Jan. 12, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
45:23
3960 S**THOLE COUNTRIES
The mainstream media is in a uproar after President Donald Trump allegedly referred to “s**thole” countries during an immigration related policy discussion. Stefan Molyneux looks at history of competing scientific theories, the differences between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and the importance of looking at the science of Intelligence disparities to have an informed discussion. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Thousands of years ago, in ancient Athens, there was a plague that raced through the city and decimated the population.
And there was a Greek historian who died 400 BC. His name was Thucydides.
And he was, in his writings, the first person to state when he was writing about this plague in Athens.
He thought, is it possible, or I think that diseases can actually spread from one infected person?
To another. And this was a shocking theory at the time.
This grew into what's called the miasma theory of why people get sick.
And it was external and environmental.
There was bad air.
There was pollution. There was the fetid burps from the swamp of Mother Earth kicking up nasty diseases.
And this was basically the idea of how disease spread, this miasma theory.
And it really is astonishing just how long it lasted.
We're talking maybe 400 BC to the 1850s to the 1890s is when it really began to change.
So that is, what, 2300 years, 2300 years that a particular bad theory, a false theory of disease transmission took hold.
And so what they thought was that diseases like chlamydia infections, cholera, or this black death, this was caused by miasma, kind of ancient Greek for pollution.
It was bad air, there was like rotting organic matter that caused it, poisonous vapors, mists filled with particles, decomposed matter is one of the reasons why they buried it.
They're dead. And you could smell the presence of disease transmission because, of course, the horrible stink.
So diseases were the product of things around you, environmental factors, contaminated water, bad air, bad hygienic conditions, and so on.
And... The reason why this theory obviously was false in many ways, or incomplete to put it mildly, was it said these infections aren't passed between individuals.
But what happens is, if you're in a neighborhood with bad air or rotting corpses or diseased produce and so on, rotting and decaying produce, then you're all breathing the same air.
It doesn't pass from one person to another.
So, for instance, if I'm sick with some contagious disease, which we would understand now would be transmitted probably through sneezing, touching, or something like that, they said, well, sneezing and touching has nothing to do with it.
If you're in a house, it's burning down.
You're suffering from smoke inhalation.
Well, the person next to you is also suffering from smoke inhalation.
But you wouldn't say that they're suffering from smoke inhalation because you touched them or because you sneezed.
It's because the bad air is common to you both.
So this was really wrong, extraordinarily wrong.
And this was really terrible, of course, during the time of the Black Death when so many people in places, a third of Europeans, died because of bubonic plague carried from the Middle East to Europe on the backs of rats on trading ships.
And what happened was so many people died that, of course, the priests would go from bedside to bedside to bedside, giving last rites, giving last rites, thus spreading the disease.
And, of course, also the priests died like flies, of course.
Because the priests would be exposed to so many dead bodies, so many dead and dying bodies, giving last rites and blessings and so on.
They would spread the disease and then they would be killed by the disease.
And of course, the wages of sin is death.
There was a general skepticism that arose regarding Christendom at the time because so many priests died.
And because disease was considered to be a punishment of the devil, then...
That is what triggered the skepticism towards religion in many ways.
So the germ theory, so like the modern germ theory, and there's a really important reason I'm talking about all this.
I think it's fascinating in and of itself.
It's really important to understand. So the modern germ theory, which finally took off around the 1890s, was first proposed by Girolamo Fracastoro in 1546.
1546. 450 years before it finally took off.
And the theory was expanded on by a guy named Marcus von Plenzies in 1762.
That's almost 230 years, so a quarter of a millennia coming up.
And so this idea was put out.
Of course, you know, these tiny bacteria that float through the air and reproduce in your body, and it's more than bacteria, but...
And so they put forward this idea.
But of course, there was an existing economic structure based upon the miasma theory and, of course, the idea that tiny organisms that multiplied in the system that were transmitted through sneeze, through touch, and so on, that it was not a common environmental factor.
But the contact...
The transmission of these bacteria or other ailments, microorganisms that cause disease, went against the moral explanation for disease, which is that you get sick because you're a bad person.
So you've got an environmental explanation, and you have a moral explanation.
Right? The environmental explanation, it's bad air.
The moral explanation is you're a bad person, therefore God has struck you down with disease.
So these guys, I mean the first guy was talking about transmission from one person to another, 400 plus BC. You got guys in the 16th century and the 18th century talking about it, but these views were held in contempt by doctors and by priests and others.
And so this miasma theory was dominant.
It was dominant. The mainstream among doctors and scientists and others.
So, because there was this both moral factor, which is more in the case of the clergy, and this general bad air factor was believed, this miasma theory prevented scientists and doctors from actually figuring out how disease is spread.
And what were the consequences?
Well, the consequences were, of course, That because they thought a disease was local to bad air, like if somebody is in a burning building, let's say the fire is out, but it's really, really smoky in there, what do you do?
Well, you take the person out of the bad environment.
And so what happened is when people got sick, they'd say something is local to the air.
We need to move the sick people to a new area where it's clear.
But what they did, of course, was spread the disease.
The exact opposite of what they wanted because they lacked knowledge.
They lacked science.
You understand? In the late 1850s, you probably know Louis Pasteur, and he began to work on it, Robert Koch, I guess the last Koch that the left liked in the 1880s.
End of the 1880s, there was a real battle between the miasma theory and the germ theory of disease.
And then what happened was...
And by the way, like inoculations and someone were practiced in India as early as 1000 AD, and people practiced inoculations, particularly against smallpox, even without having any clue why it worked.
So in the late 19th century, it was the golden era of bacteriology.
And what happened was the new germ theory led to the identification of the actual microorganisms that cause a whole bunch of diseases.
So in the 1890s, they discovered viruses as well.
And then, of course, we have the modern world.
The modern world is birthed in free markets, science, reason, and to some degree, medicine.
It's very hard to grow an economy if everybody keeps dying off.
If, say, half of children die before the age of five, then what happens is you're pouring an enormous amount of resources into pregnancy and feeding and sleeplessness and emotional investment and half the population or half the population of children gets wiped out before the age of five.
It's really hard to grow the economy.
You need some increase in longevity in order to be able to grow the economy and part of the 20th century Where economies have grown despite massive central banking, roller coasters of the economy, you know, 13-year Great Depressions, two giant world wars, a nuclear arms race, there's still been some staggering growth of the economy because medicine and hygiene have improved.
So, here's why this is important.
So if you look at the history of germ theory or history of why there are diseases, there was an environmental factor and there was a moral factor.
Now, if you look at the disparity of the wealth of nations these days, and the reason why we're talking about this is that President Trump allegedly referred to Haiti and other countries, I think, in Africa as shitholes.
And he says he didn't.
He said the language was strong, but he didn't use that phrase.
But this question of why are some countries rich and why are some countries poor is something that tortures people.
James Woods was just tweeting about it, and Jimmy Boy, love your acting, man.
I'm going to give you not an answer, the answer, the answer.
And so if you look at the island, You've got Haiti on one side and you've got the Dominican Republic on the other.
And Haiti is a disaster.
And the Dominican Republic, while not a first world country by any stretch of the imagination, is countless times better off than Haiti.
So, the question is, why are some countries still such a mess?
And why are some countries doing so well?
People say, well, Haiti had to pay reparations for like 100 years.
For a slave rebellion, well, okay.
But Japan, you see, was bombed from end to end and had two nukes dropped on it by the end of the Second World War and recovered very quickly.
And Germany was bombed end to end, invaded, occupied, carved in two with a little bubble sister freedom of West Berlin, right in the middle of the Soviet occupied territory.
And Germany recovered relatively quickly.
Why is it that South Korea is wealthy and North Korea is starving?
Well, The explanation that has been put forward, traditionally, is twofold.
And it's exactly the same as the miasma theory of illness transmission.
It's environmental and it's moral.
So the environment is, well, they don't have enough food, they don't have enough medicine, they don't have enough wealth, and therefore they're poor.
And if we give them wealth, they will then become wealthy.
And part of this, of course, is...
Maintained because there's this myth that the Marshall Plan, after the Second World War, was responsible for the recovery of Europe from the war, which is false.
It's completely false. European recovery, particularly German recovery, was based upon free markets and a rationalization of the Currency and was well underway before any of the money came in for that.
And if we just look at trillions and trillions of dollars shoveled to the third world over the past 50, 60 years, and there's been very little progress at all.
So the question is why?
Well, the answer is it's environmental, you see.
They don't have the right infrastructure.
They don't have the right education.
They don't have the right opportunities.
And if you just, you know, build schools and build roads and everything...
They'll be just fine.
So it's environmental. The reason why these countries are doing badly is because it's environmental.
That's the miasma theory as applied to the disparity of progress in the wealth of nations.
Now, the other case which is associated with it is the moral case.
That the reason, say, Africa is doing badly is because evil white colonialism went in, strip-mined all the resources, took them out, destroyed the countries, destroyed the economies, and that's it.
And so it is evil white enslavement and racism and colonialism and exploitation.
That's the standard Marxist argument.
And so you have the environmental argument that if we change the environment of people in Haiti, then they will become like people in Norway, right?
Because this was the other country that Trump was comparing Haiti to.
He says, why are we taking people from Haiti?
We should be taking people, or why aren't we taking more people from, say, Norway?
Well, it's a very important reason for all of this.
And I just want you to get a scope of how important this is.
Imagine, just imagine, if the germ theory of disease transmission, the ideology of disease, if germ theory had supplanted the miasma theory thousands of years earlier, how much further along the continuum of human development would we be?
How many billions of lives could have been saved?
The simple denial of basic scientific facts, the hostility towards competing theories, entrenched interests fighting viciously to the detriment potentially of human civilization, fighting viciously against new theories that displace their mindset.
Just imagine How many billions of lives were squandered, wasted?
How much human potential was destroyed?
How many civilizations and opportunities were plowed under?
Because people failed to accept and explore the alternative hypothesis, which turned out to be factually correct.
Now, the priesthood to some degree rejected the argument that disease was not a punishment of God for evildoing.
Why? Because they were selling protection from that evildoing by God.
Some. And so priests throughout the world did not particularly like the germ theory because the germ theory was that, well, no, no, God didn't strike you down job style because you were bad.
You just happened to be exposed to a particular germ and you were susceptible to it.
So they would have less to sell in terms of protection from retribution, divine retribution.
And of course, existing doctors were trained in a particular theory.
And there were, of course, entire industries set up to protect people from disease using the miasma theory, which if the germ theory proved to be true, well, people would be upset with them, they would lose the source of their income.
So there's a lot of entrenched interests that...
And of course, there is an old saying about science, that science progresses not through argument, but because the older generation who believe the discredited theory eventually dies off, making way for the new generation, the younger generation, with the new theory, which is pretty sad, of course, pretty pathetic for scientists to be in that context.
So... If we look at miasma theory versus germ theory, we have the moral environmental explanation versus the germ theory explanation, which is the correct and true explanation.
Now, there are two competing theories as to why Races and nations do better or worse.
And one of the theory, of course, is, well, exploitation, colonialism, slavery, legacy, blah, blah, blah, right?
And that is the moral explanation.
And it is, of course, environmental.
And these two are tied together.
So... If you can convince, say, white people that their wealth was accumulated through the exploitation of the third world, then clearly white people have a somewhat arguable but acceptable possible moral obligation to return said money to the third world.
So if your ancestors only became wealthy because they owned slaves and you only have wealth and you only have that big southern plantation house because of slavery, then there's an argument to be made.
I'm not saying it's a great argument, but it's obviously compelling for some.
There's an argument to be made that says, well, you're rich because your ancestors stole from my ancestors.
I'm poor because your ancestors stole from my ancestors, so you better give it back.
You better give it back.
And this is foundational to so much of human relations, particularly international relations, but also to local.
If you look at indigenous populations versus particularly white governments or largely white governments, this is the argument that is made.
And so these two work together.
These two, the moral argument, this is why it's so tough to crack, the moral argument and the environmental argument.
The moral argument says, you're rich because I'm poor, so you owe me some money back.
And the environmental argument says, if you give me the money back, I'll be great.
Because I'm only doing worse because I don't have the money that your ancestors stole from me, so once you give me that money back, then I will be doing fine.
So, you have a direct incentive, of course, right?
You have entrenched interests who facilitate the transfer of trillions of dollars from the first world to the third world.
And they are all invested in, you know, like other scientific or particular theories, like the theory of the welfare state that you just, the rich are rich because they exploit the poor, so you take the money from the rich and you give the money to the poor and the poor will be fine.
These are, again, moral and environmental issues.
So this moral and environmental argument is really, really, it's a tough nut to crack.
If you look at how long it took for the germ theory to emerge, triumphant, thousands and thousands of years.
I mean, that's astonishing, because once you've got this moral, environmental, I mean, you look at Marxism as a whole, right?
I mean, the capitalists are rich because they've exploited the workers, so the government needs to take money from the capitalists and give it to the workers and give the workers control.
Over the means of production, right?
So you've got this moral and environmental argument.
It's a very, very tough nut to crack, and this is where we are.
So let's look at the controversy that was going on.
So President Trump, he said, oh yeah, well, I did use some tough language during a meeting that he had, trying to work on some immigration deal.
But he said he didn't use the term shithole to refer to some countries.
And I quote, the language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough.
But this was not the language used.
What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made, a big setback for DACA. This is what he wrote.
On Twitter.
And so some people say he used this word shithole and other people say he didn't.
He says that he didn't.
And he also tweeted that he said never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is obviously a very poor and troubled country.
Never said, take them out.
Made up by Dems.
I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians.
Probably should record future meetings.
Unfortunately, no trust.
Now, it is, of course, I mean, the level of hypocrisy is quite inevitable.
I mean, it doesn't even really bother me that much.
It's so... Predictable sun's rising tomorrow, and the left is going to be hypocritical, because they were not so concerned about Haiti when the Clintons were strip mining billions of dollars of relief efforts towards Haiti, and the Clinton Foundation, which profited from this, according to many, paid for Chelsea consistently.
Clinton's wedding. So that seems like pretty, pretty bad.
And there are lots of Haitians who regularly hold protests against the Clintons for, as they talk about, taking billions of dollars out of the country.
So that is not, they don't really care.
The other thing too, of course, is that when certain countries are referred to as, let's just say, bad countries, I mean, I don't know why the left would get that mad.
I mean, I kind of know, but it's so ridiculous, right?
Because they say, you can't say that these countries are bad, while at the same time they're saying, well, you can't send refugees back to these countries because they're terrible.
So you can't refer to a country as a shithole, but people can't go back there because it's a shithole.
What can you say? The other thing, too, is that...
The left has in general spent the last, I don't know, half century or so saying that white Western countries are cesspits of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny.
It's got rape culture and deplorables and all that.
And so they have been roundly insulting Western nations for a half century in the most egregious conceivable terms full of rapists and patriarchs and so on.
But then if you say anything bad about any country, you're just a terrible...
I don't know. I mean, what could you say?
What can you say?
So, why is this important?
Well, we do have, of course, all of this question.
And it's a question that's big for the Western world as a whole, which is immigration.
Now, the reason why I talked about the German theory is there are two competing theories.
As to why there are disparate outcomes between the races.
Let's be frank about it. We can call things as they are.
The beginning of wisdom of course is to call things by their proper names.
Why are there disparate outcomes between the races?
Why did Japan recover and Germany recover so well?
Why did Jews, after facing decimation in Europe, come to America with nothing in their pockets and achieve income parity with whites in four years after the Second World War?
Why in supposedly racist Western nations do East Asians, the Chinese and Japanese and so on, why do they make more money than whites do if whites are so racist?
And racism is the reason why minorities do worse economically.
I mean, then all minorities should do worse economically because, the theory goes, whites are racist against non-whites and therefore they hold them back and hold them down.
Then why on earth are whites unable to hold down the Chinese and the Japanese immigrants?
Can't really answer any of that according to the environment plus evil theory.
Of course, as the accumulated evidence of the entire catastrophic waste, and you should read the book White Man's Burden for more on this, but the amount of money that has been taken from poor people in rich countries and given to rich people in poor countries, the transfer of foreign aid from the first world to the third world, has not created the The promised outcome.
The promised outcome is where we take all this money and give it to the third world and the third world will become just like the first world.
That the difference between Kenya, say, or Tanzania or Libya, the difference between these countries or Somalia, the difference between these countries or regions and the West and Japan is we just need to give them a lot of money and everything will be fine.
Well, This is not born out, right?
Like the miasma theory of germs said, well, if you take people who are sick out of this environment and put them where people aren't sick, right?
Because if you take somebody suffering from smoke inhalation out of the house where he's breathing smoke and put him into a place where there's no smoke, he's going to get better.
If he's going to get better at all, that's his only chance.
Certainly the first thing you need to do.
And so the miasma theory said, well, what we do is, you see, we find people who are sick and we take them to where people are healthy because it's the environment that's making them sick and that's going to cure everyone.
But that's the opposite of what happened.
Of course, when you take people from an environment or you take people who are sick and you move them, To people who are healthy, to the region where people are healthy, if their illness is caused by germs, then you're going to spread the illness.
So the opposite. And again, it took thousands of years for this particular pattern to play itself out.
And the environment plus morals hypothesis, conjecture really, is false.
It has been falsified by any conceivable stretch of the imagination.
The amount of money That is trillions, just look in America, trillions and trillions of dollars have been poured from the white community into the black community.
And the black community is a disaster.
And in fact, it's more of a disaster in many ways than it was in the past.
Because you have a tripling of children being bought out of wedlock.
And I think it was Walter Williams who said no.
We said that the welfare state has accomplished what even slavery could not do, which is the destruction of the black family.
And blacks still have very little net wealth compared to even Hispanics, compared to whites, compared to East Asians, and certainly compared to the Jews.
Jews, of course, are at the very, very top.
So this, of course, is the question.
Why in Christian countries, and white Christians are so bigoted, why would Jews end up with so much money?
Again, there's all of these things that don't make any sense.
And the theory is very important, because the theory is the theory of environment plus evil, right?
The evil of whites, and if you change the environment, you change the person.
Well, this is the underlying theory behind the biggest transfer of humanity in the history of the world, which is the transfer of the third world to the first world.
The transfer from Africa, from the Middle East, or from other countries, from India and so on, into white nations.
That is the very largest, bar none, not even a close second, the very largest transfer of humanity in human history.
And the underlying theory is, well, it's going to be fine.
It's going to be fine.
Now, these countries are terrible in many ways.
You look at Haiti. Haiti is a terrible environment.
If somebody posted this mind experiment, you know, let's say that you're...
Your plane is going down and you don't know what it's going to be like.
You hope you can land well or you don't know.
Would you rather land in Norway or would you rather land in Haiti?
And we all understand these things, right?
It's like all of those liberals who say, well, if Trump gets in, I'm going to leave America.
Where? You're going to go to Canada, right?
You're going to go to a white country.
Well, for now. So.
The question is.
Why? Now.
The answer is interesting, because the other answer, which is, again, there is some small overlap.
It's not like whites or any other group have been perfectly moral throughout history, and it's not like environment is completely irrelevant.
Just look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea.
So North Korea started as communism and has now turned into the usual nightmarish dictatorship that communism generally turns into until it collapses.
And so you look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea in terms of like South Korea is many, many times wealthier per capita.
It's like 30 times or something like that compared to North Korea.
Because North Korea is a dictatorship where the free market is not allowed to operate.
So it doesn't matter how smart the general population is.
If the free market is not allowed to operate, intelligence has no traction.
It's like having the fastest car in the world hovering one foot above the ground.
You can rev the engine as much as you want, but there's no traction.
You can't get anywhere. And so when you don't allow the free market to operate, then intelligence can't solve the problems of creation and distribution.
Only the price system, only the free market system can solve that.
You can go to von Mises for more on this.
So that explains that.
If you look at why Germany and Japan did so well after the Second World War, well, because they're very high IQ countries.
Japan still, Germany of course is dropping as they take in more people from the Third World.
But Germans have one of the highest IQs in Europe and the Japanese have the highest non-Ashkenazi Jew IQ, that region, in the world.
So, that explains why they did so well after the Second World War, whereas other countries, they say, well, it was reparations from 100 or 200 years ago.
That's the problem. Why did Jews who came to America after the Second World War achieve income parity with whites within four years?
Because Ashkenazi Jews have staggeringly high IQs.
We're talking about IQ. We're talking about intelligence.
And... This explanation, which is the argument which is very scientifically validated.
IQ is like one of the oldest metrics.
It's gone back, I think, over 100 years now.
Actually, yeah, it would be over 100 years now.
IQ tests were given to like 6 million men in the armed services in the First World War in...
America, and it's been going on ever since, and it's very clear.
It's very clear that IQ is not equal between races, that there are races that score higher on IQs, and there are races that score lower on IQ tests, and IQ tests are a good proxy for success, for the capacity to make money in the free market.
And again, if you have no free market, your IQ becomes much less important.
Much less important, as we see the difference between North Korea and South Korea.
South Korea has a largely market economy.
North Korea is an ex-communist current dictatorship, no market functioning.
Therefore, they are poor.
And so if you look, Norway has a very high IQ, right north of 100.
Haiti has an IQ of 67 on average.
Now, just to put that in context, going back a couple of decades, that would be below the threshold of mental retardation.
And that is very important.
And that explains a lot.
And, again, it's not to say that environment doesn't matter, but there are arguments that...
Environment has less impact.
So the general science tends to be that IQ is 50% genetic in your youth and then it rises over time to the point where by your middle to later years it is 80% genetic.
And I've got a whole series of presentations and interviews with experts on IQ and all of that.
And hopefully that will help explain these things for you.
But that is the big challenge.
That is the big challenge to face.
And it's funny too because racism, the left considers racism to be functionally ineradicable because they say, well, white people are still horribly racist even after having been lectured about it for more than half a century.
White people are still inexorably, fundamentally racist, according to many on the left, which means that racism is fundamentally incurable in reality, according to the left.
But then, of course, and you can look this up yourself, a study was done some years ago, about half a decade ago, I think, and they measured racist attitudes around the world.
The most racist country, in fact, was India, right?
India, there's this obsession with darker to lighter shades, skin whitening creams and everything like that.
And of course, if racism is incurable, then if you import people from more racist countries to less racist countries, and of course, Western countries were by far the least racist, with some exceptions in Central and South America, but white countries were the least racist.
And so if you're importing all of these people from racist countries like Africa and India and so on, then given that racism cannot be cured, you are in fact importing more racism into your country.
If Indians are the most racist and millions of Indians come into the West, then they're bringing their ineradicable racism, according to the theory of the left, they're bringing their ineradical racism into the West.
And so if racism is really, really bad, then the left should be very skeptical towards Indian immigration.
Just to take an example, Indian immigration into the West, because that will increase statistically racism.
In the West, and again, there's caveats regarding the whole study and so on, but It's important information to have.
So, with regards to Haiti, one of the great questions, right, we talked about this earlier, the question between what's going on on one side of the island on Haiti and what's going on on the other side in the Dominican Republic, right?
Haiti has incomes like a couple hundred dollars a year on average and on the other side of the island, Dominican Republic is like four or five thousand dollars, if I remember rightly, income per capita per year.
So, What is the difference?
Well, of course, the immorality plus environment would say, well, there were military interventions in Haiti in the past, and there were, but there were actually worse and stronger military interventions in the Dominican Republic, so that has to get thrown out.
Well, whites are more racist towards Haitians than Dominicans.
Well... The presence of white racism outside of Haiti would not seem to be directly the cause of poverty within Haiti.
So the environment plus evil explanation, the miasma theory of underperformance in a country, doesn't answer any questions about Haiti.
Other than the fact that the Clintons seem to have flown by with a giant fissure net of picking up cash.
But if you look at the demographics, well, Haiti is 95% black, and they're only 5% mixed race and white.
I assume that whites are very rare there.
I dare say like albinos.
And so, in sub-Saharan Africa, you have an average IQ of 70.
In Haiti, you have an average IQ of 67.
Well... That's not going to give you a free and functioning society.
Now, the more the IQ is lower, there's still a bell curve, right?
There's still some very smart people in Haiti.
So when you have a lower IQ among a population on average, this is one of the reasons why I focus so much on the free market.
If you have a shorter supply of intelligent people, you need a freer market for the society to do well.
Because when you have a free market, more resources accumulate to the smarter people who can do the most to maximize those resources.
To take a silly example, the smarter people tend to save and less intelligent people tend to spend.
Right. I mean, you just go through a poor neighborhood.
There's like liquor stores, there's hair salons, there's, you know, convenience stores, there's whatever, right?
I mean, in northern Ontario, to take a cliche when I used to work up there, the cliche was you got your post office, you got your convenience store, and you got your beer store.
Why? So you go, you take your welfare check, you cash it at the post office.
This is back in the day. You cash it at the post office, you pick up your smokes from the convenience store, and then you buy your beer from the beer store, and then you go home.
And that's... Sorry. So smart people tend to save, and less smart people tend to spend.
Don't get me into the male-female stuff here.
That is a topic for another time.
And so if you look at what grows in economy, well, going and buying...
Beer and cigarettes, to take a cliched example, it's not going to grow your economy.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Whereas if you save, you invest, and so on, and you start companies, you know, this is the cliché of, like, well, these Korean stores in black neighborhoods.
And the blacks are all like, well, why do they have the store and we don't have the store?
Well, IQ explains that.
Koreans have an extraordinarily high IQ, on average, and this is the result of an enormous amount of historical suffering and winters and people who wouldn't plan just dying off.
And, I mean, it's a gruesome history.
It's a horrifying furnace that produces the higher...
IQ throughout history, according to the theories.
And so if you have a lower IQ population as a whole, you desperately, desperately need a free market so that the brilliant people among them can gain control or can end up earning and creating the most resources, which raises the standard of living for everyone as a whole.
And once you accept that the largely genetic basis of IQ is massively deterministic when it comes to particular groups and their potentials, you say, okay, well, if there are fewer smart people in a particular country, you need as free a market as humanly possible so that the rising tide can lift all boats.
The worst combination is a low IQ group with, well, the worst combination is always tyranny.
But if you have tyranny combined with A low IQ population.
Well, I mean, you have tyranny in Africa, but then you also have in certain places in Africa, this average IQ of 70, which means that you get, I mean, horrifying things, you know, child soldiers, cannibalism, you know, hunting albinos, trying to open the heads or open the skulls of bald guys in order to find gold in there, which is true only if you're a podcaster and it's kind of abstract, but...
So, if you want to look at the difference between Haiti, very, very poor, very chaotic, and very problematic, with very little ability to recover from natural disasters.
This is always the story. This was the El Salvadorians across in the States, 200,000 of which I think their status within the U.S. been rescinded by Trump.
They say, well, there was an earthquake in 2000.
And one people say, well, you know, there was a hurricane in Haiti a couple of years ago, and if you look at what's going in Puerto Rico.
You can see the same thing.
Well, there was this hurricane, there was this...
Well, you know, that doesn't explain much.
Again, you're going back to the environmental factor to explain why particular groups do better and why some particular groups do worse.
Well, they had a hurricane.
You don't think that hurricanes have been...
You think Florida gets hurricanes, right?
British Virgin Islands, Barbados don't get hurricanes.
And of course, no hurricane in history has ever done as much damage as the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I mean, these were radiation, for God's sakes.
I mean, it was insane, the entire destruction of infrastructure.
Ah, well, you know, Libya was bombed into submission, and it was terrible.
Absolutely, what's happened to Libya is horrifying.
And actually, Obama used the word shit to describe Libya.
I don't know.
People think, I don't know, it's not presidential.
I want a guy with massive amounts of testosterone.
Perhaps Obama excluded with his little girly tasseled weights.
But I want a guy with a lot of aggression, a lot of testosterone to be an ultimate alpha leader.
But he better not say a cuss word or I don't know.
It's just, I mean, good Lord, go back and listen to some of the tapes of Nixon, LBJ.
Go back and look at what John F. Kennedy was doing to his nude swims and banging everything with a half a pulse and so on.
Anyway, so I'll go back to the, oh, I can't believe that was racism in the White House.
My God, go back to Woodrow Wilson.
My God, I mean, the guy screened Birth of a Nation in the White House, if I remember rightly.
Anyway, so, to go back to this island, right, we have, people are saying, what's the difference between one side of the island and the other side of the island?
Well, sure, Papa Dr.
Vallier and so on, that's not inconsiderable.
But again, if you look at Germany, Germany recovered from Nazism, perhaps a little too far onto the cock side, but relatively quickly, if you look at, you had this insane culture in Japan.
I mean, there's this emperor that commanded young men to go full kamikaze and fly their planes into American warships and like fanatical devotion and all of that.
And they recovered fairly well from that kind of tyranny.
So it's not, again, the question of cause and effect is really, really complicated.
If you have a lower IQ population, they will tend to vote for more and more socialism.
There's a reason why Hispanics with an average IQ in the high 80s come into America and vote consistently for the left.
Because if you have a lower IQ, you gain far more benefit from welfare than you will from competing in the free market.
This is just a fundamental fact.
If you're a smart person, you sit there and say, okay, well, I can get this much on welfare and I get this many benefits, but I'm going to get stuck there and I can do better.
I've got a big upward trajectory.
But if you've got an IQ in the mid-80s, welfare is going to give you more benefits and resources than you can reasonably earn in the free market, at least in the short run.
If there was a genuine free market, again, rising tide lifts all boats and so on, you'll end up.
But that's asking for a lot of deferral of gratification for people with 85 to 90 IQ, which is not...
It's not going to happen. I mean, you don't take your kid who's 5'2 and say, go become an NBA star.
It's just not going to happen.
You can play basketball. You just can't play it at the highest level.
So looking at the Dominican Republic and Haiti, what's the difference?
Well, Haiti, average IQ of 67.
That is...
Well, that's low.
It's very, very low. 95% blacks, 5% mixed race and whites.
If you look at...
The Dominican Republic, much, much better off.
Well, instead of there being 95% blacks, as in Haiti, you have in the Dominican Republic only 11% of blacks.
And you have, instead of whites being somewhat in a rounding error in 5% as they are in Haiti, you have 16% of the Dominican Republic as whites and mixed race is 73%.
Now, what is the result of the difference in demographics between Haiti and the Dominican Republic?
So again, Haiti 95% black and Dominican Republic 11% black.
Well, Haiti's got an average IQ of 67 and the Dominican Republic has an average IQ in the high 80s.
That is a huge difference.
That is close to a standard deviation difference and that has an enormous impact on what kind of society you can have.
So, again, we can continue to do this, evil white people, and the reason why, I mean, I wish to release this emotional bullying and volatility from all races.
I wish white people to stop being guilty, and other groups to stop blaming whites.
For something that's not their fault.
It's not the fault of Jews.
It's not the fault of East Asians.
It's not the fault of whites that blacks and mestizos have lower IQs.
It's just, it's evolution.
I mean, it's everyone, of course, adapted and adopted to their local environment, and this is the way it played out.
You need to be smarter to plan for and survive four months of life.
Crop killing, no game to hunt winter.
It's just the way that evolution works.
Like our brain consumes like a third of our energy.
It's only 3% of our body mass.
It consumes like a third of our energy.
The idea that the brain is magically excluded from the effects of evolution is crazy.
So, it's not fun.
It's not a happy thing.
But... If we look at how long it took for the miasma theory, which was environment plus evil, immorality, to be displaced by the germ theory, which saved countless billions of lives.
