The bellend curve
Updated: May 11, 2022
The Bell Curve is basically correct as far as its central thrust goes: intelligence determines your ability to earn money, social stratification can largely be explained with reference to IQ—and IQ is both heritable and linked to race. Intelligence here, to clear up definitions, refers to an ability to solve problems—the faster you can solve problems, make novel inferences from events, the more intelligent you are. The generalisable capacity to do so has a quintessence, Spearman’s “g”, inferred from data—just as people inferred that Pluto existed before they saw it. Although there are quibbles about whether “g” exists or whether some other “intelligence factor” or definition might apply, I think these are just egalitarian coping strategies to deal with the fact that one of the few genuine discoveries from psychology contradicts egalitarianism and confirms common sense.
Put simply: there are bright people and silly people, hence there is inequality—and the tendency to be bright or silly runs in the family, although it does not replicate in a linear way through the generations (every bright family has an occasional clot, every dull family has an occasional genius). In other words, pretty much what any farmhand would have told you two centuries ago: “There be folks bawn with brains and folks without, just like our queer Jim. Just like thee squire’s horse, Plurabell, she warse bawn dim—yet if you take Spartan out of thee stable he can count better wiv ‘is hooves than me own granda; just like ‘is favver an all!”
So why is The Bell Curve really The Bellend Curve? As with much academic literature—popular academic literature—it is an exercise in pseudo-thought. All the noise around the book is mostly caused by the left being upset about IQ, heritability, and the link to race—amid the noise, nobody notices the book’s real deficiencies; the argument is all centred around the two paragraphs above, with all sorts of rhetorical and emotional appeals for them not to be true—yet I have granted Murray and Herrnstein their central thrust as true; and I also grant that their critique of affirmative action is true. So what is my major malfunction?
The first hint there is a problem with The Bell Curve comes when M&H outline how America (the West, effectively) risks stratification into a “cognitive elite” and “the rest”: thanks to meritocracy, a small elite of highly intelligent people monopolise the top universities and the administrative structure of the country—they live in a world completely disconnected from those they govern. M&H note that there is a tendency to mate assortively (people with PhDs marry PhDs, not scrubbers from the local council estate); hence America is effectively forming a cognitive class that is a caste. In connection with this argument, early on, M&H note that since women have entered “the boardroom” and mix as equals with men it is quite likely that an ambitious female lawyer (M&H are very keen on lawyers, of which more anon) will attract a mate assortively—mate with a fellow lawyer, perhaps to form a “lawyer caste”. It is then asserted that men have started to find “brains” as attractive as other female assets (tits and ass), thanks to feminism.
Guys, stahp. This is just laughable, and it is especially laughable from people who claim that intelligence is heritable and heritable within races. So intelligence is deeply ingrained in our evolutionary history, yet somehow, over two generations, men will start to prefer “brains” to tits and ass? No; and nothing has changed in this regard since 1994—nor will it change short of major genetic tinkering. Now, yes, lawyers do mate assortively; however, it is the assertion that “brains” have become attractive that is salient here, not the facts about lawyers and their marriages: M&H have a slant, actually a leftist slant, on their study. Now, perhaps they added “brains” in as camouflage because they knew the main work would upset the left, so they decided to try and mollify them with some feminist rhetoric in the hope it would lessen the anger over their assertions about race and intelligence—possible, although it does not feel that way; and, besides, if they are prepared to do that then they are not really committed to the truth, they want to manipulate us into their slant in some way.
Indeed, M&H are on the left: they are for the meritocracy—and, despite an admission that it leaves everyone worse off, they want incomes to be subsidised; and they say laissez-faire will never come back. This brings me to my central problem with the The Bell Curve, it omits two crucial factors that contribute to social stratification: character and ethnocentricity. As with many social science works, The Bell Curve deals with people as if they are atoms, interchangeable except with regards to one factor, intelligence, that is entirely neutral and connected to money-making (more money being the reward for good problem-solvers)—the only other factors taken into account are diligence, race, and conscientiousness. M&H see man as a machine that solves problems to make money—this is almost their entire view as to what a man is; and it is not an accurate picture.
As M&H relate, around 1952 Harvard changed. Previously, it had been—in line with elite Anglo universities—an institution that turned out gentlemen. Although almost all really bright people went to university, the main student body was not that bright—not stupid, just not stellar. The university wanted to produce all-rounders: people who were polite, knew how to row, and had a smattering of book learning. These young gentleman might be taught by the archetypal “mad” professor, the ludicrously intelligent man who simply could not function outside the university.
Very high intelligence departs from common sense, so the mad professor has to be cared for in the university because if he boiled an egg he would burn down his own kitchen—possibly he needs someone to cut his toenails, and without care and attention he would wander round in his dressing gown with long gnarled and yellow claws. People like this almost never survive in the ordinary work world. The young gentlemen tolerated or largely ignored their nutty professors, who were left to their peculiar researches that had no particular economic value but might eventually turn up a useful idea twenty years down the line.
The meritocracy shattered this world: it was done intentionally, by the state—the state hates an organically formed quality elite, an elite that thinks for itself. You see, the young gentlemen were taught to teach themselves—taught independent thought, taught history. Ah, to know history—well, we cannot allow that: to know history suggests historicism—a totalitarian notion linked to organicism and holism; it must go. We must live in an eternal present, a parody of eternity, where “history” is what the state broadcaster says it is today. As M&H relate, the old world went: the meritocracy said people should not be assessed for quality, for all-round character—no, they deserved a place in the universities because they were smart; they had the requisite IQ. You see, IQ is rational and scientific, whereas “quality” is some prejudicial WASP notion connected to Christianity and ancient Greece—of which we have no need for in the modern world, though we have need for lawyers; for clever liars, in other words—and this is what the Western elite became, for a university trains people to govern and administer.
M&H do not put it in these terms, but this is what happened: the young gentlemen were displaced or diluted in favour of people who were smarter. This, in turn, destroyed genuine scholarship: the 150 IQ reclusive genius who was previously left alone to potter over his medieval manuscripts found himself surrounded not by amiable young gentlemen out for “larks” but by earnest 115 IQ strivers out to advance their careers—and along with meritocracy came government oversight, the demand to produce “x” number journal articles per year, to fill in grant applications (to produce bullshit, to produce pretend scholarship to meet the quota—just like in the Soviet Union).
This is how Western universities came to produce women like Nina Jankowicz, Biden’s “truth tsar”; she is undoubtedly very clever, she even made up her own song based on Mary Poppins; yet she is clearly not a quality person, rather she is a bright narcissistic social conformist—even if she is supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. These earnest intelligent strivers willingly persecute a reclusive genius in eloquent and politically correct terms, while the tongue-tied autist struggles to make his point (“He’s such a frickin’ weirdo”)—for dessert, perhaps, they claim that the lacrosse team tried to rape them (precisely because they did not).
The problem is that M&H clearly think this development was a grand thing. Sure, they worry that there is cognitive stratification, since the right-hand side of the bell curve now all go to universities—yet they do not think the cognitive elite itself is bad. They make many deprecatory and sneery remarks about the old WASP elite; for, as they say, higher IQ means that you make more money—and they themselves are keen to relate how a colleague made extra cash on the side as a consultant in jury selection, in fact prostituting his scholarship to “get results” for corporations. Since M&H admire him for this feat, for his efforts to rig a jury for his clients, they cannot be that interested in scholarship, justice, or virtue.
The archetype for the cognitive elite for M&H is “the lawyer”. Rather strange, no? I mean, we all know that physicists and mathematicians and engineers are brighter than lawyers—yet M&H tuck them away. Instead, they return to the lawyer as the most representative archetypal example of the cognitive elite. Now, it is true, per their graphs, that lawyers score higher than the other occupations on verbal intelligence—no surprise. Yet nobody thinks that law is as hard as quantum physics or engineering—or even medicine. Neither do M&H think that either, they subtly admit that a visuospatial tilt on IQ is superior to a verbal tilt—yet still, they have the lawyer and not the physicist as the cognitive elite par excellence. Come to think, do lawyers produce any value at all? Unlike the other professions mentioned, the lawyer is more or less—outside criminal law—a parasite, is he not? What is the cognitive elite, really? A parasite class?
Perhaps it is because M&H live in America, land of the lawyer. We will return to this subject, but it is very indicative as to what M&H really mean by a “cognitive elite”—after all, the classic caution from a law professor: “If you’re interested in justice, the theology department is that way.” In short: a lawyer is a clever liar—a man who, as M&H say with admiration, looks for novel loopholes in the law; a Pharisee and a hypocrite. This is what M&H mean by a “cognitive elite”: they mean that American universities, Western universities, now create clever and cynical liars who are very good at earning money regardless the consequences—not gentlemen and not quality people. Hence the contemporary Western elite is composed from bellends—the “cognitive elite” can be represented by a social science tool I have just developed, a purely qualitative device known as “the bellend curve”.
Timothy Leary is my favourite case study for the type that came to dominate the Western university system under meritocracy; he attended or held posts at multiple elite institutions—including Harvard and West Point—and had a 141 IQ; and yet he was a destructive influence on America and the world. Notably, he was an ethnic outsider—an Irishman—whose family had an alcoholic background (he was a drinker himself, and swapped drink for LSD). I take Leary as an extreme example of what the cognitive elite looks like at work. Here are a few examples where Leary used his high intelligence in perverse ways:
1. At West Point, Leary broke the honour code; he was then punished by an old ritual whereby he was sent to Coventry—no other cadet would speak to him; usually, cadets shunned in this way just left the academy. Instead, Leary—even though he was in the wrong—put up with the silent treatment for months at a time. No doubt he used his ability to delay gratification to endure the social isolation—a harsh “marshmallow test”. Eventually, the authorities caved—new recruits arrived and wondered what was up with the shunned man; Leary’s resistance to shunning put the whole punishment system in doubt. Leary asked for a clean discharge, and he received one. Leary used his intelligence to break the rules and dishonourably beat the system.
2. I said in a previous article that Leary promoted LSD use to America’s youth. Yet this is not technically true, as Leary would be quick to point out. He would always say words to the effect: “LSD is a very powerful drug, not to be taken lightly; it’s not for everyone—we must be cautious.” However, after he provided these very sober caveats Leary would extol LSD; he would say words to the effect: “The drug allows you to access and control your own consciousness, to achieve union with the cosmic mind in one simple step.” Obviously, everyone would forget the warning and just remember the bit about how wonderful LSD is. Yet, technically, in lawyerly mode, Leary never said that LSD was a safe drug that everyone should try.
3. When he was finally caught and charged with escape from prison (Leary was helped by the Weather Underground, a very elite and intelligent terror group), Leary turned state’s evidence and talked himself out of what for most people would have been 20-year prison stretch. Rather than sulk resentfully, the clever Leary talked and talked. Although many of his old hippy friends abandoned him as a traitor, Leary managed to provide no evidence that led to any convictions. In other words, Leary was smart enough to give evidence that sounded extremely useful, yet was in practice useless. The event was analogous to his first escape from prison: his personality was tested with a test that he himself had devised—Leary answered so the test would read him as a docile prisoner; he was then sent to a low-security prison that was easy to escape from. Note, neither action was honourable.
The three points above exemplify how pathological high-IQ elites act—along the way, although he was eventually thrown out, Leary was endorsed and supported by institutions like Harvard; and that endorsement gave his message credibility. “Former Harvard prof says…” As M&H rightly note, high-IQ people produce more value; they have a force multiplier effect—so did Leary; his IQ and social connections allowed him to have a vast negative effect on millions of youngsters; he produced ample “negative value”—bad vibes, as they said back then. After all, per Yarvin, Harvard was founded to train priests—Leary was a psychologist, a modern priest for the nation; he preached his drug religion and was accepted by many. So all the meritocracy did was take men like Leary—ethnic outsiders with mental problems—and turned them into extremely influential people.
Further, Leary represents an extreme case; he went rogue and broke with the system—even so he was given ample media exposure, thanks to his credentials, to spread his message; yet his influence was limited because he broke with the system. There are thousands of other people who are like Leary but less extreme who have gone on to be functional educators, journalists, administrators, and so on; they have the same spite in them, often particularly towards WASPs—and they have huge unchecked influence within the state; they are the state’s administrators, they were trained to it. They probably do more damage, all told, than Leary—each has his fiefdom, and perhaps they coordinate themselves through cabals (ethnic, homosexual) to America’s detriment.
As noted elsewhere, wisdom and intelligence are opposed. Intelligence is analytical; and to analyse literally means, if you examine the etymology, “to break down”—first thing you do with a maths problem, break it into smaller parts. Wisdom is holistic; it takes the whole into consideration, it is qualitative—it is like an animal. Intelligence is the mad scientist who wants to dissect the animal; he wants to kill wisdom. It is a cliché today to say “we treat the whole person”; it is said because almost nobody does, so there is just an item on the NHS training checklist that says “treat the whole person”—if 80% of staff complete the checklist then “quality of life” has gone up this year. So the way to choose a quality elite is to consider character, the whole person—something M&H mock, they dislike the fact that Harvard administrators tried to put sports requirements and similar “social tests” into the admissions process (interferes with pure IQ, pure quantity, you see).
Sometime ago, on the Salo Forum, someone, possibly T777, noted that America has IQ instead of virtue; and this sums up the situation very well. M&H reduce everything to the ability to solve problems to make money; people with high IQs do this very well—no matter how they do it (loopholes), hence they are laudable. M&H do mention “civility” briefly and say that high-IQ people naturally have it; however, rather than real virtue what they mean are things like whether or not you voluntarily cut your lawn or water your neighbours’ plants while they are on holiday—intelligent people do indeed do well at these things. Then again, Timothy Leary was perfectly civil, for the most part; he never punched and spat and was generally pro-social—and so is Nina Jankowicz, no doubt; and yet neither Leary nor Jankowicz constitute quality people, even if they would hold the door open if you had your hands full. Hence M&H have a very limited conception as regards “pro-sociality”—very middle class, hardly Homeric.
For M&H, the only question is whether the cognitive elite will be allowed to dominate or whether universities will be thrown open to lesser people. Hence you often see an artificial debate about whether more POC should be admitted to elite universities, and then the American right protests that this hurts high-IQ Asians who would otherwise take those places. Note that both sides are only interested in quantity: one wants everyone, effectively, to attend elite institutions—the other side wants only high-IQ people, even if they are vicious, to attend university. Nobody cares about character—there is no quality control, no virtue, in this system.
I used to know a Pakistani guy who was the third generation in his family to go to an Oxbridge college. His father was a doctor and my acquaintance used to write clever critiques of French art films. Well, much better these clever people go to Oxbridge than some brainless son of an aristocrat, an English M&H might say. The cognitive elite in action. One day, my associate disappeared and when he came back he explained that he had to go to Pakistan because his cousins and uncles had a dispute—so he spent a few days in the family compound with an AK-47, just in case one tribal branch tried to wipe out his branch. Three generations at Oxbridge—and the family was nominally Marxist to boot—and they were still engaged in feudal inter-tribal warfare. Indeed, the father, in his state-sponsored clinic, pretty much treated the extended tribe, now transplanted to Britain, in his surgery.
But their IQs are high and so can increase GDP…Poindexter, Poindexter, I say, as I repeatedly slap the little nerd on the head with a clipboard: these people can solve problems, no doubt, yet what about their insane tribalism? Did you not consider it is also in the blood? What happens, Poindexter, when you let people who are highly ethnocentric and intelligent into your national institutions? Do you think they will administer neutrally and in the interests of all just because they are “smart”? Of course not, the tribalism is in the blood—all they learned at Oxford was how to use Marxism to attack the European society they were transplanted into, while they lived it up as feudal lords at home.
In the same way, the high-IQ Asians who lament—after all those hours studying differential equations—that they never make it to Harvard raise another question that M&H neglect: ethnocentricity—both natural and acquired. For M&H, success is explained by high IQ alone, yet there is another factor in success—your network, and some races have a tighter network than others. This is why the overseas Chinese tend to dominate various commercial activities in southeast Asia, and why the Jews dominate in Hollywood and the international diamond trade. Hence H&M’s explanation for success is not complete; it is not just high IQ—it is high IQ plus an optimum social strategy.
This is why the Jews do well in Hollywood, a cutthroat narcissistic environment where trust is very low; you cannot just trust individuals, so it helps to have that added tribal trust—just as it helped all the Semitic groups to be tribal in Arabia; and the Armenians, with a similar behavioural strategy, also make out okay in Hollywood. A few Europeans understand this as well, and this is why Scientology does well in Hollywood; Scientology provides acquired ethnocentrism—this ultra-tight cult mimics tribal life and helps people who would otherwise be too individualistic to get ahead in la-la land. This is why people become and remain Scientologists, despite its odd rites—no odder than circumcision or total-immersion baptism, really. The queers have also developed acquired ethnocentrism too, the “gay mafia” is real—and, since some families reject children who decide to be openly homosexual, there is a strong incentive to form an artificial tribe; and the “gay mafia” does not necessarily match the official state-backed LGBT movement, just as official Jewish groups do not necessarily reflect real ethnic networks.
Taken alone, this fact demolishes the “cognitive elite”. There is no such thing as a neutral high-IQ elite that will improve the nation, especially in countries that are as highly racially diverse as America has become—and Europe has become too, really. People with high IQs do not neutrally work for the “public good”; they work for their own good, being selected to be cutthroat strivers, and the good of their ethnic patronage networks—or their artificial tribe. “The meritocracy” was always a Trojan horse to destroy the organic elite that governed Western societies and replace it with defective people and ethnic gangster networks—the trick was achieved through a pure fascination with raw intelligence, presented under a scientific guise and backed by the greedy idea that it would increase economic productivity. This is why we have elites who write articles about how the US needs “1bn Americans”, they only think about quantity—and they have no link to the people they govern.
Northwest Europeans, by contrast to the groups mentioned above, tend to be more individualistic; not totally individualistic, a totally individualistic society would be impossible—just slightly more so, just as a standard deviation’s difference can mean a lot in outcomes from an IQ perspective. When northwest Europeans throw their institutions open to anyone they will be outcompeted by more ethnocentric groups; higher ethnocentricity wins over individualism in computer simulations. Indeed, this has already happened; and this is why the much-despised WASPs—nobody is despised more than a winner turned loser—have become a stub at Harvard. Of course, this will be presented as justified by the IQ-heads and the left alike—the IQ maniacs and “the woke” are two sides on the same coin.
As noted before, intelligence destroys wisdom—wisdom is holistic, whereas intelligence breaks down. Notice that America herself is governed in a broken down way by her cognitive elite; for example, America vigorously supports Israel—and this places her essentially at war with the Islamic world, with over 1 billion people. Now, America is protected by oceans from Islam and the Muslims are not very bright; so she is in little danger—yet her entire Middle East policy is driven by a tiny group, Zionist Jews, many in the new cognitive elite. Indeed, America’s enthusiastic support for Israel dates to around the time “the gentlemen” were displaced by the “cognitive elite” in government—the gentlemen were decried as “Arabists” by the neoconservatives in the cognitive elite, yet really all this meant was that they did not unreservedly support Israel; yes, the much-despised WASPs did not see an American interest in unqualified support for Israel—perhaps they were, as M&H say, in a rather unclassy way, “dumb”.
The whole strategy has been self-defeating; for two decades, the West, being led by America, waged war against Islam in an awkward way that had to avoid any reference to Christianity or European racial identity—the governing elite could not risk that propaganda strategy, the optimal one to defeat Islam, because it would awaken European consciousness to the predominant role played in American public affairs by the Jews; and this is why, in part, NATO was defeated in Afghanistan. Wisdom is greater, the Afghan elite follows wisdom—the Afghans were led by people who had their interests at heart, not by cynical and manipulative lawyers. Hence the Europeans could never be mobilised for war against Islam in an effective way, everything was lopsided and qualified to fight the “real enemy”—Christianity and European identity.
If America were governed holistically, most people would say there is a tiny American interest in Israel—there must be a small interest because there are relatively many Jews in America, yet it should in no way be as pronounced as it is today; it is an unsound policy—only a tiny proportion of the population have an interest in Israel, and the same goes for Britain. Yet because America is not governed holistically, she is governed intelligently and craftily, she supports Israel unreservedly. This is just one example, mirrored in the wider West, and it has come about due to greed and hypocrisy—a lack of honour, an obsession with quantity.
To break in another direction, just so as to show this is not an attempt to pick on the Jews: consider the Supreme Court—it has a Catholic majority. Well, the Jews are intelligent and good at law—and they are ethnocentric, so they surely they should dominate the court (with such high IQs their positions would always be justified)? However, Catholicism tends to be popular among more ethnocentric races (Irish, Italians, Latinos) and it also—like the “gay mafia” (not a joke about Jesuits)—confers ethnocentricity if you join it. It seems that, in politicised law anyway, it is a superior group strategy to Judaism. The Catholic justices—Catholic lawyers and judges in the political justice biz—also have a neat Schelling point to coordinate around, abortion. Hence an Anglo-Protestant institution is now dominated by justices who will rule for states’ rights, but not because they support states’ rights at heart (perhaps they yearn for an “integralist” system really) but because to rule in that way is the only means to frustrate abortion.
Whatever the concrete outcomes, you see the problem—the country is governed in a fractured and unwise way; as regards foreign policy, it is bent towards Israel and as regards abortion it is bent towards Catholicism. Note well, this is not, unlike the M&H contention, a problem that revolves around a unified cognitive elite that is separate from everyone else—rather it is a fractured political system with multiple elites, many working at cross purposes to defend their fiefdoms and people.
So what went wrong with America’s elites? Firstly, what goes wrong with any state in decline: decadence. Success leads to luxury and luxury leads to a departure from reality-adjusted and responsible decision-making—it leads you to implement the New Deal (although the problem began long before then); and it leads you to desire to destroy the organic system whereby the elite is cultivated—and it is destroyed on the scientific and rational grounds that IQ tests support a change as regards who is admitted to college. Hilariously, the very process that was meant to cultivate a more scientific and technical elite and so lead to greater economic growth has contributed to economic stagnation and retardation—the “data-driven” decision-makers are data-driven liars, and they would have better used their intelligence to run lemonade stands, to genuinely grow the economy, than to be government bureaucrats.
So the change is partly self-inflicted, once you opt for socialism—as happened under the New Deal—the state will want to destroy the organic sites where elites form (private schools, Harvard) and insert loyalists; yet someone has to open the door for the Trojan horse, and, if William S. Burroughs’s biographer is to be believed, in the 1930s a substantial slice of the Harvard humanities staff were already full-blown Communists—and yet the staff never makes these decisions, though they can contribute.
Another factor, the Jews were notably excluded from many American and European educational institutions for many centuries. The Jews constituted a high-IQ emigrant group into America who, by the 1930s, would have been established enough to feel the pinch from exclusion from the institutions that formed the governing elite—it is hard to imagine that Jewish organisations did not lobby for the barriers to come down, and one way to justify those the barriers coming down would be to argue for meritocracy: point to Einstein; if you leave these talented people out in the cold, think how much the country will lose out…we would never have the atom bomb—just look at the IQ scores, for the nation…
I do think this is an issue, since it explains why M&H are quite so vituperative about the WASPs—otherwise, I see no reason to be; although, of course, humans naturally kick the loser. Indeed, one interpretation from The Bell Curve is that when M&H say the cognitive elite are “a caste” or risk becoming “a caste” that they allude to the disproportionate representation of Jews among the cognitive elite, the tribe or the caste—and that The Bell Curve is a way to justify that over-representation to intelligent gentiles: “Look, you may have noticed an awful lot of Jews in key positions, but it’s completely justified because we’re governed by a ‘cognitive elite’ chosen by IQ—100% scientific (not due to a tendency to network ethnocentrically).”
M&H say that the cognitive elite is like a country unto itself, divided from the nation it governs—by which they partly mean that all the people who go to elite universities consume PBS, the NYT, drive the same cars, and so on. Another interpretation would be that they refer to the situation whereby the Jews have found themselves disproportionately in decision-making positions in America and yet feel bewildered and disconnected from the bulk of America they govern—movements such as neoconservatism and neoreaction being Jewish attempts to repurpose gentile culture to an acceptable extent to prevent their more leftist coethnics from collapsing the country altogether.
This would explain why M&H specifically say they do not want to go back to the old university curriculum, the old British curriculum, with an emphasis on the Bible and classical Greece. Why so hostile to the formula that created the British Empire and sustained America’s continental expansion? It was the formula that taught genuine virtue—along with sports. It built the country. It was the system—a system that connected a people with its history—that was abandoned because it was allegedly “useless” and unscientific. Why not go back? Well, M&H say that instead we need a “virtue”—a “virtue” that teaches students about a confection called “Judeo-Christianity” and “Great Books” (the Great Books idea being created by a Jewish academic, where Goethe and Shakespeare are treated as interchangeably “great”). The return to the system that worked is unacceptable because that system—Christ and Homer—excludes the Jews, and reconnects Europeans with their primal Greek history; hence it must be excluded, even though it is what is required to regenerate a holistic elite.
I reached this position partly because M&H make comments that are so acerbic about WASPs and WASP businessmen, basically the people who built America—who are effectively derided for being “dumb”. Although it is true, per Yarvin, that elements in the progressive quasi-religion predate mass migration to America—for example, The Bostonians depicts feminism around the Harvard area that is recognisable as today’s feminism, just in the 1880s before the immigration issue pinched. Yet the racial and anti-Christian aspects, the disdain for WASPs in particular, are novel and seems to creep into popular academic work in the late 1970s; and it seems more in accordance with racial antagonism from outsider groups, certainly I cannot find it in autochthonous works as I can find feminism in Henry James—hence it probably originates with racial outsiders: the Jews, the Italians, and the Irish.
Certainly, the WASPs were “dumb” in one regard; they should never have admitted the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews—the anti-immigration nutcases in the late 1800s were correct, and yet the WASPs, being more individualistic, were fated to be convinced to open the borders (the borders have been opened ever since). Once the system to train a holistic elite broke down under conditions where the state had achieved a fascistic level of control, the situation was ripe for the elite to fragment into ethnic and pseudo-ethnic cliques; and the country would never really be governed as one coherent entity again—the era of “the cognitive elite” has been an era of decline; and this is because while IQ is real and intelligence valuable, neither is the same as wisdom.