Brains, Bucks and Bolshevism

“Marcus: Every year you're worse. Every year, less reliable. More booze, more bullshit, more butt-fucking.
Willie: Sure, the 3 B's.”

- Dialogue between a black midget and a white degenerate in the comedy film, Bad Santa.


This is about economic success, what creates it and how societies can self-organise to attain more of it.

Now, I’m going to go against my male instincts here, and take brains as the primary point of consideration. For any examination of human society, intelligence is a great start. After all, smarts are what make us people, not simply beasts. Without intellect we wouldn’t even have modern society, much less the wealth it brings. Of course, we might still have Communism...

Early “humans” evolved disproportionately large heads, packed with mystery meat, for one reason only: survival. Any species which took a slow, weak and vulnerable form such as ours, without the compensating intelligence, would be long extinct. As it happened, humans bodies increasingly traded speed, strength and protection for ever more complex minds. The power of intelligence is such that, even without sharp fangs and an extra set of legs, humans rule the world.

Undeniably, early man could not have learned to control fire or make tools without his exceptional brainpower. Likewise, the cooperation and weaponry necessary for hunting were a product of rising intelligence, and also a source thereof. Better hunters lived longer, and were sexually selected for by cave-babes eager for their meat.

Critically, the rich nutrition afforded us by hunting animals for flesh allowed for ever bigger and energy-hungry brains. Meat’s richness also freed time for thinking; an hour spent catching prey yielding more nutrition than many hours spent plant-gathering. That’s only true if prey is caught though, making risk and reward ever close to the male heart. Successful hunters enjoyed leisure, indulging arts and crafts hobbies like cave-painting and tool-making, or disporting themselves at hunting practice.

Such things allowed us to craft better tools and weapons, more effectively cooperate and communicate, as well as form larger tribes.

These developments made us even better hunters, genetic and environmental interaction forming a feedback loop. One fed largely by meat, as it lifted us from dull, subsisting herbivores to bright, successful omnivores.

For this reason, I see meat as the first form of wealth. The fruit and veg early man survived on is comparable to the portion of modern man’s salary going to monthly expenses. Anything above that is meat; wealth allowing him to thrive while enriching his family and tribe. This link between food and money is a primal one, apparent in expressions like “bringing home the bacon.” And “bucks.”

So, given that intelligence was so critical to developing the combination of ideas, technology and organisation we call culture, is it not reasonable to expect a link even today between intelligence and culture? All agree early man couldn’t have mastered fire, tools and language without rising significantly above other primates in intelligence. Could modern man have mastered atomic energy, synthetic materials and complex literature without so rising above early man? And if early intelligence was so important in hunting for meat, is it not equally important today in acquiring wealth? For the answers, we turn our attention to Africa.

Today the most widely-held theory on human evolution is that we first migrated from East Africa about 90,000 to 100,000 years ago. New environments exerted new pressures on natural and sexual selection. For example, the influence of colder climes cannot be overstated. Icy winters selected for those who could skilfully craft clothing and shelter. Similarly, scarcity of edible plants would have made effective hunting vital. Storage and rationing of food, a mentally taxing exercise, was necessary. Even childbirth would have to be more strategic, demanding fewer mouths to feed. That would have placed more emphasis on nurturing, to ensure those precious few children survive and learn these survival skills. Less babies would also have increased breeding competition, demanding a higher understanding of others. And so on...

Remember, the above factors and the greater intelligence they favoured are only the effect of a single environmental variable, cold. We might talk endlessly of the other challenges rewarding higher brainpower, settled versus migratory lifestyles for instance. As it is, we can see the environmental pressures, that first led to humans developing intelligence, only increased out of Africa. Necessity is the mother of invention and the resultant early “sciences” were: physics related to climate and tools, biology related to plants and animals and psychology related to cooperation and competition. The greater cultural complexity necessitated by such advancements would also have spurred “the arts,” that is linguistic and symbolic development.

All the above, and more, formed a growth spiral, the end result of which was the evolution of higher intelligence and other adaptations in non-Africans. Survival in the African environment did not demand intelligence to the same degree, and it’s possible Africans culture did not much select for it either. We find adaptations to cold, such as intelligence, to particular degree in the people today known as East Asians, who faced more and harsher climes. I defy anyone to disprove these assertions.

Of course, degrees of average intelligence aren’t the only differentiation found in modern populations. There is plenty of other evidence of adaptation by groups to their geographic environment. We’ll maintain our focus on intelligence, as the factor most relevant to cultural development and success however. After all, complex culture of the type that leads to a consistent surplus of resources can’t exist without high intelligence, no matter what other physiological or behavioural traits might be present. If cultural success was independent of intelligence, we’d see dogs playing poker for real. Though it’s tempting to gauge intelligence on culture alone, as we might surmise chimps to be very smart beasties due to their social complexity and limited tool-use, we need more accurate measures for both culture and cleverness.

I subscribe to the informed consensus that IQ testing is a perfectly valid way to measure intelligence, indeed the best way yet devised. Forget the orthodox view, and related gushing over pseudo-scientific drivel like EQ; a poll of 600 experts on modern psychology, across such fields as child development, educational psychology, behavioural genetics and psychometrics, found:

- 99.3% agreed IQ measures the ability to think abstractly,
- 97.7% agreed IQ measures problem-solving,
- 96% agreed IQ measured the ability to learn,
- 100% agreement was reached that IQ measured one or more of these capacities.

In fact, with the exception of certain politically-motivated social scientists virtually synonymous with Marxism and non-empirical studies, those who criticize IQ testing are almost always laypeople lacking any training in the psychological or scientific disciplines.

Further, IQ is designed to be culturally neutral. It is in no way biased towards European Caucasians, as evidenced by the fact that several unrelated groups outperform them on the test. In fact, the Nazis banned IQ tests specifically because Jews outperformed native Germans. Hitler wanted Germans to be equal above all others, you see. As an aside, Stalin, a far worse tyrant in terms of death-toll, also banned IQ as he wanted everyone to be equal under Stalin.

Even better evidence of IQ being a valid measure is, in my opinion, its high degree of co-relation, or correlation, to life outcomes. Correlation is measured between no relation, at 0, and perfect relation, at 1. So, next time a sneaky journo tries to convince you that adult achievement has nothing to do with IQ, as the two “only” correlate at 0.8, you’ll know he really means an astounding 80%. Here follow some more such interesting figures.

By conservative figures for American whites, though IQ’s equally accurate for other groups; scholastic achievement, length of study and job performance all correlate with IQ to at least a rate of 50%. Even more tellingly, below average IQ predicts incarceration with 70% accuracy. It is likewise a reliable indicator of poverty, illegitimacy and even health rates and life expectancy.

We might say then, without fear of contradiction, that intelligence is the single most important factor to social success or failure, if not life in general, and IQ the best known way of measuring intelligence. That other ways of measuring intelligence, eg. mental reaction time studies, correlate very highly with IQ further validifies that it accurately measures the neurological functioning we call intelligence.

Now, just as we have an overwhelming need to measure individuals for predictive and selection purposes, so we need to be able to measure entire societies. As examples, a business which assumed everyone to be equal and so filled positions at random would go bust, as surely as if it expanded to a new country without adapting to local conditions.

So, we’ve dealt with IQ as the best measure of “human capital.” Some of the most popular ways of measuring national capital are GDP, or the total wealth a nation produces and HDI, which measures life expectancy, educational attainment, literacy and GDP. There are many other ways but these are probably the most familiar. Now, many of you will know where I’m going with this...

That’s right, the almost ~0.7 correlation between IQ and GDP, as described in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. As that link states, ‘in the social sciences, correlations of 0.2 are said to be "low," 0.4 are "moderate," and 0.6 are "high." So 0.73 is most impressive.’ Such a close relation is only to be expected. Given that IQ predicts individual success so highly, it’s both logical and intuitive it‘ll predict group success nearly as highly.

While there was some criticism of the initial book, most of this has been addressed in the follow-up, IQ and Global Inequality. Despite it’s earth-shattering conclusions, comparable perhaps to economist Adam Smith’s seminal work on free market econonmics, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), the follow-up wasn’t carried by a major publisher. If you ever you needed evidence of political suppression of valuable science... The only remaining criticisms to be found on Wikipedia, which I wouldn’t go quite so far as calling a liberal propaganda site, consist of:

1) citing possible inaccuracies that may have crept in with estimations made for countries in which IQ data does not exist, like Suriname. Anyone even heard of Suriname until now?
2) speculative mentions of the as-yet mysterious Flynn Effect, whereby global IQ slowly rises. This is possibly a result of better nutrition, or increased hormone levels in food leading to earlier maturity. My pet theory is “morphic resonance,” which allegedly makes solving crossword puzzles easier the day after they’re published. A crackpot notion, fully deserving of the Comic Sans font in which it’s described in the link? Not necessarily. There’s much anecdotal evidence for morphic resonance, tales of telepathic pets and the like. I for one would like to see some rigorous experimentation done.
3) the mention of some obscure study from 1973 in which children’s intelligence was compared. This proves little as IQ only correlates with academic success at 0.4 in children, though this rises to 0.8 with maturity, as genes play an increasingly telling role. We expect similar intelligence in babies, not in adults.
4) a study whereby elites in one country were compared to Muggles in another; apples to oranges as it were.
5) other nonsensical studies which don’t deserve attention. I’m sure some deluded souls will nonetheless wield them as enthusiastic toothpicks against the statistical juggernaught that is IQ and Global Inequality however.

Certainly, none of the mentioned criticisms even attempt to deny the incredibly high correlation between IQ and GDP. They quite simply can’t. So, such quibbling objections really only serve to muddy the waters slightly, as I might refute the theory of gravitation by saying we don’t quite understand how bees fly.

Now, that’s obviously a bit silly. You can’t discount a ton of evidence with dubious bits and bobs. So, I say to the egalitarians: I might be an atheist but if I saw God step down from Heaven, rip up the Himalayas and start juggling mountaintops, I’d change my ideas in a hurry!

While the evidence for IQ might not be quite that dramatic, it’s at least comparable to the entire Drakensberg range hovering a few feet off the ground. If you ever feel inclined to take your head out your the clouds, you too can witness this exciting marvel.

But enough baiting, let’s represent some of the data graphically:



Plotting the IQ of a population forms a symmetrical curve around the mean, the so-called bell curve.

Most people fall in the middle, degrees of digression tapering to the extremes which signify retardation or brilliance. As this chart is centred on an average of 100, it could represent a standard white population in Europe, America, Australasia, South Africa or anywhere else.

One interesting finding is that bell curves can be flat or peaky depending on the variation in a population. The Asian curve is higher with greater “gravity” around the mean. The Caucasian curve is lower, indicating more fuckwits and boffins (scientific jargon for low and high-functioning individuals).



Racial differences in IQ, from an American government study. Again, racial averages are in the middle at the imaginary 50% mark. Moving horizontally from the Asian average, we can see how few African Americans meet or exceed the average IQ of Asian Americans.

Interestingly, the average 85 IQ of African Americans, with their roughly 20% white DNA, falls halfway between that of whites and Sub-Saharan Africans, with their average 70 IQ. This average of 85 is very similar to that of the South African coloured population, again emphasising the strong genetic basis of intelligence.



A fascinating look at IQ as it relates to careers. The left end might be considered the IQ threshold to the various occupations. I’ll bet anything you like that the right end represents the most successful doctors, managers, plumbers and so on.

The implication is that average American blacks fail to meet the minimum IQ threshold from around “Draftsmen and surveyors” down, to the increasingly skilled professions. Average Sub-Saharan Africans are, according to this, not suited even for janitorial duties in the US.

Inflammatory? Certainly. Untrue? Well if so, prove me wrong.



A click-demanding table which I expect will stick in more than a few craws, showing the correlation of skin tone to IQ and GDP. I strongly suggest reading more about this fascinating study on this brilliant site, which has sadly amusing things to say about “the race-blind, equality-crazed, witch-hunting left” and “hundreds of millions of pounds... thrown at the problem of “failing inner city schools” to absolutely no avail... because nobody who matters can face the truth about African intelligence.”

To summarise the study’s findings: the correlation between skin tone and population IQ is a staggering - 0.92! While no one’s suggesting light skin causes high IQ (sorry, Michael Jackson), there’s a third factor which selects for both: cold. Hence average national temperatures, a result of distance from the equator, are also measured. This equatorial distance is a widely-accepted correlate to GDP, it’s only now that someone’s added the explanatory linkage: IQ. More specifically, how intelligence evolves to different levels due to climate.



An IQ map? Nope, a satellite image of Terra by night. They don’t call it the Dark Continent for nothing... It’d be even darker, only Eskom happened to be online when this was taken.



Now we’re getting to it. IQ and GDP by major land mass. A very tight fit, as the child actress said to the bishop. Why, if it wasn’t marked, you’d be hard pressed to say whether this is a map of intelligence or GDP the correlation is so high! The only major exceptions are China and Russia. They have IQs well above the global average of ~90, yet their GDP ranking is low. Not Africa abysmal, but low. Hmm. Any guesses as to what went wrong in these nations?

Well, war is one thing that cripples an economy, as per Cicero’s aphorism that 'Endless money forms the sinews of war.' Neither of these nations has had a major war in recent memory however... We might suspect all other nations of having abundant natural resources, like farmland, gold or oil, but if anything Russia has more than its share of these and China knows it... By which I mean, China’s resources are on par with most places and they certainly have no need of aggressive expansion into new territory.

There's a good case for Islam's tendency to withhold education and opportunity from women serving to hamstring an economy, but neither Russia or China are Muslim.

The only remaining explanation is in the way their societies were is organised. To account for the importance of political systems, and particularly whether they allow for a free or impose a planned economy, IQ and Global Inequality measures national success with the Quality of Human Conditions index. This looks at standards like Gross National Income, adult literacy, gross tertiary enrolment, life expectancy and, critically, the level of democratization. We can take that neologism as meaning “the societal conditions necessary for the pursuit of free-market capitalism, by which all else is mandated pauperism.“ Here’s what QHC looks like, the scale being 0 to 100:




And here’s national IQ:




My dear egalitarians, that painful sensation you’re experiencing behind your eyes is what’s known as “non-consensual cranial intercourse with the phallus of objective reality.” To come to the point, IQ and QHC correlate at 0.846 for 98 larger countries in which IQ has been accurately measured. Including smaller countries and those in which IQ must be estimated, for a total of 271 countries, the correlation remains a very high 0.791.

Again, we see China sticking out like a sore thumb. So, what’s rotten in the Middle Kingdom? In a word, Communism. In a portmanteau, Commu-fucking-nism. In terms of QHC (“and IQ,” a mean-spirited person might observe), you really are better dead than red.

Leaving aside its 100 million people “served,” which figure does not include 30 million of its subjects killed in wars and insurrections, let’s examine why Communism has such a crippling effect on national success. Now, I’ll admit to being a neophyte when it comes to understanding economics. Luckily, even a tyro can see what’s wrong with the following dialogue between two scarecrows in a field:

Marx: Monopolies that gouge the lower classes are bad!
Von Mises: Agreed. We must encourage trade as per the free market principles first laid out by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. And also in my books, which are rather excellent.
Marx: No! Let’s rather make one giant monopoly and call it the State! For this brilliant plan to work however, we must first hammer the square peg of humanity into the circular hole of equality!
Von Mises: Hah! Good one, Scarecrow Marx! But seriously, what do you suggest?
Marx: Bring me the sickle of equality to pare the peg! Bring me the hammer of revolution to pound it home!
Von Mises: Steady on, old chap, you’re scaring the kulaks as well as the crows!

Now, you might be wondering who the real von Mises was. Like the other Ludwig von, Mises was a bit of a high-functioning individual, or boffin. What Marx was, I leave as an exercise to the reader, with clues to follow. Von Mises, the eminently sensible economist from the Austrian School, now reaches out all the way from distant 1940 to deliver the following smack upside the modern head:

“The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. 'Orthodoxy' is not an evil if the doctrine on which the 'orthodox' stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is 'nationalist,' those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?”

With the Economic Calculation Problem, von Mises famously demolished Marxist economics in the 1920’s. Here are some of his points, as best I understand them:

1) How do we compare goods and labour? Exactly how many hours spent lap-dancing translate to a sack of potatoes? What better way than a market-determined value exists to enable such a trade? If Socialism seeks to remove money and take us back to the barter system of the Agrarian Age, how will it solve this problem?

2) How do we allow for the competition which cuts prices while raising quality? If the State determines the value of goods and labour by consulting producers and labourers, it will inevitably err to the detriment of consumers, that is to say, all.

3) Socialism does not allow for ambition or entrepreneurship. If everything above what a farmer needs to feed himself is taken by the State without payment, what incentive does he have to produce above his own need?

4) Without pricing, how can society form plans? If we do away with supply and demand in favour of need and handout, pricing disappears and formulating macro-economic policy becomes impossible. For example, if the market doesn't tell us people prefer potatoes to vodka, how do we know which to produce more of?

5) Without pricing for capital goods, essentially, it is impossible to know what their rational / most efficient use is. Is it more profitable to use oil for cooking french fries or for adding glisten to my girlfriend’s snapshots? Not that I’d ever sell her pics online or anything.

Friedrich Hayek, another luminary from the Austrian School, who won a Nobel Prize in Economics and other awards, reinforced these arguments years later. Despite these and other excellent points, which stand to this day, some nations still persisted with the insane social engineering that is Marxism, to their inevitable detriment. How many innocents starved as a result of collectivisation of land? For a time, the world’s vegetable-averse children would hear a familiar refrain: “eat up, there are millions starving in China!” Of course, now it’s Ethiopia again, since we did such a great job of feeding them the last time that they doubled their population and now require twice as much food aid. Or AIDS. But I digress.

After the Soviet Union finally keeled over, wheezed its last and began disintegrating, even the reddest of pinkos were forced to admit that society needs some form of market, albeit one nicely planned and controlled by them. Though the surreal damnation of Marxist economics has been largely abandoned as unworkable, even by China, Marxist politics persists. The most disturbing fact is it persists in the West, as per the plans of Globalisation Global Communism. Those who thought we emerged from the dirty, nasty Cold War unscathed are hopelessly naive. Our vermillion foe slashed and gashed us mightily, and while some of those wounds have healed, others have become infected.

Like a dying bee, Communism left its sting in our universities, unions and minority rights organisations. Its poison spreads through our culture, bloating and corrupting, that old-time Communist religion now termed equalitarianism. Communal... Equal... Similar heresies in effect, and a Baudelaire's corpse by any other name would smell as rank. Thus we see achieved most of the 45 declared goals of a 60’s Communist plot for the subversion of freedom’s greatest guardian, the once proud nation of America. Most tragic of all, this insidious undermining has largely taken place from within.

Still, I don’t want to delve too deeply into political aspects and horribly mixed metaphors for now... After all, I honestly don’t give a damn how many retarded, black, Satanic cripple-faggots they’re putting on TV these days as role-models, I can always switch the damn thing off. What I do object to is having to pay for the RBSCPFs to be given TVs, or that they’re given a job that should instead go to a smart, capable and able-bodied family-man. That’s genetic, cultural and economic suicide. I’ll try, again, to focus on the last form of self-defeat...

Can we even begin to estimate the economic strain Western civilization is enduring, and increasingly succumbing to, by playing host in this parasitical relationship? I'd love to see a study of what BEE and AA has cost the country. And what return do we see for our boundless charity to the weak, stupid and, in Darwinian terms, unfit members of society? The warm-fuzzy of pious self-congratulation isn’t worth the price. We’re losing our status and position as world-beaters and can’t afford to handicap ourselves this way any longer.

Think about it. How many more victim classes will the lesbian feminists and pro-black equalitarians promote to the lofty rank of Honoured Parasite? It’s sickening... And if this is how things work today, well hang it all... I intend to start my own pressure group, for the poor, oppressed left-handed minority!

Stats show we southpaws die earlier and suffer more mental illness. This can only be a direct result of all the anti-sinistral discrimination in society. All their abuse must end, the sub-rosa vilification and hate-speech flung our way in language like sinister and (ahem) left-wing. Not to mention the brute oppression of scissors and door-handles designed exclusively for the dextrous! We’ve had enough of it! Down with the evil, iron, red right hand of intolerance!

We’re people too and we demand equality - door handles on both sides of every major door in every private, public and commercial buildings, and that’s just for starters! We have a right to compensation for all the years of bigotry we’ve suffered, all the damage to our self-esteem. Death to the sinistrists! They’ve benefited at our expense for far too long and we demand restitution, preferential hiring practices, free ice cream and so on and so forth, ad nauseum... No joke, I really could start such a movement in today’s world and enjoy a nice free lunch of non-stop handouts... You know, if I was a giant, quivering pussy who didn’t have the balls to make it on my own in life!

Ahem. Let me return from what is fast becoming a rant to the point I’ve been driving for over the last glacial age: South Africa. Seriously, this all relates. Specifically to: South Africa and how black brains and bullshit bolshevism are driving our bucks extinct.

Our average national IQ is 72, a figure bolstered by a significant non-black population. South Africa's GDP fell from 1,548,100 in 1995 to 922,148 in 2000 and took till 2005 to recover to a level of 1,523,254. So much for our phenomenal "growth," in reality it was all recovery.

From the international data, both current and historical, we can clearly see that a level around the mid-80’s is necessary to establish or maintain a modern, economically-thriving society. It is the number 72, not 46664, which will determine South Africa’s destiny and this is a matter of cold, hard numbers. I encourage all who’d accuse me of racism to do the fucking math, chuckleheads.

To make matters worse, our government is trending increasingly towards socialism, if not Socialism. As the nation which prides itself (falsely) on inventing Marxism, egalitarianism and most likely intergalactic spacetravel with its concept of Ubuntu (pronounced “you boon too,” for the benefit of international readers) we can expect this trend to continue. Just look at the headlines. Barring a miraculous change, this country is doomed to Third World destitution, and I hereby stake my reputation on that statement.

The only hope I see for South Africa is to reinstate and / or import smart people. I don’t care who they are. Chinese, Jews, African Americans, Latvians, Sri-Lankans, Borats, anyone capable of the skilled and specialised labour sadly beyond the average black South African.

Next, these trainable types must be placed in key positions, perhaps starting with law enforcement so we can drive down sky-high crime rates and so attract more valuable human capital.

Of course, we’ll need a new justice system too, of the chopping off hands, cocks and heads variety.

Finally, we’ll need to address our “Bantu education.” All the national will and wealth we can muster will need to be pumped into schooling, in the hopes of raising our peoples’ collective intelligence a precious few notches. To this end, better nutrition and adequate breastfeeding encourage mental development. Massive initiatives along these lines are necessary. If these steps, which I deem to be the barest minimum, are not taken - game over.

...

I don’t want to end on a depressing note, so here is an old Cuban joke about Communism. A man dies and goes to hell, perhaps because he was a racist who called stupid people stupid. Or perhaps he didn’t die but simply found himself in a dark wilderness as a departure point to a guided tour, by an epic poet, of the realms beyond. Whatever the case, the Devil greets him and says, “Welcome! You must now decide if you want to go to Capitalist Hell or Socialist Hell.”

The Cuban is not so sure so he asks, “well, señor Diablo, is there much difference?”

The Devil gets very excited. “Oh yes!” he tells him. “Capitalist Hell has the fires and the bees and the hoyvin-glayvin and the eternal damnation, but is not really so bad. We take breaks for lunch and naps! And on Sundays, you are even allowed to be with a woman!”

The man considers this. “And Socialist Hell?” he asks.

“Oh,” the Devil replies, “in Socialist Hell it’s always the same! You are hung by a rope over a board with a thousand sharp, rusty nails, and this rotates back and forth on a drum and constantly shreds your skin to the bone, forever and ever.” The Devil pauses to run his goatee through his fingers. “So,” He asks, “which do you choose?”

“I choose Socialist Hell!” says our Cuban friend. And the Devil, he is muy surprised.

“But why,” He asks. “You will be made to endure constant torture!”

“Not so much, señor Diablo. I know this Socialist Hell! The first day you will have the board and the nails but no rope. The second day you may have the rope, but no nails, and the third day...”