Rural IQ

Posted by Al Ross on January 12, 2006, 02:21 AM | #

It is one thing to ask why the British behaved badly during the Boer war and quite another to glorify the Boers who were fighting, not solely for their freedom but also to get their hands on the gold of the Rand and, with perfect Dutch self-interested rationality, to get their feet on the necks of the Black South Africans. I would have preferred the Boers’ acquisition of the gold, rather than its falling into the hands of the Jews for whom the British Army ( and I make no apology for repeating this) acted as Janissary.
Apropos the JQ, the following appeared early last month : “I’ve checked out Churchill’s ‘Second World War’ and the statement is quite correct - not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers’, a ‘genocide’ of the Jews. or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war. This is astonishing. How can it be explained? Eisenhower’s ‘Crusade in Europe’ is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s ‘ Second World War’ total 4448 pages, and de Gaulle’s three-volume ‘Memoires de guerre’ is 2054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers’, a ‘genocide of the Jews’, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of war”. - Prof. Richard Lynn.
http://www.rense.com/general69/porof.htm

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on January 12, 2006, 02:51 AM | #

Van der Merwe jokes are MUCH funnier than redneck jokes, and are ideal for an MR audience!

The Boer War on the other hand, was a war of national liberation from the verkrampte Boer tyranny and the native Africans’ best hope of joining in 20th century affluence, alas betrayed by the wimps and traitors of the Asquith government.

One sample, dating from before the fall of South Africa:

Van der Merwe had been at one of the best Afrikaner schools in South Africa, and had then moved northward to farm in Northern Rhodesia, which in due course became Zambia. Forty years later, he comes back to a reunion, and meets an old classmate Niko Diedrichs.

“Ach, Van” says Niko “what have you been doing with yourself all these years?”

“Ach man, good to see you. I moved north, got a little spread, do a little farming.”

“But Van, you were always one of the smartest kids in school. Surely you could have done more than that!”

“Ach, Niko man, I done all right.  What have you done for yourself that’s so great?”

Niko puffs himself up with pride. “Well, I don’t mind telling you man, I done real well. In fact, I’m President of the Republic.”

“Wragtig man, that’s not so great,” responds Van der Merwe.  “Where I’m living we have a black man to do that job!”

Posted by Mark Richardson on January 12, 2006, 03:29 AM | #

I don’t believe the Boer War was morally justified.

Posted by Matra on January 12, 2006, 04:58 AM | #

It is one thing to ask why the British behaved badly during the Boer war and quite another to glorify the Boers who were fighting

The Boers were heroic freedom fighters who took on the British Empire and humbled it. They deserve to be glorified.

The unprovoked British war against the Afrikaners didn’t end in 1901. Under pro-British rule Afrikaner students caught speaking their own language were forced to wear a sign saying “I am a donkey”. There were attempts to coerce Afrikaners into fighting British wars. The coup de grace came in the last couple of decades of the 20th century when British politicians, entertainers, journalists, and various other professional do-gooders led campaigns against everything South African from the Springboks (the only team I’ve ever supported) and poor Zola Budd to companies doing business with SA.

Of course, the British weren’t the only ones. People from Ireland, the US, and Canada (a country with Boer blood on its hands) were also prominent in the war against Afrikaner self-determination. But there is a notable contrast between how Germans were forced to behave in the years after WW2 and the lack of British contrition for their shameful role in the destruction of the Afrikaner people. How many Brits even know about, say, the Kroonstad concentration camp

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 05:35 AM | #

The top 5 SAT scoring States adjusted for participation rates as of 1993 (the sole date for which this data is available via the web):

1 North Dakota
2 Iowa
3 New Hampshire
4 Oregon
5 Illinois

Anyone who looked at this list of States would say not only are they not representative of urbanity but that they are stereotypical “hick” States.

So much for John Jay Ray’s generalization.

Posted by Al Ross on January 12, 2006, 06:01 AM | #

When Scottish Local Authority exam results were last published in league-table form(a practice which, because of socialist pressure, was discontinued), the top 2 pass rates, at 92% and 90% respectively, were those of Shetlands Islands Council and Orkney Islands Council. Two cities, Dundee and Glasgow,(both Labour Party strongholds) occupied the last two places.

Posted by seelow heights on January 12, 2006, 06:18 AM | #

I don’t know about the other States, but in Illinois the ACT is taken by most college-bound students rather than the SAT. Since only a relatively small group takes the SAT comparisons with most other States are not valid.
BTW, re States and their test scores: I have always wondered why the predominantly East Asian State of Hawaii always comes out near the bottom no matter what tests are being used.

Posted by PCA on January 12, 2006, 07:27 AM | #

I think there is validity to what is been said by John J Ray.

Firstly, there will always be variation within any group - I think the latest data says that 20% of intelligence is directly related to your environment.

This will cluster some of the many variables that influence ‘environmental’ intelligence. So for example, more educated people will reside in urban populations (also professionals, etc., will on average be more intelligent, which would link an inherited intelligence to the rural/urban) and people will be exposed to much more intellectual challenges over a lifetime (particularly in your childhood).

However, I suspect much of the ‘hick’ stereotype relates to a lack of or different socialisation.

Also in response to James Bowery:

1 North Dakota
2 Iowa
3 New Hampshire
4 Oregon
5 Illinois

Anyone who looked at this list of States would say not only are they not representative of urbanity but that they are stereotypical “hick” States.

So much for John Jay Ray’s generalization.

To look at those states you must assume that a more powerful heredity factor is not involved (or a non-comparable groups, i.e. race). This would apply to the large variations that occur in some US states’ racial make up.

I would not be at all surprised that a high correlation of wealth (inherited - wealthy parents tend to be more intelligent on average - and environmental – better education) and a low proportion of blacks and Hispanics would exist in these states.

I am no expert on US demographics, but I am sure these considerations would weigh heavily on the states’ performances.

Posted by John J Ray on January 12, 2006, 07:37 AM | #

Marty

That WAS a good Vd Merwe joke!

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on January 12, 2006, 08:59 AM | #

Some remarks about the Afrikaners.

The Transvaal republic was founded BEFORE gold and diamonds were found. The land was mostly empty when the Boers arrived, because the Matabeles had killed everybody.

Now whites are only a minority of 10% or so in South Africa, but in the 19th century both populations, black and white kept each other in balance in Transvaal and in the Vrijstaat, see http://www.africancrisis.org/NewsView.asp?Rec=6947&Action=V&Sort=D&Page=1&

If I understood well, during the second Boer war the British blew up all farms without men (understood was that they were Boer fighters), so the women and children had no other choice as going to the concentration camp, which meant death by neglect and sexual exploitation. BTW an Afrikaner friend of mine got the idea that perhaps Mel Gibson could make a film about the second Boer war, which could give a boost to their present despair. Does anybody know an email address of Mel Gibson perhaps? Perhaps you can put it directly here: http://volkstaat.za.cx/forum/index.php?s=8a99a1068e7d1ad24d79566243bf663a&showtopic=642

And the future? I read that the Afrikaner farmers expect the bulk of land claims in rural Limpopo province in 2006, which means that also a lot of accompanying farm murders (without further robbery) are expected, as intimidation. The ANC police of course denies everything… The only thing the ANC is doing in response is even closing the commandos (the ANC is afraid of an uprising) without providing something equivalent , see (in Afrikaans): http://www.landbou.com/LandbouWeekblad/Nuus/0,,1294-1295_1858814,00.html
and http://www.landbou.com/LandbouWeekblad/Nuus/0,,1294-1295_1858816,00.html

The Boers are currently losing their faith in the South African state. Thus this is the kind of people we might see back:

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 09:05 AM | #

selow heights, read the original paper.  The SAT ranks were adjusted to nullify participation rates—as I said.  Your supposed explanation for the rankings is precisely this bias.

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 09:08 AM | #

To look at those states you must assume that a more powerful heredity factor is not involved

Why must one assume that heredity is not involved?

Posted by tr on January 12, 2006, 10:39 AM | #

I don’t know about the other States, but in Illinois the ACT is taken by most college-bound students rather than the SAT. Since only a relatively small group takes the SAT comparisons with most other States are not valid.
BTW, re States and their test scores: I have always wondered why the predominantly East Asian State of Hawaii always comes out near the bottom no matter what tests are being used.

Exactly. In Iowa and the Dakotas, less than 5 percent of high school graduates take the SAT!

Posted by Calvin on January 12, 2006, 10:47 AM | #

I think we need to make a distinction between IQ performance and IQ potential. Environmental factors affect IQ performance, but are not affective of IQ potential.

The urban environment tends to push people toward the limits of their IQ potential, just as a rural environment would tend to push people towards the upper limits of their physical potential.

Someone mentioned the orderliness and organized nature of the rural Afrikans. This is as much the result of character traits than it is of intellectual ability.

It would seem obvious that, over long periods of time, the selective demands of both of these environments would influence the population’s intelectual capacities.

The IQ difference between rural and urban populations must be the result of either;

Short term environmental influence.

Long term selecton.

Innate genetic disparity.

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on January 12, 2006, 12:49 PM | #

Only to say that I above put up a picture of the Afrikaner Boers. It seems to confirm earlier remarks about their IQ.

Posted by Metzger on January 12, 2006, 03:23 PM | #

Exactly. In Iowa and the Dakotas, less than 5 percent of high school graduates take the SAT!

That’s not the case in New Hampshire, though. The fact that New Hampshire is among the whitest states in the US probably explains the high SAT average.

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 03:53 PM | #

seelow heights wrote: I don’t know about the other States, but in Illinois the ACT is taken by most college-bound students rather than the SAT. Since only a relatively small group takes the SAT comparisons with most other States are not valid.

tr wrote: Exactly. In Iowa and the Dakotas, less than 5 percent of high school graduates take the SAT!

Metzger wrote: That’s not the case in New Hampshire, though. The fact that New Hampshire is among the whitest states in the US probably explains the high SAT average.

Hello?  Is there anyone home?

I said the rankings were ADJUSTED FOR PARTICIPATION RATES. 

This is the third and last time I will say this.

The adjustment was carried out in: Brian Powell and Lala Carr Steelman, “Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildering: The Use and Misuse of State SAT and ACT Scores,” Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 66: 27, 1996.

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 04:13 PM | #

As an addendum, I find it fascinating that we’re so uncritical of off-hand comments about high urban vs low rural IQ that provide no hard numbers or sources, but that when hard numbers are provided for higher cognitive performance in rural states than urban States people suddenly engaging in what I can only call pseudo-critical thought.

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 05:51 PM | #

Since offhand comments seem to be more credible—here’s my offhand comment:

I think what we’re seeing in urban areas is a greater standard deviation of intelligence due to heterosity, including heterosis, and that rural areas tend to have slightly higher average IQs with lower standard deviation.  This creates higher rates of both geniuses and dunces in urban areas.  This is consistent with the specialization of civilizaton.  In more self-reliant rural areas there is different selection for intelligence but it is nevertheless strong, and the level to which dunces can be tolerated is lower because you really can die due to stupidity when there’s no one around to help you.

Posted by Metzger on January 12, 2006, 05:57 PM | #

As an addendum, I find it fascinating that we’re so uncritical of off-hand comments about high urban vs low rural IQ that provide no hard numbers or sources, but that when hard numbers are provided for higher cognitive performance in rural states than urban States people suddenly engaging in what I can only call pseudo-critical thought.

I merely offered support for your claim by citing the example of New Hampshire.  In the east, everyone takes the SATs, so the participation rate argument used by others against Illinois, ND, and Iowa wouldn’t apply. 

Illinois, by the way, is far from a “hick” state.  It’s ranked 10th in the country in population density, despite its large size.

The list you cited is baffling, if true.  I would think that the highest average SAT scores would be found in the whitest states, which would explain New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Iowa.  (Or the states with the fewest blacks and hispanics, rather).  I’m puzzled about Oregon and Illinois, though.  Perhaps Oregon was less hispanic in 1993 than it is today. 

The reason I didn’t address the “uncritical off-hand comments about high urban vs low rural IQ that provide no hard numbers or sources” is because that post features no coherent argument that I could latch onto. 

Johnjayray begins by discussing rural IQ, which he “does not doubt” is lower than urban IQ.  He offers no substantive argument in support of this (other than noting popular stereotypes) and then seques into an essentially irrelevant discussion of the Afrikaners. 

He makes the same mistake he did in the Razib thread, conflating “lower IQ” with “inferior”, concluding that because the Arikaners are not “inferior” that Indians are not genetically predisposed to have a lower IQ than whites. 

All in all, the argument is a mess.

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 05:57 PM | #

Source: Buj, V., 1981, Average IQ values in various European countries, Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169
Source: Greek IQ by Dienekes Pontikos

Posted by James Bowery on January 12, 2006, 06:04 PM | #

Metzger wrote: Illinois, by the way, is far from a “hick” state.  It’s ranked 10th in the country in population density, despite its large size.

Well, first of all, Illinois is #5 of the top 5 so it is the least significant.

Having said that, Illinois has a high population density due solely to Chicago.  Chicago historically was a traderoute bottleneck for midwestern agriculture so it represented a different kind of urban center than say NYC, Boston, LA, etc.  Illinois is (or was when I was growing up in Iowa) right behind Iowa in farm production.

Metzger wrote: Perhaps Oregon was less hispanic in 1993 than it is today.

Having just moved to the Pacific Northwest from California in the last 5 years I can attest to this.  Indeed, large PNW land owners are just now being hauled into the courts under RICO for conspiracy to violate immigration laws—and they’re paying up.

Posted by affa on January 13, 2006, 04:46 AM | #

I said the rankings were ADJUSTED FOR PARTICIPATION RATES. 

The adjustment was carried out in: Brian Powell and Lala Carr Steelman, “Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildering: The Use and Misuse of State SAT and ACT Scores,” Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 66: 27, 1996.

Even so, what’s your point? I’m sure % rural and average SAT score are inversely correlated, even if some rural states score well. Plus, the SAT (particularly the math section) tests for more for school-learned knowledge than IQ, so SAT averages say more about an area’s school system than its IQ.

Posted by Calvin on January 13, 2006, 10:39 AM | #

How much of the SA army is white and would there be a even a remote chance of a Boer revolt succeeding? Wasn’t their a Boer seer who prophesised the creation of an independent Boer state?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 13, 2006, 01:06 PM | #

Calvin, the genocide the Boers face at present is of course an outrage of the first magnitude and absolutely intolerable.  They should be brought out of there at U.S. government expense, every single man, woman, child, and old person (and throw in the family dogs too) and re-settled in the United States or, depending on their preference, in Australia/NZ, the U.K., Ireland, Holland, Flanders, or elsewhere in Europe. 

We brought the Jews out of Russia when they were being persecuted.  We can’t bring the Boers out of SA when they’re being killed? 

And why not, I’d like to know? 

Let’s start doing it!  If we don’t for some reason, or if they’d prefer not to leave the place that’s been their home for close to four hundred years, we should exert pressure on the SA government to let them form their own separate country.  If SA won’t agree, we should finance and arm them so they can take matters into their own hands and do what they need to, to survive. 

Johan, those Boers in that photo look like fine people, salt-of-the-earth folk, who’d be an asset to any country.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 13, 2006, 01:17 PM | #

“and re-settled in the United States or, depending on their preference, in Australia/NZ, the U.K., Ireland, Holland, Flanders, or elsewhere in Europe.”

I forgot Canada—Canada should open its doors to them too.  It’s a shame, a shame, a shame, a crime that their plight is being swept under the rug as it is.  Shame on every white country that doesn’t try to get them out of there or at least ship them arms and $$$!  I don’t want to hear about any Holocausts—not the Jewish one, not the Cambodian one, not the Rwandan one, not the Armenian one, not the North American Red Indian one—until the one taking place right now, right in front of our noses, is addressed and stopped.  I don’t want to hear about any of the others as long as whites around the world refuse to stop this one.  So sorry, but I don’t want to hear it; don’t want to hear the facile hypocrisy of moral lepers.

I’ve got better things to listen to.

Posted by adrian burr on January 13, 2006, 07:58 PM | #

somne of you use the term concentration camp.
this bringd forth a picture of mass murder as perpetrated by the germans.

the fact is that there were, i believe, 26,000 deaths from disease.
this issue was raised in the hose of commons at the time as an emergency issue and as part of the solution carbolic soap was shipped to the camps.

as for the comment “sexual exploitation” i cant believe i read that,
we are talking about the english victorians here. thinks about it for a minute !!!!! with the most professional army in the world at the time.

get real !!!!!!!

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 13, 2006, 08:10 PM | #

Interestingly, the IQ deviation between northern and southern Europe is even more significant when you overlay Madison Grant’s map even though Dienekes tries desperately to punch up Greek numbers. It’s also not suprising that Italian IQ has the largest standard deviation. Volkmar Weiss shows a southern Italian mean of 89, while regions in the north, Lombardy (103) Piedmont (99), Tuscany (99) and Veneto (102), all have much higher means, again correlating strongly with Grant’s map.

Even, w/o considering any other Nordic population the mean IQ deviation between Piedmont, in the north, and southern Italy, is the same as the standard deviation between whites and blacks in general.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 13, 2006, 08:15 PM | #

Should read “between Lombardy, in the north, and southern Italy,”

Posted by Phil on January 13, 2006, 10:58 PM | #

The British screwed South Africa and then fed it to the wolves. Our record is shameful. 

The Afrikaner was the hardiest, sturdiest and most virile of all European peoples in the world. And what did we do? Plot and scheme for a century and finally destroyed his land. First with a brutal war of aggression and then with sanctions and racial egalitarianism.

And now sitting in the comforts of home (not even living in Britain) in a nice all-white sub-urb we crack supposedly funny jokes about the Boers. Good stuff.

I’ll know Martin Hutchinson has a spine when he cracks a Negro joke. But he won’t.

Cracking jokes about Afrikaners requires real courage I suppose.

Posted by Matra on January 14, 2006, 12:04 AM | #

adrian burr somne of you use the term concentration camp.
this bringd forth a picture of mass murder as perpetrated by the germans.

I used the term “concentration camp” because that was what the British themselves called them. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken that was the first recorded use of the term.

It might not have been official policy to kill Boer women and children but what did the authorities think would happen when they threw them into camps lacking in sanitation? According to David Harrison in The White Tribe of Africa British newspapers, such as The Times, published reports and editorials saying the Boers were used to living in confined spaces and they didn’t like fresh air anyway so the camps were no big deal. Lord Milner, the British High Commissioner for South Africa, said the concentration camps, along with the killing of livestock, and crop burnings were designed “to knock the bottom out of the great Afrikaner nation for ever and ever Amen”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 14, 2006, 12:34 AM | #

“Lord Milner, the British High Commissioner for South Africa, said the concentration camps, along with the killing of livestock and crop burnings, were designed ‘to knock the bottom out of the great Afrikaner nation for ever and ever Amen.’ ” (—Phil)

In retrospect, with hindsight we now see that what they did amounted to an early step on the road to knocking the bottom out of the great British nation.  (In the States we have an expression:  “What goes around comes around” ...) Let’s hope the situation is still salvageable, and not “forever and ever.”

Amen.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 14, 2006, 12:39 AM | #

Pardon me, that quote in my comment was from Matra’s post just above it, not Phil’s.

Posted by Amalek on January 14, 2006, 12:57 AM | #

The Boer War demonstrated why imperialism is slow suicide for a monoracial nation. You cannot touch pitch without being defiled. You cannot keep the contamination outwith your own gates either. All those Victorian statesmen saturated in Gibbon should have realised as much.

If the British elite had been keener on improving the condition of its poor, instead of exporting hundreds of thousands to other continents, we would not now be hearing how essential it is to import cheap coloureds to fill gaps at the bottom of the labour market.

The white man’s burden was voluntary and unnecessary. It did not benefit the mass of the British people, only financiers, entrepot traders and suchlike (often alien) riffraff. A primary motive for the Boer War was to defend the Kaffir Circus interests of gold and diamond plutocrats: industries dominated by you-know-whos who wanted Tommy Atkins to defend their spoils-- plus ca change!

The most prosperous and peaceful European countries, Scandinavia and Switzerland, never hung colonial millstones round their necks and so did not have to indulge in spasms of liberal guilt prompting them to ‘invade the world, invite the world’, as Steve Sailer summarises US/UK foreign policy today. There was no ‘legacy of slavery’ or remorse about ‘exploitation’ to be worked off by mass immigration, or by fooling around militarily in partibus infidelium doing missionary work for democracy. And al-Qaeda, or whoever’s really pulling those spasmodic strokes, has not yet targeted Stockholm or Berne.

The British Empire was not just acquired in a fit of absence of mind; it was a gigantic faux pas which (for example) encouraged the former Boer warrior Churchill to pursue his stupid fantasy of vengeance and top-doggery in 1940. If we had learned the right lesson from the loss of the US colonies and emulated Washington’s recommendations for foreign policy, we should be richer and sleep easier in our beds 200 years later.

Posted by Phil on January 14, 2006, 08:39 AM | #

The most prosperous and peaceful European countries, Scandinavia and Switzerland, never hung colonial millstones round their necks and so did not have to indulge in spasms of liberal guilt prompting them to ‘invade the world, invite the world’

Amalek,

Half of that is correct. Switzerland is not wallowing in liberal guilt. The Swedes are and the Norwegians almost certainly are, even though they had no colonies.

Posted by Phil on January 14, 2006, 04:22 PM | #

The Boer War on the other hand, was a war of national liberation from the verkrampte Boer tyranny

The Boers were free men. Freer than the comfortable and weak Anglo bourgeoise will ever be capable of becoming.

Men who live in tyrannies tend not to fight particularly well - the Iraqis under Saddam being a good example of that. Man to man, the Boers were probably superior to almost all armies at that time.

Here is what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said of the Boers:

Take a community of Dutchmen of the type of those who defended themselves for fifty years against all the power of Spain at a time when Spain was the greatest power in the world. Intermix with them a strain of those inflexible French Huguenots who gave up home and fortune and left their country for ever at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The product must obviously be one of the most rugged, virile, unconquerable races ever seen upon earth. Take this formidable people and train them for seven generations in constant warfare against savage men and ferocious beasts, in circumstances under which no weakling could survive, place them so that they acquire exceptional skill with weapons and in horsemanship, give them a country which is eminently suited to the tactics of the huntsman, the marksman, and the rider. Then, finally, put a finer temper upon their military qualities by a dour fatalistic Old Testament religion and an ardent and consuming patriotism. Combine all these qualities and all these impulses in one individual, and you have the modern Boer—the most formidable antagonist who ever crossed the path of Imperial Britain.

Martin, I’ll take Sir Arthur’s judgement over yours.

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on January 15, 2006, 11:38 AM | #

The South African army.

The actual South-African army has 1.200 men who can immediately be brought into action and only 4 Elephant tanks that still work. Each year in September, the air force runs out of petrol because of budgetary reasons.

At this moment there still are between 1.400 and 2.000 white officers in the SA army. But because of Black Economic Empowerment (and certainly also because of other more evil intentions) all of them will in the coming two years be replaced by blacks, see (in Afrikaans).

http://www.news24.com/Die_Burger/Kommentaar/0,,4-78_1803769,00.html

Some other remarks:

Something about the South African farm murders has even found its way to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Farm_Murders

When the Boers write about the sexual exploitation of their women and children in the concentration camps during the Boer war, they usually add: “and the British army counted the highest number of sexual diseases of all armies in the world.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2006, 03:30 PM | #

Johan, thanks for that Wikipedia link on the ANC genocide against the Afrikaners!  I was also extremely interested to see the other link in the article, to proposals for an Afrikaner nation, the Volkstaat.  That is absolutely the right course for the Afrikaners!  May they prevail against genocide, and pray God they succeed in founding their own Afrikaner country and nation on the soil their fathers’ fathers bequeathed them nearly four hundred years ago!  That is their soil!  That is their land!

Long live the Afrikaner Volkstaat!  May God protect, bless and preserve the Afrikaner nation!

The flag of the Afrikaner nation

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on January 16, 2006, 07:35 AM | #

To Calvin: The Afrikaners’ prophet calls the Siener van Rensburg: (in Afrikaans) http://www.rieme.co.za/sienervanrensburg/ The Boer generals already consulted him. According to his prophecies D-day is now approaching for the Afrikaners (controversial).

One can imagine that in those ages, sitting around the camp fire and reading the bible, people were looking for more mysterious explanations than now. Don’t forget that the internet didn’t exist yet.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 28, 2006, 04:43 AM | #

To hell with all the references,referrals,etc.-You non testerone White excuses for manhood,should stop sucking nigger dick.You gave your country away to a bunch of beggers who you “thought"would treat you with mangnamity-what fucking planet are you from?No Ïndependant"African nation has achived a positive balance of payments since their inception.You old shit-heads deserve whats happening-I sincerely hope your children are abroad,because you will die,due to your stupidity.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 29, 2006, 04:35 AM | #

Johann-just ran across your pic-when can they move into my neighborhood? I’d get along just fine with them,and we would definitely have fewer home invasions,muggings,rapes,and other negroid activities.Tell them to bring their own ammunition-I only have .357,44 Mag,.308,and 32-40 ammo on hand. Your pic is in my save file.Semper Fi!  And Bowery-get off your self-proclaimed pedestal ,and start speaking as a member of the general population-most of us don’t want to be impressed with an obviously wasted education,nor overly erudite pontifications which are intent with self-verification of worth.Get a life-NASA is a box of shit since Von Braun left’,and bean-counters and bureaucrats took over.

Posted by john ray on September 29, 2006, 09:53 AM | #

“I used the term “concentration camp” because that was what the British themselves called them. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken that was the first recorded use of the term. ‘

It was first used in Cuba—by Americans

Posted by James Bowery on September 29, 2006, 10:23 AM | #

affa wrote: Even so, what’s your point? I’m sure % rural and average SAT score are inversely correlated, even if some rural states score well.

The correlation between SAT rank adjusted for participation rates by graduating students and percent rural is actually .09 to be precise.

affa then wrote: Plus, the SAT (particularly the math section) tests for more for school-learned knowledge than IQ, so SAT averages say more about an area’s school system than its IQ.

That may be true except the only difference when you look at the correlation between IQ and percent rural by state is that the southern states—heavy with African Americans—drag the correlation into negative territory.  If you eliminate them the correlation goes positive.

Posted by Phoenix on March 01, 2007, 07:00 AM | #

I want to know how the discussion turned from an assessment of rural vs. urban, which was not well-researched in the first place, to an argument on whether the Holocaust occured or not.  Anyone who believes the Holocaust did not happen is reading Nazi propaganda, and for what the Nazis preach they may as well still believe in Santa Claus.

Posted by Jan van Niekerk on July 17, 2007, 07:56 PM | #

What I noticed since I landed here in London and experience everyday here working amongst these Brits, is that they all suffer from an iferiority complex.

After they raped and pilaged almost every country on Earth, they were kicked out by those countries and now, sitting on this little pathetic island, the only way they can look intelligent is by being aloof, foul mouthed and bullies. In the words of one of the religious leaders in the UK: “We Brits are two faced, backstabbing hypocrits”.

Has anybode ever heard any brit saying sorry for the cowardly attitude in building the concentration camps?

Do you also find that they still have the same attitude in daily life?

Posted by leucocyte on July 29, 2007, 12:22 PM | #

I was born in and live in West Virginia, which is considered one of the most backward, ‘hic’, hillbilly states in the nation. It is also economically one of the poorest states.  I have endured all sorts of insults, name calling and being made fun of by folks in Maryland, Pennsyvania, California, Texas and just about every place else, when they find out I am from West Virginia.  Ironically, a place where no one made fun of me, at least not to my face, was in New York City. 

The state has a population of about two million, so if they were all lumped together, it wouldn’t make a major metropolitan area.
Yet, finding a web site that ranked states by IQ, I discovered that WV ranks about half way down. In other words, about as average as you can get. 

I don’t buy this city/rural IQ thing at all. I don’t believe that Los Angeles, with a latino population of 48%, and blacks around 15%, is going to have an IQ higher than WV with a White population of 97%. Latinos have an average IQ of around 83, and blacks around 85.  Unless the whites and jews living in Los Angeles have an exceptionally high IQ to bring up the average.  Half of the blacks and latinos don’t even graduate high school. And these races make up a major part of the population of metropolitan areas in the USA>

Posted by Lurker on July 29, 2007, 03:15 PM | #

Jan, you seem to have internalized a lot of propaganda there.

Its a good job the Dutch never colonised anywhere isnt it, otherwise your arguments might strike a rather false note.