Why right wingers generally less intelligent than us leftists...

This.

Americans have the freedom to choose between two right wing parties.

>muh hundred years ago

My post was clearly in the present tense so I'm not sure what your point is.

Just because you are not "open" to certain toxic cultures doesn't mean you aren't able to analyze them, that you aren't open to new ideas or that you aren't well-read, well-travelled or well-educated. Both liberals and conservatives are open to ideas, it's being able to discern between the good and bad ideas that liberals struggle with.

Well read, well travelled and well educated thanks to someone else's money; you know, because right wingers spend their time working instead of reading, travelling and educating themselves

Again, I agree with you; the "new left" here in the US is a distractor. There was a thread about why no one knows about Eugene Debs last week, and it seemed to come to the conclusion that the old left (the real left imo) was forsaken after the 60s.

Liberals are the opposite of openminded

Why is it so bad that I want to live in an all white society with no blacks, latins, aras, asians, and any indigenous people are allowed? I just want to live with white people. Why is that so bad? Why can't white people have one fucking country to live alone in? Every other race can do it but whites.

Rodger Scruton is a very smart man as was enoch powell. its an ABSTRACT way of thinking you see

How is this even an argument?

>some people who have higher IQs because they float around academia longer than people who generally enter the work force much sooner
>therefore my side is right

I have a tested IQ of 136 and I consider myself moderately conservative. Have you taken an IQ test? It's built for academics to succeed, I definitely have a problem with it being used to as an objective way to measure somebody's intelligence.

Such a stupid post, it belongs on /pol/

I'm suggesting that intelligence doesn't have anything to do with it, instead it's what the political facts in the ground are. We could easily have a right-wing tilt within ten years, and then suddenly all the "intelligent" people are right wingers.

>*on the ground

There's a large portion of proto-conservatives dragging the average down, unlike the tumblrina crowd for the left wing, this isn't ignored in surveys and studies and generally used to prove the left wing is the rational choice.

That being said, if you're choosing your position based on your impression of its followers intelligence rather than the position's statements and ideologies itself, exactly how rational can you claim to be?

I see it like
Single issue voters < proto-conservative red neck/bogan/chavs < tumblrina crowd < politically apathetic who vote for what the media told them is rational or popular < libertarian or political opinion derived from rationality, which is technically moderate but comes off as right wing after all the left wing bias.

Because that last group is actually kind of uncommon, since it actually requires some thinking, the apathetic group and "just intelligent enough to (ab)use canned arguments" tumblrina crowd give the impression the left wing is generally more intelligent than those red necks.

That being said, single issue voters are the dumbest and these issues are strictly abused by left wing parties. For instance, if you vote for someone strictly to vote for a female and no other reason: you're really, really dumb and you're the reason once upon a time only land owners could vote.

Because that would mean you would have to remove all of the PERSONS. You're looking at them wrongly. These are people with lives like yourself.

2nd, name ONE developed country which has another majority race, that doesn't have a minority race? Even Dubai has gotten bunch of "guest-workers" (equal to Europe in the 1970-1980's).

Stop this, like removing a million+ from their homes and sending them back to countries, where they're different in any aspect other than (maybe) religion and skin colour, is a small thing to ask for.

so does anyone have some sources to back these statements up? It's hard to argue against opinion.

" For instance, if you vote for someone strictly to vote for a female and no other reason"

- this might be because I am not American (I am from Denmark). But Hillary is pretty god f***ing darned right-winged.

She is;
- A jingoist (strictly against any left-wing ideology)

-Isn't pro-social-mobility (free colleges/hospitals)

-Values money higher than human lives (any humanitarian with respect for him/her self should not care about getting more money than the average income in his/her respective country. Everything above a good house + food + education + time for hobbies is a waste)

The least-educated, low-IQ states are of vast majority red states.

>b-but muh stockbrokers

Are conservative purely out of wanting to keep the money they make. The social ideology is second to them.

I think it's because rightism is usually an "easy option". It's the defence of the status quo.

Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ludwig Von Mises, Adam Smith, Carl Menger, Friedrich Von Wieser, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter, Fritz Machlup, Steven Horwitz, Walter Block, Karl Menger, Murray Rothbard, etc.

That's because the southern United States has historically been severely economically depressed and underdeveloped. US politics fall along geographical reasons but I'd like to see this study done for some place unitary like the United Kingdom or France where they measured IQ and political beliefs.

Like of course fucking mostly rural states like Mississippi and Alabama are going to have lower IQs.

I don't think right-wingers are actually less intelligent.

They only appear less intelligent on IQ tests because of class and education biases. It's the same reason why minorities and foreigners, on average, perform worse than Anglo Americans.

Left wing "intellectuals" LoL

that's not a source. I consider myself relatively right wing and I'd actually like to argue my side if you actually put forth a sourced argument.

>Are conservative purely out of wanting to keep the money they make. The social ideology is second to them.

This statement is what we would describe as "conjecture". Just because you feel that's the way things are doesn't mean that's the nature of it in reality, dumbass narcissist.

Let's just use arbitrary definitions of left and right and then use data from a test that may or may not be accurate and then pat ourselves on the backs because we're so smart

This

Also, left and right wing traditions in America sometimes vastly different than the left and right wing traditions in Europe so it fails as a way to make blanket generalisations for anyone who considers their values to be on the right side of things.

What I'm really interested in is why double digit IQ conservative working/lower middle class people, especially blacks, vote Republican.

You have demonstrated why there is no real left in the US. Most of the liberal intelligentsia in the US is fairly elitist and focuses on race, sex, gay rights etc along with terrible topics like cultural appropriation. Class is ignored, it is seen as the province of the poor and uneducated.

Because of social issues. That's mostly it.

...

You've pointed out why these states have lower IQs, but that doesnt change the fact that these lower IQ people are conservatives of their own volition.

I noticed this too, strangely enough. In way America exceeds some of the crazier hippy dippy shit from the 1960's but in other ways still perpetuates the status quo.

Hillary may agree with left wing social issues but I doubt she will do little to anything to actually break up or alter the way American business is done in any noticeable way. I also highly doubt she will change American foreign policy in any way either despite being labelled as the left wing candidate. You can still expect to be hit with drones or military interventions if your country is on America's shitlist

That's not true.

Right-liberals appear less intelligent than left-liberals because right-liberals are more likely to be poor and uneducated.

I don't care about those people. I want a country with all white people.

How about Europe for example. How about all non Europeans just fuck off and everyone else can have the US and anywhere else you want to stick your fucking liberal voters. Just fuck off already.

Glenn Beck is a genius

Because objective studies of human motivation are easy to conduct and come by. You should have a PhD in sociology.

But yes, assuming that many rich people vote conservative because conservatives pander to rich people with their policies is just baseless conjecture. That must have nothing at all to do with it.

We can just see the ruling parties of the countries with higher average IQ and see if they vote left or right-wing.

statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ruling_political_parties_by_country

1. Hong Kong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Alliance_for_the_Betterment_and_Progress_of_Hong_Kong
>Political position: Centre to centre-right

2. South Korea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenuri_Party
>Political position: Centre-right to Right-wing

3. Japan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Japan)
>Political position: Centre-right to Right-wing

4. Taiwan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang
>Political position: Centre-right to Right-wing

5. Singapore
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Action_Party
>Political position: Centre-right

6. Austria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_People's_Party
>Political position: Centre-right

6. Germany
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_of_Germany
>Political position: Centre-right

6. Italy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(Italy)
>Political position: Centre-left

6. Netherlands
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Party_for_Freedom_and_Democracy
>Political position: Centre-right

10. Sweden
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party
>Political position: Centre-left

10. Switzerland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_People's_Party_of_Switzerland
>Political position: Centre-right

Only Italy and Sweden have left-wing governments, really, you would believe that, with such high IQs, these countries would be communists right now, but this is not what's happening.

History I suppose. Southern United States has always been at odds with the rest of the country since like the American revolution. They are always going to vote opposite what the rest of America votes because they see it as a way of subverting Washington a la Nixon and the Southern strategy

Let's see the bottom IQs, just for the sake of it.

1. Equatorial Guinea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_of_Equatorial_Guinea
>Political position: Right-wing

2. Ethiopia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_People's_Revolutionary_Democratic_Front
>Political position: Left-wing

3. Sierra leone
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_People's_Congress
>Political position: Centre-left

4. Democratic Republic of the Congo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Party_for_Reconstruction_and_Democracy
>Political position: Centre-left

5. Zimbabwe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZANU–PF
>Political position: Left-wing

5. Guinea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_of_the_Guinean_People
As a member of the Socialist International, it is likely left-wing

7. Nigeria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Progressives_Congress
As a member of the Socialist International, it is likely left-wing

8. Ghana
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Congress_(Ghana)
>Political position: Centre-left

9. Tanzania
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chama_Cha_Mapinduzi
>Political position: Centre-left

9. Sudan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Congress_(Sudan)
>Political position: Right-wing

So here we have the opposite, out of 10 countries with the lowest IQ, 8 have left-wing governments.

I've never seen anybody pull that card on Veeky Forums

(Danish guy from before)

They do the same over here.

They once brought an article in the news, about how the 2nd generation refugees/migrants started to have a higher/equal percentage of persons going to university than the danes.

They decided to focus on the ethnical aspect of this case. Which makes no sense, considering that this is what the wellfare state has been doing for centuries. It is no coincidence that the blacksmith's son started going to university around the time all political parties became social democratic.

I really think, this whole race talk has disrupted a genuine understanding and progressive debate. I partially blame the nationalists, but I also blame the other rational people for not ignoring the nationalists.

Blaming the nationalists-

(whom, a recent survey has shown, have mostly had troubling childhoods in different aspects ((economy, bullying/lack of socialability, bad parents etc.))

- Would be like blaming a child for starting a fight, rather than blaming the adult for going on the same level as the child.

- BONUS INFO -
About the political scale in Denmark, did you know most parties in Denmark are actually social democratic? Just different levels of social democratic.

Name on thing that benefits white people into letting non whites into their countries. Name one fucking reason as to why I should want to ship them in by the boat loads like they are doing now.

I'm finishing my bachelor and I read Codreanu in my free time at uni. Also travelled many places and have friends of different origins.

Keep trying gommies.

>objective studies
>human motivation

Self report surveys are the least reliable way of empirically collecting data on patterns of behaviour though. They tell you this like the first day of Methods in any college campus.

Regardless, link me to these studies. I want to have a look and it better not have been conducted by a fucking news outlet either.

...

That list is Buzzfeed-tier, for one. For two, you can't determine how liberal or conservative a country is overall just from the current majority political party, e.g.the US sure as fuck is not a left/center left country just because Obama is President

Intellectuals support left-wing policies not because they are smarter, but because such policies benefit intellectuals. When you have a massive bureaucracy taking care of everything, when every single facet of human existance is regulated, when every act must have societal approval stamp of the academia, who ends up concentrating such powers? College-educated intellectuals, of course, who become the nomenklatura, the priestly class of the new society.

That's why intellectuals historically support socialism and communism, even though the real world results are abysmal, because in the end they are the greatest benefitiaries.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has made a job of roasting such people, he calls them "intellectual yet idiot". It's a good term, most of these "intelligent" people can't even fix the plumbing of their own homes if their lives depended on it.

The part you responded to was sarcasm

Define "right" and "left" wing.

As a liberal who used to believe shit like this, I'm truly embarrassed that contemporary "liberals" and "progressives" are some of the most ignorant and close-minded people out there right now.

I... I actually never thought of it that way...

>When you have a massive bureaucracy taking care of everything, when every single facet of human existance is regulated, when every act must have societal approval stamp of the academia, who ends up concentrating such powers

what the fuck are you even talking about? can you chill your oppresion fantasies for a bit and comeback to reality?

>Nassim Nicholas Taleb has made a job of roasting such people, he calls them "intellectual yet idiot". It's a good term, most of these "intelligent" people can't even fix the plumbing of their own homes if their lives depended on it.

This just sounds like reverse snobbery, though. Some of my smartest friends are also the worst drivers and least handy with tools.

>Ethiopia
What the FUCK happened to the Country that was once compared to Rome Persia and China?
>inb4 its the Oromos

That was the endgame of the left for a good part of the 20th century. People forget it nowadays, but the Soviet Union was legitimately held as the example of most progressive society in the world. Intellectuals like Sydney and Beatrice Webb were huge in their support for the Soviet Union, just like nowadays you are considered dumb if you are opposed to liberal progressivism, 60 years ago you were dumb for being an anti-communist.

...

>It's a good term, most of these "intelligent" people can't even fix the plumbing of their own homes if their lives depended on it.

what? so every scientists should also know everything about everything? ofcourse not every smart person can fix everything

Take a guess where all the black people live in America.

It's a meme, and if you say opposite you are racist, and if there is a study that doesn't goes with a today liberal flow, well you will lose funding or worse reputation through public shaming

Communism happened.

Mengistu Haile Mariam was one of the worst dictators of the 20th century, his regime, the Derg, killed 500.000 people, not counting the millions who died in the famine caused by their policies.

And yet no one knows about that, because they were communist. If they were anti-communist, they could have killed 10% of this number and everyone wouldn't shut up about them, the way people still talk about Pinochet like he was some peculiar monster.

That's what I call communist privilege. You fuck up other countries with your ideology, then pretend it never happened and call yourself smart all the time. The same is happening now in Venezuela. I'm old enough to remember 10 years ago all left-wing intellectuals in my country defended the Bolivarian Revolution. These were the smart people, the ones who call conservatives dumb. Now that Venezuela has collapsed they pretend they never supported it in the first place, and have begun talking about feminism and anti-racism instead. They never admit they are wrong, that's how they keep presenting themselves as the "intelligentsia".

This literally happened to me yesterday.

I think the real difference is potential to learn. Like most physicists could probably learn how to fix a toilet if they wanted, but these apparently idolized redneck DIY plumbers would be hopeless in a science lecture hall.

Mississippi is probably the dumbest state in the union and also 40% black. Maybe it's black people dragging down the IQ rather than conservatives?

>but the Soviet Union was legitimately held as the example of most progressive society in the world

by no one else except the union itself, not even people in the union, just propaganda posters

>ntellectuals like Sydney and Beatrice Webb were huge in their support for the Soviet Union

am i supposed to be surprised that some people were for the union? or maybe these people represent the other 99.9% of academia?

>60 years ago you were dumb for being an anti-communist.

no, you were jailed or killed if you were in the union and socially castrated if you were for it in the west, so basically youre wrong on literally everything you said

Right-wing thought was purged from the academia when socialist activists invited black street gangs to occupy the campuses in the 60s and they demanded the expulsion of conservative professors and hiring of communist-alligned ones.

I realize this is a bait thread but:
>Why right wingers generally less intelligent than us leftists?
Because rightism appeals to social status quo or regression. Intellectualism is inherently progressive since its imperative is to increase understanding and action. Rightism is also obsessed with the division of power and it's easier to maintain a strong divide if most of the population isn't just ignorant but thinks ignorance is laudable.

Yeah its a shame that all those extremely smart and brilliant white Southerners have to live in their intelligentsia-enclaves, being forced to travel among the blacks when supplies like literature, centrifuges and sculpting marble run low.

You underestimate the extent towards Soviet communism was popular with the Western intelligentsia. Read memoirs of those times, like Malcolm Muggeridge's "Chronicles of Wasted Time". Or intellectual history like Tony Judt's "Past Imperfect"

If you didn't support the Soviet Union in London during the 30s, or in Paris during the 50s you were worst than someone who don't support gay marriage today. You were on the wrong side of history.

Check this graph.

Notice how the % of strong conservatives doesn't decrease?

Education is dominated by leftists - unionized workers (primarily women) in primary schools, and of course 80% democrats in universities (in the US). What happens is that the apolitical masses, people with no strong opinions one way or another who are mostly clueless about politics, go into college and have their first real exposure to politics. When every authority figure surrounding them is voting one way, is it any surprise that they turn into leftists?

Not only is this a /pol false flag but its also off topic. fuck off please

All really intelligent people are politically non-euclidean.

I hate to bring up the identity politics thing, but I think the prevalence of these ideas in the US is a major reason why Hillary probably isn't a leftist. I was a Sanders supporter, and it really put me off when she said, "I'm the real progressive", that's preposterous. I think she thinks that because she is "breaking the glass ceiling", she is the really leftist one; she's so entrenched in US establishment thinking about economics and foreign policy that she considers them to be immutable laws, and that actual leftist thought about those things is just lunacy. For her (and a lot of Democrats in the US, I think), being a leftist is about helping minority groups and women.

To be fair, it wasn't until the 90's that we really realised just how fucking awful living under the Soviet was for a good portion of people, even after de-Stalinization. Information and travel was so heavily restricted that nobody could have really known just how fucking awful it all was. That to me is the really scary part.

Also, check out how things have changed over time.

The problem is that the people who relied information about the Soviet Union were sympathetic to it's ideals, so they constantly lied to present it in a better way. Case in point: Walter Durantyi, reporter of the NYT, knew that there was a famine going on in the early 30s, but he believed that the Soviet Union was the leader of progressive mankind, and he thought that if he reported on the famine, he would be benefitting the wrong side of history, so he lied about it.

Even so, those who went after information knew that something was wrong. Dekulakization, forced collectivization, the Great Purge, these weren't exact secrets. It's just that people who said that the "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" was wrong were social pariahs like people who nowadays talk about white genocide.

im pretty sure you just dont know that theres a difference beetween being left wint and being a communist, even your own fucking soruce was anti-communist, malcolm muggeridge was a spy for the british goverment for fucks sake, i mean whats the point of even arguing with you when youre this retarded? do i ahve to call every right wing person a kkk member now just to get the point accros your empty head?

and yes btw, you were stupid not to support the union in the 30s and 50s they won the biggest war in human history allied with the west and no thats not comparable to being anti gay for no apperant reason

>People take a bait thread completley seriously
>mfw I realise it's not actually bait and OP is serious
>no face

And yet those people that lived during the bad portion of the Soviets (the tail-end, the post-War USSR was a good place to live and for a time was better off the the USA) would rather go back to those bad times than what the capitalist counter-revolution brought in. The Western intelligentsia was right the first time, but they got lost in the pre-archive numbers game of >muh gulag "statistics" and the fact that a counter-revolution did happen.

There is no such thing as bait anymore.

I think leftists are big time idealists. The educated kind, at least. They conceive theories and produce programs that have no basis in reality or application. I consider Socialism a great example. In an ideal world it's the perfect way to manage a society and economy, but at the end of the day humans are avaricious and power-hungry and the system will get perverted and reduce a country to ruination unseen before. Yet this idea still persists because idealists are terribly dogmatic.

I'm seeing the same thing with immigration and globalization. The fact of the matter is we have constructed fairly affluent societies with social programs predicated on an even balance of wealth and representation amongst the upper and lower tiers of society. Letting in unfettered masses of low-education, low-income people with no marketable skills in an era where low-skilled labor is a thing of the past can only serve to overburden and eventually collapse the system. But in an ideal world, which doesn't exist, new jobs and wealth appear and are produced by these newcomers, somehow, and we keep rolling as we have for a few short decades. It's just not feasible. Now the main opponents of high immigration are in fact uneducated xenophobes so this further serves to validate and cement in their mind that this is the right and intelligent thing to do.

Also, don't conflate education with intelligence or rationality in an era where everyone is given a token diploma on a meme degree.

Women constitute a large portion of leftists in this day and age and while they are very "educated" it is in tripe like Sociology or the arts

Actually, the Western intelligentsia stopped supporting the USSR the moment it stopped being shit, somewhere in the 50s.

That's when they began supporting Maoism instead. The point being, if your communist regime isn't murdering millions, Western intellectuals don't like it.

>Oh look at me, I'm a leftist, i'm so smart!
>What's that? Is that right-wing neoliberal capitalism sloppily disguised as leftism? Neat! I'll eat it right up!

Vote Hillary.

...

The left-right divide in the United States reflects less intelligence, and more education. Far-left thinking is more of a matter of how far away one is willing to drift from what they were taught. Anyone who is a "marxist" knows that Marxism is but a historiographic method, and with refinement has the makings of a powerful analysis tool for studying history and understanding potential causes of events.

Sadly, Academics that are willing to get past the "Marxism=Communism=Evil" meme are few and far between. Perhaps one day it will be destigmatized.

Far-right thinking seems to spawn from one lunatic who convinces angry moderate people of whatever bullshit he's spewing, and that seems to be in every case. Far-right "intellectuals" tend to be associated with anti-intellectualism and debunked or factually incorrect claims. See: A history major that was telling me about how he refuses to acknowledge Hitler's role in starting WWII because "that history is written by Jews." Never seen that on the left outside of right-wingers masquerading as left-wingers.

I just fucking trolled all of you

>Far-right thinking seems to spawn from one lunatic who convinces angry moderate people of whatever bullshit he's spewing

Applies to far-left too. Get out of your echo chamber and learn to look at things critically.

Mate our center right party makes Bernie Sanders look like a paleo conservative.

That's because leftist conspiracy theories have social acceptance. Neoliberalism, for example, is considered a respectable term for public use, when it is in fact slander like "Cultural Marxism".

Even "capitalism" is a term that was invented by communists for revolutionary propaganda purposes, and until the crypo-communist Milton Friedman decided to subvert Western civilization, no one used it in a positive sense.

And Japanese centre-right makes the GOP looks like the CPUSA.

If conservatives are so dumb, why is Japan, a country of educated and smart people, so conservative?

I recall reading an article called "The rise of smug liberals" or something like that, google it and you should find it.

It will explains the thing very thoughtfully.