Sunday, August 07, 2005

Circular Simultaneity of Civilization

Professor Leny Mendoza Strobel:

I just read your April 2003 essay A Hundred Years of American Tutelage And We Are Still Uncivilized, in regard to the “otherness” of Filipino expatriates, and I thought I’d write some comments. First of all, I enjoyed you style of writing, and the cogent points you made. It was a good read. But, there is more I want to say.

As you can see from my photo below, I am 62, Caucasian, and male. I’m smiling because I am happily married to a little brown woman. She could be from the Philippine Islands (P.I.), but she isn’t. She is Puerto Rican. I was born in Texas and have never ventured to the Philippines. There is much I do not know about the islands, its culture, its history, and its people. You and I are, other than residing in America and having been exposed to its culture and people, worlds apart. It would be almost miraculous if we saw anything eye to eye. Maybe a miracle is brewing.

The Civilizing Question Has Been Mooted

You mentioned a couple of books you read that opened your mind to some profound thoughts about the so-called civilizing process Caucasians have imposed on inferior races of people, and you poignantly pointed out the harsh possibility that the process was all wrong because there is no arbiter of which civilization is superior. You suggested it is better to have ancestors, roots, and relatives than somebody else’s civilization. I was somewhat intrigued by those assertions, for they do highlight important questions that deserve concrete answers. More importantly, they highlight a salient reality: major elements of every racial group that has undergone a civilizing process at the hands of another racial group would provide a concrete answer that is not only different from its civilizer’s answer, but also begs to be “right”, which it usually isn’t, in the grand scheme of things. You’ll see why I say that as you read on.

As you know from the American involvement with the P.I. since 1898, America cut the apron strings as soon as it became politically wise to do so. Many Caucasian Americans thought the civilizing process over Filipinos and Moros was a pointless waste of money and lives, just as many would feel the same about a similar involvement in sub-Saharan Africa (we can thank God none of the European governments lost a war to the USA and handed over one of their African colonies to the USA as a war prize). It wasn’t just Filipinos and Moros who thought American involvement in the P.I. was a bad idea.

After all, who’s to say the hustle and bustle of American cities and towns and the cushy lives of most Americans are at all superior to the dawn-to-dusk struggle for survival of the American wigwam, teepee, or pueblo dwellers, or of the marauding, pillaging, enslaving, woman-stealing, jungle-dwelling Muslim Moros of the Sulu Archipelago? Who’s to say Catholicism and Calvinism of the conquering Caucasians are superior religions to Islam, animism, polytheistic idol worship, or praise of Mother Earth and the Great Spirit?

Miraculously, I agree with you that those are interesting questions, and that the answers are troublesome, if one is to be honest. But you, being excessively politically correct (in keeping with modern tradition for university professors), not to mention somewhat feminist, will feel so uncomfortable with a spate of those answers that getting an honest discussion out of you will be like extracting teeth from a chicken. I’ll give it a try, though.

Inferior IQ and It’s Impact on Wealth

Ooops, did I just say “inferior races of people” in the fourth paragraph above this one? I thought maybe that would raise your hackles, and now I think I should explain. If you grab a copy of Lynn and Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations, you will see a table that shows the relative IQs of various nations, and some indications of the impact average national IQ has on Gross Domestic Product. It turns out that one can pretty much predict what the GDP will be from looking at IQ. And if you examine the statistical studies of the subject by the erudite La Griffe du Lion (see his articles The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations and Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag) you’ll see that there is a very high correlation between IQ and effective productivity. That does not mean smart people produce more in terms of direct application of energy. It means they work smarter and get better results.

It is widely acknowledged in honest academic circles that IQ is very much a function of genetics, and is less affected by culture. African blacks, for example, have an average IQ of 70, while American blacks have an average IQ of 85. The IQ difference is a testament to better diet, better education, and better access to better genes in America (American blacks are about 18% white). American blacks, however, are a full standard deviation lower than American Caucasians in IQ (which is 100), and that is a significant difference that no amount of culturing can fix.

There are few rational, educated, honest people who will argue against the suggestion that sub-Saharan African civilization is equal or superior to American civilization. The continent is still plagued by dozens of different languages, oppressive poverty, rampant crime, abusive government corruption, miserable education, low productivity, illegitimate births, epidemic disease (like AIDS and malaria), internecine warfare, and primitive religion (Voodoo, animism, and Islam are alive and well there). I don’t know a single American black person who would want to live in black Africa. Even American blacks with their relatively low IQ want no part of Africa itself. And yet our college campuses are riddled with black students who want their black culture recognized and appreciated. They want to keep alive the very cultural results of a primitive, tribal, corrupt, collapsed civilization barely out of the Bronze Age, and yet they don’t want to live in the civilization that produced that culture. I see that as a grand hypocrisy, don’t you?

American Red people would be more noticeably demanding the same thing – the preservation of their languages and customs (with the exception of a couple of tribes, they had no written language) – if only more of them had survived the disease and war of the white man.

It is instructive in assessing the relative merits of the world’s civilizations to consider the conclusions of La Griffe du Lion:

“Thus, for a technologically sophisticated society, Smart Fraction Theory asserts that a nation's per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is 108, a bit less than the minimum required for what used to be a bachelor's degree. Figure 3 illustrates the fit of (3) to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen. [see graph at - Least squares fit of Smart Fraction Theory to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.]

Figure 3. Least squares fit of Smart Fraction Theory to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.”

To explain the lower GDP of the higher IQ Northeastern Asian countries, the above formula is revised thusly:

“in market economies, per capita GDP is directly proportional to the population fraction with verbal IQ equal to or greater than 106.” [see graph at - When smart fractions are calculated from verbal IQs, the appearance of NE Asian points is unremarkable.]

That is because Northeastern Asians (and their Amerindian relatives) are 6.5 points lower in verbal IQ than are Caucasians, albeit higher in cognitive IQ. That difference adversely affects their GDP. The “other” category in the graph includes Pacific Islanders like Filipinos.

Figure 6. When smart fractions are calculated from verbal IQs, the appearance of NE Asian points is unremarkable.

The Law of the Survival of the Fittest is Being Outgrown

Here’s the issue, and it is one you singularly failed to elucidate from your ivory tower: in ages past, when disparate peoples have come together, war, conquest, and some kind of civilizing process have served as a fulfillment of the law of the survival of the fittest. They have always been a way of saying: “We do not agree with your ideas, your civilization, or your stewardship of land, so we are going to civilize you, enslave you, or wipe you out, and become the new stewards.” Conquest and genocide were justified by that law alone, no matter how they might precipitate a crisis of anguish in our consciences.

But that is changing. Our world is making a transition. Laws in legitimate nations now prohibit slavery and grant universal suffrage, allowing their responsible adult citizens to vote. International laws prohibit, but do not yet prevent, a stronger nation from invading and conquering a weaker one whimsically and without provocation. “Civilized” nations now petition the United Nation for approval before undertaking invasions. National and international laws protect weaker minorities from abuse by stronger majorities. In short, the world is becoming more civilized. Far from being perfect, it is effectively disrupting and unbalancing the populations because it is undermining the law of the survival of the fittest. It is not replacing that law with one that achieves the same natural purpose – culling and reducing degenerate and inferior genetic stocks of the planet.

That is a new threat to world civilization, one that politically correct professors hate to discuss publicly. Since the law now protects inferior people, and since they tend to out-procreate superior people, the inferior people are burgeoning while the superior diminish in number. This causes politicians to pander to those of the inferior groups who are allowed to vote. Inferior people are less lawful and economically productive, and more poverty-stricken. Their immoral behavior has graver consequences, such as rampant teen pregnancies among America’s black and Mexican populations. They are a greater burden on society, and those from places like Mexico import their corrupt and degenerate cultures while they export American money to their families back in Mexico. But the biggest threat they represent is in the form of lowering the average IQ and consequently the GDP of the nation.

Yes, you can complain about the civilizing process because nobody wants to be “civilized” or dispossessed by somebody else. And you can complain that wars of conquest are usually genocidal, particularly against the crème of the race, which are usually the first ones to fight the invaders and die as a result. That gives rise to this question:

  • What are you offering as an alternative to the law of the survival of the fittest that will achieve its main benefit peacefully?

Until you come up with a sensible answer to that very real and difficult to confront question, Professor, your complaints against the civilizing process are irrelevant. Why? Because it is axiomatic that a people who do not uplift their gene pool and protect it from degeneration will thereby cause future generations to be inferior to what they would be if the gene pool were protected and improved.

No longer do most nations invade others to colonize them. America and Americans have no interest in obtaining territories of primitive people as war prizes. Unlike all the other countries in the world, America and Australia were colonized as much by people who were booted out of Europe as by conquistadores. America is now paying a stiff price for importing so many unintelligent blacks as slaves, for now slave descendants comprise 15% of the population. People from all over the world have struggled to go to America to enjoy its liberties and opportunities, but normally the ones who make it to America’s shores (other than border-hopping Ibero-Americans) have the “right stuff”, the intelligence and personal drive to make their lives productive and worthwhile.

Yes, America invades other countries, but not to colonize. The interest is to eliminate illegitimate governments that are a grave danger to their own populations or to Americans. The two most recent examples are Afghanistan and Iraq. Earlier examples were Vietnam and Korea, utter disasters because the United Nations was calling the shots, and those nations still languish under division or dominion by evil dictatorships.

Now there are only two groups of people on this world who invade other countries by stealth, to destroy them from within, and to “civilize” them according to their own corrupt and demonic ideologies: Communists and Muslims. Observers of history have only witnessed the menace of Communism at work for the past century, but we see 14 centuries of the menace of Islam at work, now having conquered a fifth of the world’s people and a sixth of its land mass. And note this: from the honest observer’s point of view, both Islam and Communism seem to be superior ideologies to those held by the bulk of the peoples they have conquered. The horrors Islam and Communism have visited upon conquered people have actually resulted in improvements in the general conditions of before. Nevertheless, the conquered people have merely exchanged one kind of dictatorship for another. I do not consider that to be very civilizing, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

The Real Question: What are the Benefits of War?

I believe you are too preoccupied with the wrongness of stronger people bending weaker people to their will. You are missing the important question:

  • What are the benefits of war?

When you are able to answer that question, I’d love to see your laundry list of benefits, and I invite you to share it with me. Then, you need to answer the really important question:

  • How can the benefits of war be achieved through peaceful means?

I assert that the main benefit in terms of evolving civilization is the reduction of inferior and degenerate racial stocks in the world’s gene pool. History quite effectively argues that inferior people cannot evolve a superior civilization, and when presented with a superior civilization, inferior people will actively morph into something inferior. The reason the Caucasians who descended from European racial groups succeeded in conquering and subjugating or wiping out the American Red and Red/Yellow people, the Afghans, the Iraqis, and the Filipinos is that Americans are superior people with superior technology, superior civilization, and superior organization. That might be a hard pill to swallow if your ancestors are among the conquered, but it is a pill of truth.

America’s big mistake right now is that the egalitarians and academicians who influence public opinion do not want to admit the fact that some races are inferior or superior to others. So America’s virtually wide-open borders allow the nation to be deluged with inferior people from Mexico (their average IQ is 87), as though it were no big deal, thereby giving up the racial advantage earned by centuries of hard-fought wars to civilize and control inferior people. It is the equivalent of civilizational suicide. For in-depth studies of the effect, see

How to Replace the Law of the Survival of the Fittest Peacefully: Eugenics

I wish to propose an answer to the question of alternatives to the law of the survival of the fittest:

  • Involuntary sterilization of the least fit
  • Massive promotion of intelligent mate selection
  • Special education and vocational direction for the stupid

Note that implementing my proposals will diminish your complaint about the forcible civilizing of inferior people, so their won’t be any “otherness” to cloud their thoughts about who they are. For, if inferior people do not exist, there will be no motive to subjugate them, civilize them, and steal or control of their natural resources.

Unfortunately, Americans do not, in general support the involuntary sterilization of undesirable gene groups. Hitler made that an unpopular alternative, and university professors almost universally denounce the practice as being politically incorrect, uncivilized, and a dastardly usurpation of people’s natural right to procreate more of their own kind.

There is another way of looking at it. Science teaches us the precise result that accrues when two people of inferior IQ mate and procreate. The children will also have low IQ. You could view this as a process by which two people, parents, inject an innocent child, their offspring, with a serum that makes the child stupid and unable to prosper lawfully in society. Were you to do the same thing with a hypodermic needle to a child on a public street in America, you would be hunted down by the police, jailed, and found guilty of committing a heinous crime. Why? Because it is fundamentally a criminally irresponsible act to procreate children who are certain to be stupid, and that is because it severely handicaps them in life, making them unable properly to care for themselves and their families without resorting to crime and welfare abuse.

The truth of this is made evident by certain facts, and I present them for illustration purposes. In America, as a direct result of low IQ, blacks are poorer, more criminal, and less educated than whites and Northeastern Orientals. Barely half the black children graduate from high school. 10% of black males are incarcerated at any one time. 40% of black children are illegitimate and 20% are born to children. 70% of black children have no father at home. 6% of eligible black males choose non-black mates. Black families are hopelessly matriarchal, and very few black men will tolerate such an arrangement because black men have between 13% and 19% more testosterone than do Caucasian men, and at least 20% more than Asian men (Moros might be an extreme exception). Educational standards are being lowered in colleges and universities that court black and Mexican students, virtually ruining the value of a bachelor’s degree. With the exception of entertainment and sports, blacks are inferior to other racial groups in America, and they are destroying American civilization.

A wise and benevolent society is obliged by decency to prohibit the perpetuation of inferior genes that debilitate people and destroy civilization. America needs to enact and enforce eugenics laws that effectively prevent criminals, the insane, children, the indigent, and stupid people (IQ below 95) from procreating, and that encourage the average and bright to seek average and bright mates. Such a program will not actually harm anyone other than those who are jailed for refusing to participate, and it will uplift our civilizations dramatically within 100 years (4 generations). The same program should be implemented in every country in the world, including the Philippine Islands.

I’m certain your motherly instinct drives you to complain that such programs will deprive men and women who don’t make the cut of the joy of creating and rearing families. That is not necessarily so. There are enough people in this world with IQs above 95 to supply sufficient sperm and egg to qualified husband/wife couples of low IQ. Every couple that is morally and financially fit should be able to parent children.

I’m guessing you want to argue that stupid people have just as much right to live as smart people. Well, no, that’s not true. Remember that our eugenics plan is intended to replace war and genocide as means of eliminating inferior people. In reality, stupid people do not have as much right to be brought into existence as do smart people. In fact, if society so dictates, they have no right at all. And because the law of the survival of the fittest would have killed them off anyway, they have no natural right either. The idea of eugenics laws is to provide a mechanism by which intelligent people can ensure future generations will be as able or more able to solve the problems of life as they are.

Why the Philippines are Still Relatively Uncivilized

Yes, the Philippines are still relatively uncivilized, even after 100 years of American tutelage, for several reasons.

  • First of all, there is a practical limit to how much innately stupid people can be taught – the average IQ in the Philippines is only 86, and 90 is considered to be the minimum threshold for a technological economy.
  • Second, social growth is always agonizingly slow because people resist change (so we need a few more centuries to see the real good that can result).
  • Third, America is swamped with politically correct educators who stupidly insist IQ and genetics are unrelated and eugenics is not a polite topic of conversation, and that is holding back the establishment of eugenics laws that can help correct the problems associated with mass stupidity.
  • Fourth, America is being deluged with stupid immigrants from third world nations, not to mention a burgeoning of the stupid already in its gene pool, and that “dumbing-down” process is impacting both government and academia, further suppressing the establishment of benign eugenics laws. On a world-wide scale with the UK’s average IQ of 100 being the standard, the average IQ of America is only 98, compared to 102 for the less-black nations of Europe, and 103 to 107 for non-black Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore.

Frankly, I think it might have been better for the USA to hand the Philippines back over to the Japanese after the war. Had that happened, the P.I. would have few or no Islamic terrorists (you’ll note there are virtually non in Japan), and it could be a monument to industrialization, just as Japan now is, especially if Japan had exported large segments of its population to the P.I. to enrich the gene pool above the minimum level required for a technological society. After all, the Japanese have an average IQ of 105, more than a standard deviation higher than the average IQ of the P.I. natives If you think the invaders from the USA have been racially arrogant and socially oppressive toward Filipinos, imagine living under Japanese rule for the past hundred years.

In the final analysis, an honest observer must conclude that the civilizations of Spain and America are generally superior to the native civilization of the Philippine Islands, and that the civilizing process has greatly uplifted the culture of the islands. Had neither Spain nor America entered, the P.I. citizens would now be oppressed by an Islamic dictatorship, and its people would be living in horrifying ignorance and poverty like that which racked Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Some Questions and Answers About Life

In closing this lengthy and unbidden correspondence, I am minded to ask you three questions that will lead you to a better recognition of what you already know – that regardless of how people express their individual, family, tribe, or nation existences, some things are superior to others. It is not just a matter of equality of all choices of religion, government, and human relationship. There is such a thing as social, national, and spiritual progress. And some civilizations foster progress more than do others. That is evident in our respective quality of life.

  1. What is the meaning of life?
  2. What is the value of life?
  3. What is the purpose of life?
  4. What is the mission of life?

When you honestly face these questions, here are the answers you will find:

  1. The meaning of life is its adaptability.
  2. The value of life is its progressability.
  3. The purpose of life is to develop a balanced and magnificent personality.
  4. The mission of life is to evolve sublime relationships – to be like God in consummate devotion to truth, beauty, and goodness.

A civilization is good to the extent that it fosters human progress through the above answers to a condition where people are smart, prosperous, fit, able, and benign. And note that any rational human being, regardless of roots, naturally craves living in such a civilization. So many people dream of coming to America for that very reason. That should be of prime importance in your evaluation of whether contact with Americans and America was overall beneficial for the people of the Philippines.

The Implications for Civilization

When you survey the various civilizations and religions of the world, and stack them up against 1-4 above, you then clearly can see some rise in value to humanity like cream that rises to the surface of milk. It is unquestionably far more civilized to erect modern sanitation and plumbing systems (such as are found in Manila) than to defecate in a forest latrine and walk five miles every day to bring water back home from the nearest river, into which your neighbors are defecating (a condition typical of remote areas of Mindinao and the Sulu Archipelago).

But the Philippines won’t always be that backward in its more primitive regions. According to La Griffe du Lion, “World IQs have been increasing at the rate of 3 IQ points per decade (the Flynn effect). If that trend continues, countries now in the mean-IQ neighborhood of 100, will near smart fraction saturation in about a century.” By implication, some outside influences are being exerted world wide to improve IQ, and that is improving the prosperity of the world, and as a consequence its people’s quality of life. Eventually, the Moros will be killed off or genetically and civilizationally up-stepped. In the end, none of God’s children will be left behind.

Yes, the civilizing process in the P.I. is cycling over and over through waves of corrupt government and civil unrest, and periods of relative peace and prosperity. What is happening today in the Philippines has already happened many times over throughout the world, and it will continue as though all moments of the past and future are like right now. The past and future are repeated in a never-ending circular simultaneity of man’s knowing or unknowing struggle to find, know, and be like God.

I thank you for taking your time to read this, and for the energy and thought you put into your essay. I welcome any feedback you might have to my comments.


Bob Hurt

No comments: