Category Archives: Jamaicans

Only Whites Are Expats?

Trash: White are COLONISTS essentially. We do not have the same primitive tribal link to the land that Mestizos or Africans do. So you move to Sydney and write your parents every day on e mail. Maybe a once a year trip.

I know many whites who moved to Australia from California. They did it simply to get away from NAM’s and be in a White individualist country. They were happy to do so…like I was happy to leave Greater Detroit.

First of all, residents of Europe are not colonists at all. They have all lived right where they are. The only White colonists are in South Africa, the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

And what makes you think Australia is individualist? Last time I checked, it was quite socialist.

And for exactly the same reason that you say Whites leave the US, many people all over the world leave their lousy countries to move to a better country. There is an economic element of course, but there is also the notion that their own country is a Hellhole.

Bottom line is people all over the world move all over the place all the time.

Inside Latin America, there is huge migration. Costa Rica is now full of Nicaraguans. Cuba is full of Jamaicans and Haitians. The Dominican Republic is full of Haitians. Argentina is filling up with Bolivians and Peruvians. Plenty of Colombians have moved to Venezuela. Central Americans move to Mexico. And many Latin Americans have moved to Spain now due to the common language. The Whiter ruling class of Latin America seems to live about half their lives in Spain.

Many Latinos have come to the US and even Canada now. People from all over Latin America come to the US. Most are from Mexico and Central America – mostly from Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica. From the Caribbean, we have many Cubans, Dominicans, and Haitians. Many South Americans such as Colombians, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, Chileans, Peruvians, Argentines, Uruguayans, and Bolivians. I have met South Americans from all of these countries in the US.

South Asians pour into the UK, US, Canada and the Gulf states.

Europe is filling up with Black Africans. Many North Africans moved to France and the Netherlands. All of Europe is filling up with Syrians. There are a lot of Iranians in the Nordic states. Turkey is full of Syrians, Crimean Tatars and Kirghiz.

Black Africans flood into South Africa and also the Arab states of North Africa. Libya and Egypt are full of Black Africans, mostly Nigerians. Right now there are some Nigerians in SE Asia and there are quite a few in China. Nigerians appear to be one of the more mobile groups of Africans.

Filipinos flood into China, the US, Australia, the Gulf and Jordan. Chinese move to Australia, the US and Canada. Koreans move to the US. China is full of Koreans.

Palestinians and now Syrians have been living all over the Arab World for some time now. Lebanese move to Australia.  Quite a few Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, and Yemenis moved to the US. Many Uighur Chinese have moved to Syria.

Polynesians move to the US and Australia.

Central Asians pour into Europe and the US. Residents of the Stans such as Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan move to Russia.

104 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Arabs, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Bolivians, Brazilians, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chileans, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Colombians, Colonialism, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Dominicans, Ecuadorians, Egypt, Egyptians, Eurasia, Europe, Europeans, Filipinos, France, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hispanics, Hondurans, Immigration, Iranians, Iraqis, Jamaicans, Jordan, Koreans, Latin America, Lebanese, Libya, Mexico, Middle East, Near East, Near Easterners, Netherlands, Nigerians, North Africa, North Africans, North America, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Palestinians, Peruvians, Political Science, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, SE Asians, Sociology, South Africa, South America, South Asians, Spain, Syria, Syrians, Turkey, Uighurs, Uruguayans, USA, Venezuela, Whites, Yemenis

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe By Robert Lindsay

This is from one of my papers on Academia. It is getting linked around all over the place right now, so I thought you folks might want to take a look at it if you have not done so already. Pretty interesting paper documents an 8-13.5 rise in the 2nd generation of immigrants coming from the less developed world to the West, in this case to Europe. The usual hereditarian rejoinders to this argument are dealt with.

Flynn Effect in North Africans/Turks Migrated To West Europe

By Robert Lindsay

From an article by Philippe Rushton, hereditarian, a revelation about yet another instance of skyrocketing IQ increases in the second generation born in the West after migrating from the less developed areas.

Previously, we noted that the children Jamaican immigrants to the UK (IQ = 71) have IQ’s of 85-86, typically within a single generation. That is a gain of 14.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. Hereditarians have offered many rationales for this. The usual one is that the Jamaican immigrants were already very bright anyway (as we will see with Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands, this is not true).

Another is that Jamaicans in the UK are very heavily bred in with Whites to the point where they may be only 1/2 White. This is not true – UK Jamaicans are only 12% White (Jamaicans in Jamaica are 9% White).

The children of Indian and Pakistani immigrants to the UK (IQ = 81.5) have IQ’s ranging from 92 (Rushton) to 96 (a figure I prefer). Call it 94. This is a gain of 12.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. The counter-argument here once again is that this group is self-selected.

Taken together, the children of Jamaican and East Indian immigrants see rises of 13.5 IQ points merely by being raised in the West. It is true that beyond the initial jump, we are not seeing more rises.

However, a strong initial jump is perfectly consonant with being raised in an area with a higher standard of living. Higher standards of living seem to be somehow translating into long-term rises in IQ. The mechanisms can be debated.

Education, a massively stimulating environment (computers, cell phones, TV, movies), proper nutrition, good medical care, and myriad other things have been suggested, but the mechanisms for the rises are still somewhat mysterious.

Now, via Rushton, we have yet more evidence of a Flynn Effect in immigrants to the West. First generation Moroccans and Turks in Netherlands had IQ’s of 81. This is low. The Moroccan norm IQ is 84, and the Turkish norm IQ is 90. So, contrary to the argument that only the very brightest immigrants are going to the West, it seems instead that the less bright immigrants are arriving instead.

The second generation has IQ’s of 89. 89 is around the Turkish average, but it is 5 points above the Moroccan average of 84. Both the Turkish and the Moroccan figures also shows a Flynn gain of 8 points between generations. Rushton tries to explain this away somehow, but he doesn’t do a good job of it.

The evidence for massive IQ gains in second-generation immigrants to the West is now becoming overwhelming, and it is going to be harder and harder for hereditarians to explain away.

Comparison of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants to the West and the resulting Flynn Effect gains, apparently solely by being born and raised in the West. The common factor behind rising IQ’s in the West may be related to rising standards of living.

                   1st   2nd   Gain

UK Jamaicans       71    85.5  14.5
UK East Indians    81.5  94    12.5
ND Moroccans/Turks 81    88     7

Average            78    89    11.5

8 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Britain, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Flynn Effect, Immigration, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Moroccans, Netherlands, North Africans, Pakistanis, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asians, Turks

An Example of Anti-White Propaganda: “White Men Raped Their Way around Most of the World”

Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.

That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.

There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.

We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.

I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.

There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.

As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.

As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.

It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.

I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.

I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.

Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.

In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.

In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”

In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.

Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.

There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.

Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.

I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.

Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.

I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.

Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!

Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.

All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.

334 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Christianity, Colombia, Colonialism, Cubans, Dominicans, East Indians, Ecuador, Eurasia, Europeans, Guatemala, Guyana, Haitians, Hispanics, History, India, Indonesia, Islam, Jamaicans, Jamaicans, Laos, Latin America, Malaysia, Maori, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Oceanians, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Siberia, Sociology, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Spaniards, Uruguay, US, USA, Venezuela, Vietnam, Whites

Illegal Immigration in Latin America

S. D. writes: Argentinians, partly Italian, do not suffer from illegal immigration or let Indians reconquer them.

In fact, Argentina has a very serious illegal immigration problem right now, as many mestizos and even Indians have moved into the country from Bolivia and Peru. Most of them have moved to Buenos Aires where they live in vast, crime-ridden slums. Mestizos are responsible for a wave of street crime in the capital.

In Latin America, illegal immigration is generally no big deal, since for the most part, everyone is more or less the same race. There are many illegal Colombians in Venezuela, illegal Nicaraguans in Costa Rica, illegal Jamaicans and Haitians in Cuba and illegal Peruvians and Bolivians in Argentina. In all of these countries, the illegals are simply regularized from time to time in large numbers, since the idea is that the illegals are the same race as the natives.

There is not much of a problem of illegals working for less than natives in Latin America, as they are always getting regularized, and after they are legal, they work for the same wages as natives. Further, wages are lousy for most everyone in Latin America, so the natives are already working for a low wage, and you can’t go much lower than a basement unless you are burying bodies.

There are a couple of exceptions where illegals are treated very poorly in the region.

In the Dominican Republic, the illegals are Haitians, and they are treated horribly, used as almost slave labor on sugar plantations and regularly rounded up and shipped back to Haiti with considerable brutality. Race plays a factor here, as Dominicans are mulattos – about half Black – and Haitians are pretty much pure Black. The mulattos feel much superior to the Black Haitians who are for all intents and purposes just niggers to the Dominicans.

There are quite a few Central Americans in Mexico, typically on their way to the US, but they are treated horribly, raped and brutalized by police and other Mexicans and shipped back home.

It is not known why Mexicans is so cruel to Central Americans, but perhaps they hate each other. I know when my mother was in Guatemala on vacation, she tried to use some Mexican money in a store, and the Guatemalan woman at the cash register spat at her, cursed and threw the money to the ground. Apparently she despised Mexicans for some reason.

24 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Bolivians, Caribbean, Central America, Costa Rica, Crime, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Jamaicans, Labor, Latin America, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Peru, Peruvians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South America, Venezuela

How Can We Explain High IQ Increases in Blacks Who Move to the West?

US and British Blacks get a 6-9 point IQ boost somehow just from living in the West. In US Blacks, their skulls even got better. There may also have been some epigenetic changes, as US Blacks now seem to have a phenotype or even genotype IQ of ~85. When US Blacks came here, they probably had ~70 IQ’s. If US Blacks would have stayed in Africa, they would probably have ~70 IQ’s. White admixture only explains six points of the difference in Black-White IQ’s in the US and only one point of the seven point B-W difference in the UK. The other nine points in the US and six points in the UK are completely unexplained.

IQ Scores Before and After Western Move           
               On arrival After West
US Blacks      70?        85**
British Blacks 79         86***

* Move to the West means different things for US and UK Blacks. In US Blacks, Before West refers to the intelligence of US slaves in Africa before they were enslaved and shipped to the West. In the UK, it refers to the mass movement of Jamaicans to the UK, mostly occurring soon after WW2. Before West means their IQ’s in Jamaica last century before they moved to the UK, and After West is the scores of the children of the original immigrants who were born and raised in the UK.

** Six points of the 15 point increase in US Blacks can be explained by White admixture, assuming US Blacks are 20% White.

** *Note that one point of the seven point Black increase in the UK may be due to increased White admixture acquired in the UK. Jamaican Blacks seem to be 9% White, and UK Jamaican Blacks are 13% White.

99 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Britain, Europe, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA

What Liberal Race Realism Is and What It Is Not

alan2102 writes:

An appeal:I call upon you, Bob Lindsay, to recognize that “race realism” is a crumbling edifice, never highly convincing, and now rapidly descending into clear cut falsehood and irrelevance. And, to top it off, it never had anything really to recommend it, no desirable practical utility or application, even if technically correct. The only “desirable” (ha) utility it ever had was to justify the animosity of racist assholes. That’s it. That’s the sum of the contribution of “race realism”.

And, a LEFT “race realism”?! Forget it! Contradiction in terms. It will NEVER attract any support from left-minded people — as well it should not! Leftish people immediately identify it as shit. It does not and never has passed the smell test.

I call upon you, Bob Lindsay, to renounce this “race realism” nonsense, to admit that you were (as was I! past tense) taken in by it, for a time… seduced into thinking that it had SOMETHING of importance or value… or so it SEEMED. But no. We were wrong. It has no importance, and no value.

Whatever slight genetics-dependent differences might exist are of little or no practical significance, nothing can be done about them, and — regardless of all the foregoing — further discussion of them does NOTHING but energize the worst kinds of reptiloid right-wing scumbaggery. (Just witness some of the discussants that you’ve attracted, here on your blog!) The whole thing is a fetid piece of shit, overdue now for flushing down the crapper.

Come out of her, Bob Lindsay, that ye not further partake of her sins!

No I am going to continue promoting it, but Liberal Race Realism isn’t really hard HBD. It is probably somewhere in between hard HBD and the radical environmentalists like you, swank and Anti-Hereditarian. So you misunderstand Liberal Race Realism.

It doesn’t say that any groups are doomed or anything like that.

My opinion is more that some groups, due to their genetic set are going to require some pretty extreme environments in order to even match other groups. And that’s just for intelligence. While other groups like NE Asians will probably flourish even in lousy impoverished environment.

So Black native IQ is set at a low level. That’s what they bring to the table genetically. Then native Black personality doesn’t exactly create the best environment for furthering intelligence. More the opposite.

However, some of the information coming out of the UK may indicate that UK Blacks, including 3rd generation Jamaicans, may be coming close to matching Whites on some tests. For instance, Jamaican Black GCSE scores at age 17 may now match Whites. It’s not IQ, but it predicts job performance as well as IQ. I need to look into this a lot more, as it is very interesting. Anyway, I have been hoping for a long time that Blacks and others could close some of these gaps and I never said they could not, so the fact that they are is right in line with Liberal Race Realist theory.

I figure what has gone on here is that the UK is the ultimate PC society. Perhaps they have completely maximized the environment for Blacks in a way that no other society has done. So yes, Blacks can be lifted up, but most of the time, in most countries, they are not, and they just fall back on genetic IQ of ~70-90. You can raise them above that level, but you are going to have to create some super-environments, and most societies are not so good at that.

Modification of basic racial personality and proclivity to crime and violence seems nearly impossible.

I would also point out that this site is wildly successful. As it is considered the part of the HBDsphere, this site is in the Top 10 of HBD sites. It gets far more traffic than even the most famous HBD sites: 6,500/day. This site goes like gangbusters. Liberal Race Realism seems to be a pretty good sell, along with all the other stuff that gets talked about on here.

41 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Britain, Culture, Europe, Jamaicans, Liberalism, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology

Repost: Huge Flynn Gains Associated with Immigration to the West

This was posted earlier under another title, but it lines right up with what we are talking about on here lately.

We have remarked upon a number of cases in which movement from a Third World country to a 1st World country results in an IQ gain for the Third Worlders in the 2nd generation. The results will be listed below and the data can be found by searching the archives on the blog (I’m too weary to look them up and link them); anyway, regular readers have already read the original pieces.

              Pre-West  Post-West*  IQ Gain

Jamaica       71        86          15
US Blacks**   72.5      87          14.5
India         83        94          11
Mexicans      85        95          10
Philippines   86        93.5        7.5
Chinese       97.5      105         7.5
Japanese      97.5      105         7.5
Morocco       84        89          5

**Post-West refers to second generation.
The figure for US Blacks is their 
theorized genetic IQ based on 
African/Caribbean scores plus the White %
in US Blacks.

The Filipinos, Mexicans and US Blacks went to the US. The Indians and Jamaicans went to the UK. Moroccans went to the Netherlands. Gains ranged from 5-15 points in the second generation. This is above and beyond the Flynn gains already taking place, and probably ongoing in most of those countries.

The gains are where these ethnic groups actually closed the gap with Whites by the amount of the gain in the third column. Looked at in another way, these groups closed the gap with Whites by 5-15 IQ points in a single generation. In addition, there are ongoing Flynn gains occurring alongside these migration gains, but they are not showing up as IQ gains because the Whites are pacing and matching the others precisely.

The Filipinos’ IQ’s are 13 points below the 106.5 for Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, giving them an IQ of 93.5. This is a full 7.5 point Flynn rise over the 86 IQ in the Philippines just from moving to the US.

However, Filipinos are starting to come close to US Whites in occupational success due to extra-IQ factors. This is the part that is very interesting. In other words, despite IQ’s that are a full 6.5 points below that of US Whites, Filipinos are beginning to match Whites in occupational success. This is because Filipinos have extra-IQ factors above and beyond the extra-IQ factors that the Whites have.

The extra-IQ factors are simply postulated, but they may have to do with “introversion.” Along with that, we may find self-discipline, orderliness, a strong work ethic, punctuality, ability to follow orders, putting in extra time on the job, cautiousness, ability to self-train and self-teach, etc. All of these things will tend to increase with introversion and probably decrease with extroversion.

As Whites are considerably more extroverted than Filipinos (Asians), Filipinos will probably score better on many extra-IQ factors than Whites, with the end result being that the extra-IQ factors allow the Filipinos to overcome an IQ deficit and nearly reach parity with Whites on the job.

The Filipino figures come from James Flynn’s book, Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ. In the book, Flynn shows that the second generation of Chinese and Japanese made not only remarkable IQ gains against US Whites, going from the 97.5 IQ of their parents to the 105 IQ of the second generation (and passing Whites at the same time) but they were on average working at positions that were 10-20 points above where they should have been working based on their IQ’s.

The question arises, What about US Blacks? The fascinating thing about African-Americans is that they have an unexplained 14.5 IQ rise above and beyond what ought to be their genetic IQ.

The hereditarians have never been able to explain this well. On of their feints is to say that IQ in Africa (= 67) is artificially lowered by malnutrition. Well, possibly, but then why is Black IQ about the same in the Caribbean (= 71)? Keep in mind that Caribbean Blacks often have a small amount of White in them (Jamaicans have 9%). So it does look like genetic Black IQ is indeed around 70.

That means they are mentally retarded, but we have already had the discussion about this on the blog. The commenters and I agree that Blacks in Africa and the Caribbean with 70 IQ’s are not retarded in the sense that a White person with a 70 IQ is. In this sense, the tests don’t seem to measure Black intelligence properly. On the other hand, while they are not retarded, I don’t think that your average 70 IQ African is all that intelligent.

I’m getting at a couple of things here. First of all, can Blacks make use of these extra-IQ factors to at least overcome their 13.2 point IQ deficit with Whites in the sense of at least performing above their predicted IQ level on the job? Keep in mind that in order to do that, Blacks would have to display these extra-IQ factors above and beyond the level of the Whites. Since Blacks are the most extroverted race of all, this seems dubious.

On the other hand, we have a large up and coming Black middle class that is itching for success. By dutifully emphasizing the extra-IQ factors listed above, upwardly mobile Blacks will at least be able to perform above their IQ level on the job.

On curious area that no one considers is personal skills. There seems to be a lot of evidence that Blacks are more socially adept than Whites. In jobs where social intelligence and skills are highly valued, conscientious Blacks may be able to outperform their White co-workers and at least partially close the occupational success gap with them.

Second of all, it seems possible that Africans moving to the West may experience ~15 point IQ rise in the second generation. It hasn’t showed up yet, but no one has looked for it. So the 67 IQ Africans by the second generation should be at IQ 83. It’s not that great, but there are more or less functional countries with 83 IQ’s. There aren’t that many with ~70 IQ’s. To the extent that Africa can mirror the environment of the West in Africa itself, they won’t even have to come here.

This is groundbreaking work that is receiving very little ink, less than it deserves. At the very least, rising IQ with migration and extra-IQ factors show that neither is IQ set in stone, nor is it destiny.

References

Flynn, James R. 1991. Asian Americans: Achievement Beyond IQ. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asians, Blacks, Britain, Caribbean, Chinese (Ethnic), Culture, East Indians, Europe, Filipinos, Flynn Effect, Immigration, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Japanese, Latin America, Moroccans, Netherlands, North Africans, Northeast Asians, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, Sociology, South Asians, USA, Whites

The Latest Anti-Black Diatribe on the Site

Dwayne, a resident of the Alt-Right Sphere, spouts off the latest anti-Black outburst on the site:

Where do you get the IQ 107 figure for African immigrants? That seems way off. What about all of the research by Lynn, Vanhanen, Rushton etc., often discussed on “alt right” blogs, that suggests that the average sub-Saharan African has an IQ of 70, and US blacks have a slightly higher average IQ (due mainly to more white genetic material) of 84. It wouldn’t bother me if black people were just dumb, but honest and hard-working. Unfortunately, they are not just dumb.

They exhibit extreme lack of impulse control, increased aggressiveness and increased narcissism, compared to non-blacks. This has all been demonstrated empirically and correlated to e.g. MAO allele frequencies in different populations. Just yesterday a study was released showing that black U.S. females are three times as likely to consider themselves “hot” than women of other races.

As if Black people didn’t have enough problems as it is, they have to deal with guys like this.

First of all, the US African immigrant IQ figure is not way off. In fact, it is correct. Apparently African immigrants are a highly select bunch, and we only let in the best of the best.

Second of all, in my opinion, the US Black IQ is 87, not 84. The African IQ is actually ~67. Caribbean IQ is ~71, and Caribbeans are ~ 9% White.

There is a gigantic lie spread all over the White nationalist sphere that the US Black IQ of ~85 is “due to White admixture.” Not so! Given a base genetic IQ of 67, with ~15% White admixture, US Blacks should have IQ’s of ~71.5. Yet their IQ’s are somehow 87. By the same token, Jamaican Black IQ’s are 71.5 in Jamaica, but after they move to the UK, by the 2nd generation, their IQ’s are 86. So the Jamaicans in the UK somehow get a 14.5 point boost merely by moving to a Western country.

The US Black IQ contains 14.5 extra points that are not accounted for by genes. This rise may be due to living in a Western country, better diet or other factors. The head sizes of US Blacks have increased dramatically since 1900. Part of this is due to diet, but part of it is genetic. It appears that Blacks in the US have been eugenically selecting for higher IQ’s for the last 100 years.

            Expected IQ*   Actual IQ*  Difference*

US Blacks   72.5           87          14.5
UK Blacks*  71.5           86          14.5 

Notes:
UK Blacks are mostly Jamaicans.
Expected IQ = expected by genes alone.
Actual IQ = tested.
Difference = unexplained by genetics alone.

I really doubt if Black racial factors have been adequately accounted for by MAO allele frequencies. I would very much like to see that data.

Dwayne say that Blacks have increased aggressiveness and impulsiveness compared to “non-Blacks.” I do not agree with that statement. Which specific non-Blacks are are being referred to here?

Granted, no doubt Blacks  have increased aggressiveness and impulsiveness compared to Whites and Asians, but all non-Blacks? Forget it. Prove it. Let’s line up Blacks with various other races and see how they compare. As far as I can tell, the most criminal and violent part of the world right now is Latin America. The residents of that region are generally Amerindian-White mixes, or Mestizos, as opposed to Blacks.

Finally, do Blacks really display “extreme” lack of impulse control and “extremely” elevated aggressiveness compared to non-Blacks? Show us the data. Surely it’s elevated for Blacks, but how much? Is it really “extremely” increased?

Lastly, I am glad that Black women feel so good about themselves in spite of everything.

34 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Blacks, Britain, Europe, Genetics, Immigration, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Latin America, Mestizos, Mixed Race, North America, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA

IQ Gains From Moving to a Western Country

Genotypically, US Blacks should have IQ’s of ~72. African Black IQ is 67. Caribbean Blacks with a bit of White in them have IQ’s of ~71.

African IQ = 67
+
15% White genes IQ = 100

=

~ IQ = 72

Gives us a US Black IQ of ~72 based on genes. The fact that US Blacks score 87 is completely unexplained.

Even Charles Murray says Blacks gained 7.5 points IQ on Whites since 1920.

The genetics people cannot possibly explain US Black IQ of 87 genetically.

Interestingly, Jamaicans in the UK also have IQ’s of 86, around the same as US Blacks. In Jamaica, their IQ is 71 or so. Jamaican UK IQ started going up a lot with the second generation.

Indians in the UK have IQ’s 95 or so. IQ in India is 82. They got a 13 pt gain just by moving to the US.

Filipinos in the US have IQ’s of 94. In Philippines it is 86. 8 point gain.

Moroccans in Holland have IQ’s of 89. In Morocco it is 84. 5 point gain.

NE Asian IQ went up from 97 to 105 in the most recent generations. The newer generations are smarter than their parents. 8 point gain.

It looks like merely moving from the less developed world to the West gives an IQ rise of 5-15 points by the second generation or so.

13 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, East Indians, Europeans, Filipinos, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Moroccans, North Africans, Northeast Asians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, South Asians, Whites

1825: When the US South Was Not Yet White

Repost from the old site.

Most people take it as a given that the USA as a nation and society is and always has been basically White, even mostly British or Northern European White. We have only to look at the authors of the Constitution and signers of the Declaration of Independence to see that all of them where White. And as the Christian fundamentalists love to remind us, they were all “Christians” too. Too bad most of them were actually Deists.

It’s true since 1830 or so (see 1830 census figures Excel, pdf ), this has been a majority-White land, and that is the picture most people’s memory and cultural knowledge of this country gives them.

But Whites have only been here a short while, and we were immigrants, or actually invaders at first, ourselves. Previously, this land was inhabited 100% by Amerindians, a race close to Northeast Asians. Before this was even a nation, huge numbers of Black slaves were imported to this land, such that most Black lineages in the US go back farther than most White lineages.

In California and the Southwest, we have even had Hispanics (almost all Mexicans) living here before those states were even a part of the US. A Filipino was part of the party that founded Los Angeles before California was even a state. He got sick in Baja and ended up staying there, but he was still present on the voyage. See below where many more Filipinos were already in this country even before 1781.

On the eve of the Gold Rush, there were a mere 1,000 Chinese in the US. Only seven of them were in California. But within a year of becoming a state, California was full of East Indians (Hindoos), Samoans/Hawaiians, Mexicans and other Pacific Islanders (Kanakas) and Chinese, all come for the Gold Rush.

By 1852, there were 25,000 Chinese alone in California. All of these groups stayed on through the whole decades-long Gold Rush and afterwards remained here as residents in the US.

So are West Africans, as this is where many of the American slaves came from. There was a Filipino settlement in St. Malo, Louisiana, in 1763, before the US was even formed. The first Chinese immigrants came to the US in 1820, but before the Gold Rush, only 1,000 or so had arrived.

Japanese and Filipinos have been present in Hawaii in large numbers since 1890, and Koreans have been present in much smaller numbers there from 1896. Hawaii was only made into a state in 1959. Cubans have also been here a very long time. Hundreds of Cubans came to St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, over 200 years before there was a USA.

Similarly, the first Jamaicans (a party of 20) in America were already in Jamestown, the first White British colony in the US, by 1619. Further, many Jamaicans were included in slave shipments to the US since Jamaica was a way station along the way between Africa and the US.

Significant numbers – two large ships full of Chilean and Peruvian miners were in California for the Gold Rush as early as 1848. A couple of thousand Brazilian and Caribbean Blacks also came for the Gold Rush. Note that California did not become a state until 1850.

Pakistanis (people from what later became Pakistan) were in the US since the 1700’s and continuing into the 1800’s in Oregon and Washington, working in agriculture, logging and mining in California. The first known East Indian Hindu came to the US in 1790, soon after the Declaration of Independence, as a maritime worker.

Mexicans, Samoans, Blacks, Cubans, East Indians, Pakistanis, Chileans, Peruvians, Filipinos, American Indians, Canadians, Japanese, West Africans, Hawaiians, Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have been here in significant, not trivial, numbers, from the very start.

They are not, as groups, wholly immigrants or foreigners to this land. They are not foreign to American culture – they are part of the very building blocks of it. Perhaps Germany, Russia, Sweden, France and most of Europe can lay claim to being predominantly White countries for centuries or millenia, but the US cannot.

On the inside back cover of a recent issue of American Heritage Magazine was a painting of the Antediluvian American South with some text below. The text took me aback. I shook my head and read it again and again and it’s stuck in my head ever since.

It said that in 1825, the US South1 was estimated to be 37% Black (almost all slaves), 25% American Indian2, and only 38% was White3. Neither the Blacks nor the Indians could vote and none were citizens until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, but so what.

Both the US South, and the nation as a whole, were already White-minority as early as 35 years after signing of the Constitution. Take that, “White America” fools!

The White America of movies, TV, magazines, books and memories was just a temporary mirage, a ship passing in the night.

Now, as the USA moves back to becoming a White-minority land, we are not changing the basic nature, culture and essence of this nation. We just reverting to our roots.

I am not arguing for unlimited immigration to this land (In fact, I want to seriously limit it) and I am a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. Nevertheless, it angers me when White Nationalists act like this is some kind of a “White country”.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

1I misremembered the text in the issue – it referred to the US South only, not the US as a whole. A look at the US Census Bureau information (Excel file here, pdf here) clears up the mystery. A 37% Black figure is apparent for Blacks in the US South.

The 25% Indian figure quoted was obviously for Amerindians in the South. Therefore, the article claimed that Whites were 38%, Blacks 37%, and Indians 25% in the US South in 1825.

Figures for the whole of the US reveal a White majority, however, if we include the Amerindians living in the Louisiana Purchase at that time (recently part of the US in 1825), we can still make a case for a non-White majority in the US. See note 3 below for more on that.

2There were numerically small numbers of Filipinos, Chinese, Mexicans, pre-Pakistanis (people from the land that would later become Pakistan), East Indians and Cubans here in 1825, but they probably added up to less than 1% of the population.

3The American Heritage figures quoted have now been called into question (see comments at the end of this post and the comments at the end of the frankly White racist American Renaissance article that linked this piece); the suggestion is that Blacks made up 19% of the US at the time, and Whites made up the rest.

The mystery is cleared up in note 1, where the magazine text referred to only the US South, not the US as a whole.

Indians were not counted in either the 1820 or 1830 censuses, and may have numbered 8 million in the US at the time (recall that the Louisiana Purchase had just been added to the nation).

Figure 12 million Indians in the US and Canada pre-contact, with 90% of those in the US (compare US and Canadian populations now for a 9-1 disparity in US versus Canadian population – a similar distribution was probably extant pre-contact). Assume 2 million Indians gone from the original population by 1825, mostly East of the Mississippi, and 2 million living in New Spain and the Oregon Territory.

This leaves us with 7 million Indians in the US in 1825. Further, runaway slaves were clearly not counted, probably 10% of the Black population. Figuring 7 million Indians, 9.2 million Whites and 2.5 million Blacks in 1825 still leaves us with a bare minority-White population in the US. The US was probably non-White majority from 1803-1825. By 1830, Whites were the majority entire nation, and have remained so ever since.

33 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Asians, Blacks, Brazilians, California, Canada, Chileans, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Cubans, East Indians, Europeans, Filipinos, Florida, Hawaiians, Hispanics, History, Illegal, Immigration, Jamaicans, Japanese, Koreans, Louisiana, Mexicans, Modern, North America, Northeast Asians, Oregon, Pakistanis, Peruvians, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Samoans, SE Asians, South, South Asians, US, USA, Washington, West, White Nationalism, Whites