Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 14th, 2010 #1
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default Iq and religious tendencies

Old March 15th, 2010 #2
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
Igor Alexander's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander

Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
This chart is missing some key information, namely, the countries.

I'm sure there are more deeply religious people in Columbia than there are in Holland, and I'm also just as sure that the discrepancy in average IQ between the two countries has nothing to do with religion.
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
Old March 15th, 2010 #3
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
Igor Alexander's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander

I'm looking over this list called The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time:

(Curiously, the site doesn't provide an equivalent list called The 50 Most Brilliant Religious People of All Time.)

Two things strike me about this list:
  1. The majority of the people mentioned don't describe themselves as being atheists, and a close examination of their views bears out that they are, in fact, not atheists in the sense that that word is commonly used in today.

    Carl Sagan called himself an agnostic, not an atheist:

    Sagan was an outspoken opponent of nuclear weapons and starred in the popular PBS television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Noted as a skeptic who advocated for humanist ideals, the public considered him an atheist. Sagan called himself an agnostic instead, explaining that "an atheist has to know a lot more than I know" in order to make a positive assertion that no deity exists.
    Stephen Hawking also thinks of himself an agnostic:

    Hawking sometimes comes across quite like a deist in his popular writings, particularly in the book, A Brief History of Time, in which most of the questions posed of the universe also echo questions traditionally asked of God. In that book Hawking expounded upon his "no boundary" model by stating, "If the no boundary proposal is correct, He [God] had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions." While he does not publicly profess atheism, Hawking does profess agnosticism.
    Are true dyed-in-the-wool atheists so hard to come by that they have to include agnostics in their list to make it to 50?

  2. Make of it what you will, but at least 8 out of the 50, or 16 percent, are jews, including virulently loxist ones like Freud, Chomsky, Rand, and Gould. I don't know if John Searle is a kike, but his politics makes one wonder. From Wikipedia:

    In the 1950s, as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin, Searle was the secretary of "Students against [Joseph] McCarthy." (McCarthy was the junior Senator from Wisconsin).[1]


    In an op-ed piece written shortly after 9/11, he argued the attacks were part of a longer-term struggle whose only solution was to root out governments that supported terrorism.[4]

And you know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when you include Mick Jagger, David Gilmour, Brian Eno, Bruce Lee, and Jodie Foster on your list of the most brilliant atheists of all time. Are brilliant atheists so hard to come by that rock stars and Hollywood actors have to be included? LOL.
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.

Last edited by Igor Alexander; March 15th, 2010 at 02:07 AM.
Old March 15th, 2010 #4
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
Igor Alexander's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander

Number 1 on the list is Democritus. According to Wikipedia,

Democritus followed in the tradition of Leucippus, who seems to have come from Miletus, and he carried on the scientific rationalist philosophy associated with that city. They were both strict determinists and thorough materialists, believing everything to be the result of natural laws, and they will have nothing to do with chance or randomness. Unlike Aristotle or Plato, the atomists attempted to explain the world without the presuppositions of purpose, prime mover, or final cause. For the atomists questions should be answered with a mechanistic explanation ("What earlier circumstances caused this event?"), while their opponents searched for teleological explanations ("What purpose did this event serve?"). The history of modern science has shown that mechanistic questions lead to scientific knowledge, especially in physics, while the teleological question can be useful in biology, in adaptationist reasoning at providing proximate explanations, though the deeper evolutionary explanations are thoroughly mechanistic. The atomists looked for mechanistic questions, and gave mechanistic answers. Their successors until the Renaissance became occupied with the teleological question, which ultimately hindered progress.[24]
Democritus appears to have believed in what we today would call the Big Bang and evolution theory:

Democritus held that the earth was round, and stated that originally the universe was composed of nothing but tiny atoms churning in chaos, until they collided together to form larger units—including the earth and everything on it.[2]
Now, a common supposition by the atheist contingent here at VNNF is that if only everyone had a materialistic world-view like that of Democritus, if only everyone believed in evolution, we wouldn't be dealing with all this poisonous egalitarianism that is destroying us today.

We know what Democritus's scientific views were, but what of his political beliefs? Again from Wikipedia:

The ethics and politics of Democritus come to us mostly in the form of maxims. He says that "Equality is everywhere noble," but he is not encompassing enough to include women or slaves in this sentiment. Poverty in a democracy is better than prosperity under tyrants, for the same reason one is to prefer liberty over slavery. Those in power should "take it upon themselves to lend to the poor and to aid them and to favor them, then is there pity and no isolation but companionship and mutual defense and concord among the citizens and other good things too many to catalogue."
Ha, so Democritus was an egalitarian! He would've loved the modern welfare state.

What were the spiritual and cosmological views of Plato, Democritus's nemesis and a student and apostle of Socrates?

In many middle period dialogues, such as the Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus Plato advocates a belief in the immortality of the soul, and several dialogues end with long speeches imagining the afterlife. More than one dialogue contrasts knowledge and opinion, perception and reality, nature and custom, and body and soul.
"Platonism" is a term coined by scholars to refer to the intellectual consequences of denying, as Socrates often does, the reality of the material world. In several dialogues, most notably the Republic, Socrates inverts the common man's intuition about what is knowable and what is real. While most people take the objects of their senses to be real if anything is, Socrates is contemptuous of people who think that something has to be graspable in the hands to be real. In the Theaetetus, he says such people are "eu a-mousoi", an expression that means literally, "happily without the muses" (Theaetetus 156a). In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality.
So we see that Plato was not an atheist or a materialist -- in fact, he held such people in contempt -- and that his views were in some regards not far removed from those that are held by Christians.

Was Plato an egalitarian? Hardly.

Plato, through the words of Socrates, asserts that societies have a tripartite class structure corresponding to the appetite/spirit/reason structure of the individual soul. The appetite/spirit/reason stand for different parts of the body. The body parts symbolize the castes of society.[30]
  • Productive Which represents the abdomen. (Workers) — the labourers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants, farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
  • Protective Which represents the chest. (Warriors or Guardians) — those who are adventurous, strong and brave; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.
  • Governing Which represents the head. (Rulers or Philosopher Kings) — those who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community. These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.

According to this model, the principles of Athenian democracy (as it existed in his day) are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of rhetoric and persuasion, Plato says reason and wisdom should govern.
From all this I conclude that the simplistic notion embraced by some here that mysticism or a belief in the human soul and an afterlife is somehow the cause of all the troubles we face as a society today, or that Christianity brought some new belief to the West that hadn't existed before, is nonsense.

I also note the striking similarities between Socrates and Jesus. Could the Socrates myth have formed the basis of the Jesus myth? If so, Christianity is more Western than some may realize.
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.

Last edited by Igor Alexander; March 15th, 2010 at 03:24 AM.
Old March 15th, 2010 #5
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle

IQ and Religion

The graph shown above relates the arithmetic mean IQ measured in various country's populations, to the fraction of each country's population that believes religion is very important.

The green diamonds represent individual countries; the yellow line is a linear regression (y = mx + b), calculated by the least squares method. The United States data point is circled in red. TK Solver was used to create the graph from the data listed in the table below:

Percent who say religion is very important
(Pew survey)
(from Lynn & Vanhanen)

Argentina 39 96
Bangladesh 88 81
Bolivia 66 85
Brazil 77 87
Bulgaria 13 93
Canada 30 97
Czech Republic 11 97
France 11 98
Germany 21 102
Ghana 84 71
Great Britain 33 100
Guatemala 80 79
Honduras 72 84
India 92 81
Indonesia 95 89
Italy 27 102
Ivory Coast 91 71
Japan 12 105
Kenya 85 72
Mali 90 68
Mexico 57 87
Nigeria 92 67
Pakistan 91 81
Peru 69 90
Philipines 88 86
Poland 36 99
Russia 14 96
Senegal 97 64
Slovakia 29 95
South Africa 87 72
South Korea 25 106
Tanzania 83 72
Turkey 65 90
United States 59 98
Uganda 85 73
Ukraine 35 96
Uzbekistan 35 87
Venezuela 61 88
Vietnam 24 96

The data shown above begs the question: what would be revealed by a survey that correlated IQ and religiosity on an individual basis? Within a given population, is religion more important to persons of high intelligence, or low intelligence?

The religious attitude data is from a poll that was part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The survey report is available online at:

The question wording used in the poll was as follows:

How important is religion in your life—very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?

The report available online only lists the percentage that said religion was 'very important'. The data from the report is listed below:

Religion Very Important

North America:
U.S. 59 %
Canada 30 %

West Europe:
Great Britain 33 %
Italy 27 %
Germany 21 %
France 11 %

East Europe:
Poland 36 %
Ukraine 35 %
Slovakia 29 %
Russia 14 %
Bulgaria 13 %
Czech 11 %

Conflict Area:
Pakistan 91 %
Turkey 65 %
Uzbekistan 35 %

Latin America:
Guatemala 80 %
Brazil 77 %
Honduras 72 %
Peru 69 %
Bolivia 66 %
Venezuela 61 %
Mexico 57 %
Argentina 39 %

Indonesia 95 %
India 92 %
Philipines 88 %
Bangladesh 88 %
Korea 25 %
Vietnam 24 %
Japan 12 %

Senegal 97 %
Nigeria 92 %
Ivory Coast 91 %
Mali 90 %
South Africa 87 %
Kenya 85 %
Uganda 85 %
Ghana 84 %
Tanzania 83 %
Angola 80 %

The IQ data is from IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

p. 73-80, Table 6.5: National IQ based on arithmetic means calculated by Lynn and Vanhanen (2002), in parentheses PISA scores of "mathematical competence" (Prenzel, Manfred et al. (eds).: PISA 2003. Münster: Waxmann 2004, p. 70, Table 2.9; or: PISA 2003: A Profile of Student Performance in Mathematics) , transformed into IQ (PISA scores, mean 500, SD 100, have to be transformed into IQ values, mean 100, SD 15, by adding or subtracting the deviation from the mean in the relationship 100 : 15 = 6,67, that means PISA 433 corresponds to IQ 90, PISA 500 to IQ 100, PISA 567 to IQ 110):

Afghanistan IQ 83
Albania IQ 90 (78)
Algeria IQ 84
Angola IQ 69
Antigua and Barbuda IQ 75
Argentina IQ 96 (82)
Armenia IQ 93
Australia IQ 98 (104)
Austria IQ 102 (101)
Azerbaijan IQ 87
Bahamas IQ 78
Bahrain IQ 83
Bangladesh IQ 81
Barbados IQ 78
Belarus IQ 96
Belgium IQ 100 (104)
Belize IQ 83
Benin IQ 69
Bhutan IQ 78
Bolivia IQ 85
Botswana IQ 72
Brazil IQ 87 (78)
Brunei IQ 92
Bulgaria IQ 93 (87)
Burkina Faso IQ 67
Burma IQ 86
Burundi IQ 70
Cambodia IQ 89
Cameroon IQ 70
Canada IQ 97 (105)
Cape Verde IQ 78
Central African Republic IQ 68
Chad IQ 72
Chile IQ 93 (81)
China IQ 100
Colombia IQ 89
Comoros IQ 79
Congo (Brazzaville) IQ 73
Congo (Zaire) IQ 65
Costa Rica IQ 91
Croatia IQ 90
Cuba IQ 85
Cyprus IQ 92
Czech Republic IQ 97 (102)
Denmark IQ 98 (102)
Djibouti IQ 68
Dominica IQ 75
Dominican Republic IQ 84
Ecuador IQ 80
Egypt IQ 83
El Salvador IQ 84
Equatorial Guinea IQ 59
Eritrea IQ 68
Estonia IQ 97
Ethiopia IQ 63
Fiji IQ 84
Finland IQ 97 (107)
France IQ 98 (102)
Gabon IQ 66
Gambia IQ 65
Georgia IQ 93
Germany IQ 102 (100)
Ghana IQ 71
Greece IQ 92 (92)
Grenada IQ 75
Guatemala IQ 79
Guinea IQ 66
Guinea-Bissau IQ 66
Guayana IQ 84
Haiti IQ 72
Honduras IQ 84
Hongkong IQ 107 (107)
Hungary IQ 99 (99)
Iceland IQ 98 (102)
India IQ 81
Indonesia IQ 89 (79)
Iran IQ 84
Iraq IQ 87
Ireland IQ 93 (100)
Israel IQ 94 (96)
Italy IQ 102 (95)
Ivory Coast IQ 71
Jamaica 72
Japan IQ 105 (105)
Jordan IQ 87
Kazakhstan IQ 93
Kenya IQ 72
Kiribati IQ 84
Korea (North) IQ 104
Korea (South) IQ 106 (106)
Kuwait IQ 83
Kyrgyzystan IQ 87
Laos IQ 89
Latvia IQ 97 (97)
Lebanon IQ 86
Lesotho IQ 72
Liberia IQ 65
Libya IQ 84
Liechtenstein (105)
Lithuania IQ 97
Luxembourg IQ 101 (99)
Macao (104)
Macedonia IQ 93 (80)
Madagascar IQ 79
Malawi IQ 71
Malaysia IQ 92
Maldives IQ 81
Mali IQ 69
Malta IQ 95
Marshall Islands IQ 84
Mauritania IQ 74
Mauritius IQ 81
Mexico IQ 87 (83)
Micronesia IQ 84
Moldova IQ 95
Mongolia IQ 98
Morocco IQ 85
Mozambique IQ 72
Namibia IQ 72
Nepal IQ 78
Netherlands IQ 102 (106)
New Zealand IQ 100 (103)
Maori (100)
Nicaragua IQ 84
Niger IQ 67
Nigeria IQ 67
Norway IQ 98 (99)
Oman IQ 83
Pakistan IQ 81
Panama IQ 85
Papua New Guinea IQ 84
Paraguay IQ 85
Peru IQ 90 (76)
Philippines IQ 86
Poland IQ 99 (99)
Portugal IQ 95 (95)
Puerto Rico IQ 84
Qatar IQ 78
Romania IQ 94
Russia IQ 96 (95)
Rwanda IQ 70
Samoa (Western) IQ 87
Sao Tome/Principe IQ 59
Saudi Arabia IQ 83
Senegal IQ 65
Serbia IQ 93
Seychelles IQ 81
Sierra Leone IQ 64
Singapore IQ 103
Slovakia IQ 96 (100)
Slovenia IQ 95
Solomon Islands IQ 84
Somalia IQ 84
South Africa IQ 72
Spain IQ 97 (98)
Sri Lanka IQ 81
St. Kitts and Nevis IQ 75
St. Lucia IQ 75
St. Vincent/Grenadines IQ 75
Sudan IQ 72
Suriname IQ 89
Swaziland iQ 72
Sweden IQ 101 (101)
Switzerland IQ 101 (104)
German Swiss (106)
French Swiss (104)
Ticino (102)
Syria IQ 87
Taiwan IQ 104
Tajikistan IQ 87
Tanzania IQ 72
Thailand (87)
Togo IQ 69
Tonga IQ 87
Trinidad and Tobago IQ 80
Tunisia IQ 84 (79)
Turkey IQ 90 (88)
Turkmenistan IQ 87
Uganda IQ 73
Ukraine IQ 96
United Arab Emirates IQ 83
United Kingdom IQ 100
Northern Ireland (102)
Scotland (104)
Wales (100)
United States of America IQ 98 (97)
Uruguay IQ 96 (88)
Uzbekistan IQ 87
Vanuatu IQ 84
Venezuela IQ 89
Vietnam IQ 96
Yemen IQ 83
Zambia IQ 77
Zimbabwe IQ 66

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores are the test results of representative samples of 15-years olds, tested in 2003. Because the IQ scores estimated by Lynn and Vanhanen have the IQ 100 of the United Kingdom as "Greenwich-IQ" , the IQ transformed from PISA may be about 3 points too high. Moreover, from 2000 to 2003 all PISA means show an increase of 3 PISA points because Turkey was included in 2003 in order to calculate the OECD mean, but not in 2000.

p. 44: ”The number of geniuses produced by a population depends on the population’s mean IQ. For a population with a mean IQ of 100, an IQ of 158 is present in approximately one individual out of 30,000. In a population with a mean IQ of 115, there would be approximately one individual per 1,000 people with an IQ over 158, a thirty-fold increase, Thus, differences in the mean IQs of national populations will have large multiplier effects on the numbers of geniuses produced. These effects are likely to contribute both directly and indirectly to economic development.”
Old March 17th, 2010 #6
Holorep survivor
Hugh's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850

Atheism is as much a belief system as any other religion, and in fact makes even less sense.

The truth is that we simply don't know, so agnosticism and a clear mind are about the best one can aim for. As far as our struggle is concerned, the actual truth or otherwise of religion is utterly irrelevant.What matters is what the people we want to influence believe, not what we believe.

When we have the power, then we can clear peoples minds, until we do, smile, shake hands and kiss babies till we get the power.

The real question with this unrelenting attack on Christianity is who benefits?

So far, only the Jews have benefitted.

If people think the struggle will be won by waging an argument which has been ongoing for 2000 years, they are sadly mistaken.

It will be won though secession, propaganda, relocation of taxpayers, gaining control of taxbases, and various forms of struggle, all of them extremely unpleasant.

The endless attacks on Christianity, which right or wrong is the belief system of the majority of Whites and has been for over 1500 years, give the movement the appearance of a bunch of kids rebelling simply for the sake of rebelling, doing and saying things and wearing clothes designed to shock, to attract attention.

WN is not about rebellion, it is ultra conservative. The Jews are the rebels
It is not revolutionary, it is about returning to the way we were before Jewish rule. The Jews are the revolutionaries.
It is not about installing socialism or absolute rule. The Jews want socialism and absolute rule.

These attacks will not persuade millions of taxpayers to change their attitudes, relocate, and where necessary secede.
Nor does it create the image of people who are the best choice for leaders and to form future White governments, of people who can be entrusted with the future and lives of the White race.

We cannot have WN governments unless we are able and willing to become that government.
There is no other option for us.

A few simple rules when trying to recruit large numbers of people to your side:
1) don't attack them
2) don't repel them
3) don't drive them away

1) look normal
2) sound normal
3) act normal

There are plenty of records of Christians separating from Jews, or seceding and forming new countries.
Anyone have any records of atheists separating from Jews, or seceding and forming new countries?

The folks with the highest IQs are generally found in universities, in the media and in the financial sector. How's that worked out?

They are pretty much all atheists, and they also believe :
1) men and women are physically the same
2) communism is good
3) jews are innocent victims of Whites
4) all non-whites are innocent victims of Whites
5) there are no differences between races
6) homosexuality is a-ok
7) uncontrolled immigration is just fine
8) control of a nation's finances, government, culture and legal system by people from other countries is just fine

These are all unsubstantiated beliefs, and not only unsubstantiated, they are disproved daily right in front of of their eyes, but they are such fanatical believers they deny the reality of their own eyes. These are the people whose ideas about religion are held up as role models to us.

They're atheists with high iqs, so if they're right about atheism then I guess they must be right about all their other beliefs as well.

Let's look a little closer at the atheist belief system:

1) there was nothing
2) nothing exploded into balls of fire
3) fire became stone
4) stone became water
5) water became plants
6) plants became insects and fish
7) fish became reptiles
8) reptiles became birds and mammals initially the size and shape of furry rats
9) these rats became all mammals including people
10) atheism is rational

I guess that's what happens when drug addicted teenagers from the sixties become professors in the nineties.

Folks need to distinguish between spirituality and religion and organised religion, and learn a little history before knocking christianity or any other religion.

There's almost no connection between Christianity as practiced by Whites, and that described in the bible, and almost no connection between the New Testament and the Old.

Most of the Old Testament is based upon Egyptian and Babylonian myths and legends and religions.
This is known to us all, yet even though we know this, some among us still portray these as being Jewish beliefs.

Jews are a society of organised sociopaths, of organised crime families, who do and say anything to get what they want. The only thing they believe in is money.

Jews simply took the stories of other peoples, changed the names and the context and voila, a Sumerian myth of Gilgamesh and the flood turns into Noah and the flood.

As if Jews were ever mighty warriors, more likely they tailed along at the back of Assyrian and other armies, acting as pimps, drug dealers, fences for stolen goods, and slavers, just like today. The wars actually waged by other peoples such as the Assyrians became the tales of David and Joshua and other fictional Jewish heroes.

Christianity as actually practiced is based upon a merging of the various religions in the Roman empire at the time.
It was devised by the ruling class to bind together their subjects through religion rather than endless wars between each other, and by the Jews to get the masses to believe that Jews are their spiritual leaders.

It's notable that as religious belief declines, the birth rates do too, and in time the atheists literally simply disappear.

How are the bllodlines and thought patterns of atheistic Whites with none or few children going to survive versus say the catholics and mormons with 6 or more kids?

How are the atheistic Whites going to be faring through the generations compared to the muslims?
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.
Page generated in 0.12895 seconds.