I had a fun chat with a right-wing friend that was dedicated to some recent battles on the Czech political scene (Klaus vs Soros' conspiracy theorists; Babiš vs Pirates), and related events. And I couldn't overlook his assertion that, roughly speaking
a person's preference for non-violent solutions is highly positively correlated with his or her intelligence.Oh, really? This belief made me worried (and upset) because the conflation of intelligence and left-wing and PC beliefs is clearly one of the most fundamental lies that the New Left is using to accelerate the putrefaction of our civilization. The extreme leftist scum is increasingly filling the media, schools and other institutions with people who aren't good craftsmen according to the old-fashioned meritocratic standards but who are sufficiently convenient for (or compatible with) the left-wing lies. Such as lies about the equality of everything and lies about the reliable superiority of the would-be "oppressed" groups.
The lie about the equivalence of leftism (or snowflakeness or related "left-wing virtues") with intelligence has been a powerful tool designed to increase the influence of degenerated leftists for a simple reason: in its collective wisdom, the society realizes very clearly that the intelligence (and the intelligent people) is a virtue, something that is needed for a nation's (or another group's) successful competition with others and for the sufficiently glorious progress of mankind as a whole. When people fail to distinguish between the intelligence and the snowflakeness, the abused and misdirected collective wisdom will have the effect of promoting the snowflakeness as well, and that was indeed what we were observing in recent decades.
But is it true? Is the preference for leftist values, for equality of everyone with everybody, for non-violence under any conditions, for the rights of the "oppressed" and rights of the losers that always matter more than the interests of the successful ones etc., really the same thing (or almost the same thing) as intelligence? Not at all.
First of all, if we want to study the correlation (and possible causal relationships) carefully enough, we need to understand the quantities whose correlations seems relevant. The precise process could slightly depend on the definition of the quantities that we study. I don't want to be terribly technical so I will loosely look at the correlation of "intelligence as manifested in mathematics-like activities" and "the preference for equality-based and affirmative-action-related leftist values".
Second, a sufficiently credible, science-like analysis of such correlations or relationships must start with the realization that a priori, the two characteristics are not correlated. There is no obvious equivalence between them so it is an extremely serious fallacy to conflate the characteristics – and it is an obvious, cheap example of demagogy to mix them up (and it is a textbook example of dumb gullibility to buy this relationship).
Third, we may finally look at the evidence in favor (or against) positive (and negative) correlations between the two quantities – and at the hypothetical causal relationships between them and the mechanisms that are responsible for these causal relationships. Great. So let me start with the picture above that I chose to summarize the main message (you may watch a full video if you click at the picture).
On the diagram, you may see grass, a producer. Grass is mainly composed of cellulose, an organic material that acts just like the artificial plastic foils because it can't be dissolved in water. It is hard to extract energy from cellulose which is a problem that is solved by several tricks by the grass eaters.
The diagram shows a grasshopper, a primary consumer, a bluebird (that eats grasshoppers), a secondary consumer, a snake (a tertiary consumer), and an owl, an apex predator. YouTube's snowflakes haven't worked hard enough so you may still find videos of owls eating a snake and similar videos of the other relationships (and brutal microaggressions) that we have discussed. An apex predator (such as the owl, in this case) isn't attacked by anyone (who is dangerous enough) during his or her or its lifetime. Instead, as the diagram shows, the body of the owl is only eaten after the owl dies, by the so-called decomposers (mushrooms in this case). Mushrooms belong to the kingdom of fungi. They are usually special players in the food chain – which is a technical name for similar orientable combinatorial graphs – because they only flourish when their dinner is already dead. My generous dose of Candida the yeast screams to be cited as a counterexample but I still have enough political control to deny this request. :-)
Now, let us compare the IQ of the actors on this diagram. It is a homework exercise for you to compare the IQ of grass, grasshoppers, bluebirds, snakes, owls, and perhaps mushrooms. I think that most of you – I sincerely hope that there is a silent majority who aren't braindead leftists – will agree that the more right-wing (predator-like) a member of the food chain is, the more intelligent he or she or it is. In particular, owls are symbols of wisdom. They sport eyeglasses because they read lots of books, essays, and TRF blog posts, too.
There is an obvious reason why the predators have to be smarter, at least statistically. Intelligence is damn useful in the conflict between two organisms that are alive. When a hungry owl meets a snake, the snake tries to escape while the owl does everything it can to prevent the snake from escaping. You may assign the intelligence to every gram of organic matter. The predators should better have a higher intelligence than the dinner simply because the relevant event (the consumption of the lunch) is an event that is exceptional from the viewpoint of the stupid matter. Such a lunch ritual (including the preparation for the lunch) is an event that requires a certain degree of planning. The predator must manage to succeed in similar events (e.g. every day or every week, otherwise it starves). The ability to plan complex enough events sufficiently reliably or frequently is clearly highly correlated with the intelligence.
My main point is really simple and I believe that when I was a kindergarten student, most kids understood such things very well: an owl is smarter than a grasshopper. But I think that the insane anti-education and brainwashing organized by the extreme leftists has gone so far that a huge percentage of the people (maybe a majority?) doesn't understand even simple things like that. When it comes to the intelligence, grasshoppers are closer to grass (which is pretty stupid) than the distance between owls and grass (owls are much more brilliant) because it's been needed for their food strategies to be sustainable and for the species to survive. A grasshopper is hopping rather chaotically and you need someone like a bluebird (whose IQ is close to that of the leading officials in the U.S. Democratic Party) to eat the insects.
It is not quite true "across the set of all species" that the more predator-like species are more intelligent than the more lunch-like species. But the correlation is clear and the correlation is even stronger (or more reliable) within particular subsets of species that actually belong to the same food chain. And make no mistake about it, even though both of the following species are herbivores, an elephant is more intelligent than a donkey. A donkey is a euphemism for the Democrats. It is more accurate to say that they are aßes.
I leave it as a homework exercise for you to figure out whether mushrooms are more intelligent than grasses. It has no simple implications for our basic question because the decomposers such as mushrooms stand outside the left-right spectrum of predators. Correspondingly, I think it has been unavoidable that the evolution of mushrooms and similar species hasn't advanced too far and they don't even have their own Facebook so far.
Needless to say, the logic that makes predators more intelligent in average (and not only in average) applies to the human species and its subspecies or cultures. Snowflakes aren't a species in the biological sense because in principle, they can have a sexual intercourse (and even offspring) with the right-wingers (although it is not something that should be celebrated). But the ritual of finding a lunch doesn't depend on the reproduction procedures which is why the intelligence imprinted into the lunch-like protocols applies to the subspecies of mankind much like it applies to the species of animals and plants.
Even among the individual humans and their groups such as tribes, nations, political parties, and NGOs, the predators have typically had a higher IQ than their prey. It had to be so because of the theoretical arguments (because the smarter animals must "win" in a match where the victory is unlikely in the thermal equilibrium, and therefore depending on some planning and intelligence needed to do the planning). Lots of examples confirm that. So when extreme leftists are whining that it is so terrible that America has ever used slaves and stuff like that, they are just totally deluded and braindead. If they have looked further to the history (especially to the evolution of species where our ancestors have played quite a remarkable role), they would find many more brutally politically incorrect events. Our ancestors had to murder trillions of other animals and the large number is what has made our species (which had to gradually evolve) great again.
If you can't live with the fact that your existence – and your having IQ somewhat higher than a grasshopper's IQ (or even than a horse's IQ – because unlike the horse, a feminist usually doesn't drink the bucket while she is scrubbing a staircase), you should find a capitalist who will sell you the rope (as your comrade Lenin has advised to you). It is an obvious fact that our ancestors' history books had to be full of such "injustice" and our ancestors had to be much better at killing and similar acts, otherwise they would have either gone extinct or they would become the widely available, low-IQ food similar to the grass or grasshoppers.
According to the Chronicle of Dalimil, the oldest amusing book written in Czech (early 14th century), Forefather Czech was a criminal who escaped from the old Slavic homeland where he was tried for a murder. Along with his staff, this retired tourist arrived to the Říp Hill, an unnaturally steep hill inside the North Central Bohemian flatland, and founded the Czech nation. The word "Czech" was rather inclusive at that time but it didn't continue for too long. Too inclusive nations wouldn't be viable, the viable ones had to centralize their power (do the exact opposite of what the Bitcoin leftists love to do!). Sometimes in the 10th century, the first royal family of Bohemia, the Przemyslid dynasty, had to do something with a competing dynasty, the Slavník dynasty. The Przemyslid folks chose the simplest solution that is often the best one: they eradicated every single member of the Slavník dynasty. Good. I wasn't thrilled about this history when I heard it as a kid, for the first time, but as an adult, I got used to such facts. You don't really understand anything about the world, about the rules that make it work, and where we came from, if you aren't capable of calmly embracing similar omnipresent facts. You just couldn't be here – or you couldn't be thinking about similar questions – if your ancestral line's CV failed to be full of such events.
Is there some reason to think that the intelligent people are less violent? Well, there is one mechanism that goes in the opposite direction. Intelligent people tend to avoid the kind of "stupid violence" that throws them into trouble. I am talking about self-evident morons like George Floyd who commit the suicide by cop. The folks who are smarter are often creating some status or accumulating some assets whose preservation depends on the avoided violence (or at least the perception of non-violence, or even less strongly, the perception of non-violence at moments when the perceived violence would be harmful) – because much of the modern wealth has been built in periods of non-violent cooperation between the people (and that is why the competition has been getting increasingly subtle and less bloody when mankind was getting more sophisticated). But the decision to avoid the "stupid violence that brings trouble" doesn't mean that the intelligent people naturally avoid passions, violent dreams, plans, or acts. Instead, they may often succeed in completing much more violent acts than what the low-IQ people could drink of.
I believe that Hitler's IQ was much closer to that of the average man than to a brilliant one – his being a typical man was needed for a populist politician. OK, he could have been above 120 but I don't think he was above 130. But the remaining elite of Nazi Germany was full of men whose IQ was remarkably high. Many of them have been directly responsible for some crimes against humanity that Nazi Germany has perpetrated – crimes that were much more far-reaching than a stupid man's brawl in bars (or George Floyd's crimes).
Nazis were just an extreme example (and I could also discuss high-IQ violent criminals including Ted Kaczynski). We can focus on the sensible degree of violence – the right-wingers' totally intentional refusal of pacifism and non-violence as a matter of principle. It is still true that the principled pacifists tend to have a low IQ. Snowflakes simply are closer to a grasshopper than an owl! Permanent peace is sufficient for the life of grasshoppers – they just need to survive their simple, non-violent life – but it isn't enough in the lives of the predators or the higher life forms. Conservatives realize that there are more important things than the permanent perfect non-violence and some fight is often needed to establish and defend more fundamental values. Even Albert Einstein has claimed to be a hardcore pacifist. Was it his genuine view? He has still explicitly demanded the Manhattan Project to start – Einstein had understandable personal and tribal reasons to punish Hitler and his allies. Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have ended 66,000 and 39,000 lives, respectively. You may estimate the relative contribution of Albert Einstein to these deaths. It was nontrivial; even the contribution of the Einstein-Szilard letter to Roosevelt and the contribution of his \(E=mc^2\) was non-negligible. He knew that acts like that are sometimes needed, otherwise "his kin" (in the intellectual or tribal sense) would be rather likely to lose (and perhaps to disappear). So he wasn't a real principled pacifist.
Somewhat like apex predators, right-wingers and non-pacifists simply do end up having a higher intelligence in average. As I have mentioned, a fundamental lie that has allowed the extreme left-wing ideologies to thoroughly contaminate the media, universities, and other institutions in the West is the lie that "intelligence and adherence to leftist values are almost the same thing". They are not the same things at all and if you think carefully, you will find out that for many reasons, most of the correlations between them are negative, not positive.
Isaac Newton was rather conservative as well as willing to end other people's lives. As the Master of the Royal Mint (1699-1727), he has made sure that many people who loved to counterfeit money were executed. I am sure that if he held Janet Yellen's current job, he would execute the people who are minting their non-pegged cryptocurrencies – because what they are doing is basically nothing else than printing counterfeit money, producing something that isn't money and that has no intrinsic value and pretending (and persuading their victims) that it is money! Werner Heisenberg happily accepted the role of the boss of the nuclear bomb program of Nazi Germany. He was patriotic enough and he didn't find anything morally unacceptable about it – and I think that it was his failure as an "applied physicist" and perhaps even as a good "theoretical physicist" (and not a moral dilemma) that made him think that the bomb wasn't feasible which is why he has never produced it.
Yes, in recent decades (and today), there have been (and there are) many theoretical physicists etc. who seem to be left-wingers (and the percentage is well above 50%). But that doesn't establish any intrinsic, automatically existing positive correlation, relationship, or causation. Instead, the Academia is so full of left-wingers today because at some point, roughly in the 1960s, the meritocratic criteria were replaced with a combination of meritocratic criteria and "test of loyalty to the left-wing ideology", and the latter has been getting increasingly important (while the former, meritocracy, was declining in importance). Also, a welfare-like, socialist framework of funding has spread across the university and research world, especially after the Second World War, and right-wingers are often repelled by such a socialist, welfare-like environment.
In the 1970s (and probably even the 1990s which I remember well), when schools were picking grad students and professors, they looked at some combination of the scholarly and ideological credentials that was still compatible with the selection of the very good physicists. Even among the people who are willing to parrot some ludicrous crackpottery about equality (or who are socially stupid enough to sport a Che Guevara T-shirt, greetings to Marcos Mariňo), you may find many who happen to be excellent theoretical physicists or scientists in another field. Their corresponding right-wing colleagues have been eliminated in the recent 60 years or so. But the focus on the left-wing ideology is becoming so dominant (relatively to the scientific meritocracy) that the universities are turning into a culture of dumb grasshoppers (something in between grasshoppers, grass, and mushrooms, if you want me to be more precise). Too many departments have nothing to do with the original purpose of universities and many departments' average IQ is actually below 100 these days. What is missing is some predators who would regulate the number of these grasshoppers. We need at least some bluebirds (moderate Democrats) but of course some snakes (RINOs) could be a bit better and the owls (true Republicans) are the golden standard.
It's terrible that millions of people – including people who don't have real incentives to be a part of this dirty game; and including people who believe that they are right-wingers – are buying the giant lie that there is a universal positive correlation between the adherence to leftist "virtues" (such as equality, fight on behalf of the losers and against the successful, universal non-violence) on one side and intelligence (or other meritocratic virtues) on the other side. There is none and the expected, most general sign of this correlation is obviously a negative one – for analogous reasons that make owls wiser than the grasshoppers.
And that's the memo.