Category Archives: Pakistanis
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
This one from six years ago is getting posted around a lot lately. Most of you have not read it.
A friend of mine went over to the Skadi Forum (basically Nordicists or Germanicists) and read an essay on Pan-Aryanism. I don’t know what sort of Pan-Aryanism they referred to, but I doubt it was the kind that I subscribe to. They were upset that the essay opposed race-mixing. Well, I’m a Pan-Aryanist, and I don’t oppose race-mixing.
Pan-Aryanism just means taking pride in your racial family. Just as the Blacks, various Asians, Amerindians, Arabs, East Indians, Hispanics, etc. take pride in their various racial families, such as they may be. Most folks you meet in the US, who are “Priders” of this sort, while often strongly ethnocentric, are not opposed to race-mixing or inter-ethnic breeding. So support for race-mixing can and does go hand in hand with ethnocentrism, even extreme ethnocentrism. In fact, that has probably been the tribal human norm for a very long time now.
The Pan-Aryanism that I subscribe to is found on the Pan-Aryanist Forum (now members-only I think). They say that all natives of Europe are White. Also that there are White Turks (35%), White Arabs and White Berbers. Also a few Whites in North India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
They also hold that all Georgians, Armenians, the Caucasus and Iranians are White.
I just like it for their expanded definition of White. It would be like, say if you were Black, and some small group of Blacks decided that they were the only real pure Blacks. And they ruled out maybe 50% of Blacks as being some sort of inferior or mongrelized scum race. So the Pan-Africanists (the Black analogue of Pan-Aryanism) would be about uniting all of the Blacks into one Black Race and screw all the superior-inferior stuff. If you were Black, you would go along with that I am sure. In fact, if you are Black, I think you already do.
It’s all about being part of a family. In the last few years anyway, my race is my family. I simply want to extend the rather limited idea of my family to take in a lot more extended relatives. Why? Because I like having a great big family!
The other races: the NE Asians, SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans, Oceanians, Amerindians, Africans, mestizos, mulattos, well, a lot of them are perfectly fine people. Often better than my racial family on an individual basis. But it’s the difference between friends (or lovers) and family. They can never be part of my family. They can only be friends, or at best lovers.
I expand the Net Pan-Aryanist definition thus such that most anyone who looks like they could have come from Europe is White.
All native Europeans
All Europoid Russians
All Assyrians and Kurds
All Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Caucasus
Many Afghans (especially Pashtuns)
Some Indians (mostly NW Indians)
All of the other Caucasian or quasi-Caucasian types are non-White Caucasians. They might be part of the family, but they are sort of like 2nd or 3rd cousins, so far apart they are almost more friends than family.
As far as the real Net Pan-Aryanists, they are a bunch of assholes. Sure they are against mixing, but they allow European Whites to mix with 100’s of millions of more humans! And most of them are a bunch of Nazis too. Bastards.
This is a superb comment that I just received. I crap talk Indians a lot on here, but one thing is clear and that is that there are many very, very smart Indians. This is of course inevitable given the size of their population, but if Brahmins are 5% of the population and are an inbred and preserved high-IQ group (which I think they are), then there may be even more bright Indians than I thought. Even if only 1% of Indians have IQ’s of 120-125+, that still leaves us with 13 million high IQ Indians. That’s the size of a number of well-known European countries!
In addition, there are ~65 million Brahmins, and it might be interesting to see what their average IQ is. At any rate, very smart Indians are not rare at all, and I have run into quite a few of them.
I also think that the genetic potential IQ of the Indian population is a lot higher than its phenotypical result which is driven down by disease, poverty, extreme malnutrition, atrocious schooling, contempt for education, widespread popularization of anti-scientific belief systems, etc.
An Indian population brought up in the West may be able to reach an IQ of ~90. I say this because British Pakistanis have 90 IQ’s, and they are from one of the most backwards groups of Pakistanis. Pakistanis have an IQ of 82 in Pakistan, so British Pakistanis got an 8 point Flynn gain merely by being brought up in the West.
This Indian man is proposing a couple of theories regarding latitude as progenitor and conveyor of culture and intelligence levels and types by comparing Northeast Asians and Europeans in one group with South Asians and Middle Easterners in another. He includes factors such as weather, agricultural development, levels of immigration, and monocultural versus multicultural societies. He even imagines to toss in Putnam’s low-trust theory of multicultural societies.
And I actually think he is onto something here.
Raja Hindustani writes: I am Indian, & I have lived in England for 8 years before returning, and I always felt we Indians were much more cunning and better at manipulation than the native English, but the English seemed much more logical in their thought patterns. My personal theory has been that Northern Europeans (and maybe North East Asians) historically lived in a place which was cold with variable climate that in addition was more or less homogeneous with similar peoples in Northern Eurasia.
Thus they had the following conditions in the ancient past with the following results in the present times:
- They had to compete primarily with nature instead of against other humans. Population density was lower in the ancient past, as they lived in a harsh environment that had a cold climate region with variable weather. Thus their brains were geared for planning, abstract thinking and the creation of better tools.
- They had to cooperate with strangers to survive at critical moments, and since genetically people were very similar with similar average natures, they cooperated with and trusted strangers a lot more. In places like Middle East and Indian subcontinent, since agriculture developed faster here due to favorable conditions of climate, populations grew faster, and this resulted in densely populated cities, a feature which reached Northern Europe much later, maybe just during Roman/Greek times. Besides, peoples from various races intermingled, as the location of this region is central in location. African-type peoples intermingled with Caucasians and even East Asians. India had Black Australoids, invading Caucasoids from West central Asia and Mongoloids from the East, for example.
- Humans in the South had to compete primarily with other human beings. Thus human cognition had to develop more towards cunning, swindling, cheating, arguing, survivalism, clannishness, etc. rather than developing those cognitive skills dealing with making better tools to survive against the hardships of nature.
- Having experienced multiculturalism and multiracialism earlier, we were enriched with low-trust natures. Supporting our clan/caste at all times while ignoring universal morality at the expense of the other was of utmost importance.
I believe the huge gains made in Ancient India in the knowledge of the Mind (meditation, complicated concepts common in the sermons of Hindu gurus) were a side effect of our cognitive abilities being channeled more towards reading other human beings and finding ways to manipulate them.
Chanakya, a cunning philosopher in ancient India, was considered a hero in Ancient Hindu India, which would never have been possible in a Protestant European country.
This is exactly why I find it strange that Whites are considered the most racist people. I think they were novices. We are far more racist, but our methods are more subtle, and we have more experience with of it than the crude attempts made by White people. But on the other hand, we were bad at inventing better tools. We did not even invent the wheelbarrow or a mere candle.
However, I have always found Europeans like the Greeks more akin to us Asians (Asians as in Middle East/ Indian subcontinent, not East Asia) than Europeans from the North, just like I feel Somalis are more like us Asians than Africans from the South.
Another William Playfair Web writes: Robert –
You believe in Caucasian pride more than what is culturally regarded as “White” pride, do you not?
Actually I do! I do not understand White nationalists who go on and on about who is really White. Jews aren’t White? Spaniards, Greeks, Portuguese and Italians aren’t White? Albanians and Turks aren’t White? White Berbers aren’t White? White Egyptians aren’t White? Arabs aren’t White? Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and the Caucasus people aren’t White? Kurds aren’t White? Iranians aren’t White? Afghans aren’t White? Pakistanis aren’t White? North Indians aren’t White? You sure could have fooled me because they sure look White to me all right!
When I think of White, I think of my basic Caucasoid stock. When I go to the stores around here and see Punjabi Indians, Punjabi Pakistanis and Yemeni Arabs, my first thought is, “This is a member of my family!” That’s because they look like I do. And I believe they may think and behave like I do too, if you want to break the races down into Asians, Caucasians and Blacks.
I do not understand why White nationalists hate those people and say they are not related to them. Those off-Whites look like me! How can I hate someone who looks like me? I can’t. If you look like me, the way I see it is you are a member of my family, and I really feel a sense of joy when I meet members of my racial family out and about…because…it’s like meeting family!
Now granted some Arabs and Berbers are too Black to be considered White. Prince Bandar is simply not a White man. I do not know what he is. Possibly he is a mulatto. A lot of Egyptians seem to be broadly White. We had some Egyptians running a gas station near where I used to live, and I came to know them very well. The guy who ran it was simply a White man, straight up. His sons were just White guys, though their skin was rather dark.
Granted, there are some Afghans who may be too Asian to be White, but most Afghans just look like Whites to me. Surely there are some Pakistanis who are just too…something else…to be considered White, but once again, most Pakistanis just look like regular Whites to me. And the people of North India are surely White. A few North Indians are too Australoid to be White.
As far as the rest of India, you have to look at the person to see if you would classify them as “basically White” or “too Australoid to be White. I don’t give a hoot about skin color. Why should I? If some guy looks exactly like I do in terms of phenotype except that his skin is much browner than mine, why should I hate him? And why should I say he is not a part of my family? If you have a face that looks like mine, you are part of my family, no matter what color your skin is.
I am an Indian, and I can easily say Pakistanis are a lot, lot, lot better. Sure, their Government sucks (which even they realize), but the people are good. They don’t have an inherent blackened, evil hatred for Indians as Indians do for Pakistanis. Indians hate everyone but Pakistanis are their Numero Uno targets. These delusional, dumb fucks have a collective IQ of a single digit…
I have known many Pakistanis, and for the most part they could give a flying fuck about India. You ask them about India, and their attitude is, “So what? Who cares about them?” They never talk about India, ever. They simply do not care anything about India. Now, the elites and the state may be different, and the people I know are not Islamist nuts, so the Islamists may well talk differently.
We have some Pakistanis around here, and with the exception of two Pakistani Christians (the most evil South Asians in my town!), they are pretty much good people. Most around here are Punjabi Muslims from Pakistan. They could care less about religion, politics or anything like that, and they work right alongside the Punjabi Sikhs from India! I ask them if they get along with each other and the Sikhs, “Say sure, we get along fine.”
I have talked to some of these Pakistanis about Pakistan, but most Pakistanis have this attitude of, “Pakistan is shit.” If you start putting down Pakistan, they just nod their heads and say, “Yes, we know our country blows. Anyone knows that.” They seem to be implying, “Why the Hell do you think we came over here?” Pakistanis are some of the least nationalistic people I have ever met. They all hate their country and think it sucks!
I do not think your average Pakistani is as religious as people think. The ones in the US are anything but Islamist nuts. They never talk about Islam for one second, and they never try to convert you, which most good Muslims will try to do.
Indian hatred for Pakistan is utterly off the charts! It is something weird and bizarre. I hate to invoke Godwin, but it almost reminds me of how Nazis talk about Jews. The Indian hate for Pakistan and all things Pakistani is extreme and feels unhinged and deranged. When Indians start talking about Pakistan, I feel like recoiling backwards in shock.It literally takes you aback like that. That’s the impression they give off.
As soon as you say the words, “Pakistan,” or “Kashmir,” almost all Indians start to flip out, get red in the face, raise their voices, start pounding on tables and act like they are going to hit someone. Their attitude about Pakistan is downright scary.
And some of the smarter or more Hindutva ones seem to have a tic about Pakistan the same way Nazis do about Jews. Every five minutes they are talking about Pakistan. Everyone who hates India is a secret Pakistani! I have been called a Pakistani so many times I cannot keep count. Every time someone criticizes India, they change the subject to, “Yeah, but what about Pakistan? Hey but what about Islam?! Wait let’s not talk about that. Let’s talk about Muslims instead.”
The only conclusion that I drew from talking to many Indians about Pakistan is that on this subject, most Indians are simply completely insane and cannot be reasoned with at all. They also seem brainwashed. If you try to talk facts with them about Kashmir for instance, it’s clear that 95% of Indians have no idea what they are talking about and apparently either know almost nothing about Kashmir or just about everything they have been told about it is some crazy lie. They all say that all Kashmiris love India and hate Pakistan and none of them want to secede. They all say this. They actually believe that!
In fact, according to them, there are no Kashmiris who want independence. None. 0%. The only problem in Kashmir is some Pakistani invaders who sneak in and try to start an insurgency in order to annex Kashmir to Pakistan. The problem with that theory is that only ~6% of Kashmiris want to join Pakistan. Support for independence was ~90% in the early 1990’s, but decades of repression has taken its toll. Nevertheless, ~50% or more Kashmiris are definitely pro independence.
These Indians didn’t pop out of the womb hating Pakistan like that. I assume that there must be some extreme and intense Pakistani hatred brainwashing that goes on in Indian society, probably via the schools, the media and God knows what else.
I do not believe that US Muslims are a problem in and of themselves. Sure, some are a problem, but the overwhelming majority seem to be ok. Muslims are like Blacks. Sure some Blacks are criminals and give the group a bad name, but Blacks are not a problem in and of themselves because so many Blacks are living perfectly decently like you, me or anyone else. Saying all US Muslims are evil is like saying all US Blacks are evil – it’s as bunch of stupid racist bull.
We have Yemeni, Pakistani and Palestinian Muslims in this town. These Muslims in my town are causing exactly zero problems. They are not even very radical. I would say that I am far more of an America-hater than any Muslim in my town.
I know each of these Muslims pretty well, but I know the Yemenis better than the others. In fact, a number of them are friends of mine. These Yemenis are not causing any problems at all.
A few of them are out and out patriotards. One graduated from Georgetown University and is in with US government types. At first he wanted to work for the FBI as an Arabic interpreter. He flies back to DC for political conferences sponsored by the State Department.
He is a very strong supporter of US foreign policy. In fact, when he opens his mouth, he sounds like a mixture of Hillary Clinton, Ashton Carter and John Kerry. He buys into all the Deep State propaganda of the corporate media 100%. The guy’s a lost cause. He’s not an America-hater at all. In fact, he’s and out and out neocon patriotard!
I don’t think they hate non-Muslims one bit. I have never heard them say anything against non-Muslims, not one word. They don’t even like to talk bad about Jews. In fact, they worry about me because they think I am an antisemite, and they think antisemitism is uncool. The older man told me that Yemeni Muslims and Yemeni Jews get along in the US quite well, as they put aside whatever differences they might have had in the homeland. He said many Yemeni Muslims work together with Yemeni Jews in New York running stores.
If they hate anyone, it’s Shiites and Iranians, but the old man doesn’t mind the Shia, and he doesn’t care about Iran either. He hates the Saudis worse than anyone else in the region. This opinion is apparently common, as many Yemeni nationalists despite the Saudis since Saudi Arabia has intervened in Yemen over and over and treats Yemen like a colony. The older guy in fact is supporting the Shia Houthis in their war against the Saudi, UAE, Egyptian, Sudanese, Jordanian, US and UK aggressors and invaders.
He told me that the Zaidi Shia of Yemen are just about Sunnis theologically. They only differ in one or two minor ways. In fact the “Shia” Zaidis are themselves diverse as not all of them even identify as Shia! Some “Shia” Zaidis say that they are actually Sunnis, and others say that they are both Sunni and Shia at the same time. They characterize themselves in these odd ways because Zaidism is so close to Sunnism doctrinally.
I have a very hard time understanding why these Muslims in my town are some sort of enemy within. Sure there are radicalized US Muslims, but I’ve never met one myself.
Jeff Deitz writes:
So many Indians live in the Bay Area and love to brag about how great India is and how its going to be one of the world’s great Superpowers, if you mention the massive amount of poverty and misery that the majority of Indians suffer these Bay Area Indians either
a) Call you a racist American asshole
b) Shut up
c) Deny reality and switch the topic
d) Make the excuse that India has a huge population and not enough land and that there are a lot of poor people because of the overpopulation, but there are still many prosperous people, and that the country is dirty because of overcrowding.
You will often get answer D to your face, and when you are out of earshot answer A. Other times you will get answer B, and sometimes answer C.
I also have to say Indians think Astrology is a science and believe people of certain astrological signs should be married or in a relationship, for example actor Leonardo DiCaprio is a Scorpio, his former girlfriend, Giselle Bundchen is a Cancer, according to Astrology this would be an excellent match but in real life Bundchen dumped DiCaprio and instead married Tom Brady who she thought was more manly and taller. Brady is a Leo who according to astrologers are not very compatible with Cancers. Just goes to show that Astrology is a bunch of rubbish.
Same with this website, with a few exceptions. I think the main problem here is the only Indians we get here in the US are high caste Hindus, and the truth is that they not only do not care about how fucked up their country is but they also do not with to do anything about it because they think that those poor people deserve their fate. Also in order to rectify the problem there would probably have to be some wealth redistribution, and that is anathema to these types. The callousness is Indians is unbelievable. They make US Republicans look like Mother Theresa.
What I find interesting is that Indians hate nothing so badly as Pakistanis, but I have met many Pakistanis, and almost all of them admitted quite readily that Pakistan blows. Even members of the feudal ruling class say it blows.