For Each Point of IQ Differential Between Two Groups The Lower One Has Greater Incentive to Shift Status Competition Towards One of Ruthless Violence

For Each Point of IQ Differential Between Two Groups The Lower One Has Greater Incentive to Shift Status Competition Towards One of Ruthless Violence
Part II- The lower one has greater incentive, the further they are below another in conceptual ability, to try to shift competition away from those correlated positively with IQ. The more strongly positive the correlation with IQ, the greater the incentive for the lower-down to attempt to shift status contests away from those indicators. Where the lower-down have greatest relative advantage, their incentive will be greatest to shift the contest towards that competition. Ruthless violence on the street level, is where the low-IQ have greatest relative advantage. Certain sports are best in this way for them as well. Even though it is contrary to their own long-term best interests, and obviously so, the lower-down, even the further they are below some others, will find gratification in shifting contest for status towards those in which they can come out higher. But why is this... more to follow in the next part.

Added later:
For Each Point of IQ that an Elite Stratum is Above Average, It May be that They Will Feel Less Threatened by Mass Immigration of Low Quality
Their grandchildren will not grow up in some wretched barrio, or are less likely to, the higher their stratum is in terms of the heritable portion of IQ. Assortative mating for IQ is more than high enough to ensure that the barrio possibility for their family is very unlikely. These strata, as they go higher in terms of intelligence, should, however care more about the effects on the larger society and how that affects their family, and be better able to project the future and the alternatives. Instead we see a nihilistic unconcern, alternating with bursts of enthusiasm, for the degradation of quality of population and all the horrors that go with it.

Anti-Discrimination as an Ideal above Loyalty to Civilization and Citizenry, While Mass Infiltration by Hostiles is Underway

If anti-discrimination can be a valid ideal, both for individuals and society,
and such that each further increment of it is an improvement, openness to infiltration by hostiles, in catastrophic degree, would follow or not? An unspeakable contradiction-in-terms follows from the above considerations: increasing anti-discriminatory openness to mass immigration of those who would do damage to civilization, and even to the furtherance of anti-discrimination itself, would still be rated an improvement of civilization, and a move towards the fulfillment of the anti-discrimination ideal. Therefore anti-discrimination as an ideal in the above sense, is contradictory, damaging, self-damaging, self-liquidating and worthless. Other values, such as loyalty to the continuity of civilization, and to the citizenry over others, such as those foreigners who increase the level of aggression within the borders of a nation, must be rated higher than anti-discrimination. When aggression is used by officials to get more anti-discrimination in society, that is clearly not a move towards any valid ideal, but downwards towards savagery.
Added 5-30-08
When one is told that race doesn't exist, or is not important, or should not be an object of consciousness, it is very much against the current rules of what may be published on high, to reply that racial disparities then wouldn't exist, or wouldn't matter, or would not need to be noted, even privately. No one to your left will allow that race disparities might be willed away by special blindness.
There are some on the right though, who get into a contradictory fuss, about how it is so important to believe race to be unimportant. If it so important that it be thought unimportant, and if disparities of race are to be stressedly left out of observation, there can't really be also nothing important there, at the same time as we would have so much riding on getting the majority to believe that there is really nothing there. From all this, one comes to know that it's really about how to smear opponents, as a last-ditch method for political moves which have no convincing arguments in their favor.

Colorblindness, Creed-Blindness & Nationality-Blindness are not known to be ideal in every way,
especially insofar as they would blind one to the cover, for increase of aggression, that they can provide. That increase of aggression is facilitated by contradictory policies, of one-sidedly regarding as illegitimate, the use of non-blindness by the majority towards minorities. The one-sidedness is found to be used to condemn populations insofar as they've been resistant to despotism for whatever reason. The point of the advocacy of such one-sided blindnesses, making them out to be ideal, regardless of war or peace, is then noted to be one of hostility to that which successfully resists total power.

Openness to Low Quality and Large Quantity of Immigration can Slow or Catastrophically Reverse Growth of Productivity

That the advancement of civilization can be thrown into reverse via mass immigration, is admitted, in a roundabout way, in the below quote, where the effect of such restrictionism is noted to be one of "inducing labor-saving innovations": " The primary policy pursued by every rich country is to prevent unskilled labor from moving into their countries. And because unskilled labor is the primary asset of the poor world, it is hard to even imagine a policy more directly inimical to a poverty reduction agenda or to “pro-poor growth” than one limiting the demand for unskilled labor (and inducing labor-saving innovations)." quoted from Lant Pritchett via Econlog:http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/05/lets_increase_p.html

There is a grave difficulty for power-greedy elites in speaking rationally
on the subject of the desirability of mass immigration of undesirables.
If they were to do so, they would forfeit the chance to try to smear and 'diagnose'
all opponents of their openness-valuing position. Ref.:Parapundit 6-24

To be American means: to be non-American?

It can't be our identity to have no identity.
It can't be our tradition to have no tradition.
It can't be our heritage to have no heritage.
It can't be our loyalty to have no loyalty.
There being no arguments for mass immigration of hostiles,
which do not involve contradictions like the above,
and with such high hopes of power riding on transmission of conflict,
more such contradictory assertions will be put out.
It is our continuity to have no continuity?
It is our loyalty to citizens to have no loyalty to citizens?
It is our patriotism to have no patriotism?
It is our community of values to have no community of values?
It is our common culture to have no common culture?
Properly interpreted, 'nation of immigrants'
and multiculturalism, pro-diversity, and more,
imply all the above contradictions-in-terms. It is also an exaggeration to say that for example, German immigrants assimilated and became more like Anglo-Saxons, notably more than they changed America, to resemble their characters.
There is indeed a founding culture which is not on a level with immigrant importations, but occupies a sovereign and superior position.
A non-sequitir is involved where one additional increment of population is
implied to have no different effect than an earlier increment.
No argument has ever been given which could demonstrate that there are no thresholds beyond which historical experiences such as assimilation, cannot be expected to continue as before.
Basically what we're given is a set-up for a smear:
claim that assimilation is to be expected to be always the same regardless
of which populations are being compared, when this is doubted or denied,
say that only racial hatred can motivate disbelief in the equation
of hugely divergent populations. It is necessary to use the smears only, since no rational arguments are available for traitorous openness.

Diversity-Valorization and Vicarious Power-Greed: A Rare Description of a Grave Threat to Civilization

Here is an intriguing comment by 'American Cassandra ', with many points of similarity to my own thoughts such as are posted or linked on this site:
"Diversity doesn't lead to good things, diversity is a good thing. Doesn't it ever occur to liberals that diversity does not lead to unity? This couldn't possibly be an accident. I don't think liberalism just mistakenly aims for impossible things, I think it deliberately aims for impossible things. If it aimed for the possible, there would no longer be an excuse for totalitarianism and infinite social engineering. I understand why liberals in power love liberalism. It gives them such an excuse for more and more power. I've never understood why ordinary people, students in the universities, school teachers, etc, are so seduced by it. They don't have any power, why does it thrill them so to give the state power over them? I suppose it must be that they are enjoying it vicariously." http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008224.html
Another conclusion might be that what they enjoy, is the prospect
of great power for themselves, validated by the enhancement of others' power or chances of increased power. How could that apply to those who cannot get themselves to believe that they do have such chances of power, though? Alternatively, there could be a psychological condition like what's sometimes called 'identifying with the aggressor', and that would be either within or outside the range of normal psychology. For this discussion no such conclusion as to normal or abnormal will be drawn. That would take us into psychology proper, which is not covered here.
Added 7-2-08 from : Monday, June 30, 2008

Disempowerment Of The Undeserving, Power-Greedy
...is what might well motivate one. Openness to the empowerment of others, even insofar as they are different from oneself, is not what may reasonably be valued. It reduces to a contradiction-in-terms, however you approach it. Are they more and further different culturally, by having different values? Then you're asked to value the aggrandizement of what goes against your values; a contradiction-in-terms.
Posted by John S. Bolton
added 7-4-08 from: Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Explaining The Strange Vicarious Power-Greed
...in terms of a specific hatred. There is such a hatred aginst others' freedom-from-aggression, which shows in the desire to force a broadly distributed freedom-for-aggression, on others. Even if one has no hope of obtaining power for oneself, that special hatred will cause a sympathy with the aggressor. The aggression itself will be felt as falling on others. The power will be seen as if it were one's own, and the wish for the enhancement of that power, is the vicarious power-greed.
Posted by John S. Bolton

Openness to Low Quality of Immigration Vastly Increases the Level of Aggression on the Net Taxpayer of Our Citizenry, To Whom Loyalty is Owed

IN SPITE OF OFFICIAL ATTEMPTS TO OBSCURE IT, THE FACTS ARE THAT LOW-INCOME IMMIGRANTS
ARE OVERWHELMINGLY A CHARGE ON THE NET TAXPAYER, as the below quote indicates:

"Robert Rector, Real Clear Politics, June 27, 2007

Monday’s column from the Administration’s Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear (“Lead Weight or Gold Mine: What are the True Costs of Immigration?” June 25, RCP) is a study in misdirection and misstatement. Since they devote much of their piece to attacking my research, I’d like to set the record straight.[...]

* Low-skill individuals (i.e., those without a high school degree) receive far more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.

* The net fiscal cost of the families headed by low-skill immigrants is not markedly different from the cost of families headed by low-skill non-immigrants.

* Low-skill immigrants receive, on average, three dollars in government benefits for each dollar of taxes paid. This imbalance generates a net cost of $89 billion per year on U.S. taxpayers. Over a lifetime the typical low-skill immigrant household costs taxpayers $1.2 million dollars.

* Immigrants are disproportionately low-skilled. One-third of all immigrants and more than half (50 to 60 percent) of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree."
[Rector, however, does not include
the cost of interest on the net public subsidy
of immigrants, which, among other omitted charges
attributable to them, would add greatly on to his estimates.]
Speaking of immigration, so that "...the issue is framed--as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus "racism" on the other--tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject." -View From the Right. Is it done rhetorically this way, because no rational argument can be adduced for such degrees of openness?

Openness to Inaccuracy of Reproduction as an Ersatz Ideal

The attempted idealization of inaccuracy of reproduction, reduces to a contradiction-in-terms.
As the genetic differences between the parents grow larger, each must reproduce less accurately.
Reproduction is of like unto like, not of dissimilars to further dissimilars. Therefore, propaganda making out each additional increment, of genetic distance between the parents, sound like an improvement
in itself, is contrary to the accuracy of reproduction, and to reproduction in a more general way.
Similarly, a false dilemma is set up, when one is asked to choose between extremes of inbreeding and further and further degrees of outbreeding, as if there were not a best level much closer to the threshold of literal inbreeding, which is best for accuracy and excellence of reproduction.
If there were rational arguments for trying to idealize further and further degrees of outbreeding, it would not be necessary to try to smear the other side as being for cloning, inbreeding, fascism, racism and so on. They would just prove their case, if they could without using the smears.
Now what would it mean, then, if insofar as a population has been resistant to despotism, they are asked to value this push towards inaccuracy of reproduction; unless those promoting such
further outbreeding, believe that the resistance to dictatorship has a significant genetic influence to it?
Additionally, from a posting of August 31st, 2007:
Slighting the Concern for Accuracy of Reproduction Involves the Use of Unreason Where Rational Arguments Were to be Expected
If there were rational arguments for trying to idealize further and further degrees of outbreeding, it would not be necessary to try to smear the other side as being for cloning, inbreeding, fascism, racism and so on. They would just prove their case, if they could without using the smears.It would not be necessary to set up false dilemmas, such as marriage of first cousins versus having a preference for something like random breeding. It would not be necessary to pretend that a slippery slope exists such that we either idealize random breeding on a global scale, or slide inevitably towards compulsory close breeding. As with body temperature, salinity or any number of other measures, the ideal can be an intermediate range, and the false reasoning that would say that to reject, for example, high body temperature as an ideal, must result in idealizing low body temperature, is just obviously deceitful.
Added 7-4-08 from: Pro-Diversity's Over-Extended Analogy to 'New Blood',
If the 'new blood' or 'new ideas' are evaluated as a positive, regardless of whether they are really better or less likely to generate unfitness than the old, that is attempted non-evaluative evaluation, a contradiction-in-terms. Yes, it involves trying to be evaluative and non-evaluative at the same time and in the same respect: what is new is evaluated as being better just for being new somewhere, while at the same time and in the same respect, NOT being evaluated as to whether its 'new' contribution is a real improvement or not. Last year, I denounced the sort of motivations driving an embrace of the above contradiction in this way: Smear-Mongering And Analogies To Incestuous Inbreeding As Support For Valuing Openness To Diversity
If openness to diversity is to be regarded as a value, and as one, of which, one can never have too much, while the analogy originally was to a genetic openness to diversity just sufficient to ward off inbreeding depression, isn't that analogy strained enormously far beyond what it can bear?
It being thus broken, oughtn't one to conclude that the inbreeding analogy in the service of that pro-diversity rhetoric, was really just the preliminary to a smear, such as: Prove you're not an advocate of inbreeding and incest! It has long been used in exactly this way, in the wretchedly routine New Left-ish pattern: smearing, false dilemma, equivocation, slippery-slopes and misconception of ideals. Accept diversity value, or we'll call you incestuous and inbred! The false dilemma is extreme outbreeding or extreme inbreeding as ideals, with the vast middle ground of real possibilities excluded, as if only to facilitate smearing. Such an obviously fictitious dilemma between ideals, is a misconception of ideals as well. Slippery-slope is implicated, since those who would not make a drive on mass random breeding for the whole world their ideal, are implied to be on an inexorable slide towards inbreeding and incest. If not, then why the smears of 'inbred' this and 'incestuous' that? The term inbreeding gets equivocated with extreme inbreeding and with incestuous breeding, all to facilitate the smear job. If valuing openness to diversity were being presented honestly, in a moderate way asking for little or nothing beyond what people have always done, there would be no need for the smears, equivocations and other fallacies. There is no rational argument for valuing openness to diversity in the above-described way, as something beyond the practices of mankind for ages before now; that is why the smear approach must be used instead .
Added 7-4-08 from: Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Stunning Contradiction For The Pro-Diversity: Valuing More Openness To Immigrant Diversity Can Cause Defects From Inbreeding To Steeply Rise
From UK Telegraph of 16th Nov.,07: "By Marco Giannangeli[...]The report, commissioned by Ann Cryer, revealed that the Pakistani community accounted for 30 per cent of all births with recessive disorders, despite representing 3.4 per cent of the birth rate nationwide.[...]It is estimated that more than 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, resulting in an increasing rate of genetic defects and high rates of infant mortality. [...] Royal Infirmary Hospital [Bradford, UK] has identified more than 140 different recessive disorders among local children, compared with the usual 20-30." JB Comments: The pro-diversity, arguing also for valuing openness to diversity, on an analogy to inbreeding depression being lessened through increase of diversity, have, at the same time and in the same respect, managed to be both for and against the increase of inbreeding in a population of tens of millions. The contradiction is insuperable; valuing openness to diversity includes placing positive value sign on the openness to immigration which hugely increases the prevalence of defects from inbreeding.
Added 8-9-08 from: Thursday, August 7, 2008

Randomization Damage To Associations Of Alleles In Populations
such as races, which have persisted for thousands and tens of thousands of years, co-evolving as associations of alleles in long-isolated populations; may do untold damage. Unlike doomed species of no honest interest to man, the randomization/destruction of this human genetic information is sure to degrade that which we ought to value both as individuals and at every other level. Instead, though, the anti-culture of the government schools, bids us value openness to diversity. As anti-arts were set out to destroy the information contained in the (true) fine arts, so the emphasis on valuing openness to genetic diversity from as far afield as possible, attempts the ruin of real values. Of note is the need for government funding of such propaganda offensives, as what is pushed is highly contra natura. As bad as it sounds, it is a fleeting moment in the scheme of things, though, since this line counseling openness to diversity is to be abandoned once ultimate power is won. Meanwhile, it is used to provoke and then try to smear those who oppose the pro-diversity talk. Make them prove they're not racist, rather than your having to prove why you should have more power, is how it works.
Added 8-28-08: Mental health of biracial Asian Americans :
"biracial Asian Americans are twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder." -34 vs. 17% according to the linked study