Hope you are doing well Brother..

Which, you know, might be the best thing that could happen at this point in our country’s history. It is going to be hell on earth, but it has to happen some time and I suspect you are right this would be the trigger. As we have seen with the current clown, these pricks are not hesitant to put us at risk of nuclear annihilation for feelz and profits. The economic deprivation certain to accompany a Harris Administration may make nuclear winter seem appealing.

None of what you said changes the assertion I made regarding *how* to estimate (broadly, there are equations and such) of Obama’s IQ. Yes, if you change his father, then you change input variables. Hell, if he was not born in the USA, then he should have not been President at all…but as repeatedly stated, we are now a lawless society and the end of such is quite predictable. Bush II, then Obama, then Trump, followed by Biden, now Harris are simply symptoms, not the cause. In that light, Obama’s IQ is an “academic exercise” and pretty meaningless.

There was no implication of race having to do with anything—per se. It is a IQ proxy and was mentioned/intimated by the immediate commenter I responded to. We often say that US Blacks have an average IQ of 85, Whites have an average IQ as standardize upon 100. This seems to be declining and we see a lot of White European countries as being around 98 or so. But those are simply quibbles for the purposes of the argument.Regression to the mean is often discussed as an explanation why two high IQ parents produce offspring higher in than normal IQ, but not quite reaching the parents’ averaged high IQ. And yes, you can combine the parent’s IQ in some form for comparison—crude, but often done. And yes, each parent has a group population mean.Here’s where I differ—I believe bright parents do have a “propensity” to produce brighter children on the average—and it’s not simply due to environmental factors. And yes, they also produce a “Paris Hilton” every so often.You would have us believe that bright outliers would produce children around the parents group mean, which would entail no advantage—assuming White population average of 100 IQ. Or would you now wish to believe that every person has a specific group average, not necessarily at 100?Regression means “approaching”, not necessarily reaching. Indeed, if two “outliers” mated and the product of their mating included none of the genotype that made them “outliers”, Darwinian theory takes a hit. Hell, with your assumption, you’d have a difficult time explaining Darwin and his illustrious family lineage. Look it up.In this country, we measure Black IQ as averaging 85, yet the racial stock from West Africa is in the 70’s? Why? Well, for one, the typical American Black is 25% *White* admixture. Hummm, is this something along the line of Charles Murray’s concept (he most likely did not originate such) of “assortive mating”.Charles Murray, in his book, “Coming Apart” discusses two anonymous communities (real data, all White, false names) as an illustration of assortive mating—Belmont and Fishtown. Belmont represents an affluent, educated upper-class neighborhood, while Fishtown symbolizes a working-class, less educated, and more dysfunctional neighborhood.The results are of course stark in every measure of behavior and intelligence across a period of years. Belmont folk mix with Belmont folk and pass on their (better) genetics. Fishtown the same, but with worse genetics.Murray does not even question this assertion, but laments in essence that the Fishtowners don’t have access to the better quality Belmont genome. (Please, don’t ascribe my crude characterization to Murray. He has class, I don’t. But I believe he’s inferring the same thing I said above without saying the dreaded “g” word.)This is getting long, but I’ll end it with the note that what you wrote above ***is*** standard fair in explanation. You are therefore ***not*** incorrect. I do not buy into this explanation for the roughly stated rationale above. So I should have been clearer in my initial discussion.All things being said, take your explanation and then take mine and see which one better fits observations. From my personal perspective and family history, it fits perfectly as an explanation of where I came from and where I am today.

I’m here because Z man is an excellent writer. The posts about VDARE are an off hand reaction with some specific knowledge from being an ex-tax professional at one point.My posts are taking negatives, something that I anticipated. “You may have fooled” is no way to win friends.If we were not talking about VDARE, the statements about the end of this organization and the couple I’ve seen to date would have me hunting around for an early life section.I don’t care if the Brimlows are wealthy, more power to them. However, if someone really can’t afford to send money, then a heads up might be welcome. I’m trying to in small way prevent poor Whites from being poorer. It’s not like they’ve said they’re going to continue, so there’s nothing to lose here.

Not only that, but they can hardly find legal representation—which they can no longer afford anyway (https://vdare.com/).

I agree we live in a lawfare crazy world. However, that does not mean I need to trust unverified statements from people, just because they may agree with my views while hinting around at the existence of lawfare. As I stated in different post, I was a tax pro at one point. People are not honest when it comes to money. These statements sound like the rationalizations I’ve heard before.It would not be big deal except they are obviously actively asking for cash AFTER they’ve said they are closing and taking VDARE with them.My posts are going to do very little honestly anyway. They clearly very popular in certain circles. If you think it a good idea and you have the funds, then by all means do what you think best.