Intelligence research has been aggressively retconned, memory holed, suppressed, and manipulated for decades.
Even those very far on the left who've tried to tread into the region of genetics & intelligence have gotten torn apart by their colleagues and academia.
It could just end up like where climate research is presumably at: funding and confirming only the approved biases, but still looking for other things to potentially optimize or control things.
"Around 80% of all factors contributing to individual differences in intelligence are hereditary", Professor Eysenck concludes, "20% come from the environment.
The results obtained by blacks in psychometric tests for measuring the intelligence quotient (IQ) have always been clearly below those obtained by whites in both England and the United States The mean difference is about fifteen points, the normal IQ is established at 100.
In Race, Intelligence and Education, Hans J. Eysenck, after presenting the case, affirms that the theses of the 'environmentalists', partisans of the influence of the environment, are unsustainable; that the difference in performance between blacks and whites in IQ result from a difference in genetic makeup; and that 90% of scientists know, but they prefer not to talk.
Professor Eysenck's conclusion: "There are racial differences in terms of anatomy, physiology and even biochemistry. Why would the brain be an exception? We must face the facts. Intelligence is determined by heredity."
Quotes from View from The Right by Alain De Benoist
Considering the fact the we've already seen that two years of wearing a mask may have dropped the general population's maximum IQ by 20%; and considering that the other largest determining factors in stunting IQ development are: offspring of incest, violence towards children, and malnutrition of children; it seems pretty fucking clear to me that environment has a much more serious impact than he'd like to admit to.
It's like saying a groups is genetically pre-disposed to dying young; while not taking into account the likelihood of murders in that group. What would an environmental factor like murder have on a biological factor like lifespan?
You're talking about something completely different.
I'm telling you that there is an expected decrease in children and it's directly related to lockdowns and masks which has caused the children to become emotionally stunted.
What you're talking about is a general IQ statistic for a country.
You didn't specify the kids and kid IQ ratings are notorious for fluctuating. We'll see the true impacts in a decade. It's still early to draw conclusions.
Violence itself is a natural trait also. So it's one of those "violence may cause it but genetics cause the violence that causes it". Malnutrition is going to have a factor of course because then people genetics can't properly develop. I think a lot of the modern research on this though is not done fairly. Example: A country like Canada only really has black people because Canada immigrated in black people. Canada has standards for black people that immigrate in this Canada will only accept on average higher IQ blacks as part of its normal immigration process. To then compare Canadian blacks as well-nourished and then compare them to blacks back in their home country who are malnourished is going to give a highly biased result. Of course the Canadian blacks have higher IQ because they were filtered out specifically for their higher IQ as part of the immigration process.
If you take black people in the same country who are well-nourished vs. those who are not, you're again creating a bias because generally speaking the people with better genetics are going to end up getting more nourishment as a factor of their better genetics. Better genetics leading to them being more capable to get into position where they can get more resources and being born to families of superior genetics that have more resources etc...
To truly do an unbiased study, you need to essentially find a village that split into two randomly. The one village go good nourishment and the other village did not. Then compare IQs but that's not how a lot of the studies on nourishment are done. The way in which the studies are done, often lead to a lot of biases in them. However since nourishment advocates the "environment" angle, despite the flaws, it is pushed heavily by many in the field.
Violence itself is a natural trait also. So it's one of those "violence may cause it but genetics cause the violence that causes it".
That's true for most of genetic relation to behaviors. It's never all nature or all nurture. There's always both, that's how humans adapt.
And that goes to my primary issue regarding emphasis on racial or ethnic "genetics". Race has almost nothing to do with it. IQ is malleable over populations both up and down, and a huge portion of that is culture and sex-selection based. A lot of racial science argues this absolute hard & fast rule that there are just entire ethnicities and races that are all but incapable of forming any semblance of human civilization because they are too cognitively impaired as a race to improve. But this isn't based on reality in the slightest.
To truly do an unbiased study, you need to essentially find a village that split into two randomly.
A study was done on that with East / West Germany. The East had more paranoia, starvation, and violence, and as an average was 1 standard deviation lower than the West Germans. Given the length of East Germany, the sudden drop in IQ in only a couple generations confirms to me that the effect of environment is very important factor.
Nurture v Nature is complicated (and thus so is heritability, which can change with the environment). Yes, if you lock someone in a dark room for their whole life and never speak to them, their resulting IQ will be entirely the result of environment.
That said, malnutrition isn't a thing anymore: Too much nutrition is the problem for our lower classes. Whatever portion of the Flynn effect that had to do with malnutrition ended decades ago (along with the Flynn effect itself).
Adopted twin studies show quite clearly that IQ is strongly hereditary in the conditions of modern western society. The IQ of a child adopted into an upper class home is better predicted by the IQ of their birth parent than they are of their adopted parents. There might be environmental detriments that lower the heritability of IQ at the lowest end of SES, but that is extremely questionable (Eric Turkheimer vs Alt Hype: https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=WPV6Hz9iwQo)
It is possible that wearing a mask and lockdowns will stunt the IQ of children, as it is massive systemic abuse on a large scale. However, most interventions that have an impact on the IQ of children only have short-term effects. IQ's heritability increases with age, peaking in the early twenties at around ~70%. Hopefully, this applies to temporary negative interventions as well.
Second, do not publicly apologise for making reasonable scientific assertions or expressing one's personal opinions in good faith. Indeed, this piece of advice is supported by two recent studies (Hanania, 2015; Sunstein, 2019). In the 2015 study by Hanania, subjects read a brief passage of text describing Larry Summers's controversial comments about the under-representation of women in STEM, and were then assigned to read either one of two further passages: one in which Summers was described as having stood firm, and one in which he was described as having apologised. Hanania found that subjects in the ‘apology’ condition were about 8 percentage points more likely to say that Summers should have faced negative consequences than those in the ‘no apology’ condition.
Or less pithy, unless you're really playing up being Canadian, apologizing implies guilt. You apologize for wrongdoing, not rightdoing, so clearly, if you apologized, that means what you did was wrong.
You'd think this would be obvious through even mere thought experiment, but people still think apologizing when they've done no wrong will help somehow.
Of course they have. Because there's a very obvious thing that has been scientifically confirmed for longer than most of us have been alive, and it is too hot of a potato for western poltical systems to deal with, so it has had to be suppressed, deplatformed, defunded, and made so taboo that merely saying it is will get you instantly fired from almost any job:
Sub-Saharan Africans have an average intelligence that is only moderately above that of a european adult with downs syndrome.
Which is terrible, as there is no inherent evil in knowledge.
So say genetics is 80% and environment is 20%: In discovering this, can we max the environment portion? Does the environment portion change depending on the genetic portion? Hell, we've got RNA-messer-upper jabs now, that genetic portion is suddenly more of a "sturdy barrier" than a "hard line", and knowing which genetics could maximize it, too! And that doesn't even touch on if it flattens or steepens the IQ curve, either of which have huge plusses and minuses! What if one race is IQ 120 but super-steep curved so none ever go above 130, but another is 100 but the shallow curve allows for 160+ IQs? Endless possibilities!
Everyone is so dismal! Oh, if we find out 50%Japanese-25%Iranian-12.5%Nordic-12.5%Irish genetics produce the highest intellect, whatever will we do?! It will be the end of society as we know it! Indians will be relegated to working in phone tech support and Malaysians will be sent to workhouses to mass-produce goods for more successful countries! ...Wait, that's already happening. The knowledge will make no difference to the common person, but could make huge differences in the growth of our species as a whole.
The real issue with IQ is that it’s more of a threshold than a linear function. You don’t need a population with an average IQ of 120 in order to build a functional society, but you probably do need an average greater than 90.
Where does this put populations with a sub 90 average? What are the implications for a nation whose average IQ falls precipitously with mass immigration? Very pertinent questions that no one is permitted to discuss.
Considering an IQ of 90 is an accomplishment of human evolution itself, and there's no way that the first human societies 40,000 years ago got anywhere near that IQ, I don't think your argument makes sense.
That also doesn't account for the fact that IQ has actually inflated it's own scores, such that a 90 IQ of today would be significantly lower 100 years ago.
Actually, they aren't arbitrary. I get what you're trying to say: entire races are biologically incapable of forming societies. That's not true, and I was pointing out that one of the arguments you're using to support that premise is wrong.
There's a single gene that controls brain signaling chemicals where people that have it are basically hopped up on antidepressents 24/7. Imagine trying to sit through an IQ test when chemicals make you do whatever the next thing to enter you mind is - sometimes even if it's suicide the chemical makes you just do it because you thought about it.
Like 5% of black men / 10% of black women in America have this gene, it's probably singlehanded responsible for a large portion of the problem, and could be solved easily by taking a pill every so often.
Helping black people be better helps everyone, but can't happen when pretending everything is fine as-is.
The research will go on in China, Russia, maybe some Middle Eastern countries... But the West is entering a dark ages period for sure regarding this topics.
This is one of those "Moviebob was right" moments, because it was the Nazis who really killed it. Eugenicists were all across the world treated as completely evil people and that we must ignore any and all differences between our births. Which would lead directly into the various gender, race, and gay movements by saying we were born "equal."
One of the earliest "criticisms" of the IQ field, which they think is so telling they consider it self evident of its evil, was that black people were just always well below anyone else. Which meant it was racism and the tests were bad (or the testers).
Then the Nazis took a completely different avenue (more into physical differences) and that meant we had to sink the entire idea of "people aren't equal."
That was never one of the earliest criticisms of IQ. The problem with IQ in it's earliest form is that it was Progressive psuedo-scientific nonsense that existed to create citiations to affirm a narrative.
It existed to re-enforce the Progressive elite's intellectualist establishment claim that Thomas Malthus was 100% right and all human development would stop if poor people who weren't progressive intellectuals (who were literally the highest form of human evolution) weren't intentionally castrated. [Thomas Malthus is now, has been, and will always be wrong; just as he was when his book came out.]
If Eugenics was operating today, every single person here would be identified as an inherent intellectual inferior because on your IQ test you scored a 35 because you failed to correctly identify the definitions of the 4 waves of Feminism, and you would need to be targeted for chemical castration. You can bet your ass that people would demand you be hauled into the asylum and castrated for polluting the gene pool as an innate biological inferior. Meanwhile, people who believe women can have penises like the academicians do, would be the self-anointed pinnacle of human evolution, and you should respect their desire not to breathe their air. The Progressives are still doing the same shit, they are just using a different pseudo-science because strict Materialism has fallen out of favor with Leftist Intellectuals.
That Nazis took the same avenue, but instead of applying Leftist Intellectuals as innately superior, they asserted that Aryan Germans were the intellectual superiors.
It absolutely was, as its usage during WW1 was both growingly widespread and being attacked at the time for such.
All Psychology starts as psuedo-scientific bullshit because we literally cannot measure the brain in any real form with our current technology. We can merely scratch at it and hope. This was especially true back then, when Karen Horney was literally putting the permanent rot into the entire field.
Despite this, it made many strides to try and find objective ways to measure intelligence that were not simple "learned to regurgitate public school things" that all other measures used. It wasn't entirely successful, but there was actual movement towards better ways of judging people other than ability to memorize propaganda and equations.
Ideological corruption or abusive wielding doesn't turn something into completely useless, else we would also discard all laws and government entirely too. I do not even need to be pro- on the field to see how its sinking was a very early form of "call it Nazi and cancel it" because it said things they didn't like about women and blacks.
It absolutely wasn't, you weren't going to find almost any institutional resistance to racialism in the Progressive Era, because the Progressives seized the institutions and were openly promoting it. It's not like the Republicans under Taft or Roosevelt were out and about demanding the ending of Eugenics to save "the negro". It was an intellectual fad of the time to support eradicating them as a race. Same with Native Americans.
Despite this, it made many strides to try and find objective ways to measure intelligence that were not simple "learned to regurgitate public school things" that all other measures used.
Yes, decades later, well into the 50's. Early on, IQ tests actually had questions I would consider pop-culture based, and that was because it was being used as a political justification to limit immigration, rather than understanding it as a scientific tool, and running off of that. (Because you could limit migration using IQ without being an idiot about it)
Ideological corruption or abusive wielding doesn't turn something into completely useless, else we would also discard all laws and government entirely too.
That depends on the government. A free people have an inalienable right to revolution as necessary.
But beyond that my criticism isn't against IQ in general, it's against it's early history specifically when it was pure psuedo-science.
There's plenty of hate between light and dark-skinned black people, why can't they admit to the obvious differences in intelligence among them, with the high-IQ outliers lording it over the majority of lower IQ people?
Hate is adaptable.
Trouble is IQ is forever linked with some sort of virtue, as if you have a right to brag about the accident of your birth. It's infantile.
It's not a surprise, a lot of the early work on Intelligence was done by Progressive Racialists who made up bullshit in whole cloth to make a political argument. Once the field was abandoned by Progressives, it made real advances. At which, it became a target for Progressives to destroy both because they had already abandoned it and knew they made up most of it originally; and because they were continuing to fight against reality.
Intelligence research has been aggressively retconned, memory holed, suppressed, and manipulated for decades.
Even those very far on the left who've tried to tread into the region of genetics & intelligence have gotten torn apart by their colleagues and academia.
Uncomfortable truths hurt the commie agenda so they must be suppressed at any cost.
It's going to get way worse
It could just end up like where climate research is presumably at: funding and confirming only the approved biases, but still looking for other things to potentially optimize or control things.
Quotes from View from The Right by Alain De Benoist
Considering the fact the we've already seen that two years of wearing a mask may have dropped the general population's maximum IQ by 20%; and considering that the other largest determining factors in stunting IQ development are: offspring of incest, violence towards children, and malnutrition of children; it seems pretty fucking clear to me that environment has a much more serious impact than he'd like to admit to.
It's like saying a groups is genetically pre-disposed to dying young; while not taking into account the likelihood of murders in that group. What would an environmental factor like murder have on a biological factor like lifespan?
IQ hasn't dropped 20% because of masks. Average IQ in western countries had been dropping every year though because of immigration.
You're talking about something completely different.
I'm telling you that there is an expected decrease in children and it's directly related to lockdowns and masks which has caused the children to become emotionally stunted.
What you're talking about is a general IQ statistic for a country.
You didn't specify the kids and kid IQ ratings are notorious for fluctuating. We'll see the true impacts in a decade. It's still early to draw conclusions.
A fair enough criticism to be sure, but that still leaves violence and malnutrition which are more well documented.
Violence itself is a natural trait also. So it's one of those "violence may cause it but genetics cause the violence that causes it". Malnutrition is going to have a factor of course because then people genetics can't properly develop. I think a lot of the modern research on this though is not done fairly. Example: A country like Canada only really has black people because Canada immigrated in black people. Canada has standards for black people that immigrate in this Canada will only accept on average higher IQ blacks as part of its normal immigration process. To then compare Canadian blacks as well-nourished and then compare them to blacks back in their home country who are malnourished is going to give a highly biased result. Of course the Canadian blacks have higher IQ because they were filtered out specifically for their higher IQ as part of the immigration process.
If you take black people in the same country who are well-nourished vs. those who are not, you're again creating a bias because generally speaking the people with better genetics are going to end up getting more nourishment as a factor of their better genetics. Better genetics leading to them being more capable to get into position where they can get more resources and being born to families of superior genetics that have more resources etc...
To truly do an unbiased study, you need to essentially find a village that split into two randomly. The one village go good nourishment and the other village did not. Then compare IQs but that's not how a lot of the studies on nourishment are done. The way in which the studies are done, often lead to a lot of biases in them. However since nourishment advocates the "environment" angle, despite the flaws, it is pushed heavily by many in the field.
That's true for most of genetic relation to behaviors. It's never all nature or all nurture. There's always both, that's how humans adapt.
And that goes to my primary issue regarding emphasis on racial or ethnic "genetics". Race has almost nothing to do with it. IQ is malleable over populations both up and down, and a huge portion of that is culture and sex-selection based. A lot of racial science argues this absolute hard & fast rule that there are just entire ethnicities and races that are all but incapable of forming any semblance of human civilization because they are too cognitively impaired as a race to improve. But this isn't based on reality in the slightest.
A study was done on that with East / West Germany. The East had more paranoia, starvation, and violence, and as an average was 1 standard deviation lower than the West Germans. Given the length of East Germany, the sudden drop in IQ in only a couple generations confirms to me that the effect of environment is very important factor.
Nurture v Nature is complicated (and thus so is heritability, which can change with the environment). Yes, if you lock someone in a dark room for their whole life and never speak to them, their resulting IQ will be entirely the result of environment.
That said, malnutrition isn't a thing anymore: Too much nutrition is the problem for our lower classes. Whatever portion of the Flynn effect that had to do with malnutrition ended decades ago (along with the Flynn effect itself).
Adopted twin studies show quite clearly that IQ is strongly hereditary in the conditions of modern western society. The IQ of a child adopted into an upper class home is better predicted by the IQ of their birth parent than they are of their adopted parents. There might be environmental detriments that lower the heritability of IQ at the lowest end of SES, but that is extremely questionable (Eric Turkheimer vs Alt Hype: https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=WPV6Hz9iwQo)
It is possible that wearing a mask and lockdowns will stunt the IQ of children, as it is massive systemic abuse on a large scale. However, most interventions that have an impact on the IQ of children only have short-term effects. IQ's heritability increases with age, peaking in the early twenties at around ~70%. Hopefully, this applies to temporary negative interventions as well.
There is no such thing as 'too much nutrition'. Yes, there is still malnutrition in the US, but also yes, people are fat. Being fat is not nutrition.
When you bend a knee you expose your neck.
Or less pithy, unless you're really playing up being Canadian, apologizing implies guilt. You apologize for wrongdoing, not rightdoing, so clearly, if you apologized, that means what you did was wrong.
You'd think this would be obvious through even mere thought experiment, but people still think apologizing when they've done no wrong will help somehow.
Of course they have. Because there's a very obvious thing that has been scientifically confirmed for longer than most of us have been alive, and it is too hot of a potato for western poltical systems to deal with, so it has had to be suppressed, deplatformed, defunded, and made so taboo that merely saying it is will get you instantly fired from almost any job:
Sub-Saharan Africans have an average intelligence that is only moderately above that of a european adult with downs syndrome.
Which is terrible, as there is no inherent evil in knowledge.
So say genetics is 80% and environment is 20%: In discovering this, can we max the environment portion? Does the environment portion change depending on the genetic portion? Hell, we've got RNA-messer-upper jabs now, that genetic portion is suddenly more of a "sturdy barrier" than a "hard line", and knowing which genetics could maximize it, too! And that doesn't even touch on if it flattens or steepens the IQ curve, either of which have huge plusses and minuses! What if one race is IQ 120 but super-steep curved so none ever go above 130, but another is 100 but the shallow curve allows for 160+ IQs? Endless possibilities!
Everyone is so dismal! Oh, if we find out 50%Japanese-25%Iranian-12.5%Nordic-12.5%Irish genetics produce the highest intellect, whatever will we do?! It will be the end of society as we know it! Indians will be relegated to working in phone tech support and Malaysians will be sent to workhouses to mass-produce goods for more successful countries! ...Wait, that's already happening. The knowledge will make no difference to the common person, but could make huge differences in the growth of our species as a whole.
The real issue with IQ is that it’s more of a threshold than a linear function. You don’t need a population with an average IQ of 120 in order to build a functional society, but you probably do need an average greater than 90.
Where does this put populations with a sub 90 average? What are the implications for a nation whose average IQ falls precipitously with mass immigration? Very pertinent questions that no one is permitted to discuss.
Considering an IQ of 90 is an accomplishment of human evolution itself, and there's no way that the first human societies 40,000 years ago got anywhere near that IQ, I don't think your argument makes sense.
That also doesn't account for the fact that IQ has actually inflated it's own scores, such that a 90 IQ of today would be significantly lower 100 years ago.
This comment is highly autistic.
You understood what I meant. The numbers were arbitrary.
No, he's just an agent of evil.
Actually, they aren't arbitrary. I get what you're trying to say: entire races are biologically incapable of forming societies. That's not true, and I was pointing out that one of the arguments you're using to support that premise is wrong.
Forming societies is a pretty low bar. A wolf pack has social structure.
There's a single gene that controls brain signaling chemicals where people that have it are basically hopped up on antidepressents 24/7. Imagine trying to sit through an IQ test when chemicals make you do whatever the next thing to enter you mind is - sometimes even if it's suicide the chemical makes you just do it because you thought about it.
Like 5% of black men / 10% of black women in America have this gene, it's probably singlehanded responsible for a large portion of the problem, and could be solved easily by taking a pill every so often.
Helping black people be better helps everyone, but can't happen when pretending everything is fine as-is.
The degradation of the human psyche especially in the "western' world is definitely something to behold Buy land and build... good luck everyone.
The research will go on in China, Russia, maybe some Middle Eastern countries... But the West is entering a dark ages period for sure regarding this topics.
This is one of those "Moviebob was right" moments, because it was the Nazis who really killed it. Eugenicists were all across the world treated as completely evil people and that we must ignore any and all differences between our births. Which would lead directly into the various gender, race, and gay movements by saying we were born "equal."
One of the earliest "criticisms" of the IQ field, which they think is so telling they consider it self evident of its evil, was that black people were just always well below anyone else. Which meant it was racism and the tests were bad (or the testers).
Then the Nazis took a completely different avenue (more into physical differences) and that meant we had to sink the entire idea of "people aren't equal."
The Nazis were made into villains because the new secular religion of Democracy needed a "Satan".
They are the strawman the regime beats when it needs to remind the sheep who's boss.
When the results of repeated testing do not meet your expectations:
Scientist: "How odd, my expectations must be wrong."
Ideologist: "How odd, my tests must be wrong."
That was never one of the earliest criticisms of IQ. The problem with IQ in it's earliest form is that it was Progressive psuedo-scientific nonsense that existed to create citiations to affirm a narrative.
It existed to re-enforce the Progressive elite's intellectualist establishment claim that Thomas Malthus was 100% right and all human development would stop if poor people who weren't progressive intellectuals (who were literally the highest form of human evolution) weren't intentionally castrated. [Thomas Malthus is now, has been, and will always be wrong; just as he was when his book came out.]
If Eugenics was operating today, every single person here would be identified as an inherent intellectual inferior because on your IQ test you scored a 35 because you failed to correctly identify the definitions of the 4 waves of Feminism, and you would need to be targeted for chemical castration. You can bet your ass that people would demand you be hauled into the asylum and castrated for polluting the gene pool as an innate biological inferior. Meanwhile, people who believe women can have penises like the academicians do, would be the self-anointed pinnacle of human evolution, and you should respect their desire not to breathe their air. The Progressives are still doing the same shit, they are just using a different pseudo-science because strict Materialism has fallen out of favor with Leftist Intellectuals.
That Nazis took the same avenue, but instead of applying Leftist Intellectuals as innately superior, they asserted that Aryan Germans were the intellectual superiors.
It absolutely was, as its usage during WW1 was both growingly widespread and being attacked at the time for such.
All Psychology starts as psuedo-scientific bullshit because we literally cannot measure the brain in any real form with our current technology. We can merely scratch at it and hope. This was especially true back then, when Karen Horney was literally putting the permanent rot into the entire field.
Despite this, it made many strides to try and find objective ways to measure intelligence that were not simple "learned to regurgitate public school things" that all other measures used. It wasn't entirely successful, but there was actual movement towards better ways of judging people other than ability to memorize propaganda and equations.
Ideological corruption or abusive wielding doesn't turn something into completely useless, else we would also discard all laws and government entirely too. I do not even need to be pro- on the field to see how its sinking was a very early form of "call it Nazi and cancel it" because it said things they didn't like about women and blacks.
It absolutely wasn't, you weren't going to find almost any institutional resistance to racialism in the Progressive Era, because the Progressives seized the institutions and were openly promoting it. It's not like the Republicans under Taft or Roosevelt were out and about demanding the ending of Eugenics to save "the negro". It was an intellectual fad of the time to support eradicating them as a race. Same with Native Americans.
Yes, decades later, well into the 50's. Early on, IQ tests actually had questions I would consider pop-culture based, and that was because it was being used as a political justification to limit immigration, rather than understanding it as a scientific tool, and running off of that. (Because you could limit migration using IQ without being an idiot about it)
That depends on the government. A free people have an inalienable right to revolution as necessary.
But beyond that my criticism isn't against IQ in general, it's against it's early history specifically when it was pure psuedo-science.
Comment Reported for:
Comment Removed
There's plenty of hate between light and dark-skinned black people, why can't they admit to the obvious differences in intelligence among them, with the high-IQ outliers lording it over the majority of lower IQ people?
Hate is adaptable.
Trouble is IQ is forever linked with some sort of virtue, as if you have a right to brag about the accident of your birth. It's infantile.
It's not a surprise, a lot of the early work on Intelligence was done by Progressive Racialists who made up bullshit in whole cloth to make a political argument. Once the field was abandoned by Progressives, it made real advances. At which, it became a target for Progressives to destroy both because they had already abandoned it and knew they made up most of it originally; and because they were continuing to fight against reality.