A question for Stefan Molyneux - and 13 original photos

The Bell Curve (1994) suggested that ethnicity rather than economics could more definitively measure a host of malfeasance. Using a concept called IQ it sparked a furious debate in American educational institutions. This week @adamkokesh showed us that the junk science is still strong in people like Stefan Molyneux.

Since this Intelligence Quotient (IQ) clearly failed to measure key human traits, during that mid 90's brouha, commonly discussed were the Social Quotient (SQ) and Emotional Quotient (EQ) and invariably others that I forget. I remember laughing at how some of these high IQ people may fare on these other tests. Curiously, EQ and SQ seems largely forgotten by today's proponents of the Bell Curve.

Grading performance against an arbitrary scale best reveals bias in the test's author. Intelligence quotient (IQ) only measures what the test writers value. If all the authors are eurocentric academics, and that the test never measures anything else, eurocentric academics will always do better on the test. You'll notice they're always its biggest proponent.

Cohort studies have been tried. Unfortunately the wealthy who adopt foreign born infants almost never participate in the study so the sample size is always too small. Despite this, advocates use statistics that can't successfully eliminate social variables. Without a sufficient group of orphans raised by euro-centric academics, the data can not separate genetics from environment and conclusions become impossible.

By referencing the Bell Curve at all, it tells me that one is willing to endorse segregation as a solution to protect the status quo. Only referencing IQ and not EQ, it further implies that the beneficiaries of segregation should be eurocentric academics.

1000 years of Chinese Imperial Examinations has shown beyond doubt that the ones with time to study always do better on the test. If only by way of economic privilege, one clearly inherits study habits.

Borders are really about relative wealth. The number in one's account matters little, what really matters is to have a high wealth relative to the others. Also critical is the ability to maintain relative wealth over time. Currency manipulations enforced by Armed Forces is really what allows Stefan to maintain his "relative wealth." Its adorable to think he is entitled to it because he's good at school.

Border security keeps one's relative wealth high compared to the rest of the world when able to manipulate global currencies and enforce such with an enormous military. When one seeks to maintain relative national wealth, they also embrace the military's destruction of competition with force.

Here is my question for Stefan:

What percentage of your income would you willingly surrender to end the border issues you see? Or, if the system were different such that the border problems end based only on your willingness to live on less, how low would you be willing to go?

My father in law (pictured above) taught spanish for 40 years.

I suspect he would have no time for Stefan.

Does anyone actually want to use force to exclude the people pictured here? Is quiet acceptance something we do because we'd rather maintain our relative wealth?

photos ©ramsayphotography