RSS Feed MenuThe problem with the conservative movement, say the founders of the new webzine, Alternative Right, is that conservatives no longer want to ‘go there’.
“The conservative establishment is… brain dead,” said contributing editor and VDARE.com proprietor Peter Brimelow. “We’re trying to do something cutting-edge,” says editor Richard Spencer.
That’s all well and good, save the fact that the cutting-edge ideas that Alternative Right seeks to promote are actually tired, reactionary ideas that harken back to when people found out there were other races. In fact, their new ideas include concepts that the right largely exorcised fifty years ago, like denying women the right to vote.
The site’s frustration lies in their view that white, male conservatives lack the courage to address issues of sex and race with a sense of superiority. “There are races who, on average, are going to be superior,” says Spencer, with implication in tow.
The problem with conservatism today is that, as Spencer puts it, “the conservative establishment is full of politically correct purists” who lack the courage to take up the mantle of what should be a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant America.
It’s tremendously ironic that Alternative Right’s charge against the conservative movement is political correctness, when they themselves hide their sexist and racist ideologies behind the gloss of sweet-sounding, pseudo-intellectual terms.
Instead of spouting racism, Alternative Right is engaging in the much more respectable-sounding analysis of ‘human biological diversity’ and ‘socio-biology’.
Rather than railing against the beast that is first-wave feminism, Richard Spencer’s magazine is actually writing about ‘paleo-masculinity’.
He’s not reactionary – he’s a ‘radical traditionalist’; He’s not castigating race X’s culture – he’s being ‘literary’.
What makes this all the more ironic is that, despite his critique of the right, Spencer was strikingly skittish when I asked if his goal was to make conservatism more ‘racially conscious’. “Racially-conscious? That’s a little bit of a ‘hot word’,” said Spencer.
The academic-sounding terminology might be impressive if backed up with anything but hysterics. Instead, Spencer comes out with statements like:
I would actually oppose mass Japanese immigration for the reason that they would most likely push out my children from getting into college. We might have a new Asian ruling class.
And that having women in the workplace contributes to:
… the wussification of society [and] an economy [that is] far more tame, bureaucratized and far less entrepreneurial.
It’s tough to classify Alternative Right’s ideology as either left or right, when really the ideas belong in some sort of padded room.
Spencer, however, plants his feet squarely in the right’s camp. “We are on the right in some fundamental way,” says Spencer, before admitting that his ideas have been “outside of the bounds of respectable left and right as it has been defined over the last fifty years.”
Exorcised from the mainstream decades ago, where does Alternative Right fit in now?
Spencer is not a Paul-istinian, for Ron Paul too suffers from the failings of political correctness. “Ron Paul is really not a man who is going to discuss some of these more ‘literary’ issues. He’s not going to discuss, say, America as a Western European or Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation,” Spencer says.
Despite this, the website does have a lot in common with the anti-war libertarians. “The right is still in love with war, and talk of spreading democracy…. I think there are people who basically have conservative values and want nothing to do with [this concept],” says Spencer.
That said, Alternative Right is not a libertarian site. “The state is necessary [to stop] immigration – people are not interchangeable… America is not going to be America if it is Hispanicized,” says Spencer.
Are they paleo-conservatives? No. “Sadly, a lot of paleo[-conservatives] now… have actually denounced human biological diversity. Paleo-conservatism is now irrelevant,” declares Spencer.
The website’s prevailing ideology doesn’t even fit within the category of white nationalism, or so Spencer claims. However, he stalled when asked to point out a few differences between his site and a white nationalist site.
“We’re going to talk about literary things, about culture,” said Spencer after some hesitation.
In other words – they’re going to be white nationalists, but, by God, they’re going to be a little fancy about it.
kevin47 // Mar 8, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“I would actually oppose mass Japanese immigration for the reason that they would most likely push out my children from getting into college. We might have a new Asian ruling class.”
While this idea might belong in a padded room, it seems to inform the admissions philosophies at many of our elite universities, which each have their own way of dealing with “the Asian problem”.
franco 2 // Mar 8, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I’m getting really sick of all these casual charges of racism. I am starting to believe “racist” is simply another word for “my opponent”.
sinz54 // Mar 8, 2010 at 7:24 pm
franco 2:I’m getting really sick of all these casual charges of racism.
Casual?
How do you feel about these excerpts from AlternativeRight:
Besides our disagreements with mainstream conservatives on the issue of foreign policy and the relative importance of fighting terrorism, there is the topic of race and, more broadly, IQ and heredity. We’ve known for a while through neuroscience and cross-adoption studies–if common sense wasn’t enough–that individuals differ in their inherent capabilities. The races do, too, with whites and Asians on the top and blacks at the bottom. The Alternative Right takes it for granted that equality of opportunity means inequality of results for various classes, races, and the two sexes. Without ignoring the importance of culture, we see Western civilization as a unique product of the European gene pool.
. . . .
Men of the Left believe that all races are biologically the same. Therefore, every social pathology that especially afflicts blacks and Mexicans (non-Asian minorities or “NAMs” for short) has a cause in the environment. ….And since white society bears a collective guilt for pathologies that affect the entire black community, 40,000 white women raped a year by black men does little to change the racial scorecard.
There’s a lot more stuff like that there.
There is a clear racialist tinge when they speak of “gene pools” and ridiculing the idea that “all races are biologically the same.”
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal”. He didn’t limit that to “all men of the European gene pool,” as these bloggers would.
BTW, analysis of human mitochondrial DNA shows that there is no longer ANY pure racial stock of any race. And that the differences in genetics among people of a race are actually larger than the genetic differences among races. Skin color is a relatively minor trait; few other genes are linked to it.
Sex-linked differences, on the other hand, are enormous. Men have a Y chromosome instead of an X. That’s one out of 46 chromosomes. That’s a bigger genetic difference in our DNA than what separates us from chimpanzees, with many correlations to physical nature and behavior. That’s right: Your wife’s DNA is closer to that of a female chimpanzee than it is to yours!
sinz54 // Mar 8, 2010 at 7:50 pm
“The conservative establishment is… brain dead,” said contributing editor and VDARE.com proprietor Peter Brimelow.
Let’s see what VDARE.com wants to replace the “conservative establishment” with:
We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their people—exactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews.
Get used to it. As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group “white nationalism” will inexorably increase.
(FYI: The Anti-Defamation League doesn’t claim that Jews are genetically superior to non-Jews.)
lowandslow // Mar 8, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Spencer never bothered me, just your run of the mill paleoconservative but I just read some of Richard Hoste’s stuff over there. Wow, that guy is out there, his anti-America, anti-Israel, isolationist garbage surpasses even Buchanan’s veiws. That’s more disturbing then the racial and gender aspects in their writings.
rbottoms // Mar 8, 2010 at 8:05 pm
So Tim’s panties are in a bunch now, but back around a decade ago at the time of the publication of ‘The Bell Curve’ when we said it was nothing more than a trading in of sheets for pin stripped suits, we were told these are issues of great import and that no real conservative would ever seek to use those kind of statistics to claim superiority for the white race.
We said that there’s a strain of cheerleading for the white race from “respected” conservatives like Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis and other National Review alums that were outward signs of the facts that the right just cannot face as evidenced by any online discussion of crime and statistics can’t get an hour without getting to black bucks out killin’ & raping at rates that tell any thinking white man to run for the hills.
Fast forward to last year, where we said it is clear that birthers and teabaggers’ fury at Obama shows they hew to the same strain of white fear of a black planet that animated the militia movement of the 90’s only to be told, it’s all in your imagination.
So what do we have today?
Stormfront, the Neo-Nazi White Supremacists repackaged for the millennium in an easy to digest Tea Flavored zesty drink. Nothing at all to do with a black president in the White House and we’re shocked that anyone would the two things are in anyway related.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The CEO of Tennessee’s hospitality association is apologizing for sending an e-mail to a group of public figures that compares first lady Michelle Obama to a chimpanzee.
The Tennessean of Nashville reports that Tennessee Hospitality Association CEO Walt Baker’s e-mail compares the first lady to Tarzan sidekick Cheeta. At the bottom of the e-mail is a photo of Obama, caught in an awkward moment with her lips pursed, and one of a chimpanzee wearing a similar expression.
kevin47 // Mar 8, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“I’m getting really sick of all these casual charges of racism. I am starting to believe “racist” is simply another word for “my opponent”.”
Not in this case, but yes the cries of “wolf!” on this issue are a bit grating.
TerryF99 // Mar 8, 2010 at 9:32 pm
As Rbottoms said a lot of the birther and tea party stuff has a racial content to it. Not all but some people in these groups just cannot accept that the “other” is in the white house.
Missourimule // Mar 8, 2010 at 9:37 pm
What’s wrong (but oh, so predictable) in Mr. Mak’s introduction to, and revelation of the “Alternative Right” is that he can find a publication/website/splinter group/interest group like that and use it to define an imaginary “greater movement” within conservative politics. I have no idea what the “circulation” of the Alternative Right ‘webzine’ is, or how many hits it gets per day or week or whatever — I know I’ve never heard of them, and outside of this article, I’d suspect that I never will. They simply fit Mr. Zak’s preferred and comfortable template.
Carney // Mar 9, 2010 at 12:12 am
My chief annoyance in my very brief glance at Alternative Right thus far is that it seems to be, like most other groups and publications on the racial right, weak at best on the War on Terror, and bad overall an Mideast issues.
There are two paradigms for race relations I can respect.
The first is what the mainstream conservative movement at least says it believes in, which is that race should be ignored, that all people should be dealt with as individuals, and that no racial group should seek to advance its own interests as such, especially not when that would conflict with the interests of another group or the nation as a whole. This is a noble impulse and has deep roots in our history; the Founding Fathers, and Madison and Washington especially, warned of and disliked the idea of “faction”, of a subset of the nation (whether minority OR majority) working only for itself.
The second is to accept the reality that, like political parties and ideological movements, it is inevitable that people will in certain contexts coalesce around their religious, ethnic, and/or racial background in a free society. Rather than scold them, it accepts this as normal, and within limits acceptable as part of the hurly-burly of representative self government. In a racial context, it accepts that all racial groups will do this, within the boundary lines of the Constitution that protect majority rule and minority rights.
However, the establishment view is neither of these. It is a modified version of the second view, but carves out exceptions to this rule so that certain groups are NOT permitted to organize, articulate, advocate, defend, and advance their interests, or even to see themselves as a group or even acknowledge their own existence. Men, the sexually normal, Anglo-Saxons, and others are among them, but the chief taboo concerns whites. Any effort by whites to do for themselves what all others do and take for granted as being entitled to do, is vilified, pathologized, scorned, and condemned.
This third view is manifestly inconsistent and unjust, and I have no respect for it. Unfortunately, as I say, it is deeply entrenched and zealously, even viciously defended and imposed. The upshot is that as various groups jostle for position, the passive group, the one that has been bullied, guilted, and browbeaten into being such, is pushed right off the field. Small wonder that there is a massive “civil rights” bureaucracy in government, academe, corporate America, and nonprofits dedicated to reducing the numbers and influence of whites, and even to compelling whites to celebrate their declining numbers and influence in Orwellian “diversity” events.
It’s not surprising that Mak, not being white, is unsympathetic to a group that sees itself as working for the interests of whites as whites, and sees whites in a more positive light than other groups. But it would have been more impressive had he summoned empathy for those unlike himself.
TerryF99, why wouldn’t Obama’s election cause some consternation and heartache? After all, he is not merely the head of government, a chief administrator of the federal bureaucracy. He is also the head of state, the equivalent of the British monarch, a living symbol of a nation’s people, its public face to the world, our ceremonial father figure. Indeed, for generations American Indian tribes were told about, and encouraged to hold in awe, the “Great White Father”. Wouldn’t it be perfectly understandable if the English be a bit glum if their next king were not English? Even the presence of Germans on their throne was the source of some friction in the 1700s, and to this day the royal family is criticized on that score.
Conservatives tend, or at least have tended, to calmly accept the overwhelming evidence of genetically determined or at least influenced differences among the sexes in a wide variety of areas. They rightly saw the hysterics over former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers’ remarks in his job at Harvard as PC foolishness. It would be nice if they would stop swooning and sputtering over calm and civil discussions that have as their premise that humans and the human brain are not magically immune to evolution, and that races can differ, on average and overall, in important ways, just as breeds and subspecies in other creatures tend to do, and that this can and should have important effects on average racial outcomes and public policy.
Even Frum’s AEI colleague Charles Murray does this. Are we to anathematize him too?
Carney // Mar 9, 2010 at 12:15 am
sinz54 @ 3, the very very tired and shopworn cliches you triumphantly trot out have been refuted, or shown to be irrelevant, over and over and over. However, I am not certain I can get away with posting the links about that, and the hour is late.
YiruTod // Mar 9, 2010 at 1:38 am
The most amusing are the articles of masculine Nina. She went from dating polish nazis to a silly closet case/quasi intellectual with a lot of vivacious baggage.
I wonder how long it will take for some interesting photographs to surface.
Independent // Mar 9, 2010 at 7:54 am
Maybe what really ticks off the FF and Tim Mak is that the webzine is identifying a new class of faux-conservatives and fake-intellectuals… they’re called FrumBots.
Complete with a picture of dear leader Frum looking so Lilliputian. Grow a set and get some thicker skin, ok?
sinz54 // Mar 9, 2010 at 9:23 am
Carney:
I have no problem whatsoever with white ethnics (Jews, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc.) being proud of their ethnic solidarity and willing to defend their ethnic interests. Just as there is black solidarity and even Hispanic solidarity.
JUST LEAVE THE GENETIC PSEUDO-SCIENCE OUT OF IT, OK?
The sequencing of human DNA has finally shown us just what skin color is all about–and it ain’t about much. Go to
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=omim
and search for “melanin”
amarranazo // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:03 am
I guess the point is, sinz54, that Europe, Australia and America are White nations, built by Whites and they’re attractive immigration destinations for Hispanics and Blacks, precisely because they were built by Europeans.
Europeans build European cultures–it’s an expression of the genotype. In the same way all cultures are an extended phenotype. You can’t expect the demographic changes in the West to not threaten civilization. The only non-European peoples to demonstrate an affinity for building functioning civilizations are Northeast Asians.
Patriot628 // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:38 am
“The sequencing of human DNA has finally shown us just what skin color is all about–and it ain’t about much. ”
I’ll assume you’re just unaware of the science and not dishonest.
Race is more than differences in skin color. Do black albinos look white? Without skin, you can see with your own eyes the differences in skull shape and size. See the middle of this page:
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap9.html
Besides skin color and skull size shape, there are racial differences in eye color, hair color, hair thickness, perspiration, body odor, ear wax, voice pitch, fat distribution, fat-to-muscle ratio, male testosterone level, facial hair growth, and length of limbs. We’re supposed to believe that races differ on practically all physical traits but that their personality and intelligence turned out to be exactly the same?
This why Brimelow means when he says the right is intellectually bankrupt. This is creationism.
Galtonian // Mar 9, 2010 at 11:04 am
IS IT TRUE THAT ETHNORACIAL GROUPS DIFFER IN IQ? COULD IT BE DUE TO GENETIC DIFFERENCES?
Mr. Mak wants conservatives to shun the politically incorrect and “racist” notion that there are substantial differences in ethnoracial group average IQ levels that may be due to genetic differences.
We all agree that the idea that there are innate differences in IQ between ethnoracial groups is a highly POLITICALLY INCORRECT idea, and according to some definitions of racism it also is probably a RACIST idea.
However for some of us the important question is WHETHER IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY (FACTUALLY) TRUE, perhaps if Mr. Mak is chiefly concerned with politics and with the neccessity of hewing to politically popular positions, he then might be uninterested in whether or not it is TRUE that innate ethnoracial group differences in IQ exist.
There are two opposing theories on ethnoracial group differences in mental traits (e.g. IQ-type intelligence, personality, talents, etc. ).
The Galtonian theory (founded by Francis Galton) holds that ethnoracial group differences in mental traits are largely (but not entirely) due to innate (genetic) differences. Modern proponents of the Galtonian theory include Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, David Rowe, Thomas Bouchard, Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, Phil Rushton, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, and Henry Harpending. Galtonians believe that most ethnoracial IQ differences are about 70-80% due to genetic differences and about 20-30% due to environmental (cultural) differences.
The Boasian theory (founded by Franz Boas) holds that ethnoracial group differences in mental traits are entirely due to environmental or cultural differences. Modern proponents of the Boasian theory include Ashley Montague, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, Richard Nisbett, Abigail Thernstrom, Jonathan Marks, Malcolm Gladwell (and about 99.9% of liberals in general). Boasians believe that ethnoracial IQ differences are 0% due to genetic differences and 100% due to environmental (cultural) differences.
Boasians believe that some day when environmental and cultural differences are finally ironed out and eliminated, that then Jews, East Asians, and Hindus (who now account for about half or more of the people at elite universities and about half of the most successful doctors, lawyers and journalists even though their proportion of the general population is less than 10% ) will have become progressively lower in average IQ so that in the future Harvard, Yale, Columbia Stanford etc. will be about 3% Jewish and about 6% Asian. Similarly, Boasians foretell a day when Blacks and Hispanics will become progressively higher in average IQ so that UCal Berkeley (which is forbidden by a state law to use race-based preferences) will be able to select on strictly merit-based criteria a student body that is 50-60% Black and Hispanic (unlike the current 50-60% Asian).
Boasians believe that if Blacks and Hispanics show low academic achievement that it must be mostly the fault of the schools and teachers (therefore it is right to fire all the teachers in the RI Central Falls School District).
Galtonians believe that Blacks and Hispanics show lower academic achievement because it is commensurate with their lower IQ levels, therefore it is not the fault of the schools and teachers (therefore it is wrong to fire all the teachers in the RI Central Falls School District).
In 2005, two Galtonian scholars, Arthur Jensen and Phil Rushton published a review of the scientific reasons for their hypothesis that genetic differences are the most likely underlying cause for ethnoracial group IQ differences. The pdf of this review article is at this link:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
Other articles on the Galtonian theory of racial differences in cognitive ability are available at Professor Linda Gottfredson’s website:
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/index.html
It would be interesting to know if Mr. Mak actually acknowledges the fact that large differences exist in the average IQs of Blacks (~85) and Hispanics (~88) in comparison with East Asians (~108) and Jews (~112), and if Mr. Mak admits that there are these large differences in cognitive ability between ethnoracial groups then how is he so sure that genetic differences are not responsible?
sinz54 // Mar 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm
franco 2: I’m getting really sick of all these casual charges of racism.
I hope you got your answer about these allegedly “casual” charges.
I’m sure that all the racialist stuff in this discussion is going to be grist for the Left-wing’s mill. They love to get their hands on this kind of political ammo.
Let’s not give it to them.
MSheridan // Mar 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I’m sure that all the racialist stuff in this discussion is going to be grist for the Left-wing’s mill. They love to get their hands on this kind of political ammo.
Let’s not give it to them.
Trust me, sinz54, this is not the go-to site for me or anyone I know on the left to find “grist.” There are lots of better places for that. Moreover, I know full well that racism of some on the right does not define the Right (although it may define the racists), just as the usually (but not always) more subtle racism of many on the left does not define or discredit liberal ideals.
It’s nice to see you fighting the good fight here, but aside from showing the flag, it’s probably a waste of your time. Anyone who still takes Jensen seriously on race is not to be taken seriously and Galtonian is fully invested (as evidenced by his/her screen name, which is not unique to this site).
agentprovocateur // Mar 9, 2010 at 7:48 pm
“TerryF99, why wouldn’t Obama’s election cause some consternation and heartache? After all, he is not merely the head of government, a chief administrator of the federal bureaucracy. He is also the head of state, the equivalent of the British monarch, a living symbol of a nation’s people, its public face to the world, our ceremonial father figure. Indeed, for generations American Indian tribes were told about, and encouraged to hold in awe, the ‘Great White Father’. Wouldn’t it be perfectly understandable if the English be a bit glum if their next king were not English?”
So you’re saying that white people are justified in being upset that a black man was elected president? Interesting. I guess you will be quite despondent when the first Hispanic is elected president. Hopefully, for your sake, you won’t be around when white people are no longer the majority ethnic group in this country. I would imagine that when that day comes, it will be quite troubling for you.
aDude // Mar 9, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Sigh. Now I understand what William F. Buckley meant about spending more time fighting the Birchers and other extreme right wing groups than he did fighting the liberals. The extreme right makes the conservatives look bad.
I love the idea that Hispanics want to come to European built societies. Especially since Hispanics are of Spanish origin, which is (the last time I checked my map) European. So Hispanics, of European ancestry, want to go to places built by people of European ancestry. And somehow that supports an essentially racist view.
Yes, Mr. Buckley, we’re still fighting that battle…
Galtonian // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:00 pm
A person with full or partial Native American ancestry whose recent ancestors lived north of the USA-Mexican border is referred to as an “American Indian” or a “Native American”. A person with full or partial Native American ancestry whose recent ancestors lived south of the USA-Mexican border is referred to as a “Hispanic” or a “Latino/a”. Both types of Native Americans (especially ones with mostly Native American ancestry) tend to have lower IQs (average about 88 compared to non-Jewish White average of about 100).
Some right-wing people are not optimistic about having to support a fast growing welfare population of lower IQ people who tend to fail at academic achievement. They feel that many of these people are the natural constituency of the Democratic Party (which favors income redistribution, welfare, lavish disability payments, socialized single-payer medical care etc.). They are willing to welcome into the Republican Party Blacks and Hispanics who are capable and industrious (completing high school, possibly also college, seeking to work for a living). However a large proportion, in some areas half or more, of Blacks and Hispanics are not capable and/or motivated to even finish high school. For this reason race-realist right-wing people are not in favor of Hispanic immigration and do not see attracting Hispanics as the best hope for the future for the Republican Party. Instead the Republican party should concentrate on attracting high-IQ educated people of all ethnoracial groups (of course most of these will be Asian and White because most Blacks and Hispanics tend to be lower IQ).
Carney // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:02 pm
aDude, Hispanics are not just European Spaniards or Portuguese. The vast majority are Latin American and can thus be of any race. In the US context, most Hispanics are not white but mestizo (mixed white and Indian, mostly the latter), or pure Indian.
Also, at the same time Buckley and National Review were (rightly) purging the Birchers, they were also strongly supported the South. In fact, National Review ran articles from racial realists and pro-whites such as Jared Taylor and Steve Sailer into the late 1990s, and to this day has John Derbyshire (who while not being pro-white is definitely a race realist).
Carney // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:09 pm
agentprovocateur @ 20, if you are white, why wouldn’t your own people losing control of their own destiny in their own country be a matter of concern to you? Has it occurred to you that no other race is indifferent to its own dispossession and displacement, that no one else makes it a point of pride to welcome and celebrate its own declining numbers and influence? Awaken from your fashionably suicidal mentality.
Nor is the future of America as a Third World nation inevitable. Half of all Mexicans and one-third of all Central Americans in the US are illegal aliens. Deporting them and securing the border would have a dramatic impact on our current and future demographic makeup. Revising our legal immigration policy to emphasize ease of assimilation would also be very helpful. Refusing additional welfare for additional offspring of welfare recipients, or even mandating lasting contraceptive as a condition of receiving benefits, would also have salutary effects.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:00 am
I am aware of several studies that show that the IQ gap between whites and blacks has shrunk over the past several decades, suggesting that the differences are not genetic, but are instead cultural and/or social. I’m also aware of a study that shows that Liberals and atheists have higher IQs than conservatives and religionists.
Does anyone know if the lower IQs of conservatives and religionists is genetic or social/cultural?