Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent

submitted by cybitch from asanet.org

all 44 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Liberalism and Atheism -- or at least irreligiosity -- are practically de rigeur for the educated today in the West. It's not some ridiculous thing where more intelligent people actually agree with Liberalism BECAUSE they're smarter. They're required to agree with it because the institutions they are educated in, respect and who have authority over their lives share that same worldview. It's not rocket science -- ha ha!

If people like me were in charge then it would definitely be the case that high IQ correlated with Fascism. It's all a matter of fashion.

With regards to Atheism I'd probably agree that it's the case that simple people -- and I don't mean that as a slight -- may have more of a tendency to find comfort in a simplistic type of religiosity. That's fair. However most of the Atheists I've encountered are absolute midwit morons with half baked, ill considered ideas and I've never heard an Atheist argue with as much rigour and intellectual depth for their non-belief as I have people like Jay Dyer or E. Michael Jones.

All that being said I don't care if the 'smart set' agree with me or not I believe in my ideas and I can't be swayed by group patterns. When in the past when nearly every single educated person was illiberal in one way or another and agreed much more with me then I'm sure you'd have found the same results. Something like 'Study find people who believe in God, dislike Jews and believe in traditional values have higher IQ's.'. So? What of it? Does that make them right or the people who opposed their worldview essentially wrong?

[–]AidsVictim69 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

With regards to Atheism I'd probably agree that it's the case that simple people -- and I don't mean that as a slight -- may have more of a tendency to find comfort in a simplistic type of religiosity. That's fair. However most of the Atheists I've encountered are absolute midwit morons with half baked, ill considered ideas and I've never heard an Atheist argue with as much rigour and intellectual depth for their non-belief as I have people like Jay Dyer or E. Michael Jones.

I agree. I've been an atheist most of my life but 90% of them are absolutely repulsive people overestimating their intellect.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I don't necessarily think they couldn't come up with a good defense of Atheism -- I'm Catholic but I have heard them -- it's more an attitude thing.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Meh. Who cares?

I do not consider the White Nationalism scene as part of the modern "conservative" movement, even if there is some overlap. The truth is, we are politically homeless. The left calls us "far-right", conservatives call us "leftists" for not worshipping capitalism and for recognising the value of being part of a collective.

There is a lot of 'diversity' (so to speak..) of thought/background in our movement, from anti-science Trad Caths who don't dinosaurs existed like Nick Fuentes to Richard Spencer/Keith Woods to gay guys like Greg Johnson. Third Positionists to racially aware libertarians.

From my observation, most people engaged in these politics are intelligent by the usual metrics and it isn't really a working-class driven movement. Lots of people are well-educated and well-read in philosophy, political theory, etc. Jared Taylor went to Yale. Richard Spencer has an MA and was a PhD student at Duke. Laura Towler has a 1st class honours degree. Josh Neal/Dietz was a clinical psychologist before he was doxxed and lost his job. We've had guys in the Generation Identity movement sacked from investment banking jobs in the City of London after ADL/Hope Not Hate 'exposed' them. Others have businesses and so on. If it weren't for the social and professional consequences, I'm sure there would be a hell of a lot more.

The Hollywood/media stereotype that we're all just inbred dumbos who are jealous of third world immigrants stealing low-paid jobs is laughable horseshit, which isn't to say I'm unsympathetic to working-class whites who have been fucked over by mass immigration, but this isn't a movement based purely on economics. Many of us are opposed to high IQ/skilled immigration as well.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Middle class urbanites are more intelligent than ruralites who get gayopped with dumb conspiracies about climate not existing, 5g turning you into a lizard, Bill Gates enslaving the world and Corona Virus simultaneously being a bioweapon to wipe out humanity whilst also not existing. Wow what a surprise!

It's a meme that Liberals think Conservatives are evil whilst Conservatives think Liberals are dumb but it's actually the other way around. Liberalism is the great satan and Conservatives are fucking retards.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, well, fuck this nip. I'm an atheist and fervently pro-White, it's a matter of survival, put me in whatever fucking bin you want. We're not "conservative", we're pro-White.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm an atheist and fervently pro-White

Same here.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Are you a liberal yourself? Have you ever read Carl Schmitt?

[–]cybitch[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I find both sides of American politics equally repulsive tbh, so I can't say I'm either on the right or on the left. I hold opinions from both sides. I see politics as inherently sinister and I don't believe any politician gives a crap about "their people" anyway.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see politics as inherently sinister

That's true.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

ever read Carl Schmitt?

no

Liberal, I suppose I was, but the more I read about the history of liberalism I wouldn't call myself that now.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was talking to OP, but okay.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

lol

Liberalism

It is difficult to provide a precise definition of a whole school of political ideology like liberalism. In this paper, however, I adopt the contemporary American definition of liberalism. I provisionally define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

Also only uses adolescent IQ scores.

Funny comments from reddit thread on the article

https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k51eq/why_liberals_and_atheists_are_more_intelligent/

Liberals, on the other hand, are more intelligent because it takes a person with higher intelligence to flippantly consider political positions that do not benefit the person himself, which is why they're against gun laws, but pro affirmative action. These violate the self-preservation nature of survival, so it takes more intelligence to break past what's in our nature. Conservatives Bible believers are simply doing what they were programmed to do by nature, he argues...

LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

In response to ongoing controversies over his stated views, such as Sub-Saharan Black African countries suffer from chronic poverty and disease because their people have lower IQs, and black women are objectively less attractive than women of other races, he was dismissed from writing for Psychology Today, and his employer, the London School of Economics, prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months.[8] A group of 68 evolutionary psychologists issued an open letter titled "Kanazawa's bad science does not represent evolutionary psychology" rejecting his views,[9] and an article on the same theme was published by 35 academics in American Psychologist.[10]

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Do you not agree with this definition?

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No, I think liberals have higher IQ because universities are propagating liberal narratives. And universities are of course places where smart people go so this is what you get. I don't think there is something inherent about liberal views that smart people follow. This is supported by the fact that smart people tend to support free speech while liberals support free speech less than republicans. Also his explanation that "violate the self-preservation nature of survival" doesn't make sense in case of libertarians who do better on general science tests, are wealthier and more college-educated than the general public. [1]

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I don't think it's the most precise term to use for what he's describing.

Socialism would be more closer to that definition than liberalism as he's essentially stating redistribution is a core component of his definition.

Nowadays people throw terms around a lot, so I can accept that the modern definition he is using is likely used by many people that would call themselves liberals but are not, at least with respect to the historical definition of that term.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

What do you think about the article's claim, though - that there's a correlation between intelligence and embracing novel ideas? Personally, I don't think the modern day American left embraces much of anything that goes against their ideology, but they do seem to be all for embracing the outgroup - foreigners and people of different races. On the other hand, you could argue that political ideology is what defines the new outgroup, and leftists are definitely not embracing them.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

What do you think about the article's claim, though - that there's a correlation between intelligence and embracing novel ideas?

I don't really care about quantifying that or any associations. Embracing novel ideas that have terrible consequences doesn't seem very smart, does it? Tests in a school classroom don't mean you're capable of passing tests in life.

I think enough is said that these seemingly intelligent people are more-than-happy to throw away their cultural inheritance. Seems like they're very stupid in practice.

They're the most selfish people that have ever lived. They don't care about the future of their children, their own communities, their inheritance, or really anything for that matter. They simply care about living the most today, hence why they don't care about accumulating debt that their children and grandchildren will have to pay off so that they can feel good about themselves in front of their friends. They live their life with an exceptionally high time preference because they're essentially spoiled children.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Can you elaborate on what the consequences of specific liberal ideas are? I have my own views on this that don't quite match those on the American left either, but as a woman I could never agree with people who advocate for limiting my personal human rights back to what they used to be. I don't see this as being "selfish", but having a sense of self-preservation. Just because people who call themselves progressive aren't steering things into the direction I agree with doesn't mean we ought to go backwards. Maybe it's possible to come up with systems that are superior to those people had in the past. It's what tends to happen with technology, I don't see why political ideology couldn't work the same way.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can you elaborate on what the consequences of specific liberal ideas are?

List some.

I wish you'd be more specific with what you're talking about. You're speaking in very general terms so it's hard to address what you've written.

Regarding your comment on technology and since this thread was initially about intelligence. A calculator can do far more complex calculations than most human minds. Do you think having this crutch has made us smarter or dumber? I think a valid argument could be made that relying on a crutch like a calculator instead of mentally computing things or even drawing them out by hand has made people more stupid, what do you think?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

but as a woman I could never agree with people who advocate for limiting my personal human rights back to what they used to be. I don't see this as being "selfish", but having a sense of self-preservation.

It's neither selfish or a sense of self-preservation. It's entitlement, shortsightedness and naive.
White women are being used as puppets by our common enemy to take down the very system that white women enjoy the privileges of. Remember from an evolutionary psychology point of view, your behaviour is meant to increase the chance of your genes surviving. In the next generation most of your genes might be a man and most of your husbands genes might be a girl.
You should not strive for - evolutionarily speaking - some sort of utopian equality but for efficiency and intergenerational power accumulation. Assisting your enemy to get temporary "human rights" is a fatal flaw. Alt-rightism is not about principles but about survival and securing an existance for our children.
Non-whites likewise think its good for them to take down whites, because of propaganda. It isn't.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You should not strive for - evolutionarily speaking - some sort of utopian equality but for efficiency and intergenerational power accumulation.

Generally the power these days doesn't seem to be in the hands of white people anymore though...

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It seems the comment you replied to went over your head.

Men and women are two sides to that coin of generating intergenerational power.

They have to work together to do that.

Do you think at least some of the feminist agenda has contributed to preventing that generation?

Men need to do more on their own behalf too, but everyone is really only in charge of themselves.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see how "the feminist agenda" could possibly prevent this. The only thing men have ever, throughout history, contributed to child rearing is wealth. Now women can substitute and be independent which makes things better - children can now be kept away from the violent element that commits the vast majority of homicides and battery on not only strangers, but on their own families as well. Which would you rather have for the future generation - childhoods where their mothers and them are beaten but can't leave because of a lack of financial resources, or mothers with the freedom to stay or leave at their discretion.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you think we want to enslave women or something?

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds far-fetched, doesn't it. Have women had the vote since the beginning of time where you're from btw?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

where you're from btw?

Belgium.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What do you think about the article's claim, though - that there's a correlation between intelligence and embracing novel ideas?

Well that sort of complicates the thesis given the ideas of liberalism saturate every part of our media, our educational system and our political life. In other words liberalism isn't novel it's the 'sea we swim in' therefore current day liberals aren't that intelligent on that metric. Fascism is a novel idea that one has to seek out and no one is exposed to -- except to hiss at like a villain in a silent movie.

Embracing an outgroup in this day and age isn't a 'novel' idea either it's practically illegal not to do in many European cultures.

[–]cybitch[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, this occurred to me as well. The truly novel ideas these days aren't going to be ones you'll see people chanting on tv.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Atheists are certainly more intelligent, but liberals? Maybe they are, but what's the actual difference in IQ? I remember a study claiming nonracists are more intelligent than racists, but when you actually looked at the difference in IQ it was literally less than 1 IQ point.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This article claims more than 10 points between very conservative and very liberal.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I highly doubt that, but it could be because of how they define "very liberal" and "very conservative". According to similar studies libertarians have the highest IQ.

By the way, I think you should realize we're not conservatives. In fact, many of us are former libertarians. I myself am a former liberal. So, I'm not sure what your agenda is here.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One more thing, many blacks are actually very conservative on social issues, so is there a racial breakdown in the data?

[–]sineavec 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I didn't read the article but it sounds silly. People take ideology too seriously. No ideology can beat this: "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent." I don't know if that's intelligence but it creates a proper path for us to follow, collectively.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You really ought to read it, I didn't post it to troll or anything. It uses evolutionary psychology and demonstrates actual statistical correlation between IQ and what it defines to be liberalism.

What makes what you quoted superior to those "silly" ideologies based on statistics and logic?

[–]sineavec 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Liberals support political correctness. That is first, about power. Framing the discussion according to your own will, who made them God? Secondly, political correctness limits free thinking and free speech. I think people are capable of much more, they can be more intelligent than liberals.

what you quoted

In that passage, there is: Love, leadership/hierarchy, discipline, group identity, humility/absence of pride, earnestness/sincerity, and knowing the path to get better, to improve. What else do we need?

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's funny you would say that, because there was a time when it was the exact opposite - liberals were for free speech and religious people were clutching pearls over everything anyone said that went against their personal ideology.

Do you think the Bible supports free thinking and free speech?

[–]sineavec 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

According to the Bible, God is the source of all good. Heresy is then an act of intended injury towards God, and so an injury towards all, us. It is an attack on our common ground. An offense to Being, itself. Deliberate lies are the same in that they are an intended injury towards Truth. Deliberate lies are an attack on us. If all went according to this plan and we allowed free speech, we would still be able to understand harmful speech that was intended as an attack on God, the good, and society. We could respond properly and not allow subversion.

When I think of free speech nowadays, it is a tool we can use against political correctness. Political correctness is not heresy, political correctness is used by human actors to entrench their own power and guard against threats to that power. The ADL has perhaps taken the lead on censorship and attacks on free speech. The ADL are bad. They intend to make us sick through political correctness, where as heresy is intended to maintain our health. So, free speech is a more important concept in the modern context.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So by ADL I'm presuming you mean the Anti Defamation League, a pro-Israel organization. I just recently watched a short video on youtube that documented the organizations of American Christians that are also pro-Israel. They were claiming that Jewish people moving to Israel would be necessary to trigger the return of Jesus Christ to Earth. Do you not believe this to be true? It seems strange that so many people in America would promote conspiracy theories about Jewish people while another group actively supports them in their efforts. All Christians believe in the same book, why the differing opinion on Israel and Jewish people?

[–]sineavec 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They were claiming that Jewish people moving to Israel would be necessary to trigger the return of Jesus Christ to Earth. Do you not believe this to be true?

I don't know much about it; I know it's Christian Zionism and there is money behind the movement. I believe in God and living according to how He wants me to live, this includes making use of my strong points and being aware of my weak points.

It seems strange that so many people in America would promote conspiracy theories about Jewish people while another group actively supports them in their efforts.

It's not a conspiracy theory. For instance this article, written by a Jewish journalist in the Times of Israel gloating over his people's control of the U.S.: https://web.archive.org/web/20140125085955/http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do. But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!” Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else! Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this? Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews? But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows. And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions. A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.

/

All Christians believe in the same book, why the differing opinion on Israel and Jewish people?

Every belief and system of thought becomes corrupted in ways, because it's in the hands of men and they have their own motivations, good or bad. They may use beliefs and others as a means to their own ends, rather an end in itself. A person is an end in itself, with his or her own value. Their value is guaranteed, and if someone says I will use this or that person for my own goals, that person is playing God. That is a clear corruption.

As far as I know concerning the Jews in the Bible, they became the first followers of Christ, Christians. Jews since then, you can consider them in the same way you can consider anyone. Jesus says, "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." Jewish influence on gentiles is a bad tree.

[–]sineavec 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I want to add, if the personality is weak what does it matter one's intelligence? Especially nowadays, when there is so much manipulation and intimidation. Liberals and atheists, they act fearfully in many ways. They censor themselves, they don't follow their ideas to their proper conclusions regardless of the circumstances, they go with the crowd. Intelligence has to be combined with attractive personal qualities and spiritedness.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The reason I found this article is because of the whole IQ debate thread in this sub. It wasn't because I wanted to claim a person's IQ score matters over their other traits but because it comes up a lot in these types of circles.