On IQ studies

It’s true what Jared Taylor and his group say about IQ differences between races. But I have long been thinking that these studies are biased towards certain intellectual abilities, which aren’t necessarily the most important. As I wrote in my book The Human Side of Chess, what good did it do the only Americans to achieve the world championship crown, Morphy in the 19th century and Fischer in the 20th century, to have very high IQs if in their personal lives they literally lost their minds?

The problem with IQ studies is that they measure a part of intelligence, but not all of it. Those who have read the neurologist Oliver Sacks will know that, for a long time, neurology studied the left hemisphere of the brain to the detriment of the right hemisphere: something that Sacks tried to correct in his books.

Something very similar could be said of IQ studies. It isn’t credible that Asians are about five points higher than Aryans while the latter are much more creative, and Asians merely imitate what whites have come up with. It is obvious that something huge is missing in the IQ studies.

I think it is precisely judgement, so well studied by Sacks in his field of neurology and by us in psychohistory, that is missing from the ‘hemiplegic’ approach, so to speak, in IQ studies.

As I see it, if we take judgement in conjunction with the values measured by conventional IQ tests, pre-Christian Aryans would rank above not only Asians, but Jews themselves. It was Christianity that literally drove us mad. In Spanish we say ‘perdimos el juicio’, literally ‘we lost our judgement’ (we lost our minds in a non-literal translation). That’s why when we finish our translation of Savitri’s book we will continue with the translation of Deschner’s history of criminal Christianity.

An illustration of why IQ studies are so limited can be found in yesterday’s American Renaissance article by Roger Devlin, ‘How and why men and women differ in intelligence’. I’ve been a fan of Devlin’s articles debunking feminism, and even included his seminal piece on the subject in On Beth’s Cute Tits. But like everyone at AmRen, Devlin is a typical American conservative who falls into the traps conservatives fall into.

In his most recent article, for example, in which he discusses the IQ difference between men and women, Devlin is quick to add that women, especially as teenagers (men take longer to develop their faculties), outperform us linguistically and in other faculties. Such an approach to intelligence betrays the same failings in approaching intelligence compared to, say, Asians: the most important thing, judgement and creativity, is omitted.

(Conservative speaker Roger Devlin at the latest AmRen conference.) An American racialist who is not a conservative, say Andrew Anglin, is able to see the naked truth about judgement in the most brutal way possible. For example, in a text I also picked up in On Beth’s Cute Tits, Anglin tells us: ‘What I am “claiming”—which is in fact simply explaining an objective reality, based on accepted science—is that women have no concept of “race”, as it is too abstract for their simple brains. What they have a concept of is getting impregnated by the dominant male’ (from ‘White Sharia: Why we don’t have any choice’, The Daily Stormer, May 16, 2017).

A typical conservative would never talk like that since bourgeois codes of conduct, especially if he speaks in public, oblige him to be nice to everyone present, ladies included, and not to say brutal things.

But Anglin has better judgement than Devlin. The problem with judgement, which is part of intelligence, is that it cannot be measured by simple tests. Even in neurology Sacks had to resort to narrative, that is, to telling little biographical vignettes of those who had suffered a lesion in an area of the right hemisphere of their brains to show how it affected their judgement. The same could be said of those who have healthy brains (hardware) but who have terrible damage to their way of seeing the world (software), such as Christian ethics. In the latter case—software—, narrative is also crucial although, unlike biographical profiles, we are talking about a vast historical study of Christianity and how it metamorphosed into runaway egalitarianism (cf. Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay, now in four languages).

In sum, IQ studies are very limited. They only measure part of intelligence. If whites could get the monkey of Christianity off their backs, they would be the most intelligent subspecies of Homo sapiens on the planet.