WHO IS THE SUPERSTITIOUS POPULATION? To: Carl Benjamin (@Sargon_of_Akkad) RE: Ex

WHO IS THE SUPERSTITIOUS POPULATION?

To: Carl Benjamin (@Sargon_of_Akkad)
RE: Excellent piece: “How do you de-tribalize people”
https://t.co/MIF03Dz9Od

Carl;
I haven’t been on your show yet, and I have no idea if anyone’s proposed it. I might have in the past.

But science is science whether we like it or not, and humans are ‘trainable’ into high trust norms to very different degrees. So, we can’t circumvent the problem of race, civilization, culture, class, and sex differences because norms, traditions, values institutions, whether civil, legal, political, religious evolved to suit the demographic distribution of the populations.

The Left’s attempt to claim that differences between populations are marginally indifferent is false by all the evidence collected. We ended class differences in the 80s. We ended the sex differences argument by 2012, we ended the race argument by 2017, and like the postwar order, the liberal and neoliberal order, and the marxist-leninist sequence (class to relativism to sex to race) ending in Woke, we are slowly observing the collapse of the ideologies and sophistries, lies and frauds that constitute the majority of political and economic discourse of the late 19th, entirety of the 20th and first quarter of the 21st century.

Population differences appear significant in neotenic development (domestication syndrome), significant in the resulting median IQ, and somewhat significant in the resulting impulse regulation, and significant enough when in numbers in our personality variations, and as a result radically different in criminality and capacity for self sufficiency and self regulation and conformity in an advanced, high trust society.

We Westerners are ‘W.E.I.R.D’ – and as such we assume the rest of the world is equally adaptable to a high trust AND high responsibility society capable of manufacturing both discount-producing commons, and extraordinary innovation. It doesn’t mean everyone else did.

While 100 or so today, according to Lynn, the English probably had a 115 average IQ in the late 1700s. Meaning only 1/4 of the population was below 105, and only .04% was below 90. Meaning only something in single digit percentages of the population was at middle eastern levels of median IQ.

Likewise, middle eastern populations live with an average IQ of 84. And most of the world is in the low 80s or lower. Though race-hybridization produced a spectrum in the 90s. Under 10% of the middle east is over 105, and only 2% have an IQ high enough for college admissions.

So why do we assume that the norms traditions values institutions (religions, governments, laws) necessary for a 100IQ median population that’s highly neotenous, low on impulsivity, highly self regulatory, with the most advanced institutions would be even POSSIBLE for people with an average of 84IQ, much lower neoteny, higher impulsivity, who demand external regulation whether superstitious, ritualistic, familial, social, or environmental can integrate?

I mean, who is the superstitious population? The one with a tyrannical ignorance-producing deity, or the one with magical thinking about the nature and possibilities for the different populations of man?

You’re going to have a civil war over there, or a number of them, if you don’t at least produce a revolt sufficient to change the policy and reverse immigration.

Either that or the country that gave us the modern rule of law state, empiricism, legalism, and constitutionalism and perhas the most dutiful and moral aristocracy in history, is to be erased forever from this earth.

All my love.
CD