Has Putin Inadvertently Defeated Woke, Reversed West's Civilizational Decline?

 

 

Has Putin Inadvertently Defeated Woke, Reversed West's Civilizational Decline?

Edward Dutton

03/04/2022

Earlier by Edward Dutton: Are We In The Winter of America? Will There Be A Spring?

Every cloud has a silver lining. When, in response to the Russian invasion, the Ukrainian government announced that no male aged 18-60 would be permitted to leave the country because they were to be conscripted, nobody in the West, it seems, asked: “What do you mean ‘male’? How are you defining it? Does it include ‘transmen’?” Perhaps the usual Twitter alphabet mob did ask this, but it wasn’t amplified by being reported in the Anglosphere Main Stream Media—because, all of a sudden, there was a war. Life was serious and such self-indulgent, decadent concerns were no longer considered important. Is this a Trend?

Of course, a few virtue-signallers have complained about the “racial” aspect to some of the reporting. But, significantly, this seems to be limited to America. Thus the Washington Post noted the “racist” language, criticizing the way in which

…ITV News correspondent Lucy Watson reported from a train station in Kyiv that the “unthinkable” had happened to the people of Ukraine. “This is not a developing Third-World nation,’ she said. “This is Europe.”

[‘They seem so like us’: In depicting Ukraine’s plight, some in media use offensive comparisons, February 27, 2022]

But in Britain, where the war is far closer and more real, nobody cares anymore. WaPo was citing  the BBC allowing a Ukrainian deputy prosecutor to stress that what was happening in his country should be seen as crucial in the UK because there are: “European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed, children being killed every day.”

There was no apology for his “racist language.” And if anyone did complain, the BBC didn’t highlight it.

People who once claimed that that the West was selfish and national borders and free speech should be abolished were now proclaiming the sacrosanct nature of national borders, that every “people” has a right to their own land, that the “democratic” West with its “free speech” needed to be preserved.

Part of this was simply Machiavellian opportunism. But for many people, I suspect, a deeper shift had occurred.

I have written before about how civilizations follow seasonal cycles and about how, based on numerous measures, we are in decline. But the invasion of Ukraine, while of course terrible for the Ukrainian people, could, counter-intuitively, be “good for the West.” It could potentially slow down Western decline via a kind of Silver Age.   

How could this be? How could anything positive come of the suffering of the Ukrainians, in which innocent children have been killed by Russians bombs? [The faces of some of those killed in Ukraine as Russia's attack rages on, ITV, March 3, 2022]

Well, most obviously: Wokeness is an anti-rational, emotionally-driven force and this war has already begun to neuter it.

According to the “Hierarchy of Needs” concept developed by psychologist Abraham Maslow, humans, first and more foremost, require their physiological needs—food, water, shelter—to be met. Only once these are met are they able to start worrying about personal safety, employment and property. And only once these are met do they have the time left over to be concerned about even higher needs, such as status, respect and recognition.

Following this logic, the decadence of the late twentieth and especially the early twenty-first century can be partly explained in terms of almost everyone’s basic needs on the hierarchy being met, or having been met in their key developmental years, so that they are blithely unconcerned about them.

As a result, we have seen the rise of an increasingly self-indulgent society in which more and more people are ravenously concerned about status, power, and being respected. In its most extreme and Narcissistic form, this involves people being accepted as unique and able to define who they are, to the extent of telling you what pronoun they prefer.

When basics needs are met, these issues become important, contributing to a kind of runaway individualism where we are constantly concerned about offending against people’s—apparently sacrosanct—desires for absolute respect.

Plunge us into a situation of war, however, and these needs are suddenly unimportant. Worse than unimportant, they are divisive and selfish in a context in which we must surely pull together if we wish to survive.

Thus, in a context of war we would expect Woke concerns to be increasingly ignored and even for the people who voice them to be suppressed. Anxiety also elevates our most primal instincts, such as belief in God and ethnocentrism. as I discussed in my 2012 book Islam: An Evolutionary Perspective. So we would expect these to suddenly seem more “acceptable,” just as the ITV news reporter cited by WaPo found without even thinking about it.  

In turn, the suppression of Wokeness—of extreme self-absorption, where feelings are put above truth—will make us more balanced in terms of what Moral Foundations Theory calls the Five Moral Foundations: in-group loyalty, sanctity, obedience to authority, equality and harm avoidance.

Humans are concerned with all of these Foundations because they are, from an evolutionary point of view, pack animals (hence the first three Foundations), but they also need to survive as individuals in an internally competitive pack (hence the latter two). Since the 1960s, we have become ever more concerned with individualizing values, these being the values of Leftists, according to psychologists. The specter of war will push us to the Right, meaning more of a balance and thus a greater concern with truth [Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations, by J. Graham et al., Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 2009].

Furthermore, the specter of war means that, by definition, we are competing with another group. This means that innovation starts to become far more important than “feelings.” This, in turn, means that we should start to become more tolerant of the genius-type. As I have explored in my recent book Sent Before Their Time: Genius, Charisma, and Being Born Prematurely, this is the highly creative thinker who tends to be high in autism traits and even psychopathology (poor rule following, no regard for the feelings of others). This contributes to him being both “offensive” and also highly creative, because he “thinks outside the box” and doesn’t care about offending against convention.

Consistent with this prediction, per capita major innovation—in other words, per capita genius—began to decline in around 1870, seemingly as average intelligence began to decline, and also as individualistic values gradually began to rise as the world became easier and easier.

However, there is some evidence that this decline went into reverse from about 1945. Per capita major innovation increased until the 1960s, before reverting to the previous decline [A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation, by J. Huebner, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2005].

The Cold War would be a reasonable explanation for this. It artificially recreated something of the conditions of “Group Selection” that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution, whereby groups competed with each other for limited resources and triumphed through a combination of optimum group-orientation and intelligence, including the optimum level geniuses, leading to selection across time for these traits, as I also explore in my book.

Two groups faced each other in a perilous war, so they suppressed individualism (more than they otherwise would have done), focused more on innovation (partly to defeat the enemy) and thus, briefly, reversed the process of civilizational decline.

Thus, in a very roundabout and indirect way, Putin’s war may save, or, rather, may slow down, the decline of, the West—just as the Cold War did.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Or should that be “Every threatened mushroom cloud…”?

Edward Dutton (email him | Tweet him) is Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro University, Łódź, Poland.  You can see him on his Jolly Heretic video channels on YouTube and Bitchute.

 

 

 

Garett Jones’ HIVE MIND: How Third-World Immigration Into The West Threatens Prosperity And Progress For The Whole World

Jeremy Cooper
July 15, 2017,
http://www.vdare.com/articles/hive-mind-how-third-world-immigration-into-the-west-threatens-prosperity-and-progress-for-the-whole-world

See also: Lynn`s Race Differences in Intelligence: PC Won`t Make Them Go Away
IQ matters. And it doesn’t just matter for individuals—the IQ of your country is even more important than your own IQ when predicting your level of wealth. This obviously has massive implications when it comes to immigration, because intelligence differences exist between groups and so the kinds of groups admitted have a huge impact on the quality of life in that country. And the case for why this is so is ably made in Garett Jones’s Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own.

The highest IQ countries are on average eight times more prosperous than those with the lowest scores. The chart below from the book illustrates that point.




Jones (right) an economist at George Mason University, succeeds in explaining why this is the case. Relying on previous studies using laboratory experiments and other kinds of data, he shows that smarter groups of people are more cooperative, more patient, and more likely to choose rational economic policies through the political process. All of these facts have important economic implications.

Jones also discusses the “O-ring” theory of productivity, the idea developed by that groups are often only as strong as their weakest link. (The name comes from the 1986 Challenger disaster—the space shuttle exploded because one of the components, a single O-ring).
Imagine a company making vases. It takes two people to make a vase in one hour. If either worker drops the vase, it is ruined. Now imagine that a company has four workers, two of them high quality individuals (Hi) that never drop a vase, and the other two are low quality workers (Lo) that drop a vase 50 percent of the time. How should you split up the teams to maximize efficiency?
If you put a Hi and a Lo together, and you would get two teams that have a 50% success rate each, and make an average of one vase per hour. But if you pair Hi with Hi and Lo with Lo, you will end up with an average of 1.25 vases per hour, based on the success rate of the Hi team of 100% and the success rate of the Lo team of 25%.

In an O-ring industry, society as a whole gains when the highest quality workers are on the same team. Societies with lower IQs are those where a higher percentage of the workforce is likely to be of low quality, which implies that many of their industries will be exceedingly inefficient.

The O-ring is one of those economic theories that, once you understand it, you start to see everywhere. When considering how to combat crime, society must take into account the capabilities and intentions of its most dangerous members.

 Public schools dedicated to educating all children must dumb the curriculum down so as not to leave behind the dullest students.  

And, as can be seen today in many universities, the level of discourse of a community is sometimes held hostage to the most disruptive, and often mentally ill, activists.

The worst people have a wildly disproportionate effect on the overall standard of living. The lower a country’s average IQ, the more people you have on the extreme left end of the bell curve.  Furthermore, Jones argues that higher IQ groups, by having individuals that are better behaved, create conformity norms that create positive externalities for the rest of society.

Jones explicitly tells us that he has not set out to explain why some nations have higher IQs than others. The closest he comes toeing the PC line is when at several points in the book he expresses his hope that eventually all nations of the world will raise their IQs to the level of East Asia. But considering that it would have been much less risky for Jones to pretend that there are good reasons to believe that IQ differences between groups are completely environmental in origin, he deserves credit for not explicitly doing so.

In fact, the way he lays out the evidence should lead most rational observers to the conclusion that genetics are a major driving force behind group differences in IQ. 

The discussion on sub-Sahara Africa is particularly illuminating. Richard Lynn and others have argued that the average IQ of that region of the world is about 67. 

Although critics contend that Lynn relies on flawed studies, when Dutch psychologist Jelte Wicherts and his coauthors went back and eliminated the studies that they thought were of low quality, they came up with an estimate of 82.[ A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans. Intelligence, 2010PDF] As Jones points out, that means that at best the average sub-Saharan African is at about the 12^th percentile relative to Western populations.

While it may seem reasonable to think that poverty is the reason that African IQs are so low, Jones notes that already by the 1960s scholars were struck that residents of Taiwan and Hong Kong, despite living in extreme poverty, had IQ scores that were higher than the European average. China remains poor by Western standards, yet outscores all non-East Asian countries that are at a similar level of development. The hypothesis that wealth is the primary reason behind group differences cannot account for these facts, while a theory that genetics cause such disparities can.

The implications of all this for the immigration debate seem pretty straightforward. Yet after about 160 pages arguing that low IQ individuals make their society worse, Jones ends his book by calling for more immigration from poorer countries! His argument: moving people to richer countries is a surefire way to improve their income. To be fair, Jones does also go on to say that in the long run this can degrade the institutions of the receiving countries, but he appears to on balance think that wide scale immigration to the developed world does more good than harm.

So do immigration patriots have any ways to answer this kind of case for immigration, made in universalist terms? After all, many who examine Jones’s evidence will arrive at the opposite of his conclusions.

And indeed, it seems even Jones may have changed his mind in the time since he wrote the book. He is now arguing that if immigrants cause the slightest decline in the institutions of First World countries and if this reduces research and innovation, that alone may pretty quickly wipe out the gains to the immigrants themselves. [Are the global benefits of open borders a fallacy of composition? Three examples, by  Garett Jones June 2017]
Jones’ Twitter feed also suggests much greater openness towards restrictionist arguments than his book does, for example , this:

The answer seems obvious: Humanity owes practically all of its scientific, moral, and technological progress to a small fraction of countries. While large scale immigration from poorer to richer states may bring benefits that are real to the migrants themselves, it threatens to disrupt the social arrangements that have over the last century more than doubled human life expectancy and created a level of peace and prosperity that would have been unimaginable a few generations ago.
Even those who believe that it is immoral to prioritize the well-being of one’s fellow citizens should consider how mass migration might threaten the values and progress that all reasonable people hold dear.


Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal.

What “Democracy And Liberty”? Across The West, Patriots Face Cultural Marxist Soft Totalitarianism

James Kirkpatrick
July 9, 2017,

President Trump’s masterful speech in Warsaw has flushed out the journalists and far-Left activists (but I repeat myself) eager to see the West’s culture and people extinguished. This we are told that President Trump had said something “shocking” because he defined the West by heritage, culture and identity rather than by “democracy and liberty.” But what is this “democracy and liberty?” Increasingly, First World patriots face a Cultural Marxist soft totalitarianism.

• Poland

The American Main Stream Media pathologizes Poland for being insufficiently “democratic”—by which they mean not sufficiently funding the unelected, far-Left Non-Governmental Organizations and not allowing anti-Polish voices to continue running the state media.
Whatever “democracy” means to the MSM, it’s doesn’t mean a government run by the people which follows the general will of a citizen electorate. Instead, “democracy,” today, means oligarchic rule by people who actively despise the citizens and whose primary policy goal is to deconstruct the nation.

• Germany

In contrast, the MSM loves Angela Merkel’s Germany. Hamburg, host of the recent G20 meeting, was just torn apart by far-Left violence, with even recent Muslim migrants expressing their astonishment at activists deliberately destroying a once beautiful city. [Hamburg’s G20 rioters are ‘crazy’ in the eyes of Arab refugees, by Joseph Nasr, Reuters, July 9, 2017] But this shouldn’t be surprising; the German government has been repeatedly accused of funding the very “Antifa” groups that are launching violent attacks against police [Germany’s Secret Islamic Horror: How Blind Elites Are Destroying A Once-Great Nation, by Marc Geppert, Breitbart, July 18, 2016]. This includes using taxpayer funds to refurnish the headquarters of these far-Left, anti-German gangs, as well as giving them funds to carry out political action in defense of Open Borders [German city accused of funding left wing extremists, by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, November 25, 2016].
And far from than cracking down on the far-Left and overtly anti-German groups, the German government recently announced it would seek to further muzzle patriots who criticize what is being done to their country. Merkel’s government passed a law which will fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros if “illegal content” is not removed within a week, including so-called “fake news.”
“Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins,” said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, in an utterly Orwellian statement [Germany passes law against online hate speech, by Frank Jordans, Associated Press, June 30, 2017]. The loathsome Maas is already on record as condemning any German resistance to their orchestrated dispossession by the occupation government, blasting even the moderate Alternative for Germany party as unacceptable.

• Canada

Nor is Germany alone in draconian restrictions on free speech. Canada’s Senate recently passed Bill C-16, which includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” into the “Human Rights Code,” thus making it illegal to use the “wrong” gender pronouns [Canadians Could Face Hate Crimes Over Using The Wrong Gender Pronouns, by Rob Shimshock, Daily Caller, June 16, 2017]. Criticism of mass immigration can also put you in serious legal jeopardy in the Great White North.
Not surprisingly, this explicit repression of dissent allows the anti-white Canadian government to force through dramatic policy changes. As Faith Goldy recently documented,
https://youtu.be/2H6onH0LmHU
Canada now has the fastest rate of ethnic change in the West, as Euro-Canadians are deliberately displaced in the country they created.

• Britain

In the birthplace of Anglophone liberty, the British government has already acquired vast powers to spy on the Queen’s subjects and regulate speech—powers which Theresa May is looking to expand [After Terror Attacks, Britain Moves to Police the Web, by Mark Scott, New York Times, June 19, 2017]. Though these measures are justified in the name of preventing Islamic terrorism, they will actually be used to crack down even further on critics of Muslim immigration.
Britain is already under the rule of a “soft totalitarianism” where teachers and other government officials feel free to threaten anyone who merely makes a Politically Incorrect comment with legal sanctions. But as terrorism continues in the U.K. and the government refuses to permit discussion of the root causes, it appears likely this “soft totalitarianism” will be increasingly “hard.”

• France

Free speech has long since vanished from the Fifth Republic. The iconic Brigitte Bardot has been repeatedly put on trial for criticizing the consequences of mass immigration. France is also joining forces with the United Kingdom to put pressure on social media companies to impose the same kinds of free speech regulations that exist in Germany—a kind of anti-free speech International [France and the UK consider fining social media companies over terrorist content, by Amar Toor, The Verge, June 13, 2017].
The new president, Emmanuel Macron, who appears utterly indifferent to the existence of the French nation, is promising a “Jupiterian” administration, almost a pseudo-monarchy, as well as sweeping reforms to the legislature which will increase his own power [In Sun King’s palace, Macron threatens to ram through parliament reform, by Ingrid Melander and Michael Rose, Reuters, July 3, 2017]. Imagine the screaming about an “attack on democracy” coming from the MSM if a President Marine Le Pen were making similar comments.

• The U.S.A.

As shown by CNN’s doxing of a private citizen who shared a meme, American journalists now essentially function as commissars, policing what they believe are the legitimate boundaries of political speech. They also cheerlead repression of free speech abroad and hope it leads to de facto, if not de jure, regulations at home.
“It’s important to remember in this context that the U.S. is a free-speech outlier, embracing unfettered discourse in ways most countries — including free ones — consider mistaken and even wrongheaded,” Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman [Email him] wrote at Bloomberg the day before our Independence Day [For a more regulated Internet, thank Canada].
Feldman exults that the European crackdown on free speech may pressure companies to accept “Canadian or German guidelines,” including in America, because “Internet regulation has to be universal to work.”
“In this scenario, Canada really would rule the Internet, or at least the platforms we use to access it,” Feldman gloats. “Would that really be such a bad outcome?”
If you are Feldman and eagerly want to annihilate Western Culture and replace Europeans with Muslims —no, it’s not.
But if you are actually part of this civilization and have a stake in its continued existence, then yes, the eradication of free speech would be a “bad outcome.”
Many Americans, especially Establishment conservatives, seem clueless about how dire the situation really is. The increasingly insufferable Mitt Romney tweeted on July 4 that he was:

Romney’s “autocracy” word choice is presumably a dig at Trump: that is always what the MSM accuses him of, and Romney is incapable of thinking outside the frame that Leftist journalists set for him [Mitt Romney, “Conscious” Cuckservative, by Gregory Hood, Radix, June 27, 2016].
But really, Romney’s tweet reveals something more insidious. Outside the U.S., “independent speech” has already been abolished throughout much of the Western world by government fiat. Inside our own country, it is being effectively dismantled by ethnic lobbies and corporate collaborators. “Freedom of association” disappeared long ago in the Home of the Brave. And even “freedom of worship” is under attack, as your church, business or job can be destroyed instantly by a judge if you are targeted by a Leftist activist. [Here It Is: Complete Catalogue of ‘Same-Sex Marriage’ Violations of Faith, WND, September 1, 2016] (If you’re Christian, that is—strangely enough, Muslims are never targeted by these professional agitators).
So what is this “democracy and liberty” that supposedly defines the West? Western governments are replacing their own populations, destroying the prosperous nation-states bequeathed to us by our ancestors, and then criminalizing any dissent by whites against this state-sponsored genocide. To call this “freedom” is beyond obscene. It’s one of the most successful, if subtle, tyrannies in history, on the brink of extinguishing an entire civilization.
Indeed, when it comes to the issues that really matter, like immigration and national independence, it may be that Russia is more free than Western Europe.
There is no “free world.” And if it is the job of the U.S. to fight against “autocracy,” the city we need to be attacking isn’t Moscow, but Berlin.


James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/what-democracy-and-liberty-across-the-west-patriots-face-cultural-marxist-soft-totalitarianism

Giulio Meotti : The West: Too Tired to Defend Freedom?

The West: Too Tired to Defend Freedom?

by Giulio Meotti
June 29, 2017 at 5:30 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10593/defend-freedom

• "We are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society" — UK Liberal Democrats party leader Tim Farron, who resigned after giving "politically incorrect" answers on homosexual sex and abortion.
• Wherever he went, Jeremy Corbyn seemed as if he were a voluntary collaborator with an Iranian regime that executes gays. But Corbyn was never questioned about this affiliation the way the media obsessively questioned Farron.
• Muslim supremacists murder gays in Orlando? Instead of being proud of an open society, defending it from Islamic jihadists, and accepting the freedom to be homosexual as a positive difference between the West and Islam, our liberals make it a case for more "inclusion".

After the recent terror attacks in Britain, The Spectator wrote: "After five centuries, religious war has returned to England". The reference is to 1535, when Thomas More was executed for his Catholic beliefs. Tim Farron, a British MP and party leader of the Liberal Democrats who, after refusing for several days to state whether he considers homosexual sex a sin, and gave ambiguous answers on abortion, was not brought to the Tower of London for a public execution. However, almost 500 years after More, Farron saw his political career sacrificed on an almost identical ideological altar as More.
Farron resigned his position as party leader with a dramatic speech. The Daily Mail condemned the "liberal fascism" of the "moral pygmies". The progressive New Statesman headlined its story on Farron's resignation as the "decline of liberalism". Farron said: "We are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society".
It does not matter that Farron had, on gay rights, a 90.4% "positive score", according to the Public Whip. Or that he repeatedly defended the right to abortion. What was intolerable was that Farron could have nourished, in his Christian conscience, even a minimal doubt.

Liberal Democrats party leader Tim Farron saw his political career sacrificed because the British media found it unacceptable that, in his Christian conscience, he could have considered homosexual sex a sin. (Image source: Liberal Democrats/Flickr)

Western liberalism seems to have eliminated the so-called "corridor" that had guaranteed a right to existence to those ideas that did not conform to relativism. It is bizarre that this demonization has been consumed in the Liberal Democrats, the party that has borne the torch of classic liberalism.

Perhaps Farron thought that his progressive ideas on climate change, the protection of minorities and the European Union would protect him from such vicious attacks. He was wrong. His inquisitors in the media wanted to talk about his personal social ideas, not Brexit.

The Wall Street Journal told the whole story. After taking over the leadership of the party in 2015, Farron was asked whether, as a Christian, thought that homosexuality is a sin. "We are all sinners", he said. That was not enough. During a television interview on April 18, 2017, Farron was pressed four times to respond again and four times he refused. Silence was not enough. The next day, at the House of Commons, Farron said that homosexuality is not a sin. That, too, was not enough. The media had to be sure that Farron believed it in his heart as well. So a BBC interviewer asked him again a few days later. It was a campaign to smear Farron, an easy scapegoat for a phony concept of liberalism.

Journalist Nick Cohen, writing in The Guardian noted a further paradox. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn worked for state-owned Iranian television and spoke at the Khomeinist rally in London. Wherever he went, Corbyn seemed as if he were a voluntary collaborator with a regime that executes gays. But Corbyn was never questioned about this affiliation the way the media obsessively questioned Farron.

At a time when Islamic supremacists attack the symbols of Western liberalism, liberalism shows a dangerous emptiness. Liberalism has been turned into a caricature made of mandatory gender ideology, blind multiculturalism, defeatist pacifism, anti-Zionism, feminism and critical studies. "An orgy of liberal sex and liberal guilt".

The result is what Douglas Murray called a "tiredness" of the civilization, a cultural chaos which turned into an apathy. In one month, Western Europe has been hit by four major terror attacks: Manchester, London, Paris and Brussels. Sholton Byrnes wrote in an article published by The National:

"...the definition of the West consists of far more than the security alliance that underpins it. Does it not also mean Shakespeare and Schopenhauer, liberal democracy, a progressive interpretation of human rights, all springing from the soil of centuries of Roman-Judaeo-Christian tradition? The West was once the inheritor of Christendom. Today, it is not entirely sure what it is, with many voices violently clashing over their views of what it should be. It lacks the certainty in its own civilisation that Russia and China, for instance, possess. If it is too tired or unwilling to defend itself, the US will survive for sure; but the concept of 'the West' will have dissolved through the apathy of societies who will have shown they have no courage – and not many convictions either".

That is why, if we, the West, do not take our culture more seriously, Islamic terrorists will easily be able to destroy it. Every time Western symbols come under attack, the Western relativists rapidly accommodate the attackers.

Salman Rushdie is threatened with death and a $6 million Islamic bounty on his head, or Muslims supremacists attack because of cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed? 
Instead of defending freedom of expression, our liberals submit to Islamic blasphemy laws. 
Two years and a half after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, not a single European newspaper has again drawn Mohammed.

Muslim supremacists slaughter French Jews? Instead of defending them as a post-Holocaust treasure, our liberals scapegoat Israel's security policies, as did the European Union's former foreign minister, Catherine Ashton.

Muslims supremacists submit their own women to burqas and niqabs and home-confinement? Instead of protecting equality, our liberals defend the veils as symbols of "cultural diversity".

Muslim supremacists murder gays in Orlando? Instead of being proud of an open society, defending it from Islamic jihadists, and accepting the freedom to be homosexual as a positive difference between the West and Islam, our liberals make it a case for "Love wins" and "Hate will not divide us".

A year after the massacre at the Pulse gay nightclub, the mainstream media constructed a new narrative, as if murdering 49 gay people were not the product of ISIS, but of "hate". That is why the question is repeatedly asked: "Why did this happen?"

Contemporary liberalism is exhausted and irritated by the very idea of a common civilization to be defended. 
In a weak conception of "liberalism", the supreme goal for liberals seems to be "peace", whatever it costs -- in other words, surrender. 
This is how Western liberalism has become fragile, like a tree corroded by a lethal fungus.

Fifty years ago, James Burnham understood that liberalism had become "an ideology of suicide" of Westerners "who hate their own civilization, readily excuse or even praise blows struck against it, and themselves lend a willing hand, frequently enough, to pulling it down".

Civilization is not a gift; it is a breakable achievement that needs to be defended from inside and out from the many who would destroy it. Let us take the freedoms we value more seriously; they are being taken from us as we speak.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

The Irish Savant : The Tyranny of White Guilt

The Irish Savant

Monday, 11 October 2010

The Tyranny of White Guilt

I've just finished reading The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in which he claims that "all of modern thought can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter's hypocrisy, violence, and abomination." He shows how Europeans see themselves as "the sick man of the planet" whose pestilence causes every problem in the non-Western world. When the white man set foot in Asia, Africa, or America, death, chaos, and destruction followed. Europeans feel themselves born with stigmata: "the white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone."

Well, maybe he’s over-stating his case. But there’s no doubt that one of the staples of our delusional post-colonial romantic self-flagellation is the myth of the Noble Savage. Coined originally I think by Rousseau in the eighteenth century, it’s characterised by misty-eyed fantasies about early men and women, living in Bambi-like harmony with nature while selflessly looking out for each other. But then the (white) colonialists came along to spoil everything, with their pesky hospitals, colleges, literature and so on.

Of all the delusions supporting the anti-white agenda, this is surely the most egregious. So hopefully I won't bore you by taking a look at the reality of some of those idealised lives.

The American Indians.
 

We have had it drilled into us now for more than forty years. I remember as a small boy when the Indians in movies were depicted as cruel, whooping, primitive savages, while the heroic cowboys or cavalry (calvary!) always kept one bullet – for themselves – in case of capture. You know, these savages would torture him horribly before his ritual slaughter.

We can look back now at this simplistic, ‘offensive’, ignorant and narrow-minded characterisation. We know this from an endless series of moves, and from the full range of ‘White Studies’ (ugh!) programmes, which show the Indian as being brave, peace-loving and chivalrous.
.
In fact, our unsophisticated 1960s view was far more accurate than that portrayed in Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves or any of the other myriads of panegyrics to the poor Indian. For the Indian was indeed violent, cruel, savage, merciless and at constant war with his own kind, ever before the white man came to spoil everything.

Warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of endless armed conflict and ritual violence.

A few examples:
In the Eastern Woodland cultures, warfare often served as a means of coping with grief and depopulation – itself driven by interminable warfare. Such conflict, commonly known as a “mourning war,” usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other groups who could replace those they had lost.

The captive could be lucky. He could be spared and become the mourner’s new husband.

Or he could be unlucky.

“If the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for adoption into the tribe.”

Thomas E. Emerson’s study of Mississippian warfare for the period AD 900--1400 concerns the archaeological recovery of disturbing evidence from mass interments of war captives and/or sacrificial victims. According to the author, recent findings reveal that precontact-era hostilities resulted in the massacre and mutilation of hundreds of men, women, and children. He refers to “intensive and bellicose patterns of internecine warfare involving massive casualties.”
The Indians also demonstrated considerable vision and improvisation in developing methods of torture. Apart from the normal slow death by turning on the spit, specialities included smearing the victim with honey and then tying him (or her) to an ant’s nest. The agonising death throes could last for days before the partially eaten victim expired.

Various studies suggest that such practices were also widespread all over pre-Columbine America, including the Caribbean. Here the Carib Indians exterminated – and consumed – their Arawak enemies, before in turn succumbing to white man’s diseases, the poor dears.

New research coming to light (published in Discovery, September 20, 2010) shows that much of the violence was genocidal. “The entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre site—Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo. The unearthed bones and artefacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disembowelled, killed and often hacked to bits. In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of the structures and set the roofs on fire.”
Must have been whites who did this, surely? Er, no. This took place about 800 AD.


Native New Zealanders

“There is not a bay, not a cove, in New Zealand which has not witnessed horrible dramas, and woe to the white man who falls into the New Zealanders' hands.”
.
When Felix Maynard and Alexandre Dumas wrote this (in The Whalers) they didn’t have the All Blacks Rugby team in mind. Although the similarities are striking, this, being written about 200 years ago, was referring to the native New Zealanders, the Maoris. And he was right to be apprehensive. Here’s a sample of what he could have expected:
.
“In the meantime, a fellow that had proved a traitor wished to come and see his wife and children. They seized him and served him in like manner. Oh, what a scene for a man of Christian feeling, to behold dead bodies strewed about the settlement in every direction, and hung up at every native's door, their entrails taken out and thrown aside and the women preparing ovens to cook them!”

“On our side, there were eight men killed, three children, and two women, during the siege. They got sixteen bodies, besides a great number that were half roasted, and dug several up out of the graves, half decayed, which they also ate. Another instance of their depravity was to make a musket ramrod red hot, enter it in the lower part of the victim's belly and let it run upwards, and then make a slight incision in a vein to let his blood run gradually, for them to drink.”

“I must here conclude, being very scanty of paper; for which reason, columns of the disgraceful conduct of these cannibals remain unpenned.”

Another Sheriden, Daniel Henry this time, wrote “Calm light airs from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the natives, before all the officers and most of the men.”
.
“One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’ ‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ Later he brought on board Endeavour four of the heads of the seven victims."
.
Edward Tregear, in The Maori Race (1904) tells us “an English missionary has reported that Pomare, a chief of the Bay of Islands, ate six entire heads. Chiefs' heads are usually dried and perfectly preserved by an ingenious process. Before the feast of victory, each warrior drinks the blood of the enemy he has killed with his own hand. After battle comes the terrible and revolting episode of the cannibal feast. Prisoners taken in the fight were slain in cold blood, except those reserved for slavery – a mark of still greater contempt than being killed for food. Sometimes after the battle a few of the defeated were thrust alive into large food-baskets and thus degraded for ever. As a general rule, however, they were slain for the oven. ”
.
Damn white man – coming and ruining this delightful culinary experience and shoving his so-called civilization down their throats (if you’ll pardon that particular analogy).

And a final delight from Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, pp. 197-199

“The warriors, entirely naked, their long black hair, although matted with human gore, yet flowing partially in the wind; in the left hand a human head and in the right hand a bayoneted musket held by the middle of the barrel. Thus, with a song, the terrible expression of which can only be imagined by being heard, did they dance round their wretched victims, every now and then approaching them with gestures, threatening death under its most horrible forms of lingering torture.
.
The captives, with the exception of one old man and a boy who were sentenced to death, were apportioned amongst the conquering warriors as slaves. The tables were laid. About a hundred baskets of potatoes, a large supply of green vegetables, and equal quantities of whale-blubber and human flesh, constituted the awful menu. The old man, from whose neck suspended the head of his son, while the body formed part of the cannibal feast, was brought forth and subjected to torture from the women before the last scene of all.”

In short, the native New Zealanders (and Pacific Islanders generally) were violent bloodthirsty cannibals. Interaction between tribes almost invariably resulted in internecine warfare leading to death on the battlefield, or, if it was your unlucky day, captivity. In the latter case your destiny was to be on the lunch menu for the following day, having first been subjected to the most appalling torture. Another characteristic of these people was the extent to which women and children partook of the torture and general prisoner abuse. This of course was also characteristic of their fellow noble savages on the American continent.

Australia.

In a nutshell, the pre-European Australian aborigines made their contemporary natives in America and New Zealand look like Swedish Social Democrats. I've posted here about what Kevin Rudd called their ‘ancient and proud culture’. Ah yes. If you have the, ahem, stomach, read it. I truly believe that these people were (are?) not fully human.

Africa:

Where to begin, where to end? Does anybody seriously believe in African ‘civilisation’? Well, the answer to that of course is, yes they do. None more so than guilt-crippled white masochists. To them I dedicate the following tiny snippets.
.
In west African there were slave wars, where the coastal African tribes were armed and encouraged to raid in­land and bring their captives to trading ports for sale and shipment. These cannot I suppose, if one is being pedantic, be strictly representative of er, ‘African civilisation’, being as they were, instigated by the white man. But the natives didn’t need much encouragement.
.
The result was a never-ending series of tribal wars and the devastation of immense areas. While some 8,000,000 Africans were sold into the Americas (only about 400,000 into what's now the USA) during the period of slave trade, it has been estimated that at least 40,000,000 more were killed in the wars and raids or died on the voyage. No mercy was shown in any of these encounters, and even the hardened white slavers were shaken by the brutality and savagery displayed by the Africans against one another. (Nothing’s changed in the meantime, then!).
..
Most of African history of course is unknown, as their ‘civilisation’ never got around to inventing reading or writing. Until of course whitey came with his evil ways. We can though get a good sense of the southern and eastern parts of the continent. Due mainly, of course, to the early arrival of whites to this part of the Dark Continent.
.
What they saw did not bring Switzerland to mind.
.
Now, are all you liberals and race-traitors in the back paying attention?

Let’s go!

As every schoolboy knows, Shaka Zulu created a highly centralized, well organized nation-state, with a large and powerful standing army. Then he did what we thought only the evil whites did. He used this army to expand his control! Can you imagine a noble savage doing such a thing?

And he didn’t mess about, creating a waterfall effect of violent tribal displacement and extermination. Refugee groups escaping Chaka invaded the lands of present-day Botswana creating chaos as they tramped westward. The Basotho were pushed into the mountains where they were harassed by cannibals. Setting villages on fire, the Ndebele swept ahead of the Zulu Impi to settle in present day Zimbabwe. Along the way they encountered King Thulare's Pedi empire, which was destroyed and its people wiped out. They then attacked the Mokololo to the northwest. Meanwhile the Xhosa expanded into Khoi-khoi lands, forcing many into the arid Kalahari Desert. The Tlokoa marched from Natal leaving a path of destruction all the way to Botswana. They attacked the Fokeng forcing them west. The Fokeng in turn marched north to the Zambezi River and beyond, where they raided destitute refugees.
.
Fokeng confusing, isn’t it?

All of this was in fact part of a broader series of ghastly massacres in which powerful armies annihilated their weaker neighbours, confiscated their possessions and moved on, knowing full well that if they loitered they too would be attacked by wave upon wave of people advancing from the east. The whole sub-continent was hurled into a maelstrom of destruction, until eventually an estimated twenty-eight distinct clans disappeared, leaving not a trace of their former existence.
.
Oh dear! Who could have imagined?

Anyway, this invariable lead to food supply problems which the victors solved by the simple expedient of consuming their captives. When they ran out of captives to kill and eat, the bodies of the already dead were disinterred and began to appear on the menu. But there are only so many bodies you can dig up, and it wasn’t long before starvation drove them to devouring their wives and children. Having once acquired the taste for human flesh, the cannibals formed themselves into hunting bands and set out daily to replenish their menus.
.
But the end was nigh, as the voertrekkers were heading their way, all set to spoil this pastoral idyll. They have a lot to answer for, them boers.

Conclusions?

Ok, all of this is innocent fun, but there’s a serious side too, one that brings us back to The Tyranny Of Guilt. You might justifiable conclude from what I've written that the noble savages were in fact for the most part grunting dehumanised beasts. Their societies were not comprised of happy hippies harvesting free-range animals who dropped dead naturally, and encounters between tribes were not pipe-smoking love-ins. They killed as many animals as they could, and they killed (and usually ate) as many enemies as they could. Unfortunately —for them— whitey had superior firepower. That’s all.
.
Can you have any doubt, based on what you’ve just read, as to what any of those native leaders would have done, had they only had the white man’s power? As General Phil Sheridan (from Cavan, of all places) said to Red Cloud: “If you had our power and we yours, you’d slaughter every one of us, to the last man, woman and child”.

Hobbes in Leviathan, held that the natural state of mankind is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Well, that certainly sums up the Noble Savages we discussed. But what about whitey? Is he alone immune to these natural impulses? Surely not. But what whitey has done is to create and develop, over many centuries, an uncanny assemblage of science, philosophy and ethics, supported by complex legislation and an array of supporting governance institutions. These have not been perfect of course, but they have dramatically mitigated the risk of "war of all against all." In whitey’s world, peoples’ lives are assuredly not poor, nasty, brutish, or short. Some non-Western countries are of course successful, and more will be. But they'll make it by adopting Western inventions, medicine, industry, agriculture, communications.

.They understand this perfectly, unlike our lofty academic assholes, lauding the illiteracy and misery of others as they savour their latest Reisling. These academics will tell you that third-worlders want to come here because the capitalist system has corrupted them, and eroded their "Authenticity". Yeah, right. See, if only we had left them in their pure state, they would revel in hookworm and illiteracy.

Gimme a break. For three centuries just about everything that makes life tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like it.

We have everything to be proud of - our race indeed represents the March Of The Titans. Don’t let them take that from us.

 

 

http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2010/10/tyranny-of-guilt.html

The Irish Savant : Not with a bang but a whimper

The Irish Savant

Thursday, 1 June 2017

Not with a bang but a whimper

I have (with the exception of sport, and I'm working on that) long ago given up watching TV.  It was surprisingly easy. But due to family circumstances I had to endure severe doses of it for most of last week. The scale, depth and overall pervasiveness of the indoctrination was breathtaking. 

 

 It starts with infants. The cartoon characters are close to 50% non-White, blacks and browns are portrayed as clever and well-spoken leaders, families invariably mixed-race, often featuring same-sex 'parents', androgyny is everywhere with everything dumbed-down to the lowest degree. The aphorism 'give me the child and I'll give you the adult' - variously attributed to Lenin and the Jesuits - never seemed more valid. 

 

On Sky News the two coal black presenters (one male, one female of course) were at one stage joined by the network's Chief Political Correspondent...... one Feisal Islam.

There followed a panel discussion on what it means to be British. Panel was wall-to-wall black and brown with a few carefully-selected  British eunuchs thrown in for ballast. The general consensus was that they all felt British. But would prefer if being British was less associated with being White! The limp-wristed moderator clucked in sympathy. And that's the way it's going. The resultant stew will have no common sense of history, culture, race or religion....the things that made them British. (The same syndrome applies all over western Europe, from Ireland to Greece, from Finland to Portugal). 

In such circumstances the nation eventually becomes fractious and atomised. Sedated and stupefied by bread and circuses an enormous cohort of welfare parasites will  continue to elect politicians that actively work to destroy their nation-states and enmesh them ever deeper into the international globo-homo power structures. 

But surely the White middle and working class males will not just sit back while they get dispossessed of everything their ancestors left them? Well that's where my excerpt from T S Elliot's Hollow Man comes in. I think they'll do just that.  

Despite Brexit and the inescapable signs of a White awakening I fear this is the way their world ends, not with a bang but a whimper. Already street-by-street vast swathes of their towns and cities have succumbed to the toxic black/brown sludge. And Whites retreat. Again and again. How long can this go on? Well, long enough for it to become an irreversible reality.

Before that happens the real nature of multiculturalism will of course have become clear. But this is where the carefully-constructed mind control programme comes in. Because as Orwell foresaw, when you constrain what can be said you eventually constrain what can be thought. 

 

My grandson's generation may well end up lying to themselves without knowing that they're doing it. Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote 

 “Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others." 

 

 I became aware of this in the old Communist countries, especially Roumania. The lies and cognitive dissonance were so outrageous it seemed to me the authorities were not trying to convince but to humiliate, to break the people's spirit and will to resist. By forcing people to acquiesce to the lies and to remain silent, or even worse to regurgitate them rots the moral fibre, rendering them easily controllable and malleable.

Was this what Elliot had in mind when he wrote the final lines of The Hollow Man

In this last of meeting places

We grope together

And avoid speech

Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2017/06/not-with-bang-but-whimper.html

Lasha Darkmoon : The Moronification of Western Man: Are we all becoming more stupid?

The Moronification of Western Man: Are we all becoming more stupid?

Lasha Darkmoon October 1, 2016  

 

 

 

How would you like to live in a world in which almost everyone is a moron? Well, you may have that dubious pleasure if you hang around until the year 2100.

Yes. it seems we’re all becoming more stupid. If the Daily Mail says so, I guess we have no option but to believe them.

There’s only one snag about this approach, and it’s a strictly logical one. If everyone’s getting more stupid, wouldn’t that include the writers of the Daily Mail? How can we trust them if, like the rest of the population, they have been progressively losing their marbles? Indeed, how can we be sure we haven’t lost a few grey cells ourselves in the last 20-30 years?

The fact is, you can never be sure how stupid you are at any given moment.

Did you know that the average IQ of the world is in steady decline? Did you know that the IQ of Western man has fallen 14 points since the Victorian era? Did you know that our Western IQ is set to plummet even further as a result of miscegenation or interbreeding caused by irresponsible mass immigration policies foisted on us by our own governments?

The Daily Mail, if I may venture to criticize that august institution, is guilty of media spin. It is attempting to conceal the obvious fact that IQ is going down because of the incursion of vast numbers of low-IQ immigrants from the Third World who are dragging down the IQ of their host countries by miscegenation or interbreeding.
In the words of the New Observer website:

It is attempting to explain the decline in “Western” IQ in any way except the obvious—that the racial make-up of Europe is changing. The measured IQ of “Western” nations—specifically Western Europe—is dropping dramatically as the percentage of whites—expressed as a part of the whole—becomes smaller, new statistics have shown.

IS THIS THE FUTURE?

Take a look at that beautiful White woman in the picture above.
She doesn’t seem to care very much that the IQ of her children is almost certain to be lower as a result of miscegenation or interbreeding with a lower IQ race. The average IQ of Whites is 100; the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 70-80. Interbreeding of this order can only result in a mongrel race with an inferior IQ.
(To check on the IQ levels of different countries, click on World IQ Figures)
It’s possible that the interbreeding White woman is unaware of the IQ issue. Maybe she isn’t educated enough to realize that the IQs of her mulatto children are almost bound to be lower than the IQs of her White ancestors.
If she is aware of the situation, maybe she doesn’t care. To quote the writers of the New Observer article again:

Although the drop in IQ levels was recently presented in the controlled media—and the Daily Mail in particular—as some type of mysterious drop to which no easily-identifiable cause could be attributed, the decreased IQ is obviously the product of mass Third World immigration from countries with much lower IQs.
According to the statistics, IQ test results in the UK, Denmark, and Australia have shown a significant decline in the past decade alone, and the average IQ of “Westerners” has plunged 10 points or more since 1900.
In the UK, for example, tests carried out in 1980 and in 2008 showed that the average 14-year-old was two IQ points cleverer in 1980. Brighter teens who took part in the study in 2008 were on average six IQ points less intelligent than their counterparts tested 28 years earlier.

The recent decline in British IQ can arguably be attributed to interbreeding with lower IQ races. “A massive influx from these regions—which has been ongoing in large numbers since the 1970s—is the cause of the declining IQ in Western countries,” the New Observer article reveals, referring to immigrants from the West Indies, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent. The average IQ of all these groups is at least 15-20 points below the average IQ of Whites. (See IQ chart)

On a world scale, the decline is as marked. According to official UN figures, the world’s population in 1900 was some 1.6 billion. In 2014 it stood at around 7.2 billion—with the vast majority of the increase having taken place in non-European regions of the earth.
According to Professor Richard Lynn, author of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, a decline in “humans’ genetic potential” is the root cause of the problem. His data has shown that the world’s average IQ has dropped by one point between 1950 and 2000—but that this decline has not taken place in Second or Third World nations. In those countries, the IQ levels have remained more or less constant, and it is only in “European” states where the IQ is declining.” (See here)

By 2100 the world will be a far stupider place than it is today, but this general decline in intelligence will deal a savage blow to Western countries in particular. This is because of out-of-control immigration from Third World countries: a deliberate policy, it would seem, to mongrelize the White European race according to the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan pushed by the European Union and internationalists like Angela Merkel. (See Project White Genocide: The Dark Agenda of Count Coudenhove Kalergi).

The bad news is that after 2100 it’s likely to get even worse

The New Observer article concludes:

The full extent of the effect of Third World immigration into Europe was shown by a study published by the University of Amsterdam in 2013, which showed that “Westerners” have lost 14 IQ points on average since the Victorian age.
According to Jan te Nijenhuis, a psychology professor at the University of Amsterdam, this is “due to more intelligent women having fewer children than those who are less clever.”
The evidence is now clear: if Europeans, who gifted the world nearly every technological advancement, are to maintain their identity and ability to exist, a new and dramatic geographic separation from the other races has become vital. Without it, the European people—and the spark of Western civilization—will be extinguished forever. (See here, emphasis added)

These findings are controversial and politically incorrect. If you find them offensive, feel free to reject them. I merely report what others have said, many of them distinguished university professors (like Richard Lynn) who have spent decades doing IQ research.

—  §  —

Let’s consider the figures for America and ask ourselves: are Americans as a whole more stupid now than they were 100 years ago? The answer, unfortunately, is “Yes”. Americans are collectively far more stupid than they were in the year 1900 when America was 90 per cent White. Wave after wave of Third World immigration has had a damaging effect on the average IQ of the nation.
A quick glance at the figures will tell you all you need to know.
In 1920, America was 90 per cent White. That figure was the same ten years later in 1930. In 1940 the figure was identical. In 1950, ditto. By 1960, it had slipped maybe a fraction of 1 per cent. So several decades went by with barely a change in the demographic mix of America. Nine out ten faces Americans saw in the street were White faces in the first half of the 20th century. By 1965 this figure had fallen one percent to 89 per cent.
So far, so good; very few changes.
After 1965 things began to go haywire. The Jews, who had been agitating for change for over half a century to no avail, eventually got their way in 1965 with the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act. This changed the entire quota system in favor of non-White immigration. The floodgates were thrown open now to Third World immigration.
As a result, the average IQ of the nation began to decline in almost direct proportion to the number of Third World immigrants—generally of lower IQ—who were let into the country.
Between 1965 and 2015 America became 39 percent less white.
Try and comprehend and digest these awesome statistics: between 1900 (when America was 90% White) and 1965 (when it was 89% White), America had only become 1 per cent less White.  Between 1965 and 2015, however, it became almost 40 per cent less White—a truly enormous change. These figures come from the US Census Bureau.





By 2015, America was only 61 per cent White, losing another seven percentage points in five years.
 
An unfortunate byproduct of non-White immigration has therefore been a significant decline in the average IQ of White nations which have borne the brunt of Third World immigration—a decline of at least 10 points since 1900. This is due to two factors: (a) the substantially lower IQ of non-White immigrants, and (b) the fact that intelligent White women are now having far fewer children than women who are less intelligent.

By 2100 the average IQ of the world is expected to show a sharp decline (see chart above, ‘World IQ over time’); but the decline in the IQ level of White nations is likely to be even steeper. “The full extent of the effect of Third World immigration into Europe,” one notes with alarm, “was shown by a study published by the University of Amsterdam in 2013, which showed that ‘Westerners’ have lost 14 IQ points on average since the Victorian age.”

I have already quoted that sentence above; forgive me if I quote it again. Minus 14 per cent is an enormous decline in intelligence in a mere century and a half. It does not bode well for the future.

“See the happy moron!
He doesn’t give a damn.
I wish I were a moron—
My God, perhaps I am!”
— Anon, Popular Rhyme

The moronification of American children by the shadowy elite who run the American state education system took a bizarre twist last week when it was announced that Satanism is now being introduced to American schools without consultation with the American public.

Someone in America has decided that Satanism has a lot to offer and that American children should not be deprived of its benefits.

The Satanists received the go-ahead last week when they won permission from state authorities to start up an after-school “Satanic Club” at Sacramento Elementary School in Portland, Oregon. The Head of Portland’s Satanic Temple, Finn Rezz, said the club would provide “an alternative to the school’s Bible-centered Good News Club.” (Independent, “i” newspaper, UK, p. 3; see also here and here)

The mere fact that Americans see nothing out of the ordinary in the establishment of Satanic indoctrination classes for their children will tell you a lot about America’s steady and ongoing moronification.
Is it any wonder that the American electorate, in a few weeks’ time, will be casting their votes for one of two individuals who both belong in lunatic asylums?
No, I don’t think so.
This is what happens when you end up with a nation of morons. A once proud democracy has become a circus of horrors.

https://www.darkmoon.me/2016/the-moronification-of-western-man-are-we-all-becoming-more-stupid/