The average IQ of the people of this country is 100. That is no coincidence. The IQ rating is designed around the premise that 'average' gets a score of 100, above average gets more and below average gets less. if they had set the average to 'zero', half the population would have a negative IQ which wouldn't be fair. An IQ of 80 is a perfectly functional human. Okay, they won't be likely to write the next great novel or rise to the rank of professor, but they will not need to be looked after. They can run their own lives perfectly well.
The IQ test isn't perfect. I know at least one very intelligent dyslexic who simply cannot do the test. You can't test someone's intelligence through a medium they can't use effectively. You might as well set the test in Klingon and then crow about how low everyone's scores are. It is also possible to ramp up your score by practising the test. So it's not perfect.
It does, however, demonstrate that there are very different levels of intelligence within a population. I know, the socialists like to pretend we are all born equal and that different levels of achievement are the result of all those evil capitalist oppressors, but that's just total rubbish.
You don't even need to be smart to succeed in life. Many who aren't born smart end up rich and successful anyway, through sheer bloody-minded persistence. The dimmest of all succeed by getting into parliament where they are not required to do anything other than dream up lunatic rules and apply them. How can so many idiots get into parliament? By being compliant with the Party line and getting themselves placed in safe seats - not on the basis of ability, but because the party can be sure they'll vote as directed. Oh, and the ability to make a sound like a dodgy lawnmower whenever the other side says something they don't like.
Socialists think that all they need do is make sure everyone has the same stuff and that will make them all the same. If we all have the same amount of money, we will be equal. If everyone has a computer and access to the internet, we will all be equally intelligent.
I know people whose computers have no word processor installed. No software other than what came with it, and what came with their camera. No printer. A webcam, often, but no scanner, no peripherals. It is not for their work - they are builder's labourers, shop assistants, warehousemen. The computer is a toy. It's for watching porn and playing games and that is it. Some use Facebook or another networking programme but none write blogs, research, delve into the deeper recesses of the information out there or indeed get very far beyond the porn sites at all.
If Labour think these people will immediately tune in to LabourList when they are given computers, they are mistaken. They won't even bother with online newspapers unless they have a laptop so they can read them on the bog.
You want proof that having a computer does not make you intelligent? Angry Exile has proof. Hundreds of people failing to log in to Facebook because they are on a site that looks nothing like Facebook and is called something different.
I'm not going to advocate a minimum intelligence test for owning a computer. If someone wants to use a computer solely as a massively expensive version of Wrist Wobbler's Weekly, that's up to them. If they want to spend their lives immersed in some fantasy world until their real life bodies become bloated and grey, they end up looking and sounding like Jabba the Hut and all their friends think they died years ago, that's up to them.
But I don't want to pay for it.
Labour want to hand out free laptops to their support base. If I need a new laptop, I have to pay for it out of whatever is left after the taxman has taken a whack out of my income in order to buy a laptop for someone else. Socialists regard that as 'fair'. If I object, I am being an elitist capitalist selfish racist-Nazi-bigot. In fact, I am an elitist in their eyes for daring to have non-State-approved thoughts.
Yes, I'm smart. I've scored on IQ tests in the 140's at 3 am after drinking most of a bottle of whisky. Sober and properly awake, I've done a lot better. Does that make me look down on lesser mortals? Certainly not.
If there's a leaky pipe in my house, I am smarter than the plumber on the IQ range but I can't fix the pipe. When I had a bit added to the house, it was added by someone who can't touch me in an IQ contest but who can build a wall both sides of where a window is to be placed, and the tops of both sides of the wall will be absolutely and perfectly level. I admit I was in awe when I saw that. If he used a level, I didn't see it.
In my line of work, being smarter than the average voter is an advantage. If I was on a building site, my IQ would be of no use at all. They'll want someone who can lift as many bricks as possible up the scaffolding as quickly as possible, and that's not me.
Many people simply are not born with the potential to be deep thinkers, just as many people are not born with the potential to be Olympic athletes. Once in a generation we get an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking, whose thinking abilities are so far out of range of the rest of us that we can only shake our heads and go 'Phew'. I read Hawking's book (and I defy anyone who reads it not to 'hear' it in his voice) and when he gets to the part where some things don't look the same until they turn completely around twice, I knew I was in twilight zone territory.
I've been told my IQ puts me in the top one or two percent - top of what? It's certainly not the top of athletic ability or building skills. It's nowhere near the top of money-making ability. I know utter dolts who are far richer than me. I mean, look at how much money the 'socialist' Toynbee has, none of which, I note, she has redistributed, and yet calling her a 'plank' would be an insult to the memory of whichever tree it came from.
Pol Pot, Stalin and others sought to equalise intelligence among the proles by killing off all the academics. Those pesky free thinkers have to go. They question things and nobody should be allowed to question socialism. It didn't work. It never will, and it's because one of the central tenets of socialist dogma is very, very wrong.
Intelligence is not connected to success or social class. It's the other way around. Smart people who don't like living on the council estate they were born into will find a way to move out. Idiots born into wealth will squander it and end up destitute. Social class does not determine intelligence. Neither does education. With the intelligence I have, I cannot speak Farsi or Urdu, not one word. I've never had a single lesson. Some people will never understand the basics of the cytochrome chain, no matter how often you tell them, because they are not equipped to grasp it. Intelligence and learning are different things.
So all those kids going through indoctrination in Labour's schools will not end up of equally low intelligence, which is what Labour have tried to achieve. They might have roughly equal knowledge when they leave but some will still be very smart and some will still be very dim and there will be everything in between. The smart ones will note the discrepancies between what they were taught and what they see in the real world and they will question it. Not aloud. They're smart, remember? They will realise very quickly what could happen to them if they reveal their smartness.
All socialist states eventually fail because of this. Equality, in the socialist sense, is impossible because we are all born different. We do not start as pure blank slates at birth. Even where the socialists kill off all the smart ones, new smart ones will be born. The genetics of smartness is unknown and probably extremely complex, and smart people know better than to shout about it in a regime where smart people are punished or even executed.
I am not against people having computers. Whenever I upgrade mine, which isn't often, I'll reformat the hard disk on the old one and set it up for a friend who can't afford one. It's not the latest technology but it's better than what they have now. I don't install word processors or statistical software or PowerPoint or things like that for them. I know they are going to use it for RedTube and eBay and they'll want RealPlayer for downloading the mucky videos. I'll tell them about blogs and other sites but they won't bother with them. I am certainly not against people having computers and using them for things I consider trivial. I have no problem donating old but serviceable machines for free to others. What I am against is being forced to pay for new machines for people I have never met.
Especially since it is not going to work. Computers do not make people intelligent. Nothing does. However smart you are when you're born, that's it. You can choose to make full use of what you have by learning things or you can choose to vegetate in front of the idiot lantern all your life. That does not change how smart you are, it merely changes how successful you will be, and you do not need to be highly intelligent in order to be successful. Find what you are good at, what you enjoy, do that and do it well. That is success.
Having a Lexus and a mansion and a villa in Tuscany is, to me, not success. Those are fripperies, irrelevances, annoying things that you just have to worry about all the time. If I had a million-pound house with million-pound contents, I'd be worried about it every time I went to the shops. If I had a twenty-thousand-pound car, I'd be awake at every noise outside and fret over stone chips. My house is full of stuff I can mostly replace in one trip to Tesco, plus a lot of trivia I wouldn't actually mind someone else clearing out for me and none of it is worth stealing.
That's another difference. For some, that Lexus and mansion are the hallmarks of success. Do I regard them as wrong? No, because just like intelligence, the definition of success is a personal thing. Some people want their own swimming pool. If I had a swimming pool, I'd fill it with soil and plant potatoes in it. Some people want to own a Rolls-Royce. I'd be happier with the shell of a Fiesta with chickens living in it. Some people want to live in a really big house in the countryside. My dream is a one-bedroomed flat over a well-equipped laboratory with a pub next door.
You don't need intelligence to get those things. Look at footballers and pop stars. Some are multi-talented and very smart. David Bowie has a whole business empire now, but... Bono? Vinnie Jones has turned to acting and is very good at it, but... Beckham? All rich, and all at very different places on the scale of intelligence. All very good at what they do but it is not related to how smart they are. Beckham is very good at football but is he likely to be trying for a university position?
This is what socialists fail to see. They insist on forcing equality in all things on a species that is biologically extremely variable. That variability is key to the survival of a species that has no fur, no claws and little in the way of teeth. Make us all identical and we will die out.
We are not equal. We are different. I'm good at something, you're good at something else. Together we make it work. I'll fix your gut infection, you fix my electrical supply. If I try to fix my electrical supply I might kill myself. If you take random drugs you might kill yourself.
Socialism will not see that. We must be clones of the ideal and no more. If someone is good at something, slap them down. Stay in line, prole, and don't try to be better at anything than anyone else. Do not attempt to appear intelligent or you will be re-de-educated.
Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger than others. Some people are faster than others. Some people want things other people don't want. Some people like things other people don't like. Some people are frightened by things other people find comforting. Some are offended by things other people can shrug off. Some people really enjoy doing something that other people don't like doing at all.
We are different. Socialism will never accept that and it will always fail as a result.