow for candles. This entirely discredited story may have inspired the later holocaust chestnut involving soap made from murdered Jews.
The British government went so far as to appoint a commission to “investigate” the allegations; they dutifully reported back that the stories were true. When historians tried to examine the committee’s papers after the war, these were found to have disappeared. Surviving correspondence makes clear that members were in fact skeptical.
Of course, the greatest fabrication of the whole conflict was the claim that Germany was uniquely responsible for starting the war. The historical record shows that it was Great Britain—and in particular King Edward VII and his Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Gray—which invested years of diplomatic effort into the isolation and encirclement of Germany. They accomplished their purpose in 1907 when the Triple Entente was established: an alliance between Britain, France and Russia against Germany.
On the home front, America’s entry into the war was accompanied with an intimidation campaignSchmidt to Smith, or Müller to Miller). As a result, many of their descendants are unaware of their German heritage to this day.
against German-Americans, and all things German. Sauerkraut was renamed “Liberty Cabbage”; breeds of dog associated with Germany were at times reportedly killed, and it was not uncommon for German Americans to be assaulted. German language newspapers and periodicals were forced to shut down; German schools and social clubs getting forcibly closed; German churches switched to holding their services in English. Many German families in America even began changing their family names (i.e., from 
Ultimately, as we have seen, such lies employed by Britain, played an important role in whipping up popular support for America’s entry into the conflict. Most Americans, then as now, will support wars if they can be framed as a struggle between good and evil. The priggish Woodrow Wilson promised his countrymen they would be fighting variously the “war to end all war” and to “make the world safe for democracy”—making the venture very much the prototype for today’s so-called humanitarian interventions.
After the guns fell silent, Wilson insisted upon the inclusion of the “War Guilt” clause into the Versailles Treaty, stating that Germany “should, morally, pay for all war costs, but, because it could not possibly afford this, would be asked only to pay for civilian damages.”
Germany was dismembered and forced to pay crushing reparations, wrecking what was left of its economy and making the rise of a revanchiste German nationalist political movement virtually inevitable. But rather than adopt this natural direction of causation, many still prefer to project Hitler back onto the history of Imperial Germany.
The work of the Versailles Treaty was completed by the occupation which followed the Second World War. It is essential to understand that so-called denazification was not limited to eliminating vestiges of National Socialism in the strict sense, but sought to destroy any sense of German pride, identity, and healthy self-respect. And if this did not entirely succeed among those who actually remembered the war, it succeeded beyond its creators’ wildest dreams with those born later, who were happy to think of themselves as morally superior to their parents’ and grandparents’ generation.
Today’s Germany is a kind of Through the Looking Glass anti-German caricature, and it can come as no surprise to anyone who has lived there that the country is now taking the lead in opening up Europe to foreign invasion. They are doing this on the basis of what they were taught by those who defeated them in the two world wars. Denazification was the original form of political correctness, and German guilt was the prototype of today’s White guilt. There is a grim justice in the way such psychological warfare has turned on its original creators, the western allies, who never imagined they would fall victim to what they self-righteously unleashed on a defeated enemy.

Go here for the original, which has some very striking illustrations:
Quibcag: I found the first illustration on Twitter, here: The second is from Zerochan, and that last is from Pinterest.

Friday, March 31, 2017

Average IQ can be a real bear, or silk purses and sow's ears

Do you know how a bell curve works? There's a book by that name, but I'm not referring to that just yet. A bell curve is all about statistical distribution, and you can read about the principle here [link]. But the book is about intelligence, and the bell curve does apply to that. If you have a country with a million people, and their average IQ is 100, given the overwhelmingly likely normal distribution, there will be X number of people with an IQ greater than 110. Now, if a doctor needs an IQ of 110 to be effective, and the million people require about X number of doctors, you have no problem. You have enough doctors. But if you have an average IQ of 90, you will not have enough doctors. Not nearly enough. And as for aerospace engineers and other high-IQ professions, you can forget it. Your country will not be competitive with countries with higher average IQ's. Take a look at this comparison of the Black American IQ bell curve with the White American one (I found it here [link]). First off, look at the 110 IQ mark. If you have a country consisting of a million White Americans, you're going to have at least three times as many people with an IQ of 110 than a corresponding country made up of a million Black Americans. The first will have enough doctors, and the second will have fewer than a third as many as it needs. As for Sub-Saharan Africa, with an average IQ of 70, forget it.

This is not trivial. It's intrinsic. And it doesn't just apply to higher IQ's. Let's say that an effective auto mechanic needs an IQ of 95 or more. Well, our two hypothetical countries are widely different here, too.  Don't be misled. The number of Blacks and Whites with an IQ of 95 look about equal. But there are many, many more Whites with an IQ of equal to or greater than 95 than there are Blacks.

Anyhow, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen wrote a book called IQ and the Wealth of Nations [link] that explains in detail why average IQ is overwhelmingly important to the prosperity of a nation. Here's what Richard Lynn writes, from here [link]:

I graduated in psychology and took my Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge and have worked as lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter, professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at the University of Ulster.

Most of my work has been on intelligence. My major discoveries are that the Oriental peoples of East Asia have higher average intelligence by about 5 IQs points than Europeans and peoples of European origin in the United States and elsewhere; and that men have a higher average IQ than women by about 5 IQs points. I first published the high IQ of the Oriental peoples in 1977 in a paper on the intelligence of the Japanese. In subsequent years the high Oriental IQ has been confirmed in numerous studies of Oriental peoples in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Singapore and the United States.

In 1983 I published a paper in Nature showing that the IQ in Japan had increased over the course of the previous half century, a phenomenon now known as the Flynn Effect following the demonstration by Jim Flynn of secular increases in intelligence in number of countries. In 1989 I proposed that the increases in intelligence have been caused by improvements in nutrition. I have also published several papers showing that intelligence is associated with brain size and reaction times.

My work on intelligence and brain size led me to consider the problem that women have smaller brains than men even when allowance is made for their smaller bodies. This implies that men should have higher average IQs than women, but it has been universally asserted that men and women have equal average IQs. In 1994 I proposed that the solution to this problem is that girls mature faster than boys and this compensates for their lower IQs, which only appear at the age of 16 onwards. Among adults men have higher average IQs than women by about 4 IQ points. This advantage consists largely of higher spatial abilities but is also present in non-verbal reasoning. In two meta-analyses of sex differences on the Progressive Matrices carried out with Paul Irwing (2004, 2005) we showed that in the general population men have a higher IQs than women by 5 IQ points, and in university students the advantage of men is 4.6 IQ points.

In 1991 I extended my work on race differences in intelligence to other races. I concluded that the average IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 70. It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment.

The theory I have advanced to explain these race differences in IQ is that when early humans migrated from Africa into Eurasia they encountered the difficulty of survival during cold winters. This problem was especially severe during the ice ages. Plant foods were not available for much of the year and survival required the hunting and dismembering of large animals for food and the ability to make tools, weapons and clothing, to build shelters and make fires. These problems required higher intelligence and exerted selection pressure for enhanced intelligence, particularly on the Orientals.

--------------One thing not directly touched on here is the all-too-obvious (to non-liberals) fact that low-IQ immigrants to high-IQ countries lower the average IQ of the countries they move into. The US has been suffering from that ever since LBJ said that we don't want European immigrants any more, but sure do want the low-intelligence peasants and savages from the Third World. Vox Day compares our crumbling infrastructure with our plummeting average IQ. This is from his site [link]:

Crumbling infrastructure, crumbling society

It's interesting to drive over medieval and Roman-era bridges in Europe, then witness reports like these coming out of progressive Not-America:
Atlanta's notoriously tangled commutes were thrown into disarray Friday after a massive fire caused a bridge on Interstate 85 to collapse, completely shutting down the heavily traveled highway through the heart of the city.

Traffic was bumper to bumper on nearby streets as people scrambled to find alternate routes after the fire broke out during rush hour Thursday afternoon. However, officials said no one was hurt despite dramatic images of towering flames and plumes of smoke.

"This is about as serious a transportation crisis as we can imagine," Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said.

As a result of the interstate damage, many commuters in some of Atlanta's densely populated northern suburbs will be forced to find alternate routes or ride public transit for the foreseeable future.

Georgia's top transportation official said there's no way to tell when the highway, which carries 250,000 cars a day, can be safely reopened to traffic in either direction following the collapse in the northbound lanes leading out of the city.

"We will have to continue to evaluate the situation and adjust as we do," Department of Transportation Commissioner Russell McMurry said. "This incident — make no bones about it — will have a tremendous impact on travel."

McMurry said Friday in a news release that bridge inspectors have determined the southbound lanes of I-85, adjacent to the section that collapsed, also were damaged by the fire and will need to remain closed for the foreseeable future.
It is average IQ that is the prime determinant of what a society will be like. And according to my calculations,
the average US IQ has declined by at least eight points since 1965. If you don't maintain your population demographics, both in terms of quantity and quality, your society will decline. And if you don't maintain your infrastructure, it will collapse.

Unfortunately, addressing either problem, let alone actually doing anything to fix them, is presently considered unthinkable. That will change, sooner or later, but how soon it changes will play a significant role in the shape of the eventual outcome.
One thing I'd like to add here for food for thought is the fact that a high-IQ place like Hong Kong (average 108 IQ) that has virtually zero natural resources is infinitely more prosperous than, say, Venezuela, which has heaps of natural resources and an average IQ of 84. So when you're told that the prosperity of, say, the United States has nothing to do with the qualities of the American people, but is the result of the presence of great amounts of natural resources, you can answer that the resources were here before any White person had ever heard of the place. American Indians were right here for literally thousands of years, and they made use of virtually none of the mineral resources or water power or other things we take for granted. Nor did they domesticate any animals except turkeys (llamas and related species were domesticated by South American Indians).
And I think I've rung this bell enough for one post.
Quibcags:  The first is illustrated by Yuki Nagato, who I picked because of her high IQ. Just look at her and try to claim otherwise. She's from The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)I don't know who the girl in the second one is, but the third is characters from Haruhi again, dressed as nuns for some reason. And the last is a puzzled girl from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta).