We never knew for sure whether it was real, what caused it or whether it was limited only to the left side of the curve.  But the Flynn Effect appears to be at the end of its days in Europe, at least.

This from the Times:-

WE ARE ABOUT AS SMART AS WE’RE GOING TO GET, SAYS IQ PIONEER
* Test Results are starting to level out
* Morality skills are the next step

It is a common refrain, repeated in response to every new television reality show and every bumper crop of school exam results: society is dumbing down. Scientists have long argued the opposite, pointing to the now widely accepted “Flynn effect”, which shows that over the past century average IQ scores have improved across the developed world, irrespective of class or creed.

Now the man who first observed this effect, the psychologist James Flynn, has made another observation: intelligence test scores have stopped rising.

READ MORE...

Marco Raphael Castro:

“According to Wheaton police and school officials, the 17-year-old senior ejaculated into a bottle of ranch salad dressing on December 6 and returned the befouled condiment to the Wheaton North High School cafeteria.”

For your edification and instruction I reproduce herewith Mr Auster’s (we must presume) cooly considered and not at all emotionally overwrought or downright paraniod response to my “Letter” post.

If Godwin was dead he would be spinning like a top right now.

Anti-Semite issues me a challenge

“Guessed Worker,” the owner of the anti-Semitic weblog Majority Rights who wrote to me the other day, has a blog entry addressed to me at MR. It’s the standard far-white anti-Semitic message: (1) The real cause of the West’s racial ills is the Jews. (2) The key to saving the West is that the European white majority must get rid of the Jews. (3) Getting rid of the Jews will somehow make the European whites strong and enable them to handle their other race enemies, something they will never be able to do while the Jews are around undermining them. And, finally, (4) if I, as a person of Jewish ancestry, do not agree with propositions 1, 2, and 3, that proves that I am a race enemy of European whites like the rest of the Jews; but if I as a racial Jew agree to the destruction or ejection of the Jews, that shows that I am A-Ok.

Apart from the evil and falsity of this, which I’ve commented on so many times there’s no need to go through it again, I want to draw attention to the sheer (I have to make up a word for this) LOSERDOM of it. Here are people supposedly concerned about saving our civilization from the racial and cultural threats that engulf it. We have at present a million non-Westerners pouring into America every year. There are tens of millions of immigrants now in the U.S., and as many as 20 million illegals, most of them Mexicans. Diversity is transforming America left and right. Mosques are popping up everywhere. Muslim advocacy groups are at this moment trying to pass legislation that would make it virtually impossible for security personnel to take Muslims aside in an airport for questioning. Europe already has 20 million Muslims and has no will to do anything about it. And yet, in the midst of this multidimensional disaster, all that the Jew-haters can think about is the Jews. The Jews are the cause of it all. It’s almost as if the actual problems we face are too big and complicated and hopeless for the anti-Semites, too difficult for them to get a handle on, so they settle on a familiar bogeyman to which they can relate. Muslims, Hispanics, etc., with whom the anti-Semites have little in common culturally, are not that interesting as enemies. But the Jews, the Chosenites, the Ancient Adversary, aah, there’s an enemy you can sink your teeth into.

I’ve often spoken of the Non-Islamic Theories of Islamic Extremism, by which Western intellectuals come up with some familiar, Western problem, such as alienation, or inequality, or discrimination, or sexual repression, or low birth rates, or a loss of Western confidence, to explain the growth of Islamic extremism. Anything will do, so long as the explanation for Islamic extremism is not Islam itself. As a result, the proposers of these theories never have to propose doing anything about Islamic extremism. They just say, “Let’s fix this other problem, such as discrimination or lack of Western confidence, and that will somehow make the Islamic extremism go away by itself.”

Well, alongside the Non-Islamic Theories of Islamic Extremism, I think there is a parallel psychology at work among the anti-Semites: the Non-Nonwhite Theory of Nonwhite Invasion. According to this logic, we don’t have to do anything about the non-Western engulfment of the Western world. All we have to do is demonize and marginalize and exclude or kill the Jews, and that will make the problem of Third-Worldization somehow go away by itself.

It would appear that the far-white anti-Semites are as loath to confront the reality of the non-Western Other as the liberals and neoconservatives are.

Yes, well ... I hope he got that off his chest.  Further comment from me would be superfluous.  And you know ... so many Jews to “demonize, marginalize and exclude or kill”.  So little time.

UPDATE - ONE MORE BLAST

After due consideration of the thread at VFTR I’m afraid my resolve against one last blast crumbled.  I sent our friend this mail today:-

READ MORE...

READ MORE...

The following is a reply by me to Lawrence Auster, part of the on-going debate of Svi’s Inverted World post.

Lawrence,

You are painting yourself into a corner, and it is not one from which a principled argument for the survival of Western Civilisation can be prosecuted.

Let’s clear our lines.  You and I would not talk of saving Western Civ if its outlook was not dark and getting darker.  On this, then, we can agree.  The illness has many symptoms.  We don’t need to go into all of these now.  Some are of a nature that all genuine Conservatives - and you and I are both Conservatives - will immediately identify.  Some are of a nature that Conservatives might, given the current climate, be loathe to do so.  But I will come to the imposition of silence last of all.

You and I can also agree that Western Civilisation is the production of Western Man - to be precise, of European Caucasian Man.  You and I can agree that a demographic disaster for him, meaning the loss of homeland by race-replacement and deracination, is a civilisational disaster for the West.  Again, because we are both Conservatives we can agree that in a general sense the decay of liberalism, which sad condition includes such confections as Reaganite right-liberalism and neoconservatism, describes the possible political, sociological and demographic outcomes of our age.  Needless to say, these cannot be Conservative outcomes.

Perhaps, then, we can also agree that the West’s political, cultural and corporate elites are liberalism’s executive officers, and their collective, day-to-day actions steer the West down its course to disaster.

I am confident that you and I can also agree that Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism, Jewish largesse are highly germaine to that course.  (I know you have written critically, and rather refreshingly, of these things.)

That order of play - liberalism <> the liberal elite <> the Jewish engagement - is fair, I think, and should tell you that “you people”, as you name us, possess a proper understanding of the West’s political and cultural woes.  The next time you leap to your conclusion and feel the irresistible impulse to shout about how obsessed with Jewry we are, please entertain the smallest of doubts somewhere in your skull that you may, in fact, be wrong.  You are wrong now.

Very well, let’s continue.  You famously profess your desire to preserve our civilisation.  But such preservation has certain unavoidable and, for you, uncomfortable implications.  Genetically diverse peoples occupying a single living space do not merely compete as free individuals.  They compete as groups, each informed by specific group interests.  You acknowledge as much in objecting to mass imigration.  Therefore you know that competition for resources, for land and, most of all, for power is an expression of those interests.  Life is Manichean, that’s the truth.  And I should stress that it is so for evolutionary reasons.  Group interests are natural ethnic interests.  They are not culturally-imbued, as Frank Salter has shown.  They come with the skin we are in.

Notwithstanding all the familiar hogwash fed daily to European Caucasians to negate our instincts and make us blind to one another we, too, are possessed of natural ethnic interests.  And so are Jews, and those unidirectional Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism and Jewish largesse that I mentioned are transparent expressions of that.  One can see straight away from their divergent purpose that there is an unfathomably deep conflict with EC interests here.  It is a conflict that Jewry has been winning hands down since the end of WW2, and that is not without the most profound consequences for the fate of the European world.

Now we arrive at the first of two vital questions, Lawrence.  Can the creator peoples of Western Civ be pulled out of their liberal delusions sufficiently to save themselves and the Civ while their natural ethnic interests are denied them?  Your whole worldview argues a “Yes” to that question because you can’t quite bring yourself to resolve that conflict of interests in our favour.  That’s why I say you are painting yourself into a corner.  Because, of course, the correct answer is “No”.

And here’s the second seminal question: Can any Jew, a member of the most ethnocentric people on earth, ever deny his own ethnic interests and, for example, promote the European racial solidarity perquisite to saving the West?  I will believe it when I see it, and right now I am looking at you, Lawrence - at your many logical inconsistencies.

Now, I would very much like you to prove me wrong on that.  You can begin by putting aside the aggressive naming of us.  This is what the Jewish enemies of ECs always do when we show signs of reconnecting with our ethnic interests.  They silence us with a cold douche of vile words.  It’s very ugly.  And it’s not remotely in your interests, old man, if you are telling the world the truth on your website every day.

Regards,

GW

MR commenter VanSpeyk suggested that we might put up a thread on European male/Far Eastern female miscegenation.  So here it is:-

I am not impressed by worries about losing America’s Anglo-European identity. Some of the most American people I know are immigrants from other parts of the world. And I’d a hell of a lot rather live in a Little Vietnam or a Little Guatemala neighborhood, even if I couldn’t read the store signs, than in many white-bread communities I can think of.

Charles Murray

Lawrence Auster takes up the story:-

Derbyshire commented:

Pure Murray—clear, succinct, data-based, no punches pulled. And not a thing I can see to disagree with [emphasis added].

Ok, Murray couldn’t care less if Anglo-European America disappears from the universe. We knew that he’s a libertarian social scientist, and as such is indifferent to cultural and ethnic realities except insofar as they can be reduced to data points. But what about Derbyshire’s agreeing with Murray? Wasn’t Derbyshire a paleoconservative on immigration, meaning someone who is attached to America’s and the West’s historic cultures and peoples? I noted a couple of months ago how he had urged that conservatives refuse to vote for the House Republicans, which, I said, would lead to the passage of Bush’s amnesty and “guest-worker” program. But now Derbyshire has gone much further, explicitly opting for a non-white America. In the past, Derbyshire had said he likes the social company of New York liberals more than that of Red State conservatives. Now he says he prefers a non-white America to white America.

Also note how race-blindness or race-neutrality never remains as such. Among Murray’s earlier points was that “English should be the only language ... in which the public’s business is conducted.” But then Murray turns around and, backed by Derbyshire, says that he prefers the non-Western communities springing up in America, even when their signs are not in English. In other words, Murray’s (and Derbyshire’s) endorsement of an American cultural component that is safely race-neutral, such as the English language, instantly gives way in the face of Murray’s (and Derbyshire’s) active preference for non-whites and active dislike of whites.

By the way, Derbyshire is married to an Asian woman, and Murray’s first wife, with whom he had two daughters, is Asian. Not that marriage to a non-white is a necessary basis of race-treason, since race-treason is the prevalent belief system of the contemporary West. But it is virtually impossible for a white married to a nonwhite to maintain a sense of identity with the white race.

I had a crack a getting at the root of race consciousness<>race blindness here.  But race treason is something else.  It has a finality to it.  Our arguments cannot reach it, and I agree with Lawrence Auster that that is most especially so where mixed-race progeny complicate the situation.  The battle is lost.

Treason through liberalism - real, thorough-going ideological treason - is largely an elites issue.  But anybody can marry an East Asian girl and bring her to the West, and frequently does.  For the loving couple, of course, there are attractions either way that I do not need to describe here.  But the resultant gene flow is for ever.  In the aggregate and old John Maynard’s long run it changes us, and we did not ask for that.  We have the collective right to apply social stigma at an individual level.  Albeit it a blunt object, it is a true one.

Murray and Derbyshire light the way for what will become of our ethnic solidarity if sufficient white men take the Silk Road.  Of all the other troubles we have with securing our racial future the loss of the white male to white womanhood is by no means the least.

After the cartoons came the Conference:-

According to the foreign ministry in Tehran, 67 researchers from 30 countries are attending the conference in Iran, which is home to 25,000 Jews.

Participants include a number of well-known “revisionist” Western academics.  American David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, is to present a paper.

Well, I suppose it was a tough call.  Grab the chance to shake hands with Nejad’s funny boys and pontificate in front of the world’s press ... or pass up the one international platform revisionists have been given in sixty years.  Maybe the 67 figured (probably wrongly) they had nothing to lose.  Maybe they followed the old rogue’s dictum: Publicity, bad.  No such thing as.  Maybe they lacked the integrity of the man brought in chains to Mannheim District Court last Wednesday, the translation of whose grave testimony that day is now circulating on the web.  Here it is (PDF).

Tehran you can forget.

This news report - “Fatherless babies in fertility revolution” - is a classic product of liberalism’s dessication.  It ascribes to fatherhood and the nuclear family no significance or worth beyond that of a blind, accidental permutation.  Its social malignity is almost too obvious and too tawdry to have to explain to the liberal mind.  The liberal mind, in any case, is not listening.  The liberal mind has no thought for the health and stability of children.  It is consumed by the pursuit of the unfettered will.

The most relevant parts of the report, from the Telegraph, I reproduce below the fold.

However, in doing so I am not only seeking to critique liberalism and spread the socially conservative gospel.  I want to air the question of whether liberal idealism or Jewish ethnic interest underpins leftward developments of today’s kind.

I don’t doubt that homosexual “rights” had a creative push from Jewish sources because they furthered the classic Jewish interest of weakening the host.  At the same time it is as plain as day to me that the pursuit of the unfettered will, as it is embedded in and expressed by advanced liberalism, provides sufficient explanation for the “fatherless baby”.  Jewish adumbrations on equality are not wholly necessary to today’s outcome, and it can be argued that they are peripheral at most.

The question is important because realism on the JQ is as needy among conventionally-minded Conservatives as breadth of understanding is to the harder edge of Nationalism.  Really, it comes down to a question of modern ideological parentage.

Contributions from the floor, as always, are warmly invited.  My feeling is that the hard men will have all the good songs, but the politically-minded are probably nearer the truth.

The Telegraph report said:-

READ MORE...