Posted on 05/31/2026 12:40:56 AM PDT by MarlonRando
Between the falling birth rates, chain migration, anchor babies, and the planned demographic changes by our social engineers, non-whites will be the majority by 2050 or sooner if Democrats get back into office. They would open the borders again. There is no reason to think otherwise. If you think they will be nice to white people, you are sadly mistaken.
For some reason, Democrats decided white people can’t have their own country. Possibly, it’s because they see them all as future Democrats they can manipulate due to their neediness.
(Excerpt) Read more at independentsentinel.com ...
Actually, you wrote "Thanks for your analysis! But I deliberately wanted to exclude the cultural / environmental factors! I was interested purely in the genetic component." which wasn't a closure for the previous thread of discussion.Actually, for me, that was the conclusion of that discussion (of the heritability of I.Q.).
Alex, we haven’t 'neatly tied up' the biological premise because your current political argument relies entirely on the assumptions you made at the start.I, myself, sometimes become confused when "debating" several different other FReepers within a single thread. Perhaps you have fallen victim to this here, too. I namely strongly suspect that you have tacitly assumed that I was "in league with" or agreed with others or you conflated my stance with that of other FReepers here who may have said something about the geographical/racial distribution of I.Q. - but I said no such thing / asserted no such correlation!
The only assumption I made at the start was that a random individual (no race specified!) with an I.Q. of 100 would have offspring with another random individual (likewise: no race specified!) with an I.Q. of 80.
A pleasant exchange ensued about "regression towards the mean," etc.
I explicitly labelled my musings as a Gedankenexperiment, for goodness sake!
My final comment (still only a musing) to conclude that line of reasoning was that this "regression towards the mean" might be less noticeable when the two individuals came from two (geographically) separate, long-standing populations. (That was, for me, a genuine epiphany!)
Again: I said nothing about race!
You’re asking 'why we need to import' these populations, but that question is predicated on the view that these populations are inherently dysfunctional or intellectually inferior—a view you established in your earlier posts about 'separate gene pools' and fixed IQ gaps.No, my question / assertion about the supposed "need" to import populations with vastly different cultural norms was predicated solely on my belief that they are very difficult to integrate. In fact - though I don't want to put words in your mouth - I got the impression that you, yourself, posited that it would require instituting very rigorous measures and policies to successfully integrate such vastly different foreign elements. Indeed, that seemed to be your main thesis!
My only objection was that you were apparently proceeding from the assumption that the U.S. had to enact such measures and implement such policies - as though we had no choice but to welcome with open arms these enormous numbers of migrants coming into our country.
I challenge that assumption!
If you truly believed that those earlier biological arguments were independent of your current position, you would have no problem conceding the points I corrected: that IQ is not a fixed racial trait and that intelligence is not a biological 'stock' determined by ancestral geography.I cannot concede those points because I simply don't possess the necessary expertise in the field of, say, I.Q. / g, the genetic basis for I.Q., possible racial disparities in I.Q., etc. to do so!
In my initial questions to you (involving the aforementioned scenario about two random individuals producing offspring), I explicitly asked that environment, nurture, and other factors be left out of consideration - since to do otherwise would have virtually guaranteed that the scope of the discussion would have quickly become unmanageable.
I suppose that I should have added that I'm actually rather skeptical about standard I.Q. tests as reliable measures of g. I am more than willing to "concede" that g is, in reality, a multidimensional metric, probably composed of a multitude of different variables. I'm sure that there is some genetic basis for it - there does seem to be a high correlation among blood relatives - but I certainly couldn't proclaim with confidence that I knew what genes were responsible for it.
Other FReepers here have, perhaps, stentoriously announced that the natives of spec. countries have I.Q.s of 75, or 105. I find that an interesting assertion, and it might have significant ramifications. It might deserve further study. But, again, I am unqualified to comment further upon it.
Does that satisfy you?
Can you explain now why you think that the U.S. should go to the extra (considerable) effort to integrate immigrants from profoundly different cultures?
Regards,
Conrad assiduously elides the draconian measures which the Romans had to implement to do that.
I don't think that the modern U.S. would be keen on, say, the mass-crucifixion of intransigent newcomers slow in adopting our cultural values.
Regards,
The fact is, most traits that we breed plants and animals for - size, muscle mass (or seed mass), fat or oil content, etc. are also polygenic traits that are influenced by environmental factors. As a result, heritability is not perfect, i.e. not = 1.0, and you get regression to the mean for exactly this reason.
That doesn't change the fact that these polygenic traits influenced by the environment are nevertheless heritable. As I recall, the heritability of fat content in the meat of pigs is actually lower than the heritability of IQ, but that didn't stop people from breeding fattier pigs for bacon. What this means is that despite the input of environment, and despite multiple genes with weird dominance and epistatic effects, you can still select (consciously or not) for higher or lower IQ people through eugenic or dysgenic behavior.
Incidentally, one of the best discussions of IQ heritability and its implications for both within and among-group (including racial) achievement is How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement by the late psychologist Arthur Jensen. It's more science-based and less polemical than The Bell Curve, which is also worth reading in its own right.
“The sea-reach of the Thames stretched before us like the beginning of an interminable waterway.
The water shone pacifically; the sky, without a speck, was a benign immensity of unstained light; the very mist on the Essex marsh was like a gauzy and radiant fabric, hung from the wooded rises inland, and draping the low shores in diaphanous folds. Only the gloom to the west, brooding over the upper reaches, became more sombre every minute, as if angered by the approach of the sun.
“And this also,” said Marlow suddenly, “has been one of the dark places of the earth.”
“I was thinking of very old times, when the Romans first came here, nineteen hundred years ago—the other day .... Light came out of this river since—you say Knights? Yes; but it is like a running blaze on a plain, like a flash of lightning in the clouds. We live in the flicker—may it last as long as the old earth keeps rolling! But darkness was here yesterday. Imagine the feelings of a commander of a fine—what d’ye call ’em?—trireme in the Mediterranean, ordered suddenly to the north; run overland across the Gauls in a hurry; put in charge of one of these craft the legionaries—a wonderful lot of handy men they must have been, too—used to build, apparently by the hundred, in a month or two, if we may believe what we read. Imagine him here—the very end of the world, a sea the colour of lead, a sky the colour of smoke, a kind of ship about as rigid as a concertina—and going up this river with stores, or orders, or what you like. Sand-banks, marshes, forests, savages,—precious little to eat fit for a civilized man
nothing but Thames water to drink. No Falernian wine here, no going ashore. Here and there a military camp lost in a wilderness, like a needle in a bundle of hay—cold, fog, tempests, disease, exile, and death—death skulking in the air, in the water, in the bush. They must have been dying like flies here. Oh, yes—he did it. Did it very well, too, no doubt, and without thinking much about it either, except afterwards to brag of what he had gone through in his time, perhaps. They were men enough to face the darkness. And perhaps he was cheered by keeping his eye on a chance of promotion to the fleet at Ravenna by and by, if he had good friends in Rome and survived the awful climate. Or think of a decent young citizen in a toga—perhaps too much dice, you know—coming out here in the train of some prefect, or tax-gatherer, or trader even, to mend his fortunes. Land in a swamp, march through the woods, and in some inland post feel the savagery, the utter savagery, had closed round him—all that mysterious life of the wilderness that stirs in the forest, in the jungles, in the hearts of wild men. There’s no initiation either into such mysteries. He has to live in the midst of the incomprehensible, which is also detestable. And it has a fascination, too, that goes to work upon him. The fascination of the abomination—you know, imagine the growing regrets, the longing to escape, the powerless disgust, the surrender, the hate.”
Have you read that novella by Joseph Conrad? Read the first chapter which is what I was referring to: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/219/219-h/219-h.htm
Marlowe directly states that the site of what became Londinium was once a heart of darkness like the Congo.
Conrad, in elegant prose shows the historical fact: the ancestors of the British people were, by the standards of the Romans, the exact ‘savages’ you describe.
the ‘savagery’ of the ancient Britons did not prevent them from becoming a dominant civilization once they were integrated into the Roman institutional system. If your biological theory were true, the Romans would have been wasting their time, and the British would have been permanently stuck in their ‘primitive’ state
By fixating on how Conrad portrayed individuals in his book, you are trying to ignore the macro-historical evidence that proves your premise wrong:
1. As the ‘savagery’ of the ancient Britons was not a genetic death sentence, why do you insist it is for other populations today?
2. As you admit that Asian civilizations have ‘waxed and waned,’ then you have already conceded that ‘civilizational status’ is a temporary, institutional state, not a biological one.
Culture and conditioning can triumph over genetics as we have seen over millenia in both directions
The point is simple - the ‘waxing and waning’ of civilizations is a product of social and institutional systems, not genetic blueprints.
Whether Rome used crucifixion or modern nations use legal, economic, and educational systems, the mechanism of change is the same: when a population is held to a clear, consistent set of expectations and granted access to the same tools and systems, they change.
Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that these populations are inherently incapable of adapting, regardless of the system they are in. I am pointing out that the ancestors of modern Europeans were once considered just as ‘unfit’ as you claim others are today—and they proved you wrong.
If you believe that the difference between a ‘thriving’ civilization and a ‘primitive’ one is purely biological, you have to explain why the ‘biology’ of the British shifted so drastically from the Roman era to the Industrial Revolution. If you admit that their growth was due to the ‘software’ of their institutions, then you have effectively admitted that your racial determinism is wrong.
Your comparison of human intelligence to livestock breeding rests on two fundamental errors.
First, you ignore the difference between individual heritability and group differences. Heritability coefficients derived from stable, affluent environments cannot be extrapolated to explain group-level achievement gaps across vastly different historical and socio-economic contexts.
Second, you treat human culture as a passive biological output. The historical rise and fall of civilizations—including those of the ancestors of modern Europeans, who were once viewed as “primitive” by imperial standards—proves that civilizational “success” is an institutional and environmental phenomenon. If intelligence were a fixed biological “stock” like fat content in pigs, the power map of human history would remain static. The fact that it shifts proves that humans are not livestock; they are highly adaptive agents whose cognitive expression is shaped by the quality of the institutional “software” they occupy.
Btw, regarding Jenkins, the central failure in the work of both Jensen and the authors of The Bell Curve is the ‘heritability fallacy’: they assume that because a trait is heritable within a population, the differences between populations must also be genetic.
This is a logical error.
Heritability estimates derived from twin studies in stable, affluent environments simply do not translate to group-level differences caused by vastly different historical, nutritional, and educational environments. When you strip away the social and institutional ‘software’—as Jensen’s work famously did—you aren’t measuring ‘potential’; you are measuring the state of the subject at a single, static point in time.
Alex, this is an important clarification. You’re now characterizing your previous posts as merely a ‘thought experiment’ and stating that you aren’t qualified to comment on the racial or genetic underpinnings of IQ. I accept that clarification, even if it effectively retracts the ‘epiphany’ you shared about gene pools earlier.
My point in this thread has never been that isn’t that we must accept anyone; my point is that a civilization is defined by its ability to maintain its own standards, not by whom it keeps out.
We shouid focus on the standards—the ‘software’
I hold that the immigrants (and locals) to a country should be taught and have enforced on them strictly local norms. A migrant to say Nebraska should follow the local culture and societal morals. Furthermore, the local children should have this embedded in them.
My wife and I grew up in the north and moved to Seattle years ago. We have finally had enough of the liberals and their effects on things here and are moving to Tennessee.
I’m just going to keep my mouth shut until I can figure out the social norms there! Shouldn’t be hard, I keep my mouth shut most of the time.
Be polite
Engage people
Let traffic in
Resist the horn
It’s perfectly fine to wax how beautiful it is on the rare clear day looking east towards Ranier across Seattle
Cause it is spectacular
You’ll have to get used to smaller mountains though tennessee from the river east isn’t flat very often
It’s three states really
West which is like the Miss delta
Middle which is like central KY but better
Eastern which is Appalachia but not in the stereotype way
Nashville is basically Austin on the Cumberland
Almost exact same towns characteristics
Except Austin about 5% larger
But the metro counties are good
Best value and scenery and very red state
The plateau or northeast corner
I like Knoxville
That said I live four miles south south west of lower broadway downtown Nashville which is urban and my wife loves being in the city
You’ll be fine
My wife is native
I’m Deep South native
To me tennessee is not drawl but more country accent
You’ll prolly notice that
It can be difficult. I moved to Poland 15 years ago.
Learn the local slang in Tenn, the local history, the little local “jokes” and be nice.
That’ll help you
it’s not that race dictates a culture’s capacity for achievement; it’s that specific environmental pressures and institutional frameworks—like the scientific traditions, property rights, and trade networks that fueled the Enlightenment—create the conditions for innovation.
Suggesting that certain races are inherently ‘better’ at civilization ignores the historical reality that power and technological leadership have always been fluid, shifting to whichever societies mastered the most efficient systems at the time. Reducing human history to a racial hierarchy misses the actual mechanics of why civilizations rise and fall.
While genetics certainly influence individual cognitive traits, they do not dictate the trajectory of a civilization. If genes were the primary driver of civilizational success, we would not see the radical shifts in the global distribution of power that have occurred over the last 2,000 years.
Long before the Industrial Revolution, the Indian subcontinent was an economic powerhouse, responsible for roughly 25% of the world’s GDP in the 17th century. The Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1300 BC) established one of the world’s first systems of urban planning, standardized weights, and sanitation. Later, Indian mathematicians developed the concept of zero and the decimal system—the foundational “software” that enabled modern Western mathematics and computing. These were not just scientific curiosities; they were the essential infrastructure of global commerce and logic.
For centuries, China was the undisputed center of technological innovation. By the Song Dynasty (960–1279 AD), China had already mastered sophisticated metallurgy, invented movable type printing, and developed the magnetic compass and gunpowder. When Europeans were living in agrarian societies with limited literacy, the Chinese were utilizing advanced agricultural techniques, canal systems that moved massive amounts of trade, and a meritocratic bureaucracy that served as a model for governance. The idea that Europe has always been “ahead” is a perspective that only holds if you start the clock in the mid-18th century.
Civilizations succeed when they foster a culture of inquiry, maintain stable legal institutions, and participate in a competitive global market of ideas.
These are “software” problems, not “hardware” problems. Attributing the success of the West to a static genetic or climatic advantage ignores the historical reality that these achievements were the product of specific, replicable, and often fragile cultural and political structures—not an inevitable biological destiny. Focusing on “genes, genes, genes” is a way to bypass the hard reality that civilization is an ongoing, fragile achievement that must be maintained through values and institutions
I went to visit my son last spring, he lives just south of Nashville. Folks are friendlier than in Seattle it seems. I’ve been watching videos on how to pronounce town names but that will take awhile. Although got the Indian names around Washington state figured out soon enough.
Two days ago I was crossing the 520 bridge on a beautiful clear day over Lake Washington with Mount Rainier in the background. Yep it’s pretty. Although most years it isn’t until July 5th that you can count on long stretches of clear skies. But rural Tennessee is pretty too. Pros and cons with every place. I’d like to think I’m fairly adaptable.
That must have been really difficult moving to a new country and language Cronos. Good for you!
I would like to offer a third possible explanation for the current dysfunctional behavior of Third-World immigrants in the U.S., and the fact that they are not assimilating - one that makes abs. no reference to I.Q. or the possible genetic component or hereditability thereof:
Cronos is, in part, correct: If the U.S. govt. undertook herculean, expensive efforts to force-assimilate them, they might indeed integrate after a few generations! But -
1. They don't want / see no need to assimilate, and
2. They are actively being instructed by leftists that they shouldn't have to assimilate (because European culture and Western civ are "bad," "ray-cist," etc.). Those represent insurmountable barriers!
These immigrants are being actively taught that we native Americans are "evil" and "guilty." And also that we are simultaneously obliged to coddle them (with welfare programs, preferential hiring practices, etc.).
Cronos is, perhaps, correct that these Third-World immigrants could eventually be integrated, at tremendous cost - but he is blind to the "elephant in the living room": In the current moral and political climate, and with the record-breaking inflow of unassimilated masses, it would be impossible to institute the necessary measures to accomplish that goal - and even if they were imposed, they would be actively resisted every step of the way.
Regards,
difficult, but worth it.
I had some advantages - I am Catholic (so fit in with the culture), and I knew other languages before moving to Poland - beside English, I got fascinated first with French, then Latin, then Sanskrit (very very poor) and then when learning basic German I fell down the rabbit hole of Indo-european language similarities and was amazed at how I could connect words and phrases from Marathi to Farsi to Italian, to English — and then I started learning Polski.......
you start learning Polski and you forget German and sneer at the irregularities of French.
Polish is a very precise language - like Latin or Sanskrit (the latter being if anything MORE precise), but very rewarding to learn.
The other advantage is that I am a history nut and Poland has a lot of it, so it is good to be able to know more about Wladyslaw lokietek than an ordinary Pole.
but back to you -— you need to ‘immerse’ - and it can be frustrating as you don’t know the basic stuff that people who grew up “there” know.
Moved to Germany about half a century ago. Prior to that, as a military brat, lived all across the world.
You'll be fine!
Regards,
Let me put it simply:
1. Genetics are not destiny - a person whose ancestry was purely sharecroppers CAN do well
2. Society, culture, societal expectations play a key role
3. the USA (or any other country) is under no obligation to “take” anyone
4. You are taking extreme cases of groups and even ignoring individuals WITHIN groups:
- the Indians,Chinese, etc. in the USA have higher than average IQ, earning, degrees, etc
- Even take the case of the Somalis you highlight, have you guys ever heard of AYAAN HIRSI ALI?
To your, Alexander’s, points specifically:
1 “these Third-World immigrants could eventually be integrated, at tremendous cost -” —> No - you need to enforce it at the point of entry:
- to get permanent residency there must be demonstrated deep knowledge of language, history, societal culture and standards
- to get citizenship, this must be even stricter
—> my point is also that children of “natives” should also be put to the same, strict standards - schools do NOT adequately teach history, civic studies etc. - and that is a failure - schools were made to create societal standards and they are not doing so.
2. “In the current moral and political climate, and with the record-breaking inflow of unassimilated masses, it would be impossible to institute the necessary measures to accomplish that goal -”
- It would be “impossible” if you keep associating it with race - by saying “Somalis are by genetics unable to raise their IQ” , then that won’t fly (and it also flies in the face of facts as the Ayaan Hirsi Ali case demonstrates)
- It would be possible if framed in a way that can work for both D and R (and it IS related to both)
The US green card and citizenship methodology is a joke - it is a pure lottery rather than effectively looking at people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.