patrick.net

marcus says

Yeah, excuse me for bringing facts in to the discussion.

Pretty convenient how your chart died with 2017. 2018 and 2019 are recording epic numbers of migrants.

Quigley says

Walls are easier to enforce than lines in the sand. Everyone knows this.
It’s not fucking rocket science.

WE have fences in places they need to be and recent (before TRumps Wall battle) unspent $billionns allocated for more fences.

You don't want to do your homework on this. You just want to believe the lies. Hell, you should realize that Trump doesn't even believe his own BS. THat's why he tried to say that existing fences and repairs to fences were the wall he was already building. (before Ann Coulter busted him on it).

Trump probably thinks your a gullible idiot. How does that make you feel ?

Quigley says

Pretty convenient how your chart died with 2017. 2018 and 2019 are recording epic numbers of migrants.

IT's just the data that's out there. I've been posting that since a long time ago, when it was fresher. YOu know back when TRump was telling the lies that he's trying to follow through on.

Do some homework. How Epic are those epic 2018 and 2019 numbers? How many years would you have to go back to find every year higher ?
I wonder how Trumps big battle over the wall pays in places in Mexico and central America where so many people have dreams of coming to the U.S. one day.

One might imagine it would cause people to feel a sense of urgency about finding a way to come sooner.

it's not a myth. I'm very real.

but liberal alpha males do not exist, that part is true.

Some posters sound like a communist poster from the 70's. Labor masses unite, rise up with hammer and sickle, if you have a job you are oppressed...

Kaki you bring back memories and what Reagan spoke against.

I think more than anything history tells us where "big government leads". I remember the fall of the soviet union and all other communist/socialist nations. Only truly gullible think that "equality" can make things work. It only drags everything down.

I'm not against social programs, or some government. But when government becomes too big, it goes past the inflection point where it's beneficial and just becomes an organization that sucks life blood out of the working sector, killing the host. Because you can't change human nature. All those government employees don't give a fuck about anything but themselves. Government is inefficient, completely useless for most part, and expensive, and when the cost of government becomes a permanent and inefficient burden it drags everyone down.

Right now the cost of CA government far far far out-weights the benefits. Half of it can be removed and life would likely improve significantly. When I look at how much government pays their employees, you can see the cost inefficiencies (especially if you consider how they never get shit done). Pension system is a racket, programs are a racket, private sector partnerships are a total scam. Whole thing is pure bullshit built on lies on top of lies.

marcus says

Do some homework. How Epic are those epic 2018 and 2019 numbers? How many years would you have to go back to find every year higher ?
I wonder how Trumps big battle over the wall pays in places in Mexico and central America where so many people have dreams of coming to the U.S. one day.

I wonder how Trumps big battle over the wall pays in places in Mexico and central America where so many people have dreams of coming to the U.S. illegally one day. FIXED
Only the poorest of the poor cross the border through the desert...People with a little money find a "pollero" who has some legit VISAS and use one that has a picture that looks like them and do their hair and makeup to look close and and pass with a carload of legit visa holders.... the wall has no affect on them.

Is it a coincidence that the declining IQ slope over time in the OP graph is a mirror image of the global warming temperature slope going up?

STUPIDITY! IT'S GLOBAL WARMING'S FAULT!

d6rB says

Most of IQ differences could perhaps be explained away by upbringing, family access to food and education, etc.

That's because these factors are tightly correlated to culture. Until 150 years ago, culture has always been a subset of race. Any surprise IQ and race have a high correlation?

Liberal alpha males do not exist anymore because modern day liberalism encourages people to seek out being a victim. Are we seriously trying to argue here that some guys are weak and lack confidence and others are not the complete opposite? I remember when I started lifting weights when I was 21. I went from a scrawny 147 to a more solid 165. I got a lot more attention immediately from girls.

Most of IQ differences could perhaps be explained away by upbringing, family access to food and education, etc. However, I have not seen a good investigation which takes all of that into account.

There have been an unintentional experiment with enormous sampling size: the federal Head Start program. After billions of dollars and decades, it's now recognized that the Head Start program of giving children born into poor neighborhoods nutritious meals and early childhood education (all funded by taxpayers and supervised by the best available bureaucratic standards, as the bureaucracy was relatively new) has no effect on the child's later long term outcome as adult. In the short term, there was indeed positive influence on the child's performance in the first few years of schooling; then the effect diminishes as the child gets to junior high and high school . . . then in the person's long term, college and beyond, there is no statistically noticeable effect. His/her genetic makeup (i.e. IQ) takes over.

That result shouldn't be surprising. It's just like height: everyone is born with a genetic coding on how tall he/she can be; malnutrition can indeed get in the way of the person reaching his/her genetic potential, but no amount of nutrition is going to make a person into a tall NBA player without the genetics to begin with.

For population genetics, the decisive factors are reproductive opportunity and massive culling. Peacocks evolved the giant "useless" tail due to Sexual Selection by peahens in an environment where food was plenty and predators/diseases were so overwhelming that the species had no chance of defending against. Humanity evolved intelligence because our ancestors didn't have particularly sharp teeth or claws and didn't run particularly fast, but had the rudimentary ability to coordinate to fight off predators and/or neighbors. Some of them moving out of Africa encountering 4 seasons in new territories certainly made planning for annual seasonable cycles advantageous to genetic survival.

Looking at that IQ map of the world, we can address some of the likely reasons for the high IQ populations through historical reproductive opportunities and culling:

We have enough historical records to show how England's IQ improved rapidly in the few centuries leading up to Industrial Revolution: the homicide rate per 100,000 was down by more than 90% over those centuries, indicating a dramatic change in population genetics; so what was happening? the county records (of birth/death records, wills and estates divisions) indicate that the relatively better off men were having far more surviving children in each generation than the poor men did. The implication was obviously that lower-IQ population was being genetically displaced by higher IQ population, in sittu, largely due to commerce. Similarly, the Black Death on the continental Europe wiping out 1/2 of the population disproportionately wiped out the poor stuck in cities, instead of those relatively better off living in or could retire to country estates with better sanitation conditions and/or lower population density. The real reason for Europe to have had better societies after Black Death may not have been the peasant-to-land ratio as often cited by mainstream historians (which I always suspected, as lost population is usually made up quickly in subsequent generations), but the genetic / IQ makeup of the resulting population.

The IQ improvement in England also explains some of the major big green blocks such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US, as England (in the latter stages of that genetic transformation) supplied the colonizing population. The frontier societies in the colonies also created a situation of genetic polygamy (while still practicing dejure monogamy): the wives often died in child births, allowing the relatively well off widowers to take new wives. Slave owners mating with slaves, then the female blacks' hypergamy (preferentially selecting those with some of the former slave owners' blood) over the generations likely explain why African American population IQ is 20+ points higher than sub-Saharan Africans; when the abductions took place back in Africa, obviously it would be smarter ones abducting the less smart ones into slavery, so the initial population in the slave ships was likely to have had lower IQ's than today's sub-Saharan average.

The high IQ of Japan can also be explained by internal commerce; among all the Eastern Asian nations, Japan was the most commercial one for the past thousand+ years. Japanese culture also allow/promote successful men having side pieces in addition to their wives, thereby giving the higher IQ men more reproductive opportunities.

The high IQ of China is often attributed to its history of imperial / civil-service exams giving equal opportunity to everyone. I don't believe that's the case. To do well in those exams required decades of academic preparation, so not exactly something the poor could afford. More importantly, the ones succeeding in those exams and thereby attaining high official status had a high probability of getting caught up in court intrigues and ending up having their entire families and extended families executed! So in a lot of ways, those bureaucratic civil-service exam promotion systems not only mucked up the commerce and intellectual pursuits, but also were dysgenic. What did help improve IQ there historically was polygamy enabling the more successful men to reproduce with multiple females, as we saw in writings of 19th century European visitors to that country many young men "coolie" (laborer) did not have marriage as expectation . . . just like today's "herbivoir"/"grass-eating men" in Japan. The shame/hierarchy -based cultures seem to have reconciled the poor into accepting that they are unfit for reproduction, therefore leaving more females available to the more successful men. A shitty life for the lower status men, no doubt (or not, if having a wife was as shitty a proposition for the average men as it is in today's post-modern societies, as Rin observed). In continental East Asia, there was the additional evolutionary pressure of culling by steppes nomads. The Mongol invasion/conquest was alleged to have killed off nearly 80% of the population. Such population calamity would of course put enormous selective pressure on the gene pool: only the relatively smart could hide effectively and survive . . . a scenario similar to the stereotypical scene of Nazi thugs sweeping through the town/city rounding up hapless victims.

One significant population of high IQ that doesn't show on that map is Jewish population, which is widely recognized to have very high IQ. Jewish culture historically was also known for commerce, polygamy, female-hypergamy and periodic culling. Historical Rabbis often had multiple wives, one in the Talmud had 300 wives during a famine, a genetic-bottleneck event.

d6rB says

genetically Sicilians are probably no that different from Libyans; South Spanish from Moroccans; Mongolians from Chinese; etc. Yet IQ"s appear to be different.

Everyone is different genetically. Some are smarter, and often that trait is inherited by offspring.
Ultimately, whichever traits are reinforced by a better survival rate will be passed along. Sometimes the environment dictates a smarter hominid to survive its rigors. But I believe culture may be the most influential on population IQ. Whatever culture reinforces, it gets more of.

d6rB says

Dogs are more genetically diverse than humans, and were bread for specific tasks.

OK, dogs were domesticated. But you could look at any non-domesticated animal and still find significant genetic differences in intelligence and temperament which evolved over the last 50,000 years.

My point is that it is crazy to think that humans do not vary in temperament and intelligence by race. We are also animals, and subject to the same forces.

The belief that all human differences are due to "racism" alone is clearly false, and yet is the central and unquestionable dogma of the Left.

Quigley says

But I believe culture may be the most influential on population IQ. Whatever culture reinforces, it gets more of.

That is probably true.
Patrick says

My point is that it is crazy to think that humans do not vary in temperament and intelligence by race. We are also animals, and subject to the same forces.

I have not seen non-biased investigations - accounting for family income, education level, etc. I have seen though that in Europe IQ' s have steadily risen with increasing life quality.
With respect to animals, we would need to study populations that are separated, not individuals - no one can deny that individuals have different mental abilities.

The guy who wrote that is extremely confused or ill-informed. Jews read the Torah, not the Bible. For the reason why, see the Gospels(first four books of New Testament), and what Jesus says to the Jews. Further, he fails to comprehend the Scriptures as a whole, that God's message has always been redemption for the world, and the Jews were always supposed to be his vessel for spreading that message, not a people who are somehow better than other ethnicities. The Jews were God's example to mankind, and the books in common with the Torah and the Bible(like Joshua), clearly show that.

What happened to scholarly research, and taking meaning from context?

It's Unz - The Saker and other whackos. There are, however, some gems in the mix occasionally.

There are plenty of self-hating Jews today and back then.

d6rB says

I have not seen non-biased investigations - accounting for family income, education level, etc.

The very concept of G (General Intelligence), which can be measured by IQ, is that higher G (numerically measured by IQ) leads to higher competence in all intellectual endeavors, therefore would result in higher income in a competitive market economy, and succeed in education where higher education admission is based on some sort of meritocratic template (the very concept of Testing throughout history is in a way based on implicitly assuming the validity of G: students doing well on the specific test problems would also do well in general). G is highly genetic (otherwise it would be pointless for girls to pick smart guys). So "normalizing for family income" and "education level" would be normalizing for G and IQ, a little like saying color spectrum doesn't exist if we normalize for wavelength.

We do however have a massive unintentional experiment, with sample size running into millions, normalizing for children's nutrition levels and early childhood education: the federal Head Start program. After several decades and billions of dollars on the program, now it's generally recognized that normalizing for nutrition and early childhood education opportunities does not remove the genetic difference in intelligence.

Reality says

the federal Head Start program. After several decades and billions of dollars on the program

The Great Society philosophy on steroids

Reality says

G is highly genetic (otherwise it would be pointless for girls to pick smart guys). So "normalizing for family income" and "education level" would be normalizing for G and IQ, a little like saying color spectrum doesn't exist if we normalize for wavelength.

It is very well known that in Europe IQ's have been rising in last few centuries, even in places with little war. it is also fairly well known that poor nutrition in childhood decreases IQ.

d6rB says

It is very well known that in Europe IQ's have been rising in last few centuries, even in places with little war. it is also fairly well known that poor nutrition in childhood decreases IQ.

"In the last few centuries," most of Europe (outside Britain and Netherlands) were largely starving miserable dumps. Turkish empire owned large chunks of Europe until about a century ago. Irish Potato Famine took place only about 1.5 centuries ago. It's quite probable that most Europeans did not have the nutrition to reach their genetic potential until about 70 years ago.

Starvation has not been the general condition in the world for the last 30+ years.

So Putin says to Trump:

First, I want you to support the rebellion against my client Assad in Syria. While you are at it, have your forces kill 200 Russian troops

Second, I want you to support the removal of my client Maduro in Venezuela.

Third, tell NATO members to boost their military spending. I am all for a strong NATO, so while you are at it, beef up NATO's ballistic missile defense system.

Fourth, condemn Merkel for agreeing to a North Sea natural gas pipeline with Russia.

After all, you owe me.

From the first paragraph: "had to tell dozens of truckers that after years of being able to count on receiving tax refunds, that they in fact would owe thousands of dollars"

So, basically, people should have had more money withheld. That's neither here-nor-there with respect to the total amount owed.

Then we get: "thinks drivers will lose an average of $600 once the tax law’s other cuts are factored in."

Government regulation is down under Trump. Economy is doing quite well (especially compared to many other countries). Unemployment is low (allowing drivers other employment options). etc.

Ah, the crux of the complaint: "Until this year, long-haul drivers ... could claim a set amount of unreimbursed expenses on the road as a per diem tax deduction. In 2017 the IRS set the per diem at $63 per day."

Yeah. Boo hoo. Document your expenses and deduct them from operating profit, just like you do with diesel fuel and truck maintenance.

Mother Jones is an extremely biased source and is cherry picking, and should be ignored.

"The ESPN feed of Oligarch vs. Illegal Alien at the border with land mines and chortling huntsmen in pith helmets and nude cheerleaders toasting marshmallows over the smoking barrels of twirly guns!"

National Geographic must have been taken over by the city-dwelling moronic offspring of the earlier generation establishment. At 25micron in size and flourescence under 400nm UV light, that would be clumps of air-borne bacteria! Of course you'd see plenty of that outdoors in non-arid locations of nature. On warm days, they (airborne bacteria) even cause microscopic weather conditions (local fogging) under trees.

ALEXA! SEND REV. HAGGARD BEZOS DICK PICS!

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

ALEXA! MAKE REV HAGGARD FUCK BEZOS!

Pay-Per view ratings bonanza right there. Bezos would instantly triple his $160B.

Until nature invents a fungus that feeds on it, and starts spreading everywhere.
And then we're fucked.

Alexa making slurpy orgasm noise + Fleshlight = Amazon Flash Sale Bonanza! Bezos makes Gates his water boy!

those naughty children.

Vibrators and FleshLights with built in Alexa and celebrity moans! The next Bezos brainstorm!

"FleshLight Alexa, give me Lauren Sanchez with her mouth ratcheted open and a quart of transmission fluid! Give me Lauren chortling at Bezos' pathetic manhood!"

ALEXA! WHICH BATHROOM IS LARRY CRAIG JERKING OFF IN?

"Alexa! Are bodily fluid damages included in your warranty?"

Cool and fast, but the audio blows on that video even though they tell you to turn it up. Like big time blows.

Michelle Obama was the tranny White House gateway drug! Open the floodgates!

Of course with Shrubby Bush, his dad and the 'rent boys' in the White House, and the Obamas, bum blasters in the White House for the cynical delight of the Globalists is becoming de rigueur.

I don't see the point, like with most racing.
I bet there are even regulations what you are allowed and not allowed to do and use.
I don't understand the allure of watching machines that were built to the same specs competing.

jazz_music says

1 gal per second fuel

I mean, fuck AGW, right?

Latter day version of an Olds Super 88, the 98 engine in the 88 body!

+ $1 trillion budget deficit.
And that's nothing. Just wait for the next recession.