Duchesne, Strom, and Lynn

In der news.

Listen to this.  That is a generally good podcast, and they – particularly Johnson – do a good job dissecting the SJW nonsense against Duchesne.  I regret to hear that Duchesne had to prematurely retire because of this outrageous situation.  The whole scenario does confirm everything I’ve been writing the last few days about how activists and potential activists need to be prudent and take care of themselves first. If even a tenured professor with excellent student comments can be forced out, how is some level military recruit going to survive?

I did not like Johnson’s comments about how professors use convoluted and incomprehensible language.  That may be the norm in the fields of Duchesnse and Johnson, but STEM people strive for clarity, particularly with all the ESL Asians reviewing papers and grants (and using any excuse to trash quality White work in order to open space for their own co-ethnics).

A good piece by Strom.  When he sticks to sociopolitical and broad racial themes, and not population genetics, he does well.  Despite my occasional criticism, I am thankful to Strom for his ADV broadcasts in the 1990s that helped form my initial “movement” worldview (Pierce also contributed to this).  Criticism from my direction is never meant to be personal, but corrective.

Let’s look at this nonsense once again.  Emphasis added:

Richard Lynn: It was in 1977 when I discovered that the intelligence of the Japanese was 3 IQ points higher than that of white Americans. Hitherto, virtually all discussions of race differences in intelligence had been concerned with the problem of why white Americans and British had higher IQs than other peoples, and this was generally attributed to the tests being biased in their favor. My discovery about the Japanese set me thinking about whether other Northeast Asian peoples (Chinese and Koreans) have higher IQs that Europeans. I began collecting studies on this and found that they did.

Collecting studies  - such as Chinese testing done under problematical conditions and confined to coastal elites and college students, “estimating” IQ through PISA scores, and all the rest of the Lynnian flim-flam.

Richard Lynn: I regard the most important to be what I have called “the cold winters theory” to explain the evolution of race differences in intelligence. The theory explains the relation between the IQs of the races and the coldness of the winters. Thus, the Northeast Asians had to survive the coldest winters and evolved the highest IQs (105) followed by the Europeans (100), North Africans and South Asians (84) and sub-Saharan Africans (70). I first proposed this theory in 1991 and it has become widely accepted.

Widely accepted by who?  You and other HBDers and an assortment of Nutzis?  Let us put aside for the moment whether or not Lynn is correct. The assertion that his theory is "widely accepted" is plain wrong and borderline delusional.  Mainstream psychometricians, behavioral scientists, etc. do not endorse Lynn's views.

Richard Lynn: “The Jews of the East” is a good description of the Chinese in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. In all these countries the Chinese have been minorities that have been more successful than the majority indigenous populations, just as the Jews have been in Europe and the United States, and for the same reason: they have higher IQs. I have documented this in my book The Global Bell Curve: Race IQ and Inequality Worldwide (2008).

Ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism have nothing to do with that, no sir!  Lynn documents this by referring to…his own “work.”

Grégoire Canlorbe: Notwithstanding his early death following cerebral edema, martial artist and actor Bruce Lee may be seen as a successful case of Chinese-European crossbreeding. To what extent does the miscegenation between a white man (or woman) and a Chinese woman (or man) prove to be—generally speaking—more eugenic and healthy than the one between a white and an Arab or a Black?

The idea that you can justify miscegenation because of “look at that celebrity” is something the Left (or Derbyshire) promotes; it is the most juvenile and shallow type of “analysis” possible.  Look at Halle Berry!  Hubba Hubba!  That White-Back mixing is real eugenic and healthy!  I mean, these HBDers will say and do anything to promote their genocidal anti-White Jeurasian agenda.

Richard Lynn: Children inherit genes equally from both parents, and in large samples their children have the average of their fathers and mothers. Thus, if one parent has an IQ of 120 and the other has an IQ of 100, the average of their children will be 110. 

Evidence?  Well, you see 120 + 100 divided by 2 = 110, so that's that!  HBD "science."

But these are only averages, and there is a wide range of the IQs of siblings who typically differ by about 10 IQ points. With regard to mixed-race children, in my latest calculations, the Chinese have an average IQ of 105 and Whites have an average IQ of 100, so the average White-Chinese child will have an IQ 102.5. Arabs have an average IQ of 84 so Arab-White children will have an average IQ of 92, while blacks in sub-Saharan Africa have an average IQ of 70, so black-white children will have an average IQ 85, which is what they have in the United States. Of course, these are averages and there is a wide range of IQs in the parents and the children of all these groups.

Even IF these IQ scores are valid, and even IF IQ was completely genetic and heritable – which even Lynn himself does not believe, see below – why would anyone believe that the outcome of mixing is going to be in a simple additive fashion (even if averaged over large numbers of people)?  While some heritable traits do behave in a simple additive fashion, many, probably most, do not. To blithely assume that IQ is going to behave in such a fashion, in the absence of supportive evidence, is the height of childish stupidity.

Lynn’s retardation, and proof of my critique, is amply demonstrated by his own comment: “…while blacks in sub-Saharan Africa have an average IQ of 70, so black-white children will have an average IQ 85, which is what they have in the United States.”  “American” Blacks are not even 50:50 mixes of Whites and Black Africans – they are mostly African with a minority of White admixture.  Obviously then, if we take the IQ scores at face value, and even if we assume it is all genetic, it is NOT a simple additive model.  If American Negroes are ~ 80% African and ~ 20% European, how can you argue that a simple additive model of 100 IQ and 70 IQ is going to give 85 IQ?  Obviously, the genes for higher IQ are disproportionately influential or there has been selection or strong environmental influences.  Note that Canlorbe does not challenge Lynn about this obvious logical flaw.  Lynn is used to an "amen corner" of sycophants who agree with all his pontifications without a murmur of skepticism.  Obviously, this is not science.

Fourth, national IQs will continue to increase in economically developing nations. There may be some dysgenic fertility resulting in a decline in genotypic intelligence but this will be more than compensated for by improvements in nutrition, health, and education as it was in economically developed nations during most of the 20th century. 

Environmental effects, hmmm?

Fifth, there has been dysgenic fertility in China during the last half century. Despite this, there was a large increase of 15 IQ points in the intelligence of Chinese children from 1988 to 2006 as a result of improvements in nutrition, health, and education, and the average IQ of Chinese-British children in 2006 was estimated as 109.8.

Lynn admitting environmental effects on IQ…for Chinese.  For Europeans, well….no. And why assume that the Chinese immigrants to Britain were a representative sample of the main Chinese population?  This is all ludicrous - Lynn and his followers don't even pretend to be doing real science, with hypothesis testing, skepticism, and controlling for variables. It's a joke.

By 2016, the National Science Board reported that China had overtaken the United States in the number of articles published in science and technology.

Lynn of course leaves out that many of these articles are the result of rampant ethnic nepotism, with Chinese publishing in Chinese journals or in “Western” journals that have Chinese editors and reviewers (based on my observations, Chinese also engage in ethnic nepotism in grant reviewing). Ever read any of these Chinese articles?  Full of errors, omissions, sloppy methodology, lack of proper controls, incorrect interpretations.  But someone like Lynn is not going to critique shoddy scholarship, because that hits too close to home.

It is likely that this lead will grow as intelligence in China continues to increase, as it has in other economically developing nations, as a result of further environmental improvements. There is also likely to be an increase of intelligence in China with a reduction in air pollution which at present is lowering intelligence in many towns and cities. 

So here Lynn again admits environmental effects on IQ (see above).  Note that he defends Chinese IQ as being negatively influenced by environment, but he would never do the same for, say, Southern Italians (or the Irish).  Still think that HBD has no political motivation?

Thus, as intelligence continues to increase in China and decline in Europe and the United States, China is likely to emerge as the world’s superpower in the second half of the 21st century.

HBDers all spontaneously ejaculate.

HBD is the absolute worst “rightist” race-related paradigm. Virtually anything and everything else is better.  For example, Nordicism is, literally, infinitely superior to HBD. Nordicists at least ostensibly want to preserve, and promote in the interests of a subset of Europeans – “Germanics” of Northwest European descent.  HBDers on the other hand want Europeans humiliated and subjugated to Jews and Asians, and eliminated via a Jeurasian mongrelization.  HBD is the traitor within the gates; HBD is utter filth.

I deeply regret ever saying anything positive about the work of Lynn and Rushton; I do sometimes make errors, particularly in my early days as a Nutzi, and I openly admit these egregious mistakes.