The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Jeffrey Goldberg: "Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For some time, I’ve been pointing out that the more ethnocentric American Jews, individuals who tend to be hard-headed conservatives by nature and schmaltzy liberals by nurture, are the key potential swing constituency on issues like immigration policy. And the ice is starting to crack perceptibly, if subtly.

Of course, you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic rage to get to what’s really bothering these swing pundits. For example, Jeffrey Goldberg’s giant cover story in The Atlantic is full of expressions of ethnic animosity against Christendom — e.g.:

Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?

By Jeffrey Goldberg

… The resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is not—or should not be—a surprise. One of the least surprising phenomena in the history of civilization, in fact, is the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which has been the wellspring of Judeophobia for 1,000 years.

– before Goldberg finally gets around to … oh, yeah, the real problem is now the Muslims.

As William Saletan implies in Slate, much of Goldberg’s article seems intended to serve as angry filler to establish his bona fides as a good gentile-hater so he can eventually quote Marine Le Pen at length on what needs to be done. Saletan writes:

So let’s turn the question around. How can we help Jews stay in Europe? What’s the best way to reassure a French Jew that she can keep both her country and her religion?

Goldberg’s article doesn’t explicitly answer that question. But it does illuminate the structure of the problem. Once you understand that structure, you get a general idea of how the problem could be solved. You also begin to see how much worse things could get if we try to solve it in the wrong way.

In the article, the person who comes across as understanding the problem most clearly is Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front. She says anti-Semitism watchdogs in her country have been looking the wrong way. They’re on guard against old-style Nazism. “While they were fighting against an enemy that no longer existed,” she tells Goldberg, “an anti-Semitism was gaining force in France stemming notably from the development of fundamentalist Islamist thought.”

Goldberg’s reporting bears out her point.

 
Hide 283 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Huns get out over their skis once and they never let you forget it.

  2. The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. The sikh religion is DEFINED by Sikh-matryrs in a campaign against muslim extremists back in the day and they are equally the victims of those very same rapists they have the

    1) Suppression of inbreeding(see HBD chick)
    2) participation in science
    3) could be fooled for muslims to the untrained eye and thus giving cover against the eventual “racist’ allegations.
    4) Most sikh people I know move on and want to be considered american or european alongside sikh.

    This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    A propos of this, I'm reminded of Steve's review of "Bend it like Beckham" where he notes that the Sikh heroine's father discourages her fascination with soccer not because he wants her sequestered at home until she is married off to her cousin in the old country, but because he wants her to focus on her studies and become a high-achieving professional.
    , @SanguineEmpiricist
    http://conservativepapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Bhai-Dayala-Ji-being-boiled-alive-by-Mulims.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafarnama_%28letter%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalsa#Foundation

    http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/The_Beheading_of_Guru_Tegh_Bahadur

    The last one is particularly important because the last Guru (arguably the one with the most influence) has a famous photo that is probably in the majority of sikh homes of having his fathers head brought to him and his resulting anger against muslim extremist was the foundation of pretty much everything.

    This is an underutilized asset and fits right in with the "sailer plan"
    , @rec1man
    UK has also given residence to thousands of gurkha ex-soldiers

    Gurkha soldiers are under contract from Nepal to India, and one of their tasks is defined as
    anti-muslim mob
    , @Mr. Anon
    "SanguineEmpiricist says:

    The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. ............................................ This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area."

    Regarding Sikhs: Yeah, model citizens. What could possibly go wrong with importing people who harbor age-old ethnic grievances:

    Flight 182
    , @KA
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/23/the-fallacy-of-anti-semitism-rising/
    "whites perpetrated 44 percent of the anti-Semitic incidents in England, the lion’s share, while Arab or North African belligerence comprised a mere 10 percent. Surprisingly, South Asian offenders made up 37 percent, and only 8 percent were described as Black. "
  3. Saletan:”In the article, the person who comes across as understanding the problem most clearly is Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front.”

    Yeah, this quote from Marine Le Pen seems quite important:

    “The reality is that there exist in France associations that are supposedly representative of French Jews, which have stuck with a software that came out of the Second World War,” she said, meaning that members of the Jewish leadership are still preoccupied with the threat of Nazi-like fascism. “For decades they have continued to fight against an anti-Semitism that no longer exists in France, for reasons of—how should I say this?—intellectual laziness. And by a form of submission to the politically correct. And while they were doing this, while they were fighting against an enemy that no longer existed, an anti-Semitism was gaining force in France stemming notably from the development of fundamentalist Islamist thought.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

    • Replies: @Bill P
    It may be important, but it's still lucrative for a lot of Jews to ignore it. It won't be until they retire that we can all move on.

    Maybe they need some positive incentives. A sort of idyllic playground for mature Jews on the Riviera, perhaps? Maybe LePen should propose some Israeli joint venture there modeled on Macao (which is Adelson's biggest asset these days).
    , @dearieme
    Throughout my life the likes of the Guardian have warned several times a year about the latest huge risk from neo-Nazis in Britain or on the Continent. It's all been tosh. Ten morons with motorbikes aren't a political risk.
  4. Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews.

    Where are Jews going to go, Israel is too expensive and to crowded to accommodate immigrants.

    Maybe the west should stop attacking Muslims.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    I guess this is the reason Israel won't stop building settlements in the West Bank.
    , @theo the kraut
    > Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews

    According to interviews and reports in Berlin papers they are mostly hardcore leftists flocking to multicultural/leftist Berlin which they sort of don't consider to be Germany proper--Berlin is hip as is eg Barcelona. Low living costs compared to back home, cheap rents above all. They can afford to have family here... maybe back (or wherever) later when things change, eg when Bibi has to leave office--they hate him. Jews get German passports or residence permits easily due to post-WWII regulations, it's easier than in other European countries. One Berlin Israeli posted his supermarket bill on facebook, showing how one particular brand of yogurt popular in Israel was three times cheaper over here. Caused quite some anger, he got called sell out and traitor. cf https://www.google.com/search?q=berlin+israeli+yogurt
    , @Karl
    >> Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews

    This is like saying that there is a net immigration of Minnesotan college grads to Park Slope. Yeah - they go to Brooklyn, then eventually they leave.

    There is no sign that Israelis in Germany are attempting to assimilate into

    in fact, Germany-resident Israeli families have established and maintain Israeli-curriculae schools; TelAviv-style supermarkets; Hebrew-language BoyScoutTroops, etc, etc, etc.
  5. @SanguineEmpiricist
    The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. The sikh religion is DEFINED by Sikh-matryrs in a campaign against muslim extremists back in the day and they are equally the victims of those very same rapists they have the

    1) Suppression of inbreeding(see HBD chick)
    2) participation in science
    3) could be fooled for muslims to the untrained eye and thus giving cover against the eventual "racist' allegations.
    4) Most sikh people I know move on and want to be considered american or european alongside sikh.

    This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area.

    A propos of this, I’m reminded of Steve’s review of “Bend it like Beckham” where he notes that the Sikh heroine’s father discourages her fascination with soccer not because he wants her sequestered at home until she is married off to her cousin in the old country, but because he wants her to focus on her studies and become a high-achieving professional.

    • Replies: @rec1man
    In the same movie, the Sikh heroine is asked about boyfriends in the locker room
    White - no
    Black - definitely not
    Muslims - she makes a sign of throat being cut ( honor killed )
  6. Steve:”For example, Jeffrey Goldberg’s giant cover story in The Atlantic is full of expressions of ethnic animosity against Christendom”

    Yeah, lots of stage setting in that piece.All of it meant to remind us that somehow European Christians are to blame for the current woes of the Jews:

    The resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is not—or should not be—a surprise. One of the least surprising phenomena in the history of civilization, in fact, is the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which has been the wellspring of Judeophobia for 1,000 years. The Church itself functioned as the centrifuge of anti-Semitism from the time it rebelled against its mother religion until the middle of the 20th century. As Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Great Britain, has observed, Europe has added to the global lexicon of bigotry such terms as Inquisition, blood libel, auto‑da‑fé, ghetto, pogrom, and Holocaust. Europe has blamed the Jews for an encyclopedia of sins.

    It would probably be a waste of time to note that the auto‑da‑fé was used against Christian heretics, and that the Inquisition’s purview was restricted to Christians….

    Yet the new anti-Semitism flourishing in corners of the European Muslim community would be impoverished without the incorporation of European fascist tropes. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian of French Cameroonian descent who specializes in Holocaust revisionism and gas-chamber humor, is the inventor of the quenelle, widely understood as an inverted Nazi salute. His followers have taken to photographing themselves making the quenelle in front of synagogues, Holocaust memorials, and sites of past anti-Jewish terrorist attacks. Dieudonné has built an ideological partnership with Alain Soral, the anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist and 9/11 “truther” who was for several years a member of the National Front’s central committee. Soral was photographed not long ago making the quenelle in front of Berlin’s Holocaust memorial.

    The union of Middle Eastern and European forms of anti-Semitic expression has led to bizarre moments. Dave Rich, an official of the Community Security Trust, a Jewish organization that monitors anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom, wrote recently: “Those British Muslims who verbally abuse British Jews on the street are more likely to shout ‘Heil Hitler’ than ‘Allahu akbar’ when they do so. This is despite the fact that their parents and grandparents were probably chased through the very same streets by gangs of neo-Nazi skinheads shouting similar slogans.”

    And, of course, the real threat to Europe’s Jewry comes from Nazi-Islam…..

    The marriage of anti-Semitic narratives was consummated in January of last year, during a so-called Day of Rage march in Paris that was organized to protest the leadership of the French president, François Hollande. The rally drew roughly 17,000 people, mostly far-rightists but also many French Muslims.

    “On one side of this march, you had neonationalist and reactionary Catholics, who had strongly and violently opposed gay marriage, and on the other side young people from the banlieues [suburbs], supporters of Dieudonné, often from African and North African background, whose beliefs are based in opposition to the ‘system’ and on victimhood competition,” Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, the Paris director of the American Jewish Committee, told me. “What unites them is their hatred of Jews.” That day, on the streets of Paris, the anti-Hollande message was overtaken by another chanted slogan: “Juif, la France n’est pas à toi”—“Jew, France is not for you.”

    And let’s not forget the coming Catholic-Muslim alliance against the Jews….

    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants, many of whom did in fact practice Judaism in secret. Technically they were Christian heretics, but a lot of it was still about the Jews. That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.
    , @annamaria
    You see, the quenelle ("widely understood as an inverted Nazi salute") is very-very dangerous and very-very obscene. But the US financial support for the Ukrainian neo-Nazis sporting real swastika and idolizing Hitler is OK.
    An Israeli citizen Kolomoisky has been financing the neo-Nazis thugs to protect his wast investments in East Ukraine. The US Zionists are elated and publish a fawning article about this wealthy Jewish man in the Wall Street Journal (the WSJ carefully omits any mentioning of Kolomoisky's thugs involvement in burning more than 40 civilians alive in Odessa). http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
    The Jewish wife of a Jewish man, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan is totally OK with the neo-Nazis in Kiev government, because these neo-Nazis are very helpful for establishing a Ukrainian serfdom for the benefits of the Western mega-corporations and mega-banks. http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/04/17/zionists-and-anti-semites-in-ukraine-a-strange-union.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TpZa4OMFVk
    Mr. Goldberg, mysteriously, completely misses this Ukrainian scandal of Jewish-Nazi collaboration.
  7. @george
    Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews.

    Where are Jews going to go, Israel is too expensive and to crowded to accommodate immigrants.

    Maybe the west should stop attacking Muslims.

    I guess this is the reason Israel won’t stop building settlements in the West Bank.

    • Replies: @Scotty G. Vito
    Winners tend to "build settlements" which are then decried by the losers for a while. See: rest of the world for all of human history.
  8. @SanguineEmpiricist
    The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. The sikh religion is DEFINED by Sikh-matryrs in a campaign against muslim extremists back in the day and they are equally the victims of those very same rapists they have the

    1) Suppression of inbreeding(see HBD chick)
    2) participation in science
    3) could be fooled for muslims to the untrained eye and thus giving cover against the eventual "racist' allegations.
    4) Most sikh people I know move on and want to be considered american or european alongside sikh.

    This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafarnama_%28letter%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalsa#Foundation

    http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/The_Beheading_of_Guru_Tegh_Bahadur

    The last one is particularly important because the last Guru (arguably the one with the most influence) has a famous photo that is probably in the majority of sikh homes of having his fathers head brought to him and his resulting anger against muslim extremist was the foundation of pretty much everything.

    This is an underutilized asset and fits right in with the “sailer plan”

  9. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    “The resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is not—or should not be—a surprise. One of the least surprising phenomena in the history of civilization, in fact, is the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which has been the wellspring of Judeophobia for 1,000 years.”

    Well then, why didn’t Jews just leave? Europeans didn’t force Jews to stay in Europe. And Europe is not the original land of Jews.

    So, if white Christians were so awful, why didn’t Jews in Europe just go to the Middle East, Asia, or Africa where all those wonderful non-whites would surely have welcomed them with open arms?

    Jews bitch so much about Europeans and white Americans, but they never wanna live anywhere but in white nations. Why?

    Mr. Goldberg, tell your European Jews to leave. No one is stopping them from doing so. And since you Jews profess to love blacks so much, please go settle in black Africa and have your daughters marry black men. Besides, Jews say immigration is so wonderful. Okay, then I suggest all European and American Jews become immigrants in Africa. Yay!

  10. @syonredux
    Steve:"For example, Jeffrey Goldberg’s giant cover story in The Atlantic is full of expressions of ethnic animosity against Christendom"

    Yeah, lots of stage setting in that piece.All of it meant to remind us that somehow European Christians are to blame for the current woes of the Jews:

    The resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is not—or should not be—a surprise. One of the least surprising phenomena in the history of civilization, in fact, is the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which has been the wellspring of Judeophobia for 1,000 years. The Church itself functioned as the centrifuge of anti-Semitism from the time it rebelled against its mother religion until the middle of the 20th century. As Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Great Britain, has observed, Europe has added to the global lexicon of bigotry such terms as Inquisition, blood libel, auto‑da‑fé, ghetto, pogrom, and Holocaust. Europe has blamed the Jews for an encyclopedia of sins.
     
    It would probably be a waste of time to note that the auto‑da‑fé was used against Christian heretics, and that the Inquisition’s purview was restricted to Christians….

    Yet the new anti-Semitism flourishing in corners of the European Muslim community would be impoverished without the incorporation of European fascist tropes. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian of French Cameroonian descent who specializes in Holocaust revisionism and gas-chamber humor, is the inventor of the quenelle, widely understood as an inverted Nazi salute. His followers have taken to photographing themselves making the quenelle in front of synagogues, Holocaust memorials, and sites of past anti-Jewish terrorist attacks. Dieudonné has built an ideological partnership with Alain Soral, the anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist and 9/11 “truther” who was for several years a member of the National Front’s central committee. Soral was photographed not long ago making the quenelle in front of Berlin’s Holocaust memorial.

    The union of Middle Eastern and European forms of anti-Semitic expression has led to bizarre moments. Dave Rich, an official of the Community Security Trust, a Jewish organization that monitors anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom, wrote recently: “Those British Muslims who verbally abuse British Jews on the street are more likely to shout ‘Heil Hitler’ than ‘Allahu akbar’ when they do so. This is despite the fact that their parents and grandparents were probably chased through the very same streets by gangs of neo-Nazi skinheads shouting similar slogans.”
     
    And, of course, the real threat to Europe’s Jewry comes from Nazi-Islam…..

    The marriage of anti-Semitic narratives was consummated in January of last year, during a so-called Day of Rage march in Paris that was organized to protest the leadership of the French president, François Hollande. The rally drew roughly 17,000 people, mostly far-rightists but also many French Muslims.

    “On one side of this march, you had neonationalist and reactionary Catholics, who had strongly and violently opposed gay marriage, and on the other side young people from the banlieues [suburbs], supporters of Dieudonné, often from African and North African background, whose beliefs are based in opposition to the ‘system’ and on victimhood competition,” Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, the Paris director of the American Jewish Committee, told me. “What unites them is their hatred of Jews.” That day, on the streets of Paris, the anti-Hollande message was overtaken by another chanted slogan: “Juif, la France n’est pas à toi”—“Jew, France is not for you.”

     

    And let’s not forget the coming Catholic-Muslim alliance against the Jews….




    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants, many of whom did in fact practice Judaism in secret. Technically they were Christian heretics, but a lot of it was still about the Jews. That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants,
     
    Yes, but Jewish Jews were beyond the authority of the Inquisition.Only Jews who had converted to Catholicism were vulnerable.As for being "forced to convert," that's somewhat inaccurate.Only Jews who wanted to stay in Spain had to convert.

    That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.
     
    It applied to more than just Jewish ancestry:

    Limpieza de sangre ," meaning "cleanliness of blood", played an important role in modern Iberian history. It referred to those who were considered pure "Old Christians", without Muslim or Jewish ancestors, or within the context of the empire (New Spain and Portuguese India) usually to those without Amerindian, Asian or African ancestry [.....]

    Although a medieval European concept that targeted exclusively the Jewish or Moorish population in Spain, Limpieza de sangre the concept evolved in the Spanish overseas territories in the Spanish Empire to be linked with racial purity for both Spaniards and indigenous.[12] Proofs of racial purity were required in a variety of circumstances in both Spain and its overseas territories. Candidates for office and their spouses had to obtain a certificate of purity that proved that they had no Jewish or Muslim ancestors and in New Spain, proof of whiteness and absence of any in the lineage who engaged in work with their hands.
     
    , @IBC
    The rules concerning limpieza de sangre must have been inconsistently applied.

    See the following NYT story where a writer traces her crypto-Jewish, converso family back to a palace in 15th century Spain where her ancestor was the royal treasurer and was tried for heresy by the Inquisition. Subsequently, various members of the family tried their luck as New World conquistadores where they retained names associated with conversos and intermarried with other converso families --she says, in order to secretly maintain Jewish religious practices. Beyond the initial auto-da-fé, the family appears to have done okay in the colonies --the author's ancestor was married to the first royal governor of Costa Rica.

    I'm sure other families had different experiences, but members of her own don't seem to have suffered from any lasting stigma, especially considering that they did in fact, at least partly, continue to practice Judaism in defiance of contemporary Spanish law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/travel/in-spain-a-family-reunion-centuries-later.html?_r=0

  11. @syonredux
    Saletan:"In the article, the person who comes across as understanding the problem most clearly is Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front."

    Yeah, this quote from Marine Le Pen seems quite important:

    “The reality is that there exist in France associations that are supposedly representative of French Jews, which have stuck with a software that came out of the Second World War,” she said, meaning that members of the Jewish leadership are still preoccupied with the threat of Nazi-like fascism. “For decades they have continued to fight against an anti-Semitism that no longer exists in France, for reasons of—how should I say this?—intellectual laziness. And by a form of submission to the politically correct. And while they were doing this, while they were fighting against an enemy that no longer existed, an anti-Semitism was gaining force in France stemming notably from the development of fundamentalist Islamist thought.”
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

    It may be important, but it’s still lucrative for a lot of Jews to ignore it. It won’t be until they retire that we can all move on.

    Maybe they need some positive incentives. A sort of idyllic playground for mature Jews on the Riviera, perhaps? Maybe LePen should propose some Israeli joint venture there modeled on Macao (which is Adelson’s biggest asset these days).

  12. Perhaps it is time for Jewish Europeans to realize that they are finally on the European team. It’s what they always wanted, until Theodor Herzl got justifiably sick and tired of waiting.

    Again, when you focus on a common enemy, it is easy to unite. This time around, it wouldn’t be a bad thing for all Europeans to do.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    This brings to mind the Sarah Silverman joke someone quoted in a previous thread.
    , @iSteveFan

    Perhaps it is time for Jewish Europeans to realize that they are finally on the European team.
     
    Correct. And it is also time for all Europeans from North America to Europe, to Israel, to Vladivostok, to Australia, to realize we need to be on the same team. All of us need to stop looking at the world as a game of Risk, and realize the common threat we all face coming from a resurgent Islam and the massive waves of migration coming from the global South. In many instances they are one and the same.
    , @unpc downunder
    I think the Jewish diaspora strategy is slowly evolving from invite the world (50 years ago) to invite/invade the world (10-20 years ago) to a more right-wing, invade but don't invite the world, as is emerging in France. Ultimately invite the world isn't sustainable because it eventually endangers the survival of Israel.

    From a white perspective this more straight-forward, conservative approach is an improvement on previous policies but it still makes it difficult for the West to avoid getting into unnecessary wars in the Middle East and triggering waves of unwanted immigrants in a westward direction.
  13. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    “the key potential swing constituency on issues like immigration policy”

    In Europe maybe just maybe because Muslims don’t like Jews all that much.

    But as most immigrants to the US are non-Muslim, it will never be an issue here.

    After, Goldberg asks ‘should Jews leave Europe?’, not ‘should Jews leave America?’

    If anything, the European situation could be seen as an argument FOR diversity from the Jewish viewpoint.

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble. It’s because Europe is still majority white that Jews feel safe. Diversity is good for Jews.
    Indeed, suppose Europe were all white. White might unite against Jewish elites.
    So, Muslims(and other immigrants) are useful in making white obsess about blacks and Muslims than about Jews.

    Besides, the perception that Muslims are hurting Jews have made Europeans more protective and supportive of Jews. In a way, Goldberg is playing for sympathy by using the ‘diversity’ card. “Help! Help! Muslims are hurting us! White folks, please save us!”
    And white Libs, white Cons, and even ‘far right’ figures like Le Pen are siding with Jews. (Never mind Jews had supported massive immigration to Europe.)

    Sailer and LePen seem to be hoping for the same thing. When will Jews, with all their talent and money, see the light and come over to the Right?

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. These people are not to be trusted. Even if they do come over, it will be temporary than permanent or in good faith. Once the threat passes, they’ll go back to their old ways and play dirty tricks to do whatever is good for Jews.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble.
     
    I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews.

    I can see muslims attacking Israelis in the middle east if they feel they don't belong. But if the muslims were smart, they'd ally with the Jews in Europe. But I suppose the majority of muslim immigrants in Europe are from the left side of the curve and are not smart enough to realize this. In fact the muslim behavior might be the saving factor in getting the Europeans to wake up before it's too late.
    , @Udolpho
    you are absolutely correct
  14. @jtgw
    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants, many of whom did in fact practice Judaism in secret. Technically they were Christian heretics, but a lot of it was still about the Jews. That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.

    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants,

    Yes, but Jewish Jews were beyond the authority of the Inquisition.Only Jews who had converted to Catholicism were vulnerable.As for being “forced to convert,” that’s somewhat inaccurate.Only Jews who wanted to stay in Spain had to convert.

    That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.

    It applied to more than just Jewish ancestry:

    Limpieza de sangre ,” meaning “cleanliness of blood”, played an important role in modern Iberian history. It referred to those who were considered pure “Old Christians”, without Muslim or Jewish ancestors, or within the context of the empire (New Spain and Portuguese India) usually to those without Amerindian, Asian or African ancestry [.....]

    Although a medieval European concept that targeted exclusively the Jewish or Moorish population in Spain, Limpieza de sangre the concept evolved in the Spanish overseas territories in the Spanish Empire to be linked with racial purity for both Spaniards and indigenous.[12] Proofs of racial purity were required in a variety of circumstances in both Spain and its overseas territories. Candidates for office and their spouses had to obtain a certificate of purity that proved that they had no Jewish or Muslim ancestors and in New Spain, proof of whiteness and absence of any in the lineage who engaged in work with their hands.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of "Inquisition" Goldberg could just have said "Spanish anti-Semitism" but that's somehow less catchy.
    , @colm
    An unintended consequence of that sangre thing is many Maghrebi-Spanish (and other 'Spaniards" of less than pure sangre) emigrated to Spanish "Florida" (consisting most of the antebellum South save Virginia) where control was nonexistent, and became the ancestors of Southrons.
  15. I didn’t read either Goldberg’s or Saletan’s pieces, but is the conclusion to remain in Europe but complain incessantly? That’s what experience and intuition predict.

  16. Immediately after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January, Netanyahu said French Jews were in danger, and urged them to move to Israel where they could be safe. After the Denmark shooting in February, he said Jews were also in danger in Denmark and urged them to move to Israel for their own safety. Then in March he stood before Congress and basically said that every Jew in Israel is on the verge of being murdered by Iran. And nobody bats an eye.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    No contradiction. Israel restricts (quite properly) Muslims as they are not in Europe, and has Jews armed as they are not in Europe. Absent Iran wanting to nuke Israel, the threats Israel faces are quite manageable by ... being armed and making ones self a hard target. Iran's threats to Israel are part of a larger ambition to over-awe and overthrow the Gulf regimes and bring that low-cost production off the world market. Therefore US interests (cheap gas, you can still drive your car) and Israeli interests (they don't get nuked as an example) are inter-twined and mutually reinforcing. The whole point is moot -- Obama is hell-bent on Iranian nukes to stick it Whitey and make Substitute Mommy Val happy. With likely a joint Israeli-Saudi nuke strike (via Pakistan, Saudi's nuke carry-out joint) on Iran.

    But don't worry. Right after mandatory voting and shower timing penalties, the Lightworker will sort everything out.
    --------------------------------
    This brings out a larger issue. Steve it is not or even mostly Jews who drew the EXACT WRONG CONCLUSION from the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because:

    *An insane, mostly gay (Hitler was gay, gay, gay NOW!) and fringe element took over a strong state with no other institutions than the Army which was filled with mediocrities, all the charismatic ambitious guys being killed on the Western Front.

    *Said Army did not act decisively while it still could to forestall disaster (Gen. Sisi has assuredly not made that mistake with Morsi). [His speech on fixing the Jihad part of Islam is worth reading.]

    *The rest of Europe was disarmed to use money to buy goodies and votes, and hoped Hitler would fight Stalin (he teamed up with him for years).

    *Opportunities for stopping Hitler when he was weak were squandered, leaving him strong.

    However the lessons: have a weak, not powerful state, have lots of intermediary institutions, have a strong military that does not take guff from charismatic pols or allow them to run riot, act decisively against threats when they are small -- all those did not sit well with a war weary, feminized European public. Who felt the Holocaust happened because there were not enough hugs or something. Or hate speech codes. Most Germans did not vote for Hitler, did not like the Holocaust, but were not going to commit suicide to save Jews either. A few did (the White Rose people).

    Goldberg does have a point: Catholic France (Dreyfuss), Southern Germany (the base of the Nazis), were very anti-Semitic, though not of course France. Both England and Spain kicked out Jews. Anti-Jewish sentiment was strong in Poland (Catholic) and Russia/Ukraine (Orthodox). Against that Protestant Denmark and Orthodox Bulgaria worked hard to save as many Jews as they could. So Goldberg's point is mixed but he does historically have one in part. But only in part.

    The problem is the innate pacifism and feminized behavior of modern Europeans, of which European and American Jews are part and parcel. You could read the same thing from say, any one of a dozen Gentile FT or WSJ or NYT writers. All of whom abhor fighting, military service, love a strong state, with weak militaries, and control of every aspect of (White people only) social behavior.

    Israel would be no different, save hundreds of millions of Muslims around them intent on killing every last one of them. Something about constant Jihad focuses the mind on survival not Religion. Of Which Goldberg is a fervent convert -- to Post Christian PC.
    , @DCThrowback
    Bibi knows his audience(s) well. The audience for that speech was the dumb goys who just got sold down the river by the GOP leadership on immigration. These "fear" voters are worried about the brown hordes coming across the southern border, but are really scared about a nuclear Iran though the facts surrounding that issue (20 years of warnings, not one nuke; they are not close to one) are not as important as the message, which is Iran is evil and the Israelis are *this* close to being eradicated.

    America is filled w/ low info voters which would be fine if they could trust their cathedral. They clearly cannot and it takes a ton of mental energy to not only learn the party line, but also the "samizdat" one.
  17. Hey, check out this masterful, or is that mistressful? adventuress turn at “reinventing yourself” — F. Scott Fitzgerald was wrong! (you know, about the total # of acts in the PR-driven life):

    http://www.fastcoexist.com/3044038/at-ted-monica-lewinsky-talks-cyberbullying-and-how-she-almost-lost-her-life

    If at first you don’t succeed…

  18. @jtgw
    A propos of this, I'm reminded of Steve's review of "Bend it like Beckham" where he notes that the Sikh heroine's father discourages her fascination with soccer not because he wants her sequestered at home until she is married off to her cousin in the old country, but because he wants her to focus on her studies and become a high-achieving professional.

    In the same movie, the Sikh heroine is asked about boyfriends in the locker room
    White – no
    Black – definitely not
    Muslims – she makes a sign of throat being cut ( honor killed )

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Whoa I forgot that scene. How the hell did they ever release it?
  19. @SanguineEmpiricist
    The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. The sikh religion is DEFINED by Sikh-matryrs in a campaign against muslim extremists back in the day and they are equally the victims of those very same rapists they have the

    1) Suppression of inbreeding(see HBD chick)
    2) participation in science
    3) could be fooled for muslims to the untrained eye and thus giving cover against the eventual "racist' allegations.
    4) Most sikh people I know move on and want to be considered american or european alongside sikh.

    This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area.

    UK has also given residence to thousands of gurkha ex-soldiers

    Gurkha soldiers are under contract from Nepal to India, and one of their tasks is defined as
    anti-muslim mob

  20. Maybe it might be time for them to leave. The experiment of diversity might have backfired on them, but maybe not.

    McDonald argues that Jewish insecurity lead to creating the ethic of multiculturalism to combat a racially and religiously unified Europe and America.

    Jews have followed an evolutionary path of marginally assimilating, maintaining a clannish superiority and sense that transgressions against Gentiles don’t really count. There was a famous case of an orthodox Jew that refused to break Sabbath and allow his phone to be used to phone for medical help when a non-Jew had been involved in an accident. But he would have been allowed to do so had a Jew been hurt. And Jewish scholars upheld that he was correct under Jewish doctrine. And this marginal assimilation has enraged non-Jews for centuries and is the basis for antipathy towards the sect.

    The idea of “A man on the street and a Jew in the home” actually means “assimilate just enough to not provoke the ire of the Goyim yet remain clannish and exclusionary with other Jews. Morality and consideration offered to Jews is foolish and unecessary in dealing with Gentiles.”

    A Christian, ethnically European populace is a threat to Jewish security so better to promote Diversity, Multiculturalism to reduce, and even eliminate this unified environment to lessen this threat to Jewish non-assimilation. This has been the mission of Jewish academics throughout the 20th century and is the dominate dogma of our time. By crushing Christian religious dominance and cohesion, and replacing it with secular, materialist values, tolerating ever more alternative lifestyles, Jews become more “invisible”, at least “less visible”.

    The hope is by creating this consumerist hedonism where nothing is forbidden except intolerance then when immigrants arrive that they become co-opted into the swirling melting pot of western permissiveness, that they abandon whatever religious attitudes that are dangerous to Jews.

    And unfortunately for Jews in France, Muslims have resisted this phenomenon. To see native born children of Muslims actually revert to a more stringent faith than their more secular immigrant parents is very dangerous to Jews and is an unintended side effect of the diversity experiment.

    As the post on “The Browning of America” shows, the special protected status of Jews in Europe comes under contest when more and more immigrant groups lack the guilt of the holocaust that French whites have.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    There was a famous case of an orthodox Jew that refused to break Sabbath and allow his phone to be used to phone for medical help when a non-Jew had been involved in an accident.
     
    Link?
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Morality and consideration offered to Jews is foolish and unecessary in dealing with Gentiles.

    I read things like this, and no doubt there are examples, but it doesn't correspond with my experience of 60-plus years. Throughout my life I have been befriended by, and had my career advanced by, Jews, though I am not Jewish. So I can't accept this assertion as a grand truth.
    , @Father O'Hara
    Go muslems go !
  21. @rec1man
    In the same movie, the Sikh heroine is asked about boyfriends in the locker room
    White - no
    Black - definitely not
    Muslims - she makes a sign of throat being cut ( honor killed )

    Whoa I forgot that scene. How the hell did they ever release it?

  22. Goldberg is still smarting over getting bullied by gentile whites on the playground. It traumatized him into joining the IDF. On the other hand, getting polar bear hunted by African Americans has had apparently no lasting effects on Yglesias. Perhaps because they just beat him for being white rather than being (part) Jewish?

  23. @jtgw
    I guess this is the reason Israel won't stop building settlements in the West Bank.

    Winners tend to “build settlements” which are then decried by the losers for a while. See: rest of the world for all of human history.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    People care a lot more what losers think these days, so Israel must really need those settlements to put up with all the shit they're getting for it.
  24. @Scotty G. Vito
    Winners tend to "build settlements" which are then decried by the losers for a while. See: rest of the world for all of human history.

    People care a lot more what losers think these days, so Israel must really need those settlements to put up with all the shit they’re getting for it.

  25. @Buzz Mohawk
    Perhaps it is time for Jewish Europeans to realize that they are finally on the European team. It's what they always wanted, until Theodor Herzl got justifiably sick and tired of waiting.

    Again, when you focus on a common enemy, it is easy to unite. This time around, it wouldn't be a bad thing for all Europeans to do.

    This brings to mind the Sarah Silverman joke someone quoted in a previous thread.

  26. @syonredux

    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants,
     
    Yes, but Jewish Jews were beyond the authority of the Inquisition.Only Jews who had converted to Catholicism were vulnerable.As for being "forced to convert," that's somewhat inaccurate.Only Jews who wanted to stay in Spain had to convert.

    That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.
     
    It applied to more than just Jewish ancestry:

    Limpieza de sangre ," meaning "cleanliness of blood", played an important role in modern Iberian history. It referred to those who were considered pure "Old Christians", without Muslim or Jewish ancestors, or within the context of the empire (New Spain and Portuguese India) usually to those without Amerindian, Asian or African ancestry [.....]

    Although a medieval European concept that targeted exclusively the Jewish or Moorish population in Spain, Limpieza de sangre the concept evolved in the Spanish overseas territories in the Spanish Empire to be linked with racial purity for both Spaniards and indigenous.[12] Proofs of racial purity were required in a variety of circumstances in both Spain and its overseas territories. Candidates for office and their spouses had to obtain a certificate of purity that proved that they had no Jewish or Muslim ancestors and in New Spain, proof of whiteness and absence of any in the lineage who engaged in work with their hands.
     

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of “Inquisition” Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of “Inquisition” Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.
     
    Weren't muslims also in the same boat as the Jews? They either had to leave Spain or convert. And those who converted could be called in front of the Inquisition too. I'm assuming more muslims were affected than Jews, given after 700 years you'd figure there would have been several generations of Moors born in Spain, as well as white converts and spouses. But no one ever talks about them in relation to the Inquisition.
    , @syonredux

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED!
     
    As was Islam, Protestant forms of Christianity, etc

    And, as was previously noted, the Inquisition only had authority over those who had been baptized into the Roman faith.
    , @Big Bill
    Your history is a bit off. Both Jews and Jews-to-Christians [Conversos] were initially permitted in Spain after Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Muslims.

    When the Spanish discovered that many Jews-to-Christians were really still practicing Jews (or had been encouraged to secretly re-convert to Judaism by non-converted Jews), Ferdinand and Isabella expelled practicing Jews and checked the bona fides of the Conversos to make sure they were true converts.

    In fairness to the Conversos, I expect many of them were Christians, but also retained their Jewish "chosenness" by continuing to practice Jewish rituals on the side. This syncretic practice, however, is considered heretical by both Christians and Jews. Christian/Jewish syncretism is a threat to both. [See e.g. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians]

    For example, Brother Daniel, a Converso, was officially deemed a threat to the Jewish people and prevented from getting Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return -- even though the court recognized that he was a Jew (albeit apostate) under Jewish law.

    Further, IIRC, Jewish organizations in California sued the Yellow Pages (a decade ago or so) for letting Messianic Jewish congregations use the word "Jew" in their listings. They called it "false advertising". To the complainants, you are either a Jew or a Christian, you cannot be both ... which was, of course, the thinking of Ferdinand and Isabella as well.
    , @solontoCroesus

    Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.
     
    Yeah, and for anyone semi-literate it would, perforce, summon the realization that Arabs, who sustained the culture that provided Jews their 500-year long "golden age" were also chased out of Spain.
  27. From the article: Muslims in Europe are in many ways a powerless minority. The failure of Europe to integrate Muslim immigrants has contributed to their exploitation by anti-Semitic propagandists

    If only those nasty white Christians hadn’t been so Islamophobic.

    …she understands that one pathway to mainstream acceptance runs through the Jews: if she could neutralize the perception that the National Front is a fascist party by winning some measure of Jewish acceptance, she could help smooth her way to the presidency.

    So unlike the “powerless” Muslims French Jews sound like they have a lot of clout.

  28. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    Is the Sailerowicz Strategy worth it?

    Hasn’t that been the basis of the GOP since the 80s or even the 70s?

    On the premise that…

    1. Wasps lost their fire and will

    2. Wasps lost their moral authority(as Jews used slavery and Holocaust to smear all whites, even Americans who defeated Nazis)

    3. Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle

    …. the brilliant idea was that the GOP would get a second wind by attracting

    Jews as

    1. Highly energized and talented new elites

    2. People with the highest moral authority due to Holocaust

    3. Natural Conservatives since they are bound to be rich and successful.

    Therefore, in order to win over Jews with all that money, talent, and moral capital,
    the big shining idea was to give them everything they want.

    So, what happened?

    1. Even GOP swallowed MLK and Mandela cult.

    2. GOP has been totally complicit in the oppression and destruction of Palestinians, a totally innocent people.

    3. Wars for Israel that messed things up royally beginning with the Gulf War(that didn’t assuage Jews in their never-ending Golf War against Wasps)

    4. Turning a blind eye to Jewish crookedness on Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood, therefore ruining the GOP brand as the whore party of plutocrats.

    5. Bending over to ‘gay marriage’ embraced and pushed by even Neocons.

    6. Never-ending hysteria about Iran(which is funny since Jews endless berate conservatives for their ‘anti-communist hysteria’ in the 50s).

    7. War on Russia, a long-suffering nation that went through hell in the 90s not least because of Jewish collusion to form new oligarchs at the expense of Russians. The total messing up of Ukraine.

    8. Banning of Neoconfederate symbols.

    Well…

    Has it worked? After all that pandering to Jews, 80% of Jews voted for Obama and gave us Holder, Kagan, Sotomayor, ‘gay marriage’, amnesty, and etc.

    Do we exist simply to be abused like an idiot wife? How much more BS and abuse can we take from these people?

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. I say form ANY alliance to break Jewish power.

    Do not waste hospitality on people like Goldberg and Nuland. They are vile creatures.

    American Conservatives continuing to bet on the Jews would be like Putin putting his trust in Nuland and Gessen in the hope that, gee, maybe they’ll learn to love Russia and Christianity.

    I mean come on.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …Palestinians, a totally innocent people.
     
    Immaculate conception makes a comeback in the Holy Land, after 2,000 years!

    Someone's so obsessed with one branch of the Semitic race, he allows himself to be taken in by another.

    "Totally innocent", indeed.
    , @Art Deco
    Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle

    And your evidence that Martha Pulliam and Barbara Bush are 'dumb' is precisely what?
  29. @Israel n’ stuff

    I was watching the very first episode of the Larry David HBO series. And he is doing stand up comedy. And he says about Bill Clinton:

    “What? Does he think he is gonna get a blow job from a Jewish woman and then get off scott free?”

    It’s funny.

    So leave it to a Jewish girl to turn one blow job into a career. I suppose Great Neck wives have been doing that for decades.

  30. This is what separate countries are for.

  31. OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.html#.VQuL

    • Replies: @ic1000
    Razib reflects, briefly.
    , @ben tillman

    OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.html#.VQuL
     
    Oh, the irony.
  32. @Priss Factor
    "the key potential swing constituency on issues like immigration policy"

    In Europe maybe just maybe because Muslims don't like Jews all that much.

    But as most immigrants to the US are non-Muslim, it will never be an issue here.

    After, Goldberg asks 'should Jews leave Europe?', not 'should Jews leave America?'

    If anything, the European situation could be seen as an argument FOR diversity from the Jewish viewpoint.

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble. It's because Europe is still majority white that Jews feel safe. Diversity is good for Jews.
    Indeed, suppose Europe were all white. White might unite against Jewish elites.
    So, Muslims(and other immigrants) are useful in making white obsess about blacks and Muslims than about Jews.

    Besides, the perception that Muslims are hurting Jews have made Europeans more protective and supportive of Jews. In a way, Goldberg is playing for sympathy by using the 'diversity' card. "Help! Help! Muslims are hurting us! White folks, please save us!"
    And white Libs, white Cons, and even 'far right' figures like Le Pen are siding with Jews. (Never mind Jews had supported massive immigration to Europe.)

    Sailer and LePen seem to be hoping for the same thing. When will Jews, with all their talent and money, see the light and come over to the Right?

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. These people are not to be trusted. Even if they do come over, it will be temporary than permanent or in good faith. Once the threat passes, they'll go back to their old ways and play dirty tricks to do whatever is good for Jews.

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble.

    I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews.

    I can see muslims attacking Israelis in the middle east if they feel they don’t belong. But if the muslims were smart, they’d ally with the Jews in Europe. But I suppose the majority of muslim immigrants in Europe are from the left side of the curve and are not smart enough to realize this. In fact the muslim behavior might be the saving factor in getting the Europeans to wake up before it’s too late.

    • Replies: @Udolpho
    I think they're smart enough to know that having Jews as allies doesn't tend to work out so well.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    The one Jewish member of Iran's parliament says the safest synagogues in the world are in Iran: https://twitter.com/thekarami/status/577452038033903616
    , @syonredux
    "I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews."

    A lot of feel-good propaganda has been shoveled out on Moorish Spain.Here's an episode that doesn't get re-told in the popular press very often:

    The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids' Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147,[19] treated the dhimmis (non-Muslims) harshly. Reports from the period describe that, after an initial 7-month grace period, the Almohads killed or forcefully converted Jewish communities in each new city they conquered until "there was no Jew left from Silves to Mahdia".[20] Cases of mass martyrdom of Jews who refused to convert to Islam are also reported.[20] Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), who himself fled the persecutions of the Almohads, composed an elegy mourning the destruction of many Jewish communities throughout Spain and the Maghreb under the Almohads.[21] Many Jews fled from territories ruled by the Almohads to Christian lands, and others, like the family of Maimonides, fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_Caliphate#Culture
  33. @jtgw
    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of "Inquisition" Goldberg could just have said "Spanish anti-Semitism" but that's somehow less catchy.

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of “Inquisition” Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.

    Weren’t muslims also in the same boat as the Jews? They either had to leave Spain or convert. And those who converted could be called in front of the Inquisition too. I’m assuming more muslims were affected than Jews, given after 700 years you’d figure there would have been several generations of Moors born in Spain, as well as white converts and spouses. But no one ever talks about them in relation to the Inquisition.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    That's a very interesting question: I've never heard of crypto-Islam among the Marranos, but you might expect something along those lines. But in any case, I didn't say the Inquisition was only interested in Jews, but that they WERE interested in Jews, or more precisely crypto-Jews, among other groups. This was in response to a particularly stupid assertion that the Inquisition played no role in the persecution of the Jews. Yes, the Jews were technically Christian, and the reason they were nominally Christian was because they were ordered to convert, leave the country or die. Hmmm, yeah Spain was just a Jewish paradise back then. What are those Heebies complaining about? It's dumb even by the sorry standards of iSteve's neo-Nazi fanboys.
  34. @Buzz Mohawk
    Perhaps it is time for Jewish Europeans to realize that they are finally on the European team. It's what they always wanted, until Theodor Herzl got justifiably sick and tired of waiting.

    Again, when you focus on a common enemy, it is easy to unite. This time around, it wouldn't be a bad thing for all Europeans to do.

    Perhaps it is time for Jewish Europeans to realize that they are finally on the European team.

    Correct. And it is also time for all Europeans from North America to Europe, to Israel, to Vladivostok, to Australia, to realize we need to be on the same team. All of us need to stop looking at the world as a game of Risk, and realize the common threat we all face coming from a resurgent Islam and the massive waves of migration coming from the global South. In many instances they are one and the same.

    • Replies: @5371
    And what about Jews of non-European ancestry and physical type, especially numerous in Israel? Are they also on your team and if so, why?
  35. @iSteveFan

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble.
     
    I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews.

    I can see muslims attacking Israelis in the middle east if they feel they don't belong. But if the muslims were smart, they'd ally with the Jews in Europe. But I suppose the majority of muslim immigrants in Europe are from the left side of the curve and are not smart enough to realize this. In fact the muslim behavior might be the saving factor in getting the Europeans to wake up before it's too late.

    I think they’re smart enough to know that having Jews as allies doesn’t tend to work out so well.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Moorish Spain lasted 700 years, it was done in by internal divisions, and one of the most violent Western Christian societies ever.

    Further, without the Jewish intellectuals supporting Cultural Marxism and multikult, there would be very few Muslims in Europe.

    Thus the existence of Israel has done wonders for Western dissidents like us, it has fractured the anti-Christian alliance that has held from Alhomad to Ottoman.
  36. @Priss Factor
    "the key potential swing constituency on issues like immigration policy"

    In Europe maybe just maybe because Muslims don't like Jews all that much.

    But as most immigrants to the US are non-Muslim, it will never be an issue here.

    After, Goldberg asks 'should Jews leave Europe?', not 'should Jews leave America?'

    If anything, the European situation could be seen as an argument FOR diversity from the Jewish viewpoint.

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble. It's because Europe is still majority white that Jews feel safe. Diversity is good for Jews.
    Indeed, suppose Europe were all white. White might unite against Jewish elites.
    So, Muslims(and other immigrants) are useful in making white obsess about blacks and Muslims than about Jews.

    Besides, the perception that Muslims are hurting Jews have made Europeans more protective and supportive of Jews. In a way, Goldberg is playing for sympathy by using the 'diversity' card. "Help! Help! Muslims are hurting us! White folks, please save us!"
    And white Libs, white Cons, and even 'far right' figures like Le Pen are siding with Jews. (Never mind Jews had supported massive immigration to Europe.)

    Sailer and LePen seem to be hoping for the same thing. When will Jews, with all their talent and money, see the light and come over to the Right?

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. These people are not to be trusted. Even if they do come over, it will be temporary than permanent or in good faith. Once the threat passes, they'll go back to their old ways and play dirty tricks to do whatever is good for Jews.

    you are absolutely correct

  37. @iSteveFan

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble.
     
    I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews.

    I can see muslims attacking Israelis in the middle east if they feel they don't belong. But if the muslims were smart, they'd ally with the Jews in Europe. But I suppose the majority of muslim immigrants in Europe are from the left side of the curve and are not smart enough to realize this. In fact the muslim behavior might be the saving factor in getting the Europeans to wake up before it's too late.

    The one Jewish member of Iran’s parliament says the safest synagogues in the world are in Iran: https://twitter.com/thekarami/status/577452038033903616

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The Iranians are masters of propaganda and of Stockholm Syndrome.
  38. Lots of Indian girls in the UK date white men these days. Few date blacks or Muslims.

    • Replies: @rec1man
    In general, dating a black or a muslim can lead to honor killing, esp by Sikhs

    dating a white may simply lead to being thrown out of the house, which the Indian girl could handle if she is earning well, often the family may negotiate to see how respectful he is to Sikh culture

  39. @JohnnyWalker123
    Lots of Indian girls in the UK date white men these days. Few date blacks or Muslims.

    In general, dating a black or a muslim can lead to honor killing, esp by Sikhs

    dating a white may simply lead to being thrown out of the house, which the Indian girl could handle if she is earning well, often the family may negotiate to see how respectful he is to Sikh culture

    • Replies: @AlexT
    Based on what i saw living in London, Sikh and Hindu Indians had no problem with their kids falling in love with whites. Provided, of course, that those whites were respectable, middle-class people with educations. Dating Blacks and Muslims wasn't even theoretically possible.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Sexual mores are changing among Indians in Britain and the US. In both countries, 1.5/2nd generation Indian women are now more likely to intermarry than Indian men. That represents a major change from the past, when Indian men were more likely to intermarry.
  40. @Trayvon Zimmerman
    Immediately after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January, Netanyahu said French Jews were in danger, and urged them to move to Israel where they could be safe. After the Denmark shooting in February, he said Jews were also in danger in Denmark and urged them to move to Israel for their own safety. Then in March he stood before Congress and basically said that every Jew in Israel is on the verge of being murdered by Iran. And nobody bats an eye.

    No contradiction. Israel restricts (quite properly) Muslims as they are not in Europe, and has Jews armed as they are not in Europe. Absent Iran wanting to nuke Israel, the threats Israel faces are quite manageable by … being armed and making ones self a hard target. Iran’s threats to Israel are part of a larger ambition to over-awe and overthrow the Gulf regimes and bring that low-cost production off the world market. Therefore US interests (cheap gas, you can still drive your car) and Israeli interests (they don’t get nuked as an example) are inter-twined and mutually reinforcing. The whole point is moot — Obama is hell-bent on Iranian nukes to stick it Whitey and make Substitute Mommy Val happy. With likely a joint Israeli-Saudi nuke strike (via Pakistan, Saudi’s nuke carry-out joint) on Iran.

    But don’t worry. Right after mandatory voting and shower timing penalties, the Lightworker will sort everything out.
    ——————————–
    This brings out a larger issue. Steve it is not or even mostly Jews who drew the EXACT WRONG CONCLUSION from the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because:

    *An insane, mostly gay (Hitler was gay, gay, gay NOW!) and fringe element took over a strong state with no other institutions than the Army which was filled with mediocrities, all the charismatic ambitious guys being killed on the Western Front.

    *Said Army did not act decisively while it still could to forestall disaster (Gen. Sisi has assuredly not made that mistake with Morsi). [His speech on fixing the Jihad part of Islam is worth reading.]

    *The rest of Europe was disarmed to use money to buy goodies and votes, and hoped Hitler would fight Stalin (he teamed up with him for years).

    *Opportunities for stopping Hitler when he was weak were squandered, leaving him strong.

    However the lessons: have a weak, not powerful state, have lots of intermediary institutions, have a strong military that does not take guff from charismatic pols or allow them to run riot, act decisively against threats when they are small — all those did not sit well with a war weary, feminized European public. Who felt the Holocaust happened because there were not enough hugs or something. Or hate speech codes. Most Germans did not vote for Hitler, did not like the Holocaust, but were not going to commit suicide to save Jews either. A few did (the White Rose people).

    Goldberg does have a point: Catholic France (Dreyfuss), Southern Germany (the base of the Nazis), were very anti-Semitic, though not of course France. Both England and Spain kicked out Jews. Anti-Jewish sentiment was strong in Poland (Catholic) and Russia/Ukraine (Orthodox). Against that Protestant Denmark and Orthodox Bulgaria worked hard to save as many Jews as they could. So Goldberg’s point is mixed but he does historically have one in part. But only in part.

    The problem is the innate pacifism and feminized behavior of modern Europeans, of which European and American Jews are part and parcel. You could read the same thing from say, any one of a dozen Gentile FT or WSJ or NYT writers. All of whom abhor fighting, military service, love a strong state, with weak militaries, and control of every aspect of (White people only) social behavior.

    Israel would be no different, save hundreds of millions of Muslims around them intent on killing every last one of them. Something about constant Jihad focuses the mind on survival not Religion. Of Which Goldberg is a fervent convert — to Post Christian PC.

  41. What people object to about anti-Semitism is that it never stops there. The plans Hitler had for his empire were pretty frightening. If you were a Slav, or Celtic, or Latin. Which was about half of the European people. A giant slave empire working serfs to death, basically, was his vision of Europa.

    Muslim anti-Semitism is the same as African/Black anti-Semitism. Or the anti-Chinese sentiment in Indonesia. The hatred of the smart by the stupid. Muslim people despite sitting on a good deal of the world’s cheapest oil, don’t produce much of anything. No medical breakthroughs, no technical ones, no material science, not even a bit of innovative engineering. Not even good manufacturing. South Korea, not a rich nation in resources, is the leading manufacturer of OLED touch screens. It has a national champion able to challenge Apple in smart phones (Samsung). Muslims have … guys blowing themselves up.

    If Muslims hunted down and killed the last Jew, they’d just start in on the remaining Whites and NE Asians. China has its own robust Jihad problem getting worse by the year. Non Ashkenazi Europeans may not have Ashkenazi or NE Asian levels of IQ, but we are close, very close.

    Historically Muslims raided, killed, or enslaved Europeans all over the Med, Black Sea, and beyond. I’ve gotten a lot of ridicule for suggesting that old patterns will reassert themselves, but it seems I’m a prophet in my own land. Without honor. Nothing about cousin marriage, polygamy, lack of male cooperation, and JIHAD has changed in Muslims, who have NOT made any accommodation with industrialization and modernity. (See above). So Jihad it is. Italy historically has been a sitting duck.

  42. Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492

    “Forced” as in, “you can leave this Jewish Christian state, or stay and convert.” A choice which they rejected, in lieu of lying, pretending to convert, and remaining Jewish in secret. But, to be fair, they did lie and say they were Christians, and so put themselves under Christian jurisdiction.

    and their descendants, many of whom did in fact practice Judaism in secret. Technically they were Christian heretics, but a lot of it was still about the Jews. That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.

    Given the above, one wonders how to criticize the Spanish for not taking Jewish conversions at face value. How it’s anyone’s fault but the Jews’ for not playing by the rules is anyone’s guess.

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. These people are not to be trusted.

    I’d say the historical record definitely backs this up.

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of “Inquisition” Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.

    I wonder what Christian evangelists in Israel have to say on the topic.

    This is what separate countries are for. Jews seem to think they have the God-given right to inhabit everyone else’s countries, and then compete with the natives for dominance, and then expect perfect tolerance. Kinda like they’re supremacist bigots, or something.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Do you really believe your own rhetoric?

    Yes, the early modern world was a different world - no one believed in religious freedom; every religion was out to get every other religion; etc. I don't necessarily hold Ferdinand or Isabella or Torquemada or any other individual personally responsible for believing a more extreme version of what almost everyone else in the world believed. But the idea that those forced to convert or leave the country were bad people unless they said "Sure, whatever you say!" - you must know how ridiculous that sounds.

  43. @Dave Pinsen
    The one Jewish member of Iran's parliament says the safest synagogues in the world are in Iran: https://twitter.com/thekarami/status/577452038033903616

    The Iranians are masters of propaganda and of Stockholm Syndrome.

  44. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    If National Review or any mainstream Conservative outlet were to hire Sailer or someone like him, you bet all the neocons will call for blood and scream BURN THE WITCH, BURN THE WITCH.
    And the likes of Goldberg would lead the charge.

    So, why does Sailer still hold onto the fantasy?

    It’s like Diane Selwyn in MULHOLLAND DR dreaming that ‘Rita’ is her friend when, in fact, Camilla(on whom ‘Rita’ is based) dumped her big time?

    Time to wake up. Dream is over.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    K Arujo? Pizza with X? Why not stick with the one username?
    , @Neutral
    I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once.
  45. @Udolpho
    I think they're smart enough to know that having Jews as allies doesn't tend to work out so well.

    Moorish Spain lasted 700 years, it was done in by internal divisions, and one of the most violent Western Christian societies ever.

    Further, without the Jewish intellectuals supporting Cultural Marxism and multikult, there would be very few Muslims in Europe.

    Thus the existence of Israel has done wonders for Western dissidents like us, it has fractured the anti-Christian alliance that has held from Alhomad to Ottoman.

  46. @rec1man
    In general, dating a black or a muslim can lead to honor killing, esp by Sikhs

    dating a white may simply lead to being thrown out of the house, which the Indian girl could handle if she is earning well, often the family may negotiate to see how respectful he is to Sikh culture

    Based on what i saw living in London, Sikh and Hindu Indians had no problem with their kids falling in love with whites. Provided, of course, that those whites were respectable, middle-class people with educations. Dating Blacks and Muslims wasn’t even theoretically possible.

  47. Maybe Jews should ask themselves why some people don’t like them — they never really seem to do that. Jews are the original ‘We din do nuffins!’ people.

  48. […] I’m reading the comment section at Steve Sailer’s blog and I come across a comment by Dave Pinsen stating “…Razib […]

  49. @iSteveFan

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of “Inquisition” Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.
     
    Weren't muslims also in the same boat as the Jews? They either had to leave Spain or convert. And those who converted could be called in front of the Inquisition too. I'm assuming more muslims were affected than Jews, given after 700 years you'd figure there would have been several generations of Moors born in Spain, as well as white converts and spouses. But no one ever talks about them in relation to the Inquisition.

    That’s a very interesting question: I’ve never heard of crypto-Islam among the Marranos, but you might expect something along those lines. But in any case, I didn’t say the Inquisition was only interested in Jews, but that they WERE interested in Jews, or more precisely crypto-Jews, among other groups. This was in response to a particularly stupid assertion that the Inquisition played no role in the persecution of the Jews. Yes, the Jews were technically Christian, and the reason they were nominally Christian was because they were ordered to convert, leave the country or die. Hmmm, yeah Spain was just a Jewish paradise back then. What are those Heebies complaining about? It’s dumb even by the sorry standards of iSteve’s neo-Nazi fanboys.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    That’s a very interesting question: I’ve never heard of crypto-Islam among the Marranos,
     
    Here is some info on it.

    Moriscos (Spanish: [moˈɾiskos], Catalan: [muˈɾiskus], [moˈɾiskos]; Portuguese: mouriscos [mo(w)ˈɾiʃkuʃ], [mo(w)ˈɾiskus]; meaning "Moorish") were former Muslims who were forced to convert to Christianity rather than face death or expulsion from Spain.

    Over time, the term was used in a pejorative sense, applied to those nominal Catholics who were suspected of secretly practicing Islam. The Moriscos were eventually expelled from Spain between 1609 (Valencia) and 1614 (Castile). The last mass prosecution against Moriscos for crypto-Islamic practives occurred in Granada in 1727, with most of those convicted receiving relatively light sentences. From then on, indigenous Islam is considered to have been extinguished in Spain.
    , @Father O'Hara
    Wasn't the main reason Jews pretended to convert was the threat,by Isabella that jews would be forbidden to continue running the negro slave trade?
  50. @iSteveFan

    Perhaps it is time for Jewish Europeans to realize that they are finally on the European team.
     
    Correct. And it is also time for all Europeans from North America to Europe, to Israel, to Vladivostok, to Australia, to realize we need to be on the same team. All of us need to stop looking at the world as a game of Risk, and realize the common threat we all face coming from a resurgent Islam and the massive waves of migration coming from the global South. In many instances they are one and the same.

    And what about Jews of non-European ancestry and physical type, especially numerous in Israel? Are they also on your team and if so, why?

  51. @Priss Factor
    If National Review or any mainstream Conservative outlet were to hire Sailer or someone like him, you bet all the neocons will call for blood and scream BURN THE WITCH, BURN THE WITCH.
    And the likes of Goldberg would lead the charge.

    So, why does Sailer still hold onto the fantasy?

    It's like Diane Selwyn in MULHOLLAND DR dreaming that 'Rita' is her friend when, in fact, Camilla(on whom 'Rita' is based) dumped her big time?

    Time to wake up. Dream is over.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5PQppudHc

    K Arujo? Pizza with X? Why not stick with the one username?

  52. Skim-reading that article at The Atlantic just reminded me how happy I am that we have the web. I’m so happy we have this wonder of telecommunications that allows us to bypass the rack of magazines, shelves of books and hours of television journalism all coming out of that New York sensibility and with that New York view of the world.

    Just take a moment to sample the video included in with that article. These are the people most qualified to tell us what’s going on in Europe? Who are these people to me and why should I care what they think? I found out from the caption that the old gal sitting in the centre of the video is called Leon Wieseltier. The name rang a bell with me so I looked at his (her?) Wikipedia page. It turns out he’s nobody special but I’ve heard the name over the years simply because it was in the mix with all the other chatter and gossip radiating out from NYC to little people like me. I live in the North American sector of the Anglosphere and so I get to hear about Leon Wieseltier’s latest musings. If I was in Airstrip One I’d have someone else telling me how the world works. That’s assuming I was still playing along with the idea that mainstream media institutions like The Atlantic are “ours” in any sense of the word and that we should care what they think about anything. Who ever thought it was a great idea to concentrate media, publishing and cultural commentary in Manhattan and run almost all our information and ideas through that one cluster of people, with their odd kinks and obsessions?

    The article itself has the usual warped outlook on Europe:

    Le Pen, who inherited the National Front from her father, Jean-Marie, has worked diligently to bring her party closer to the French mainstream: no more thugs in leather jackets; no more public expressions of longing for Vichy ….

    Et cetera and so on …

    They really can’t be bothered to understand that the FN comes out of the grand schism in French political life caused by the Algerian War and the fact that the aboriginal, indigenous French don’t much like having their homeland taken away. The evidence is overwhelming that the FN is not the party of Vichy nostalgia but that doesn’t seem to matter. Just last week the Socialist Prime Minister of France was in a tizzy because a city with an FN mayor decided to rename a street in honour of an army officer involved in the Algerian War and the failed coup against de Gaulle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lie_de_Saint_Marc

    Why would the FN celebrate a hero of the French Resistance who was sent to Buchenwald? I guess I’ll have to wait for Jeffrey Goldberg or Leon Wieseltier to figure it out and let me know.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    They really can’t be bothered to understand that the FN comes out of the grand schism in French political life caused by the Algerian War

    There was no 'grand schism'. Le Pen himself is an Algerian War veteran, but no political party of any consequence at any time in France since 1962 has been derived from OAS diehards or pieds noirs or anyone else disgruntled by all that and even FN did not emerge as a party of consequence until 1984, when the Algerian War had long since ceased to be a live issue.

  53. Yeah, if they won’t save White people, maybe space aliens will. Because apparently the idea of us being on our own side is a non-starter.

  54. @rec1man
    In general, dating a black or a muslim can lead to honor killing, esp by Sikhs

    dating a white may simply lead to being thrown out of the house, which the Indian girl could handle if she is earning well, often the family may negotiate to see how respectful he is to Sikh culture

    Sexual mores are changing among Indians in Britain and the US. In both countries, 1.5/2nd generation Indian women are now more likely to intermarry than Indian men. That represents a major change from the past, when Indian men were more likely to intermarry.

    • Replies: @andy


    Sexual mores are changing among Indians in Britain and the US. In both countries, 1.5/2nd generation Indian women are now more likely to intermarry than Indian men. That represents a major change from the past, when Indian men were more likely to intermarry.
     
    Intermarry with whom?
  55. @george
    Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews.

    Where are Jews going to go, Israel is too expensive and to crowded to accommodate immigrants.

    Maybe the west should stop attacking Muslims.

    > Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews

    According to interviews and reports in Berlin papers they are mostly hardcore leftists flocking to multicultural/leftist Berlin which they sort of don’t consider to be Germany proper–Berlin is hip as is eg Barcelona. Low living costs compared to back home, cheap rents above all. They can afford to have family here… maybe back (or wherever) later when things change, eg when Bibi has to leave office–they hate him. Jews get German passports or residence permits easily due to post-WWII regulations, it’s easier than in other European countries. One Berlin Israeli posted his supermarket bill on facebook, showing how one particular brand of yogurt popular in Israel was three times cheaper over here. Caused quite some anger, he got called sell out and traitor. cf https://www.google.com/search?q=berlin+israeli+yogurt

  56. @Dave Pinsen
    OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.html#.VQuL

    Razib reflects, briefly.

  57. @Trayvon Zimmerman
    Immediately after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January, Netanyahu said French Jews were in danger, and urged them to move to Israel where they could be safe. After the Denmark shooting in February, he said Jews were also in danger in Denmark and urged them to move to Israel for their own safety. Then in March he stood before Congress and basically said that every Jew in Israel is on the verge of being murdered by Iran. And nobody bats an eye.

    Bibi knows his audience(s) well. The audience for that speech was the dumb goys who just got sold down the river by the GOP leadership on immigration. These “fear” voters are worried about the brown hordes coming across the southern border, but are really scared about a nuclear Iran though the facts surrounding that issue (20 years of warnings, not one nuke; they are not close to one) are not as important as the message, which is Iran is evil and the Israelis are *this* close to being eradicated.

    America is filled w/ low info voters which would be fine if they could trust their cathedral. They clearly cannot and it takes a ton of mental energy to not only learn the party line, but also the “samizdat” one.

    • Replies: @Trayvon Zimmerman
    You had me until "cathedral." We'll know dark enlightenment types are serious when they drop this "cathedral" nonsense, and start using "synagogue."
  58. @syonredux
    Saletan:"In the article, the person who comes across as understanding the problem most clearly is Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front."

    Yeah, this quote from Marine Le Pen seems quite important:

    “The reality is that there exist in France associations that are supposedly representative of French Jews, which have stuck with a software that came out of the Second World War,” she said, meaning that members of the Jewish leadership are still preoccupied with the threat of Nazi-like fascism. “For decades they have continued to fight against an anti-Semitism that no longer exists in France, for reasons of—how should I say this?—intellectual laziness. And by a form of submission to the politically correct. And while they were doing this, while they were fighting against an enemy that no longer existed, an anti-Semitism was gaining force in France stemming notably from the development of fundamentalist Islamist thought.”
     
    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

    Throughout my life the likes of the Guardian have warned several times a year about the latest huge risk from neo-Nazis in Britain or on the Continent. It’s all been tosh. Ten morons with motorbikes aren’t a political risk.

  59. I’m sure there were many Jews who had their doubts about Mussolini in the 1920′s and early 1930′s. There were plenty of Jews who got out of Germany long before you know who came to power. There have been a few sober Kennedy members too.

    In America, most Jews are secular Jews. They go to temple when they have no choice and they take off for holy days, but go skiing rather than observe the holiday. Their religion is liberalism. Norman Podhoretz talked about this a half dozen years ago.

    If a rift does develop between Jews and the new time religion, Jews will not become less liberal. They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation. Flipping the rest of the GOP into an invite the world party is not going to be tough.

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "In America, most Jews are secular Jews. They go to temple when they have no choice and they take off for holy days, but go skiing rather than observe the holiday. Their religion is liberalism. Norman Podhoretz talked about this a half dozen years ago. "

    Just a musing, I'm not sure a belief system like that can stand the test of time. We know things like race (maybe depending on circumstance) and above all religion can do it.

    Conservatism? Liberalism? Communism? Libertarianism? Capitalism?

    All weak sauce compared to religion.
    , @Art Deco
    They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation.

    --

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    1. There is no 'invade-the-world' party;

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft's political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.

  60. @SanguineEmpiricist
    The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. The sikh religion is DEFINED by Sikh-matryrs in a campaign against muslim extremists back in the day and they are equally the victims of those very same rapists they have the

    1) Suppression of inbreeding(see HBD chick)
    2) participation in science
    3) could be fooled for muslims to the untrained eye and thus giving cover against the eventual "racist' allegations.
    4) Most sikh people I know move on and want to be considered american or european alongside sikh.

    This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area.

    “SanguineEmpiricist says:

    The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. …………………………………….. This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area.”

    Regarding Sikhs: Yeah, model citizens. What could possibly go wrong with importing people who harbor age-old ethnic grievances:

    Flight 182

  61. @jtgw
    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of "Inquisition" Goldberg could just have said "Spanish anti-Semitism" but that's somehow less catchy.

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED!

    As was Islam, Protestant forms of Christianity, etc

    And, as was previously noted, the Inquisition only had authority over those who had been baptized into the Roman faith.

  62. @iSteveFan

    After all, suppose Europe were mostly Muslim. Jews would be in big trouble.
     
    I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews.

    I can see muslims attacking Israelis in the middle east if they feel they don't belong. But if the muslims were smart, they'd ally with the Jews in Europe. But I suppose the majority of muslim immigrants in Europe are from the left side of the curve and are not smart enough to realize this. In fact the muslim behavior might be the saving factor in getting the Europeans to wake up before it's too late.

    “I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews.”

    A lot of feel-good propaganda has been shoveled out on Moorish Spain.Here’s an episode that doesn’t get re-told in the popular press very often:

    The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids’ Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147,[19] treated the dhimmis (non-Muslims) harshly. Reports from the period describe that, after an initial 7-month grace period, the Almohads killed or forcefully converted Jewish communities in each new city they conquered until “there was no Jew left from Silves to Mahdia”.[20] Cases of mass martyrdom of Jews who refused to convert to Islam are also reported.[20] Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), who himself fled the persecutions of the Almohads, composed an elegy mourning the destruction of many Jewish communities throughout Spain and the Maghreb under the Almohads.[21] Many Jews fled from territories ruled by the Almohads to Christian lands, and others, like the family of Maimonides, fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_Caliphate#Culture

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert - they just executed them. So compared to 20th century European standards, the Almohads were quite civilized 800 years before.

    Just as we see today with Isis in Iraq, there is a historic pattern in the Muslim world. Harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the city and crack down on anything that is not by the book. Their kids and grandkids start to enjoy the city life and get soft. Then the next group of harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the grandchildren of the old desert warriors. Rinse and repeat. The Almohads were the ISIS of their day.
  63. @Priss Factor
    If National Review or any mainstream Conservative outlet were to hire Sailer or someone like him, you bet all the neocons will call for blood and scream BURN THE WITCH, BURN THE WITCH.
    And the likes of Goldberg would lead the charge.

    So, why does Sailer still hold onto the fantasy?

    It's like Diane Selwyn in MULHOLLAND DR dreaming that 'Rita' is her friend when, in fact, Camilla(on whom 'Rita' is based) dumped her big time?

    Time to wake up. Dream is over.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5PQppudHc

    I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once."

    Yes, once.

    But then Neocons put a fatwa against people like him and Derbyshire and Richwine.

    Neocons have PC-whipped the Republicans and American Conservatism. Totally.

    "Let the good heads roll", saith the likes of Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin.

    And don't forget Kristol the purging vermin.

    http://buchanan.org/blog/how-bill-kristol-purged-the-arabists-5085

    Neocon advice to American Conseratives is like Ratso working on Joe Buck about seeing O'Daniel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-tCU-sULA

    , @Reg Cæsar


    I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once.

     

    That's where some of us first read him.

    Over 20 years ago!
  64. It’s always good for us gentile Whites to ally ourselves with a community where it’s necessary for opinion makers to establish their White-hating credentials before moving on to other topics.

  65. Big Bill [AKA "Abie Gefiltefish"] says:
    @jtgw
    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of "Inquisition" Goldberg could just have said "Spanish anti-Semitism" but that's somehow less catchy.

    Your history is a bit off. Both Jews and Jews-to-Christians [Conversos] were initially permitted in Spain after Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Muslims.

    When the Spanish discovered that many Jews-to-Christians were really still practicing Jews (or had been encouraged to secretly re-convert to Judaism by non-converted Jews), Ferdinand and Isabella expelled practicing Jews and checked the bona fides of the Conversos to make sure they were true converts.

    In fairness to the Conversos, I expect many of them were Christians, but also retained their Jewish “chosenness” by continuing to practice Jewish rituals on the side. This syncretic practice, however, is considered heretical by both Christians and Jews. Christian/Jewish syncretism is a threat to both. [See e.g. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians]

    For example, Brother Daniel, a Converso, was officially deemed a threat to the Jewish people and prevented from getting Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return — even though the court recognized that he was a Jew (albeit apostate) under Jewish law.

    Further, IIRC, Jewish organizations in California sued the Yellow Pages (a decade ago or so) for letting Messianic Jewish congregations use the word “Jew” in their listings. They called it “false advertising”. To the complainants, you are either a Jew or a Christian, you cannot be both … which was, of course, the thinking of Ferdinand and Isabella as well.

  66. @DCThrowback
    Bibi knows his audience(s) well. The audience for that speech was the dumb goys who just got sold down the river by the GOP leadership on immigration. These "fear" voters are worried about the brown hordes coming across the southern border, but are really scared about a nuclear Iran though the facts surrounding that issue (20 years of warnings, not one nuke; they are not close to one) are not as important as the message, which is Iran is evil and the Israelis are *this* close to being eradicated.

    America is filled w/ low info voters which would be fine if they could trust their cathedral. They clearly cannot and it takes a ton of mental energy to not only learn the party line, but also the "samizdat" one.

    You had me until “cathedral.” We’ll know dark enlightenment types are serious when they drop this “cathedral” nonsense, and start using “synagogue.”

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
    That's fair and I admit I laughed.
  67. Another money quote from Goldberg’s article:

    But another man, who asked to be called Marcel, responded that it would be cowardly to flee for Israel at the first appearance of Molotov cocktails. “Running, running, running,” he said. “That’s the Jewish way.” He said his parents had arrived in Sarcelles from Tunisia in 1967, driven out by anti-Jewish rioters who were putatively distressed by Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War. “We ran from Tunisia. We’re not running from here.”

    “But no one wants us here,” Chaim said. “They’ll attack us again as soon as the soldiers go.”

    I said that I didn’t think Manuel Valls was going to remove the soldiers anytime soon.

    Marcel laughed. “I don’t count on the Socialists. I would count on the National Front before I count on the Socialists.”

    It is disquieting, but no longer unusual, to hear Jews of North African descent express affinity for the National Front. The popularity of the party’s leader, Marine Le Pen, across non-Jewish (and non-Muslim) France is well documented; according to a recent poll, she is the leading presidential candidate for 2017.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

  68. you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic rage

    ‘Anti-gentilic rage’? You need to get a grip. That’s a passable description of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s writings and some of the elements of it can be found in Leon Wieseltier’s, Robert Wistrich’s, and Hyam Maccoby’s. It’s pretty unusual elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Fenster
    I take your point that rage overstates Goldberg's prose. I think Steve's point--which I agree with totally after wading through the article--is that the anti-right wing tropes are trotted out early as incantations. But when you get to the heart of the article there is no real current evidence presented that the right wing is a serious problem. It's all evidence about Islam. Surely you agree with this interpretation of the article, or did I miss actual reportage on the old-fashioned right?
    , @The Anti-Gnostic

    That’s a passable description of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s writings and some of the elements of it can be found in Leon Wieseltier’s, Robert Wistrich’s, and Hyam Maccoby’s.
     
    All authors commonly found in any Catholic library.
  69. As I have said before, I think it is in the interests of most American Jews to become more conservative, just as it was in their interest to be more liberal when most of them came here, usually destitute, from Eastern Europe. That kind of change is not unique to Jews, BTW, most cohorts of immigrants are liberal to some extent (because they want to get things) and then become more conservative over time (because they got things, and they want to keep them.)

    The wild card for American Jews has to do with the concept of Jewish nationalism, that is, Zionism. Most American Jews associate Israel as their version of a European homeland, and many have relatives living there. So that linkage isn’t going to go away. Meanwhile, Israel has long depended on the notion of external threats both to hold themselves together as well as to attract more Jewish immigration. That’s why Netanyahu is constantly calling on European Jews to come live in Israel.

    As one can see the agendas don’t really match.

    By the way, I was wrong to say that liberal American Jews would be contorting themselves to argue around Bibi’s latest comments concerning no Palestinian state as well as the frank racism of his comment on election day: Even neocon American Jews are engaging in amazing pretzel logic to make the whole thing go away:

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/03/19/the-crisis-has-exploded/

    For all that, Two State is dead, and that means that at some point Israel will have to come to an accomodation with the 40% or so of the inhabitants between the Jordan and the Med who are not Jewish. My guess is that it will ultimately involve a blending, because, frankly, I can’t really tell the difference half the time between an Israeli and a Palestinian.

    As for the dominant note hereabouts, that’s a distinction with regards to the US. There are noticeable racial differences, and rather broader cultural differences, between people of Europoid background and non-Europoid background. How that will end up, I don’t know, but, clearly, no one wants to encourage European immigration, large families, or restrictions on immigration otherwise. I suspect that has to do with two things: (a) the large amount of money that can be made on cheap undocumented labor, and (b) the simplicity of cheap undocumented labor to keep our standard of living teetering on the brink of normalcy.

    • Replies: @Karl
    >> because, frankly, I can’t really tell the difference half the time between an Israeli and a Palestinian

    One is reminded of the guy from Ulaan Bator who felt that a Quebecker is basically the same as a Saskatoon-ian. Neither can speak Mongolian without an accent, and that's really the only thing that's important, correct?

    Asians also think that round-eyes are mentally retarded vis-a-vis not being interested in keeping track of (and maintaining different prices for) different cultivars of rice.
  70. @Art Deco
    you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic rage

    'Anti-gentilic rage'? You need to get a grip. That's a passable description of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's writings and some of the elements of it can be found in Leon Wieseltier's, Robert Wistrich's, and Hyam Maccoby's. It's pretty unusual elsewhere.

    I take your point that rage overstates Goldberg’s prose. I think Steve’s point–which I agree with totally after wading through the article–is that the anti-right wing tropes are trotted out early as incantations. But when you get to the heart of the article there is no real current evidence presented that the right wing is a serious problem. It’s all evidence about Islam. Surely you agree with this interpretation of the article, or did I miss actual reportage on the old-fashioned right?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    is that the anti-right wing tropes are trotted out early as incantations.

    That's a standard feature of liberal opinion journalism and I'd wager a content analysis of Goldberg's writings would reveal less of it than you commonly see. (And, while we're at it, 'gentile' is not coterminous with 'right-wing'). Goldberg knows his audience.
  71. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @Neutral
    I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once.

    “I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once.”

    Yes, once.

    But then Neocons put a fatwa against people like him and Derbyshire and Richwine.

    Neocons have PC-whipped the Republicans and American Conservatism. Totally.

    “Let the good heads roll”, saith the likes of Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin.

    And don’t forget Kristol the purging vermin.

    http://buchanan.org/blog/how-bill-kristol-purged-the-arabists-5085

    Neocon advice to American Conseratives is like Ratso working on Joe Buck about seeing O’Daniel.

  72. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=827565573997707

    What a bunch of tards.

    Fox News used ISIS and Netnhayu stories to distract dumb conzo Americans from Bonehead’s collusion on Amnesty.

    Now, it uses some silly story of the Pledge in Arabic to distract tardo American conzos from the fact that US is controlled by a foreign nation(Israel) and an hostile elites(it ain’t Arabs).

    Fixate on the Arabs but never mind that Jews pushed amnesty, more wars for Israel, bailouts for Wall Street oligarchs, and ‘gay marriage’.

  73. The Inquisition: It’s probably best to begin at the beginning, with Moses, the first, and deadliest, inquisitor.

    Moses, the 1st inquisitor ordered killed 23 thousand one day (Exodus 32)

    Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, ordered killed 24 thousand one day (Numbers 25).

    Forty Seven Thousand ordered killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, in two days.

    Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, “Inquisition” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87),

    “The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.”

    GOT THAT? MOSES KILLED 47,000 IN TWO DAYS !!!

    The Inquisition killed roughly 3000 in two and one-half centuries.

    47,000 is more than 3,000. Really, do the math.

    I doubt one in one hundred million Catholic Christians, say nothing about non-Catholics, know the facts about Moses as the first Inquisitor and how his record compares unfavorably to Frey Tomas De Tourquemada, about whom the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant and so they consider it funny to hear his name and reputation continually blackened

    A William Thomas Walsh notes, “Moses put to death, in the name of religion, a far greater number of human beings than Torquemada did. Yet his name has been venerated by orthodox Jews and Roman Catholics alike, and always will be, while that of the Dominican monk has become a stench in the nostrils of the modern world, and a symbol of something indefensible.” (“Characters of the Inquisition.”)

    The big lie about the Inquisition is aught but the Black Legends of the putative enlightenment continuously rammed down our throats by those who hate us and yet we lead the entire world in apologising for our defensible past.

    You will NEVER hear a Jew apologise for what Moses did or say that his inquisition was unjust; far from it, an inquisition is ordered in deuteronomy

  74. Steve Sailer

    Of course, you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic

    “Anti-gentilic” just doesn’t have much of a ring.Plus, it’s too broad (everyone who isn’t Jewish is a Gentile).How about anti-Japhetic?It does have the advantage of deriving from the same source as anti-Semitic (cf the tale of Noah’s three sons).Plus, that would give us a handy moniker for the non-Jewish European peoples: Japhetites

    • Replies: @Stealth
    How does "anti-gentite" sound?
    , @5371
    I remember a character in Proust saying he will only discuss the Dreyfus case with fellow Japhetes.
    , @Priss Factor
    "'Anti-gentilic' just doesn’t have much of a ring."

    I think Jews are Eurotic, that is neurotic about Europeans. Or maybe 'neuropean'.
    , @D. K.
    This Euromongrel votes for "Europhobic" instead, except when the specific trait of "Christophobia" needs to be spelled out in full. Besides, those "Japhetites" of yours sound just like one of those tribes that Y-HW-H, sooner or later, is going to want someone to smite, and smite hard!?!
    , @HA
    "How about anti-Japhetic?"

    Jews who would characterize Arabs to be the 'sons of Ishmael' likewise consider Europeans (or more precisely, Romans) to be the 'sons of Esau' (cf. Klinghoffer's books, though I forget which).

    But I'm not sure why you'd want to lump Christian gentiles with, say, Muslim or Chinese gentiles. Even bigots like Goldberg seem to be able to distinguish the two, and terminology like that just gives people like him even more power. Plus, a brief internet search indicates that these kinds of references have already been co-opted by various 'Biblical prophecy' types and white supremacists.

    Anti-Christian is not ideal (Hitler and the authors of the Protocols were hardly Jesus worshippers), but I think that's the best you're going to get.

  75. @syonredux
    Steve Sailer

    Of course, you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic
     
    "Anti-gentilic" just doesn't have much of a ring.Plus, it's too broad (everyone who isn't Jewish is a Gentile).How about anti-Japhetic?It does have the advantage of deriving from the same source as anti-Semitic (cf the tale of Noah's three sons).Plus, that would give us a handy moniker for the non-Jewish European peoples: Japhetites

    How does “anti-gentite” sound?

  76. @george
    Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews.

    Where are Jews going to go, Israel is too expensive and to crowded to accommodate immigrants.

    Maybe the west should stop attacking Muslims.

    >> Germany has a net immigration of Israeli Jews

    This is like saying that there is a net immigration of Minnesotan college grads to Park Slope. Yeah – they go to Brooklyn, then eventually they leave.

    There is no sign that Israelis in Germany are attempting to assimilate into

    in fact, Germany-resident Israeli families have established and maintain Israeli-curriculae schools; TelAviv-style supermarkets; Hebrew-language BoyScoutTroops, etc, etc, etc.

  77. @SPMoore8
    As I have said before, I think it is in the interests of most American Jews to become more conservative, just as it was in their interest to be more liberal when most of them came here, usually destitute, from Eastern Europe. That kind of change is not unique to Jews, BTW, most cohorts of immigrants are liberal to some extent (because they want to get things) and then become more conservative over time (because they got things, and they want to keep them.)

    The wild card for American Jews has to do with the concept of Jewish nationalism, that is, Zionism. Most American Jews associate Israel as their version of a European homeland, and many have relatives living there. So that linkage isn't going to go away. Meanwhile, Israel has long depended on the notion of external threats both to hold themselves together as well as to attract more Jewish immigration. That's why Netanyahu is constantly calling on European Jews to come live in Israel.

    As one can see the agendas don't really match.

    By the way, I was wrong to say that liberal American Jews would be contorting themselves to argue around Bibi's latest comments concerning no Palestinian state as well as the frank racism of his comment on election day: Even neocon American Jews are engaging in amazing pretzel logic to make the whole thing go away:

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/03/19/the-crisis-has-exploded/

    For all that, Two State is dead, and that means that at some point Israel will have to come to an accomodation with the 40% or so of the inhabitants between the Jordan and the Med who are not Jewish. My guess is that it will ultimately involve a blending, because, frankly, I can't really tell the difference half the time between an Israeli and a Palestinian.

    As for the dominant note hereabouts, that's a distinction with regards to the US. There are noticeable racial differences, and rather broader cultural differences, between people of Europoid background and non-Europoid background. How that will end up, I don't know, but, clearly, no one wants to encourage European immigration, large families, or restrictions on immigration otherwise. I suspect that has to do with two things: (a) the large amount of money that can be made on cheap undocumented labor, and (b) the simplicity of cheap undocumented labor to keep our standard of living teetering on the brink of normalcy.

    >> because, frankly, I can’t really tell the difference half the time between an Israeli and a Palestinian

    One is reminded of the guy from Ulaan Bator who felt that a Quebecker is basically the same as a Saskatoon-ian. Neither can speak Mongolian without an accent, and that’s really the only thing that’s important, correct?

    Asians also think that round-eyes are mentally retarded vis-a-vis not being interested in keeping track of (and maintaining different prices for) different cultivars of rice.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Are you seriously going to maintain that there are significant racial differences between Jews and Arabs? That's the point, and that's the point under discussion hereabouts.
  78. Sorry Steve, but unless you swallow the neocon line hook line and sinker, it doesnt matter how many of these “Jews aren’t that bad!” columns you pen.

    Re: The Inquisition. Again, the Jews were practicing heresy, and sometimes preaching it from the altar and they wonder why Rome might have an issue with it. Chutzpah. Not shocking.

    Also I made the mistake of reading Whiskey and got to the point where he said “No charismatic personalities”. Whiskey, for someone so hung up on alpha/beta bullshit you don’t realize you’re not fit to shine Rommel’s shoes. One would think you would have learned by now that argument by assertion isn’t the I Win button you seem to think it is.

  79. @syonredux
    Steve Sailer

    Of course, you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic
     
    "Anti-gentilic" just doesn't have much of a ring.Plus, it's too broad (everyone who isn't Jewish is a Gentile).How about anti-Japhetic?It does have the advantage of deriving from the same source as anti-Semitic (cf the tale of Noah's three sons).Plus, that would give us a handy moniker for the non-Jewish European peoples: Japhetites

    I remember a character in Proust saying he will only discuss the Dreyfus case with fellow Japhetes.

  80. >> I wonder what Christian evangelists in Israel have to say on the topic

    I wonder if you know what google is:

    http://www.catholic.co.il

    http://www.maozisrael.org/site/PageServer?pagename=maoz_About_US_congregation1

    http://www.iglesianicristo.ws%2Fcongregation%2Fcongregation%2FIsrael%2Flocals%2FTel%2520Aviv%2520Congregation.htm

    The IDF publishes an edition of the New Testament, for swearing in Christian recruits. And an edition of the Quran, for the Muslim recruits.

  81. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @syonredux
    Steve Sailer

    Of course, you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic
     
    "Anti-gentilic" just doesn't have much of a ring.Plus, it's too broad (everyone who isn't Jewish is a Gentile).How about anti-Japhetic?It does have the advantage of deriving from the same source as anti-Semitic (cf the tale of Noah's three sons).Plus, that would give us a handy moniker for the non-Jewish European peoples: Japhetites

    “‘Anti-gentilic’ just doesn’t have much of a ring.”

    I think Jews are Eurotic, that is neurotic about Europeans. Or maybe ‘neuropean’.

  82. @Svigor

    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492
     
    "Forced" as in, "you can leave this Jewish Christian state, or stay and convert." A choice which they rejected, in lieu of lying, pretending to convert, and remaining Jewish in secret. But, to be fair, they did lie and say they were Christians, and so put themselves under Christian jurisdiction.

    and their descendants, many of whom did in fact practice Judaism in secret. Technically they were Christian heretics, but a lot of it was still about the Jews. That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.
     
    Given the above, one wonders how to criticize the Spanish for not taking Jewish conversions at face value. How it's anyone's fault but the Jews' for not playing by the rules is anyone's guess.

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. These people are not to be trusted.
     
    I'd say the historical record definitely backs this up.

    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of “Inquisition” Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.
     
    I wonder what Christian evangelists in Israel have to say on the topic.

    This is what separate countries are for. Jews seem to think they have the God-given right to inhabit everyone else's countries, and then compete with the natives for dominance, and then expect perfect tolerance. Kinda like they're supremacist bigots, or something.

    Do you really believe your own rhetoric?

    Yes, the early modern world was a different world – no one believed in religious freedom; every religion was out to get every other religion; etc. I don’t necessarily hold Ferdinand or Isabella or Torquemada or any other individual personally responsible for believing a more extreme version of what almost everyone else in the world believed. But the idea that those forced to convert or leave the country were bad people unless they said “Sure, whatever you say!” – you must know how ridiculous that sounds.

  83. I think one of the interesting points in the article that Goldberg makes is that the new Muslim anti-Semites of Europe are not just the old Muslim anti-Semites of the Middle East – they have absorbed and incorporated traditional European anti-Semitism into theirs to produce a new hybrid anti-Semitism that is the worst of both worlds. The Mufti of Jerusalem (Arafat’s uncle) was good buddies with Hitler.

  84. @syonredux
    "I am quite surprised that muslims are attacking Jews in Europe. In the past muslims used Jews in both Spain and the Ottoman occupied territories to help administer and rule over the Christians. We are told Moorish Spain after all was the Golden Age for Jews."

    A lot of feel-good propaganda has been shoveled out on Moorish Spain.Here's an episode that doesn't get re-told in the popular press very often:

    The Almohads, who had taken control of the Almoravids' Maghribi and Andalusian territories by 1147,[19] treated the dhimmis (non-Muslims) harshly. Reports from the period describe that, after an initial 7-month grace period, the Almohads killed or forcefully converted Jewish communities in each new city they conquered until "there was no Jew left from Silves to Mahdia".[20] Cases of mass martyrdom of Jews who refused to convert to Islam are also reported.[20] Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), who himself fled the persecutions of the Almohads, composed an elegy mourning the destruction of many Jewish communities throughout Spain and the Maghreb under the Almohads.[21] Many Jews fled from territories ruled by the Almohads to Christian lands, and others, like the family of Maimonides, fled east to more tolerant Muslim lands.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_Caliphate#Culture

    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert – they just executed them. So compared to 20th century European standards, the Almohads were quite civilized 800 years before.

    Just as we see today with Isis in Iraq, there is a historic pattern in the Muslim world. Harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the city and crack down on anything that is not by the book. Their kids and grandkids start to enjoy the city life and get soft. Then the next group of harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the grandchildren of the old desert warriors. Rinse and repeat. The Almohads were the ISIS of their day.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert – they just executed them.
     
    Well, as I never tire of pointing out, exterminating European Jewry was the smallest of the crimes that the Nazis intended to commit:

    The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

     

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    So compared to 20th century European standards, the Almohads were quite civilized 800 years before.
     
    On the other hand, what the the Almohads did is quite akin to what the Spaniards did in the 15th and 16th centuries....Yet it just doesn't seem to come up very often
    , @ben tillman

    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert – they just executed them.
     
    In 1933? You might want to double-check that.
  85. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    Steve

    Google:Noam Chomsky News,,,the big Chomsky News is the big interview in the NYT where Chomsky slams White Americans for the original sin of racism….among the things Chomsky talks about is White fear of retribution for Slavery…This story is making the rounds on the internet…So in the past few days, two multimillionaire Jews…..Howie Schultz and Noam Chomsky….want to put White Americans on trial for the crime of racism.

    You really need to make a post about this regardless of whether or not you let my comments trough…..

  86. @syonredux
    Steve Sailer

    Of course, you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic
     
    "Anti-gentilic" just doesn't have much of a ring.Plus, it's too broad (everyone who isn't Jewish is a Gentile).How about anti-Japhetic?It does have the advantage of deriving from the same source as anti-Semitic (cf the tale of Noah's three sons).Plus, that would give us a handy moniker for the non-Jewish European peoples: Japhetites

    This Euromongrel votes for “Europhobic” instead, except when the specific trait of “Christophobia” needs to be spelled out in full. Besides, those “Japhetites” of yours sound just like one of those tribes that Y-HW-H, sooner or later, is going to want someone to smite, and smite hard!?!

  87. @The Z Blog
    I'm sure there were many Jews who had their doubts about Mussolini in the 1920's and early 1930's. There were plenty of Jews who got out of Germany long before you know who came to power. There have been a few sober Kennedy members too.

    In America, most Jews are secular Jews. They go to temple when they have no choice and they take off for holy days, but go skiing rather than observe the holiday. Their religion is liberalism. Norman Podhoretz talked about this a half dozen years ago.

    If a rift does develop between Jews and the new time religion, Jews will not become less liberal. They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation. Flipping the rest of the GOP into an invite the world party is not going to be tough.

    “In America, most Jews are secular Jews. They go to temple when they have no choice and they take off for holy days, but go skiing rather than observe the holiday. Their religion is liberalism. Norman Podhoretz talked about this a half dozen years ago. ”

    Just a musing, I’m not sure a belief system like that can stand the test of time. We know things like race (maybe depending on circumstance) and above all religion can do it.

    Conservatism? Liberalism? Communism? Libertarianism? Capitalism?

    All weak sauce compared to religion.

    • Replies: @Karl
    >>> Just a musing, I’m not sure a belief system like that can stand the test of time

    The American liberal Jews are (demographically) self-selecting for extinction. Even faster than the Japanese are.

    Looking ahead 3 generations, they will be completely replaced by "modern Orthodox" (which is just a somewhat darker shade of pale, really) and the self-identified "Israeli Americans".

    the latter are building up their community infra-structure, basically side-stepping and ignoring the "legacy" american Jews.

    The liberal "American Jews" have developed a rather strong ==physical== infra-structure, but 3 generations from now, the "Jewish community Centers" will be as "Jewish" as a YMCA gymnasium is "christian".
  88. The parable of the ducks and the hens comes to mind.

  89. The Jews are loath to give up the Nazi holocaust card because it the single biggest chit they have ever had with humanity.

    They have conditioned the Western mind to just give up when the “holocaust” word is used. Using it allows them to murder Arabs and steal their land. They will never give it up.

  90. HA says:
    @syonredux
    Steve Sailer

    Of course, you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic
     
    "Anti-gentilic" just doesn't have much of a ring.Plus, it's too broad (everyone who isn't Jewish is a Gentile).How about anti-Japhetic?It does have the advantage of deriving from the same source as anti-Semitic (cf the tale of Noah's three sons).Plus, that would give us a handy moniker for the non-Jewish European peoples: Japhetites

    “How about anti-Japhetic?”

    Jews who would characterize Arabs to be the ‘sons of Ishmael’ likewise consider Europeans (or more precisely, Romans) to be the ‘sons of Esau’ (cf. Klinghoffer’s books, though I forget which).

    But I’m not sure why you’d want to lump Christian gentiles with, say, Muslim or Chinese gentiles. Even bigots like Goldberg seem to be able to distinguish the two, and terminology like that just gives people like him even more power. Plus, a brief internet search indicates that these kinds of references have already been co-opted by various ‘Biblical prophecy’ types and white supremacists.

    Anti-Christian is not ideal (Hitler and the authors of the Protocols were hardly Jesus worshippers), but I think that’s the best you’re going to get.

  91. @jtgw
    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants, many of whom did in fact practice Judaism in secret. Technically they were Christian heretics, but a lot of it was still about the Jews. That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.

    The rules concerning limpieza de sangre must have been inconsistently applied.

    See the following NYT story where a writer traces her crypto-Jewish, converso family back to a palace in 15th century Spain where her ancestor was the royal treasurer and was tried for heresy by the Inquisition. Subsequently, various members of the family tried their luck as New World conquistadores where they retained names associated with conversos and intermarried with other converso families –she says, in order to secretly maintain Jewish religious practices. Beyond the initial auto-da-fé, the family appears to have done okay in the colonies –the author’s ancestor was married to the first royal governor of Costa Rica.

    I’m sure other families had different experiences, but members of her own don’t seem to have suffered from any lasting stigma, especially considering that they did in fact, at least partly, continue to practice Judaism in defiance of contemporary Spanish law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/travel/in-spain-a-family-reunion-centuries-later.html?_r=0

  92. @Priss Factor
    Is the Sailerowicz Strategy worth it?

    Hasn't that been the basis of the GOP since the 80s or even the 70s?

    On the premise that...

    1. Wasps lost their fire and will

    2. Wasps lost their moral authority(as Jews used slavery and Holocaust to smear all whites, even Americans who defeated Nazis)

    3. Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle

    .... the brilliant idea was that the GOP would get a second wind by attracting

    Jews as

    1. Highly energized and talented new elites

    2. People with the highest moral authority due to Holocaust

    3. Natural Conservatives since they are bound to be rich and successful.


    Therefore, in order to win over Jews with all that money, talent, and moral capital,
    the big shining idea was to give them everything they want.

    So, what happened?

    1. Even GOP swallowed MLK and Mandela cult.

    2. GOP has been totally complicit in the oppression and destruction of Palestinians, a totally innocent people.

    3. Wars for Israel that messed things up royally beginning with the Gulf War(that didn't assuage Jews in their never-ending Golf War against Wasps)

    4. Turning a blind eye to Jewish crookedness on Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood, therefore ruining the GOP brand as the whore party of plutocrats.

    5. Bending over to 'gay marriage' embraced and pushed by even Neocons.

    6. Never-ending hysteria about Iran(which is funny since Jews endless berate conservatives for their 'anti-communist hysteria' in the 50s).

    7. War on Russia, a long-suffering nation that went through hell in the 90s not least because of Jewish collusion to form new oligarchs at the expense of Russians. The total messing up of Ukraine.

    8. Banning of Neoconfederate symbols.

    Well...

    Has it worked? After all that pandering to Jews, 80% of Jews voted for Obama and gave us Holder, Kagan, Sotomayor, 'gay marriage', amnesty, and etc.

    Do we exist simply to be abused like an idiot wife? How much more BS and abuse can we take from these people?

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. I say form ANY alliance to break Jewish power.

    Do not waste hospitality on people like Goldberg and Nuland. They are vile creatures.

    American Conservatives continuing to bet on the Jews would be like Putin putting his trust in Nuland and Gessen in the hope that, gee, maybe they'll learn to love Russia and Christianity.

    I mean come on.

    …Palestinians, a totally innocent people.

    Immaculate conception makes a comeback in the Holy Land, after 2,000 years!

    Someone’s so obsessed with one branch of the Semitic race, he allows himself to be taken in by another.

    “Totally innocent”, indeed.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    “'Totally innocent', indeed."

    I meant in context of their political situation, not in spiritual or moral terms. Of course, Palestinians are everyone else. They are people, so there are robbers, rapists, murderers, cheaters, bums, liars, punks, jerks, swindlers, junkies, con-men, and etc. among them.
    And men like Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have been rather loathsome.
    People are people, and people all over the world are pretty scummy.

    BUT, what happened to Palestinians after 1948 was no fault of their own. The great powers allowed massive 'immigration'--invasion was more like it--of European Jews into Palestine. Now, why did so many Jews wanna go there? WWII and the Holocaust. Who done that? Europeans.

    And did Palestinians have any say in what was done to their homeland? No, it was imposed on them. As a result, they lost their homeland forever, a sort of prelude to what is happening to white lands in Europe. (Europeans turned a blind eye to massive Jewish influx into Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and now their own homelands are being overrun by massive influx of Africans and Muslims. You see, European folks who are now being overrun are 'totally innocent' at least in this context because they didn't want it. It's being imposed on them by the globalist elites led by Jewish oligarchs and ideologues.)

    So, Palestinians are not saints. They are flawed people like rest of humanity. But they are totally innocent victims when it comes to Nakba and occupation. They got punished the worst for the crimes of Europeans. They didn't do anything to European Jews, but European Jews took their land and put them under the sword. And America, the greatest power in the world that yammers endlessly about human rights, has been utterly complicit in the destruction of a people who never did anything wrong to Americans.

    What is truly ironic in all this is that most American Jews look upon white gentiles(in America and Russia) like they look upon Palestinians, but white gentiles go out of their way to support the Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

    I mean this is pretty ridiculous and has to stop.

  93. @Neutral
    I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once.

    I think that Sailer did in fact once work for National Review once.

    That’s where some of us first read him.

    Over 20 years ago!

  94. @The Z Blog
    I'm sure there were many Jews who had their doubts about Mussolini in the 1920's and early 1930's. There were plenty of Jews who got out of Germany long before you know who came to power. There have been a few sober Kennedy members too.

    In America, most Jews are secular Jews. They go to temple when they have no choice and they take off for holy days, but go skiing rather than observe the holiday. Their religion is liberalism. Norman Podhoretz talked about this a half dozen years ago.

    If a rift does develop between Jews and the new time religion, Jews will not become less liberal. They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation. Flipping the rest of the GOP into an invite the world party is not going to be tough.

    They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    1. There is no ‘invade-the-world’ party;

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft’s political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft’s political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.
     
    I think the neocons definitely prodded the GOP to become more engaged in foreign events after the end of the Vietnam War, and were worried about a possible return to Senator Taft-type non-intervention. Here is a quote from Norman Podhoretz in 1979 addressing this concern:

    There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.

    I don't know the precise number of Taft followers during the late 70s, early 80s, but if Podhoretz was worried about a return to the non-interventionist mood of the interwar years, there must have been more than five of them.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Yep, and with respect to "invade the world," Pat Buchanan has never explained or atoned for his rabid support of Vietnam....isn't Vietnam part of the world? My my things have changed. Jews were very unpopular in one part of the conservative world for their less than hot support of invading that part of the world. I remember many times the charge of disloyalty being hurled.

    ....meanwhile in the current real world, via Razib's twitter feed, I learned that a pro football player who looks a bit non-white is now a published mathematician: John Urschel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urschel

    http://deadspin.com/ravens-lineman-john-urschel-loves-math-more-than-you-lo-1692687404

    Look at all the head-trauma related tweets. The message is truly getting out. Football is bad for the brain.

    He is Canadian-born, which satisifies one Major Sailer Criterion. But not for the usual reasons.

    , @The Z Blog
    You'll note that in your "real world" all the doors lock from the outside.

    1) Start by counting up the number of countries in which we have garrisons.

    2) Another Art Deco pointless reference. Well, it has a point. That point being Art Deco needs to peacock on websites. Otherwise, it is another irrelevant reference, a feature of all Art Deco posts.

    3) OK. I never said other wise. I'm just going to assume this is in response to some imagined conversation you had with someone.
  95. @Priss Factor
    Is the Sailerowicz Strategy worth it?

    Hasn't that been the basis of the GOP since the 80s or even the 70s?

    On the premise that...

    1. Wasps lost their fire and will

    2. Wasps lost their moral authority(as Jews used slavery and Holocaust to smear all whites, even Americans who defeated Nazis)

    3. Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle

    .... the brilliant idea was that the GOP would get a second wind by attracting

    Jews as

    1. Highly energized and talented new elites

    2. People with the highest moral authority due to Holocaust

    3. Natural Conservatives since they are bound to be rich and successful.


    Therefore, in order to win over Jews with all that money, talent, and moral capital,
    the big shining idea was to give them everything they want.

    So, what happened?

    1. Even GOP swallowed MLK and Mandela cult.

    2. GOP has been totally complicit in the oppression and destruction of Palestinians, a totally innocent people.

    3. Wars for Israel that messed things up royally beginning with the Gulf War(that didn't assuage Jews in their never-ending Golf War against Wasps)

    4. Turning a blind eye to Jewish crookedness on Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood, therefore ruining the GOP brand as the whore party of plutocrats.

    5. Bending over to 'gay marriage' embraced and pushed by even Neocons.

    6. Never-ending hysteria about Iran(which is funny since Jews endless berate conservatives for their 'anti-communist hysteria' in the 50s).

    7. War on Russia, a long-suffering nation that went through hell in the 90s not least because of Jewish collusion to form new oligarchs at the expense of Russians. The total messing up of Ukraine.

    8. Banning of Neoconfederate symbols.

    Well...

    Has it worked? After all that pandering to Jews, 80% of Jews voted for Obama and gave us Holder, Kagan, Sotomayor, 'gay marriage', amnesty, and etc.

    Do we exist simply to be abused like an idiot wife? How much more BS and abuse can we take from these people?

    I say ENOUGH ALREADY. I say form ANY alliance to break Jewish power.

    Do not waste hospitality on people like Goldberg and Nuland. They are vile creatures.

    American Conservatives continuing to bet on the Jews would be like Putin putting his trust in Nuland and Gessen in the hope that, gee, maybe they'll learn to love Russia and Christianity.

    I mean come on.

    Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle

    And your evidence that Martha Pulliam and Barbara Bush are ‘dumb’ is precisely what?

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle"

    "And your evidence that Martha Pulliam and Barbara Bush are ‘dumb’ is precisely what?"

    ... their sons?
  96. @Cagey Beast
    Skim-reading that article at The Atlantic just reminded me how happy I am that we have the web. I'm so happy we have this wonder of telecommunications that allows us to bypass the rack of magazines, shelves of books and hours of television journalism all coming out of that New York sensibility and with that New York view of the world.

    Just take a moment to sample the video included in with that article. These are the people most qualified to tell us what's going on in Europe? Who are these people to me and why should I care what they think? I found out from the caption that the old gal sitting in the centre of the video is called Leon Wieseltier. The name rang a bell with me so I looked at his (her?) Wikipedia page. It turns out he's nobody special but I've heard the name over the years simply because it was in the mix with all the other chatter and gossip radiating out from NYC to little people like me. I live in the North American sector of the Anglosphere and so I get to hear about Leon Wieseltier's latest musings. If I was in Airstrip One I'd have someone else telling me how the world works. That's assuming I was still playing along with the idea that mainstream media institutions like The Atlantic are "ours" in any sense of the word and that we should care what they think about anything. Who ever thought it was a great idea to concentrate media, publishing and cultural commentary in Manhattan and run almost all our information and ideas through that one cluster of people, with their odd kinks and obsessions?

    The article itself has the usual warped outlook on Europe:


    Le Pen, who inherited the National Front from her father, Jean-Marie, has worked diligently to bring her party closer to the French mainstream: no more thugs in leather jackets; no more public expressions of longing for Vichy ....
     
    Et cetera and so on ...

    They really can't be bothered to understand that the FN comes out of the grand schism in French political life caused by the Algerian War and the fact that the aboriginal, indigenous French don't much like having their homeland taken away. The evidence is overwhelming that the FN is not the party of Vichy nostalgia but that doesn't seem to matter. Just last week the Socialist Prime Minister of France was in a tizzy because a city with an FN mayor decided to rename a street in honour of an army officer involved in the Algerian War and the failed coup against de Gaulle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lie_de_Saint_Marc

    Why would the FN celebrate a hero of the French Resistance who was sent to Buchenwald? I guess I'll have to wait for Jeffrey Goldberg or Leon Wieseltier to figure it out and let me know.

    They really can’t be bothered to understand that the FN comes out of the grand schism in French political life caused by the Algerian War

    There was no ‘grand schism’. Le Pen himself is an Algerian War veteran, but no political party of any consequence at any time in France since 1962 has been derived from OAS diehards or pieds noirs or anyone else disgruntled by all that and even FN did not emerge as a party of consequence until 1984, when the Algerian War had long since ceased to be a live issue.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    From Wikipedia:

    "The FN springs from an extreme right-wing tradition in France that dates back to the French Revolution of 1789,[20] and the party rejects both the revolution and its legacy.[21][22] One of the primary progenitors of the party was the Action Française, founded at the end of the 19th century, and its descendants in the Restauration Nationale,[23] a pro-monarchy group that supports the claim of the Count of Paris to the French throne.[24] More recently, the party drew from the Poujadism of the 1950s, which started out as an anti-tax movement without relations to the far-right, but included among its parliamentary deputies "proto-nationalists" such as Jean-Marie Le Pen.[25]

    "Another conflict that is part of the party's background was the Algerian War (many frontistes, including Le Pen, were directly involved in the war), and the far-right dismay over the decision by French President Charles de Gaulle to abandon his promise of holding on to French Algeria.[26]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28France%29

  97. @Fenster
    I take your point that rage overstates Goldberg's prose. I think Steve's point--which I agree with totally after wading through the article--is that the anti-right wing tropes are trotted out early as incantations. But when you get to the heart of the article there is no real current evidence presented that the right wing is a serious problem. It's all evidence about Islam. Surely you agree with this interpretation of the article, or did I miss actual reportage on the old-fashioned right?

    is that the anti-right wing tropes are trotted out early as incantations.

    That’s a standard feature of liberal opinion journalism and I’d wager a content analysis of Goldberg’s writings would reveal less of it than you commonly see. (And, while we’re at it, ‘gentile’ is not coterminous with ‘right-wing’). Goldberg knows his audience.

  98. @Art Deco
    you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic rage

    'Anti-gentilic rage'? You need to get a grip. That's a passable description of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's writings and some of the elements of it can be found in Leon Wieseltier's, Robert Wistrich's, and Hyam Maccoby's. It's pretty unusual elsewhere.

    That’s a passable description of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s writings and some of the elements of it can be found in Leon Wieseltier’s, Robert Wistrich’s, and Hyam Maccoby’s.

    All authors commonly found in any Catholic library.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Come again? You've been surveying people's home libraries, or rectory libraries, or what? There are hardly any Catholic colleges worthy of the name left in America and the processes by which books are purchased by academic libraries would not weed out these particular authors in any systematic way (whether the library was in a Catholic legacy institution or not).
  99. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    …Palestinians, a totally innocent people.
     
    Immaculate conception makes a comeback in the Holy Land, after 2,000 years!

    Someone's so obsessed with one branch of the Semitic race, he allows himself to be taken in by another.

    "Totally innocent", indeed.

    “’Totally innocent’, indeed.”

    I meant in context of their political situation, not in spiritual or moral terms. Of course, Palestinians are everyone else. They are people, so there are robbers, rapists, murderers, cheaters, bums, liars, punks, jerks, swindlers, junkies, con-men, and etc. among them.
    And men like Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have been rather loathsome.
    People are people, and people all over the world are pretty scummy.

    BUT, what happened to Palestinians after 1948 was no fault of their own. The great powers allowed massive ‘immigration’–invasion was more like it–of European Jews into Palestine. Now, why did so many Jews wanna go there? WWII and the Holocaust. Who done that? Europeans.

    And did Palestinians have any say in what was done to their homeland? No, it was imposed on them. As a result, they lost their homeland forever, a sort of prelude to what is happening to white lands in Europe. (Europeans turned a blind eye to massive Jewish influx into Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and now their own homelands are being overrun by massive influx of Africans and Muslims. You see, European folks who are now being overrun are ‘totally innocent’ at least in this context because they didn’t want it. It’s being imposed on them by the globalist elites led by Jewish oligarchs and ideologues.)

    So, Palestinians are not saints. They are flawed people like rest of humanity. But they are totally innocent victims when it comes to Nakba and occupation. They got punished the worst for the crimes of Europeans. They didn’t do anything to European Jews, but European Jews took their land and put them under the sword. And America, the greatest power in the world that yammers endlessly about human rights, has been utterly complicit in the destruction of a people who never did anything wrong to Americans.

    What is truly ironic in all this is that most American Jews look upon white gentiles(in America and Russia) like they look upon Palestinians, but white gentiles go out of their way to support the Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

    I mean this is pretty ridiculous and has to stop.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    The great powers allowed massive ‘immigration’–invasion was more like it–of European Jews into Palestine.
     
    Actually, Britain, which was the great power governing Palestine at the time, restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, under Arab pressure.
    , @silviosilver

    What is truly ironic in all this is that most American Jews look upon white gentiles(in America and Russia) like they look upon Palestinians, but white gentiles go out of their way to support the Jewish oppression of Palestinians.
     
    An easy way to understand the difference between Jews and white gentiles is: Jews kick white gentiles' asses; white gentiles kiss Jews' asses.

    Now that is surely an oversimplification, but the witless white gentile needs to start somewhere, and starting here is going to prove far more fruitful than starting with the assumption that Jews are powerless and oppressed.
  100. @Mark Minter
    Maybe it might be time for them to leave. The experiment of diversity might have backfired on them, but maybe not.

    McDonald argues that Jewish insecurity lead to creating the ethic of multiculturalism to combat a racially and religiously unified Europe and America.

    Jews have followed an evolutionary path of marginally assimilating, maintaining a clannish superiority and sense that transgressions against Gentiles don't really count. There was a famous case of an orthodox Jew that refused to break Sabbath and allow his phone to be used to phone for medical help when a non-Jew had been involved in an accident. But he would have been allowed to do so had a Jew been hurt. And Jewish scholars upheld that he was correct under Jewish doctrine. And this marginal assimilation has enraged non-Jews for centuries and is the basis for antipathy towards the sect.

    The idea of "A man on the street and a Jew in the home" actually means "assimilate just enough to not provoke the ire of the Goyim yet remain clannish and exclusionary with other Jews. Morality and consideration offered to Jews is foolish and unecessary in dealing with Gentiles."

    A Christian, ethnically European populace is a threat to Jewish security so better to promote Diversity, Multiculturalism to reduce, and even eliminate this unified environment to lessen this threat to Jewish non-assimilation. This has been the mission of Jewish academics throughout the 20th century and is the dominate dogma of our time. By crushing Christian religious dominance and cohesion, and replacing it with secular, materialist values, tolerating ever more alternative lifestyles, Jews become more "invisible", at least "less visible".

    The hope is by creating this consumerist hedonism where nothing is forbidden except intolerance then when immigrants arrive that they become co-opted into the swirling melting pot of western permissiveness, that they abandon whatever religious attitudes that are dangerous to Jews.

    And unfortunately for Jews in France, Muslims have resisted this phenomenon. To see native born children of Muslims actually revert to a more stringent faith than their more secular immigrant parents is very dangerous to Jews and is an unintended side effect of the diversity experiment.

    As the post on "The Browning of America" shows, the special protected status of Jews in Europe comes under contest when more and more immigrant groups lack the guilt of the holocaust that French whites have.

    There was a famous case of an orthodox Jew that refused to break Sabbath and allow his phone to be used to phone for medical help when a non-Jew had been involved in an accident.

    Link?

  101. @syonredux

    Well to be fair the Inquisition spent a lot of time going after crypto-Jews, i.e. Jews who were forced to convert in 1492 and their descendants,
     
    Yes, but Jewish Jews were beyond the authority of the Inquisition.Only Jews who had converted to Catholicism were vulnerable.As for being "forced to convert," that's somewhat inaccurate.Only Jews who wanted to stay in Spain had to convert.

    That and the laws of limpieza de sangre, forbidding descendants of Jews from various positions, even if they were baptized.
     
    It applied to more than just Jewish ancestry:

    Limpieza de sangre ," meaning "cleanliness of blood", played an important role in modern Iberian history. It referred to those who were considered pure "Old Christians", without Muslim or Jewish ancestors, or within the context of the empire (New Spain and Portuguese India) usually to those without Amerindian, Asian or African ancestry [.....]

    Although a medieval European concept that targeted exclusively the Jewish or Moorish population in Spain, Limpieza de sangre the concept evolved in the Spanish overseas territories in the Spanish Empire to be linked with racial purity for both Spaniards and indigenous.[12] Proofs of racial purity were required in a variety of circumstances in both Spain and its overseas territories. Candidates for office and their spouses had to obtain a certificate of purity that proved that they had no Jewish or Muslim ancestors and in New Spain, proof of whiteness and absence of any in the lineage who engaged in work with their hands.
     

    An unintended consequence of that sangre thing is many Maghrebi-Spanish (and other ‘Spaniards” of less than pure sangre) emigrated to Spanish “Florida” (consisting most of the antebellum South save Virginia) where control was nonexistent, and became the ancestors of Southrons.

  102. @Mark Minter
    Maybe it might be time for them to leave. The experiment of diversity might have backfired on them, but maybe not.

    McDonald argues that Jewish insecurity lead to creating the ethic of multiculturalism to combat a racially and religiously unified Europe and America.

    Jews have followed an evolutionary path of marginally assimilating, maintaining a clannish superiority and sense that transgressions against Gentiles don't really count. There was a famous case of an orthodox Jew that refused to break Sabbath and allow his phone to be used to phone for medical help when a non-Jew had been involved in an accident. But he would have been allowed to do so had a Jew been hurt. And Jewish scholars upheld that he was correct under Jewish doctrine. And this marginal assimilation has enraged non-Jews for centuries and is the basis for antipathy towards the sect.

    The idea of "A man on the street and a Jew in the home" actually means "assimilate just enough to not provoke the ire of the Goyim yet remain clannish and exclusionary with other Jews. Morality and consideration offered to Jews is foolish and unecessary in dealing with Gentiles."

    A Christian, ethnically European populace is a threat to Jewish security so better to promote Diversity, Multiculturalism to reduce, and even eliminate this unified environment to lessen this threat to Jewish non-assimilation. This has been the mission of Jewish academics throughout the 20th century and is the dominate dogma of our time. By crushing Christian religious dominance and cohesion, and replacing it with secular, materialist values, tolerating ever more alternative lifestyles, Jews become more "invisible", at least "less visible".

    The hope is by creating this consumerist hedonism where nothing is forbidden except intolerance then when immigrants arrive that they become co-opted into the swirling melting pot of western permissiveness, that they abandon whatever religious attitudes that are dangerous to Jews.

    And unfortunately for Jews in France, Muslims have resisted this phenomenon. To see native born children of Muslims actually revert to a more stringent faith than their more secular immigrant parents is very dangerous to Jews and is an unintended side effect of the diversity experiment.

    As the post on "The Browning of America" shows, the special protected status of Jews in Europe comes under contest when more and more immigrant groups lack the guilt of the holocaust that French whites have.

    Morality and consideration offered to Jews is foolish and unecessary in dealing with Gentiles.

    I read things like this, and no doubt there are examples, but it doesn’t correspond with my experience of 60-plus years. Throughout my life I have been befriended by, and had my career advanced by, Jews, though I am not Jewish. So I can’t accept this assertion as a grand truth.

  103. @The Anti-Gnostic

    That’s a passable description of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s writings and some of the elements of it can be found in Leon Wieseltier’s, Robert Wistrich’s, and Hyam Maccoby’s.
     
    All authors commonly found in any Catholic library.

    Come again? You’ve been surveying people’s home libraries, or rectory libraries, or what? There are hardly any Catholic colleges worthy of the name left in America and the processes by which books are purchased by academic libraries would not weed out these particular authors in any systematic way (whether the library was in a Catholic legacy institution or not).

  104. @Trayvon Zimmerman
    You had me until "cathedral." We'll know dark enlightenment types are serious when they drop this "cathedral" nonsense, and start using "synagogue."

    That’s fair and I admit I laughed.

  105. @Art Deco
    They really can’t be bothered to understand that the FN comes out of the grand schism in French political life caused by the Algerian War

    There was no 'grand schism'. Le Pen himself is an Algerian War veteran, but no political party of any consequence at any time in France since 1962 has been derived from OAS diehards or pieds noirs or anyone else disgruntled by all that and even FN did not emerge as a party of consequence until 1984, when the Algerian War had long since ceased to be a live issue.

    From Wikipedia:

    “The FN springs from an extreme right-wing tradition in France that dates back to the French Revolution of 1789,[20] and the party rejects both the revolution and its legacy.[21][22] One of the primary progenitors of the party was the Action Française, founded at the end of the 19th century, and its descendants in the Restauration Nationale,[23] a pro-monarchy group that supports the claim of the Count of Paris to the French throne.[24] More recently, the party drew from the Poujadism of the 1950s, which started out as an anti-tax movement without relations to the far-right, but included among its parliamentary deputies “proto-nationalists” such as Jean-Marie Le Pen.[25]

    “Another conflict that is part of the party’s background was the Algerian War (many frontistes, including Le Pen, were directly involved in the war), and the far-right dismay over the decision by French President Charles de Gaulle to abandon his promise of holding on to French Algeria.[26]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28France%29

    • Replies: @5371
    In reality, as opposed to Wikipedia, the FN never had anything to do with Action Française, and has always done much worse among practising Catholics than among the electorate as a whole.
    , @Art Deco
    Fictions promoted by Wikipedia editors are still fictions. Is the FN promoting a return of the monarchy? Supplementing the tricolor with the oriflamme or the fleur-de-lis on royal blue? Playing La Marche des Soldats de Robert Bruce as often as La Marsaillaise? Adding the feast of St. Joan to Bastille Day as a national holiday? Restoring the antique provinces? Comprehensive decentralization? Has the elder M. Le Pen attended Mass in the last year for any reason other than a funeral?
  106. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @Art Deco
    Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle

    And your evidence that Martha Pulliam and Barbara Bush are 'dumb' is precisely what?

    “Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle”

    “And your evidence that Martha Pulliam and Barbara Bush are ‘dumb’ is precisely what?”

    … their sons?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    If you're going to engage in circular reasoning, it's best not to call other people 'dumb'.

    Mr. Bush has a pair of Ivy League degrees under his belt, learned to fly fighter planes, and spent 17 years in the business world. I tend to doubt he's all that dumb, just an object for the unearned conceits of alt-right denizens. This man has an informed opinion on the subject:

    http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
  107. @Priss Factor
    “'Totally innocent', indeed."

    I meant in context of their political situation, not in spiritual or moral terms. Of course, Palestinians are everyone else. They are people, so there are robbers, rapists, murderers, cheaters, bums, liars, punks, jerks, swindlers, junkies, con-men, and etc. among them.
    And men like Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have been rather loathsome.
    People are people, and people all over the world are pretty scummy.

    BUT, what happened to Palestinians after 1948 was no fault of their own. The great powers allowed massive 'immigration'--invasion was more like it--of European Jews into Palestine. Now, why did so many Jews wanna go there? WWII and the Holocaust. Who done that? Europeans.

    And did Palestinians have any say in what was done to their homeland? No, it was imposed on them. As a result, they lost their homeland forever, a sort of prelude to what is happening to white lands in Europe. (Europeans turned a blind eye to massive Jewish influx into Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and now their own homelands are being overrun by massive influx of Africans and Muslims. You see, European folks who are now being overrun are 'totally innocent' at least in this context because they didn't want it. It's being imposed on them by the globalist elites led by Jewish oligarchs and ideologues.)

    So, Palestinians are not saints. They are flawed people like rest of humanity. But they are totally innocent victims when it comes to Nakba and occupation. They got punished the worst for the crimes of Europeans. They didn't do anything to European Jews, but European Jews took their land and put them under the sword. And America, the greatest power in the world that yammers endlessly about human rights, has been utterly complicit in the destruction of a people who never did anything wrong to Americans.

    What is truly ironic in all this is that most American Jews look upon white gentiles(in America and Russia) like they look upon Palestinians, but white gentiles go out of their way to support the Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

    I mean this is pretty ridiculous and has to stop.

    The great powers allowed massive ‘immigration’–invasion was more like it–of European Jews into Palestine.

    Actually, Britain, which was the great power governing Palestine at the time, restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, under Arab pressure.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Actually, Britain, which was the great power governing Palestine at the time, restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, under Arab pressure."

    Too little too late. Also, the rules were haphazardly enforced, like our border policy with Mexico.

    Besides, by end of WWII, it was really US and USSR that were calling the shots.
  108. @Steve Sailer
    From Wikipedia:

    "The FN springs from an extreme right-wing tradition in France that dates back to the French Revolution of 1789,[20] and the party rejects both the revolution and its legacy.[21][22] One of the primary progenitors of the party was the Action Française, founded at the end of the 19th century, and its descendants in the Restauration Nationale,[23] a pro-monarchy group that supports the claim of the Count of Paris to the French throne.[24] More recently, the party drew from the Poujadism of the 1950s, which started out as an anti-tax movement without relations to the far-right, but included among its parliamentary deputies "proto-nationalists" such as Jean-Marie Le Pen.[25]

    "Another conflict that is part of the party's background was the Algerian War (many frontistes, including Le Pen, were directly involved in the war), and the far-right dismay over the decision by French President Charles de Gaulle to abandon his promise of holding on to French Algeria.[26]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28France%29

    In reality, as opposed to Wikipedia, the FN never had anything to do with Action Française, and has always done much worse among practising Catholics than among the electorate as a whole.

  109. @Mark Minter
    Maybe it might be time for them to leave. The experiment of diversity might have backfired on them, but maybe not.

    McDonald argues that Jewish insecurity lead to creating the ethic of multiculturalism to combat a racially and religiously unified Europe and America.

    Jews have followed an evolutionary path of marginally assimilating, maintaining a clannish superiority and sense that transgressions against Gentiles don't really count. There was a famous case of an orthodox Jew that refused to break Sabbath and allow his phone to be used to phone for medical help when a non-Jew had been involved in an accident. But he would have been allowed to do so had a Jew been hurt. And Jewish scholars upheld that he was correct under Jewish doctrine. And this marginal assimilation has enraged non-Jews for centuries and is the basis for antipathy towards the sect.

    The idea of "A man on the street and a Jew in the home" actually means "assimilate just enough to not provoke the ire of the Goyim yet remain clannish and exclusionary with other Jews. Morality and consideration offered to Jews is foolish and unecessary in dealing with Gentiles."

    A Christian, ethnically European populace is a threat to Jewish security so better to promote Diversity, Multiculturalism to reduce, and even eliminate this unified environment to lessen this threat to Jewish non-assimilation. This has been the mission of Jewish academics throughout the 20th century and is the dominate dogma of our time. By crushing Christian religious dominance and cohesion, and replacing it with secular, materialist values, tolerating ever more alternative lifestyles, Jews become more "invisible", at least "less visible".

    The hope is by creating this consumerist hedonism where nothing is forbidden except intolerance then when immigrants arrive that they become co-opted into the swirling melting pot of western permissiveness, that they abandon whatever religious attitudes that are dangerous to Jews.

    And unfortunately for Jews in France, Muslims have resisted this phenomenon. To see native born children of Muslims actually revert to a more stringent faith than their more secular immigrant parents is very dangerous to Jews and is an unintended side effect of the diversity experiment.

    As the post on "The Browning of America" shows, the special protected status of Jews in Europe comes under contest when more and more immigrant groups lack the guilt of the holocaust that French whites have.

    Go muslems go !

  110. @Dave Pinsen
    OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.html#.VQuL

    OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.html#.VQuL

    Oh, the irony.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post"

    Maybe Khan can join some folks here in the hope of a dream-team with the Jews.

    I'd rather bet on Mexicans joining the GOP than Jews joining with whites.

    I say let us sick back and enjoy the spectacle of increasing numbers of non-whites vilifying and attacking Jews here and in Europe.

    And if Jews ask for help, the response should be 'Tough luck, pal. You already destroyed our power.'

    PS. Jews bitch about McCarthyism, but they use (Stephen Jay)Gouldism to hunt any dissident voice.
    , @KA
    Very sorry to hear this but not at all surprised .
    Some one can work with the military of a racist country or can have son or daughter working and still can survive and flourish in NYT like Goldberg or the Jerusalem based NYT journalists do in NYT while extolling the virtue of the same country or ignoring the immoral racial fanatic sate sponsored violence of the same country .
    They can showcase columnists as OpED contributor who openly express or have expressed racial antagonism most violently against Arab or Iranian.
    But Razib has to find a different outlet for his message that has nothing to do with wars or violence as a state or national policy .
  111. @Karl
    >> because, frankly, I can’t really tell the difference half the time between an Israeli and a Palestinian

    One is reminded of the guy from Ulaan Bator who felt that a Quebecker is basically the same as a Saskatoon-ian. Neither can speak Mongolian without an accent, and that's really the only thing that's important, correct?

    Asians also think that round-eyes are mentally retarded vis-a-vis not being interested in keeping track of (and maintaining different prices for) different cultivars of rice.

    Are you seriously going to maintain that there are significant racial differences between Jews and Arabs? That’s the point, and that’s the point under discussion hereabouts.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Are you seriously going to maintain that there are significant racial differences between Jews and Arabs? That’s the point, and that’s the point under discussion hereabouts.
     
    Between Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs there are significant differences:

    I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..
     
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/
  112. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @ben tillman

    OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.html#.VQuL
     
    Oh, the irony.

    “OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post”

    Maybe Khan can join some folks here in the hope of a dream-team with the Jews.

    I’d rather bet on Mexicans joining the GOP than Jews joining with whites.

    I say let us sick back and enjoy the spectacle of increasing numbers of non-whites vilifying and attacking Jews here and in Europe.

    And if Jews ask for help, the response should be ‘Tough luck, pal. You already destroyed our power.’

    PS. Jews bitch about McCarthyism, but they use (Stephen Jay)Gouldism to hunt any dissident voice.

  113. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The great powers allowed massive ‘immigration’–invasion was more like it–of European Jews into Palestine.
     
    Actually, Britain, which was the great power governing Palestine at the time, restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, under Arab pressure.

    “Actually, Britain, which was the great power governing Palestine at the time, restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine, under Arab pressure.”

    Too little too late. Also, the rules were haphazardly enforced, like our border policy with Mexico.

    Besides, by end of WWII, it was really US and USSR that were calling the shots.

  114. @Steve Sailer
    From Wikipedia:

    "The FN springs from an extreme right-wing tradition in France that dates back to the French Revolution of 1789,[20] and the party rejects both the revolution and its legacy.[21][22] One of the primary progenitors of the party was the Action Française, founded at the end of the 19th century, and its descendants in the Restauration Nationale,[23] a pro-monarchy group that supports the claim of the Count of Paris to the French throne.[24] More recently, the party drew from the Poujadism of the 1950s, which started out as an anti-tax movement without relations to the far-right, but included among its parliamentary deputies "proto-nationalists" such as Jean-Marie Le Pen.[25]

    "Another conflict that is part of the party's background was the Algerian War (many frontistes, including Le Pen, were directly involved in the war), and the far-right dismay over the decision by French President Charles de Gaulle to abandon his promise of holding on to French Algeria.[26]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_%28France%29

    Fictions promoted by Wikipedia editors are still fictions. Is the FN promoting a return of the monarchy? Supplementing the tricolor with the oriflamme or the fleur-de-lis on royal blue? Playing La Marche des Soldats de Robert Bruce as often as La Marsaillaise? Adding the feast of St. Joan to Bastille Day as a national holiday? Restoring the antique provinces? Comprehensive decentralization? Has the elder M. Le Pen attended Mass in the last year for any reason other than a funeral?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    What is the point you are trying to make with this post and your earlier one claiming the Algerian War was of no great importance to the FN or its voters and was a distant memory by the 1980s? Rather than ask Steve Sailer whether Jean-Marie Le Pen has gone to mass, ridden a unicycle or kissed a kagaroo, why don't you just let us know what you're hoping to prove and disprove with these posts?

    By the way, the socially conservative Catholic radio station, Radio Courtoisie happened to recently have two shows asking "is the Algerian War really over?" on the 25th of last month and "are the attacks in France in 2015 a continuation of the Algerian War?" on the 9th. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that that war still matters to them.

    http://www.radiocourtoisie.fr/?s=algerie

  115. @Priss Factor
    "Wasp elites married pretty dumb women and produced the likes of George W. Bush and Dan Quayle"

    "And your evidence that Martha Pulliam and Barbara Bush are ‘dumb’ is precisely what?"

    ... their sons?

    If you’re going to engage in circular reasoning, it’s best not to call other people ‘dumb’.

    Mr. Bush has a pair of Ivy League degrees under his belt, learned to fly fighter planes, and spent 17 years in the business world. I tend to doubt he’s all that dumb, just an object for the unearned conceits of alt-right denizens. This man has an informed opinion on the subject:

    http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    That's laughable.

    He got into the Ivy League partly through legacy connections.

    As for his "business world" experience, he's never been in a managerial or decision making role. He was kept as a PR Front man in most of his businesses. During the 1990s, he got onto the board of a private equity firm. Some of the PE partners were so shocked by W's lack of maturity and work ethic that they suggested he leave.

    W is nothing more than the idiot son of a wealthy and influential man.

    To be fair, HW Bush is a competent man. Even in his 90s, he's still advising on private equity transactions and building political alliances. HW Bush's other children are also not particularly incompetent. So I think W's lack of competence is probably not genetic in origin. My guess would be that his alcoholism and cocaine/drug use have impaired his neurological facilities. Anyone who's dealt with ex-addicts knows that the mental damage is never completely undone.

    W most likely was just a puppet president. The real power in the administration was in the hands of Dick Cheney, the Israeli/neoconservative intelligentsia and oligarchs, the Goldman Sachs crowd (Paulson, etc.), and the CIA/FBI/military. W was nothing more than a front man. Anyone who's listened to the man speak or debate can't help but be shocked at his shortcomings. No way was that man in any type of decision making role.

    Of course, Barack Obama isn't much better. The men pulling his strings are his Jewish advisers (Axelrod, Plouffe, Rahm Emmanuel), the CIA/FBI/military Deep State, Wall Street (Summers, Geithner), and a few Democratic-aligned oligarchs. Obama is a much better speaker than W and somewhat more intelligent, but I really doubt he's running his administration.

    There's evidence to suggest the Obama and his parents might've worked for the CIA in the past. If we assume this to be true, then maybe Obama's rise was engineered by the Deep State. That could explain how a relatively undistinguished state senator quickly rose from obscurity to become the Illinois Senator and the the Democratic presidential front runner. Maybe the Deep State connected him with financiers and talented political organizers, while also manipulating news coverage and party bosses.

    Eisenhower warned about the growing influence of the Deep State "military-industrial complex" during the end of his presidency. After JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy of various Deep State figures (Ruby, Oswald, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, E Howard Hunt, David Morales, Cord Meyer) and later RFK, Deep State took control of the presidency. LBJ was obviously a CIA collaborator in the JFK assassination, Nixon was involved in the assassination too, and Gerald Ford helped with the Warren Commission cover up. Bill Clinton helped with the CIA cocaine trafficking through Mena, Arkansas, when Clinton was governor of the state. W's father was former CIA director. Our government was pretty much been run by Deep State collaborators since JFK's assassination.
  116. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    “Mr. Bush has a pair of Ivy League degrees under his belt, learned to fly fighter planes, and spent 17 years in the business world. I tend to doubt he’s all that dumb, just an object for the unearned conceits of alt-right denizens. This man has an informed opinion on the subject”

    ROTFL.

    C student at Yale. Got in through legacy.

    Moron McCain learned to fly fighter planes.

    17 yrs in business world with all the connections thanks to pa.

    Dumbya would have been like the guy in KING OF THE HILL had his pa not been Sr. Bush(who did have some brains).

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Here's Steve's estimate on George W Bush's IQ:

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system]) while Kerry scored around the equivalent of a 120 IQ. Both IQs are adequate to be President, but not hugely impressive.
     
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-article-on-john-f-kerrys-iq.html

    Bush's problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the "smart fraction" ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) who make up his peer group.Couple that with his intellectual laziness.....
    , @syonredux
    Here's another interesting piece from Steve on presidential IQ:

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.

    Inspired by this rule of thumb, historian Chapin offered a novel theory for why the first six Presidents were so smart on average, while the braininess of Presidents from Andrew Jackson through William McKinley tended to be unimpressive, and then 20th Century presidents rebounded to be generally fairly bright.

    He suggests that the IQ gap between the average President and the average voter has stayed roughly the same, but the voters have changed in average intelligence level. Up through 1824, the electorate was quite smart because only elite property owners could vote. Then, politics became a kind of national spectator sport with huge turnouts, so the IQ of voters fell to the mean. Therefore, we stopped electing geniuses like Jefferson and Madison and started electing nondescript politicos like Franklin Pierce and Rutherford B. Hayes.

    Then, a century ago, other forms of mass entertainment came along. Turnout dropped, especially among the dimmer elements. This allowed clever men like Nixon, Carter, Bush the Elder (Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, graduating in 2.5 years), and Clinton to win elections.
     
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/does-iq-matter-in-a-president


    "Inspired by this rule of thumb, historian Chapin offered a novel theory for why the first six Presidents were so smart on average": Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and JQ Adams. Of this group, Washington and Monroe were the dullest (relatively speaking).
    , @Art Deco
    I take it you find prejudice and random assertion more probative regarding someone's intellect. I just have to keep hitting myself on the side of the head to remember how smart you are.
  117. Too little too late.

    To prevent all of them from getting killed in Europe? Yes. But Wikipedia says only 110k Jews made it to Palestine illegally after 1933.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "To prevent all of them from getting killed in Europe? Yes. But Wikipedia says only 110k Jews made it to Palestine illegally after 1933."

    That was enough, and besides they had powerful brethren in US and USSR to push for partition of Palestine whereby the Jewish minority would end up with 50% of the land!!

    But then, again, why tie Palestine with the Holocaust? If the world really cared for Jews, there were plenty of space in Canada, US, Australia, and tons of other places that could have taken in Jews.

    And if Jews really needed a homeland after WWII, why didn't Anglos and Anglo-Americans, who profess to CARE SO MUCH, offer Jews a small piece of Canada, US, or Australia? Even now, there's tons of empty space in US, Canada, and Australia. They(with huge land holdings) offered nothing of their own but demanded that Palestinians(who had no hand in WWII) give up their land?

    Also, if Jews feared another Holocaust and needed a safe homeland, what the hell were they doing demanding that their homeland be smack dab middle in crazy Muslim-ville?

    "Never let a crisis go to waste."

    Long before WWII and Holocaust, most Zionists really wanted the Holyland as their homeland, and for understandable reasons. It is holy to Jews due to history and religion. Even for secular Jews, Palestine/Israel has great cultural significance. But they failed to come up with compelling enough reason to make the West fully complicit in turning Palestine into Israel.
    The fall of the Ottoman Empire was step one, especially as Brits took over that area, and powerful Jews in Britain had connections with politicians and diplomats. But as Brits were interested in forming good relations with Arabs, their main priority was not the creation of some Jewish state.
    Then came the great disaster of WWII.
    Jews used WWII and the Holocaust as a moral excuse for taking Palestine.
    But it really makes no sense because Palestinians had NOTHING to do with WWII and the Holocaust. Not even with communism that turned so many Europeans against Jews.

    So, again, why did Palestinians have to pay the price?

    Of course, purely from a cultural viewpoint, one could argue that the Holy Land should belong to Jews because both Christianity and Islam grew out of Judaism. So, as a gesture of appreciation of Jewish contribution to history and religion, why not? But if the world is gonna do this, it has to offer some major compensation for Palestinians, but none has been offered.
    (Also, if Jews were gonna ethnically cleanse Palestinians in 1948, why didn't they drive them all out under the cover of war? Then the problem would have been solved for good. I figure if you're gonna do it, do it right. But Jews let a whole bunch of Palestinians remain in Israel, and they've been demographically paranoid ever since. What's wrong with these people? I thought they are supposed to be smart.)

    Anyway, the Holocaust rationale for Israel makes no sense.

    Only the religious/historical/cultural rationale is justifiable to some degree(though it was denied to Serbs in Kosovo, ironically at the behest of Jews in US government). And Jews know this. So, why won't they admit it?
    Because if Israel is justified on grounds of 'blood and soil', then white gentile nations can invoke the same thing to argue that, just as Jews deserve Israel cuz of ancient blood-and-soil ties, every white European nation should be ruled according to the rule of blood and soil. We know Jews are very allergic to white gentiles invoking blood-and-soil in their own homelands(though Jews can be flexible, as in Ukraine, when blood-and-soil rage of a people is useful in making trouble for nations Jews don't like. Jews supported blood-and-soil for Kurds in Iraq too.)

    And so, the bogus narrative continues that Jews needed Israel cuz of the Holocaust.
    This way, Jewish blood-and-soil is masked with 'progressive' victimology and 'white guilt'.
  118. @Jack D
    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert - they just executed them. So compared to 20th century European standards, the Almohads were quite civilized 800 years before.

    Just as we see today with Isis in Iraq, there is a historic pattern in the Muslim world. Harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the city and crack down on anything that is not by the book. Their kids and grandkids start to enjoy the city life and get soft. Then the next group of harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the grandchildren of the old desert warriors. Rinse and repeat. The Almohads were the ISIS of their day.

    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert – they just executed them.

    Well, as I never tire of pointing out, exterminating European Jewry was the smallest of the crimes that the Nazis intended to commit:

    The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    So compared to 20th century European standards, the Almohads were quite civilized 800 years before.

    On the other hand, what the the Almohads did is quite akin to what the Spaniards did in the 15th and 16th centuries….Yet it just doesn’t seem to come up very often

    • Replies: @fnn

    Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps.
     
    It's from IHR, but they quote mainstream sources:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

    As Teplyakov also explains here, Red Army "liberation" of the surviving Soviet prisoners in German camps brought no end to the suffering of these hapless men. It wasn't until recently, when long-suppressed Soviet wartime records began to come to light and long-silenced voices could at last speak out, that the full story of Stalin's treatment of Soviet prisoners became known. It wasn't until 1989, for example, that Stalin's grim Order No. 270 of August 16, 1941 -- cited below -- was first published.
     
  119. @jtgw
    That's a very interesting question: I've never heard of crypto-Islam among the Marranos, but you might expect something along those lines. But in any case, I didn't say the Inquisition was only interested in Jews, but that they WERE interested in Jews, or more precisely crypto-Jews, among other groups. This was in response to a particularly stupid assertion that the Inquisition played no role in the persecution of the Jews. Yes, the Jews were technically Christian, and the reason they were nominally Christian was because they were ordered to convert, leave the country or die. Hmmm, yeah Spain was just a Jewish paradise back then. What are those Heebies complaining about? It's dumb even by the sorry standards of iSteve's neo-Nazi fanboys.

    That’s a very interesting question: I’ve never heard of crypto-Islam among the Marranos,

    Here is some info on it.

    Moriscos (Spanish: [moˈɾiskos], Catalan: [muˈɾiskus], [moˈɾiskos]; Portuguese: mouriscos [mo(w)ˈɾiʃkuʃ], [mo(w)ˈɾiskus]; meaning “Moorish”) were former Muslims who were forced to convert to Christianity rather than face death or expulsion from Spain.

    Over time, the term was used in a pejorative sense, applied to those nominal Catholics who were suspected of secretly practicing Islam. The Moriscos were eventually expelled from Spain between 1609 (Valencia) and 1614 (Castile). The last mass prosecution against Moriscos for crypto-Islamic practives occurred in Granada in 1727, with most of those convicted receiving relatively light sentences. From then on, indigenous Islam is considered to have been extinguished in Spain.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Moriscos (Spanish: [moˈɾiskos], Catalan: [muˈɾiskus], [moˈɾiskos]; Portuguese: mouriscos [mo(w)ˈɾiʃkuʃ], [mo(w)ˈɾiskus]; meaning “Moorish”) were former Muslims who were forced to convert to Christianity rather than face death or expulsion from Spain
     
    That's self-contradictory. They could not have been "forced" to convert if there were alternatives permitted to them. An accurate assessment is that they were "allowed" to convert.
  120. @Art Deco
    Fictions promoted by Wikipedia editors are still fictions. Is the FN promoting a return of the monarchy? Supplementing the tricolor with the oriflamme or the fleur-de-lis on royal blue? Playing La Marche des Soldats de Robert Bruce as often as La Marsaillaise? Adding the feast of St. Joan to Bastille Day as a national holiday? Restoring the antique provinces? Comprehensive decentralization? Has the elder M. Le Pen attended Mass in the last year for any reason other than a funeral?

    What is the point you are trying to make with this post and your earlier one claiming the Algerian War was of no great importance to the FN or its voters and was a distant memory by the 1980s? Rather than ask Steve Sailer whether Jean-Marie Le Pen has gone to mass, ridden a unicycle or kissed a kagaroo, why don’t you just let us know what you’re hoping to prove and disprove with these posts?

    By the way, the socially conservative Catholic radio station, Radio Courtoisie happened to recently have two shows asking “is the Algerian War really over?” on the 25th of last month and “are the attacks in France in 2015 a continuation of the Algerian War?” on the 9th. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that that war still matters to them.

    http://www.radiocourtoisie.fr/?s=algerie

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I thought it was perfectly obvious, but I'll repeat. FN is not a derivative of 19th century Legitimism or even alienated elements of the latter 3d Republic like Croix-de-feu. It's an inchoate populist movement responding to current conditions, as was the Poujadiste movement ca. 1955 (with which Le Pen was associated).

    With regard to the Algerian War, there was no schism of any duration. De Gaulle's conflicts were with the OAS, pieds noir militias led by Lagaillarde and Ortiz, and with figures such as Jacques Soustelle. They never generated an electoral mass in domestic French politics and their influence did not survive their defeat. The French right after 1958 had a Gaullist formation, a technocratic formation, and local grandees. Strands represented by 19th century royalists, by the old Nationalist formations, or by Croix-de-feu, or by fascist flunkies like Doriot and Peucheu were long gone. Pierre Poujade's movement proved evanescent.
  121. @Priss Factor
    "Mr. Bush has a pair of Ivy League degrees under his belt, learned to fly fighter planes, and spent 17 years in the business world. I tend to doubt he’s all that dumb, just an object for the unearned conceits of alt-right denizens. This man has an informed opinion on the subject"

    ROTFL.

    C student at Yale. Got in through legacy.

    Moron McCain learned to fly fighter planes.

    17 yrs in business world with all the connections thanks to pa.

    Dumbya would have been like the guy in KING OF THE HILL had his pa not been Sr. Bush(who did have some brains).

    Here’s Steve’s estimate on George W Bush’s IQ:

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system]) while Kerry scored around the equivalent of a 120 IQ. Both IQs are adequate to be President, but not hugely impressive.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-article-on-john-f-kerrys-iq.html

    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction” ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) who make up his peer group.Couple that with his intellectual laziness…..

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”"

    I don't know. Did you see him talk?

    Beavis and Butthead are more articulate than him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGf0gl-rc0
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I don't know that Bush was intellectually lazy. I recall reading that he read a lot of books while in the White House. But he did cultivate an anti-intellectual persona. On the other hand, a friend of a friend who was (and presumably still is) a CIA analyst and briefed Bush on occasion was unimpressed with Bush. But he was also a Democrat, so, that may have colored his impressions.
    , @Art Deco
    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”
    --

    I think that puts him around the 94th percentile of the general population. I imagine the amour-propre of most of the participants on this board includes the fancy that that's beneath them.

    ==

    Our most intellectually inclined presidents in the last century have been Wilson, Hoover, and Nixon, in about that order. Not too edifying. Hoover was also an exceedingly accomplished man in private life and in public administration. Trouble was, no one's judgment is flawless and, strange as it may seem to the Stevoshpere, intelligence is not the only valuable property a person has.
    , @Ron Unz

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system])
     
    This is *exactly* the reason I'm so extremely skeptical of that published claim that Richard Feynman (a notorious jokester) once said his IQ had been tested at 125.

    In my considered opinion, there's no one in the second half of the twentieth century who had a stronger claim to being the smartest human being in the world than Richard Feynman. And we're supposed to believe he actually had exactly the same tested IQ as George W. Bush??!!

    As everyone knows, I'm quite skeptical of the more rigid claims advanced by dogmatic IQists. But c'mon. If honest-to-goodness IQ tests actually gave the same score to "W" and Feynman, that single datapoint would be sufficient to totally discredit the very notion of IQ. It's lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman...
  122. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Too little too late.
     
    To prevent all of them from getting killed in Europe? Yes. But Wikipedia says only 110k Jews made it to Palestine illegally after 1933.

    “To prevent all of them from getting killed in Europe? Yes. But Wikipedia says only 110k Jews made it to Palestine illegally after 1933.”

    That was enough, and besides they had powerful brethren in US and USSR to push for partition of Palestine whereby the Jewish minority would end up with 50% of the land!!

    But then, again, why tie Palestine with the Holocaust? If the world really cared for Jews, there were plenty of space in Canada, US, Australia, and tons of other places that could have taken in Jews.

    And if Jews really needed a homeland after WWII, why didn’t Anglos and Anglo-Americans, who profess to CARE SO MUCH, offer Jews a small piece of Canada, US, or Australia? Even now, there’s tons of empty space in US, Canada, and Australia. They(with huge land holdings) offered nothing of their own but demanded that Palestinians(who had no hand in WWII) give up their land?

    Also, if Jews feared another Holocaust and needed a safe homeland, what the hell were they doing demanding that their homeland be smack dab middle in crazy Muslim-ville?

    “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

    Long before WWII and Holocaust, most Zionists really wanted the Holyland as their homeland, and for understandable reasons. It is holy to Jews due to history and religion. Even for secular Jews, Palestine/Israel has great cultural significance. But they failed to come up with compelling enough reason to make the West fully complicit in turning Palestine into Israel.
    The fall of the Ottoman Empire was step one, especially as Brits took over that area, and powerful Jews in Britain had connections with politicians and diplomats. But as Brits were interested in forming good relations with Arabs, their main priority was not the creation of some Jewish state.
    Then came the great disaster of WWII.
    Jews used WWII and the Holocaust as a moral excuse for taking Palestine.
    But it really makes no sense because Palestinians had NOTHING to do with WWII and the Holocaust. Not even with communism that turned so many Europeans against Jews.

    So, again, why did Palestinians have to pay the price?

    Of course, purely from a cultural viewpoint, one could argue that the Holy Land should belong to Jews because both Christianity and Islam grew out of Judaism. So, as a gesture of appreciation of Jewish contribution to history and religion, why not? But if the world is gonna do this, it has to offer some major compensation for Palestinians, but none has been offered.
    (Also, if Jews were gonna ethnically cleanse Palestinians in 1948, why didn’t they drive them all out under the cover of war? Then the problem would have been solved for good. I figure if you’re gonna do it, do it right. But Jews let a whole bunch of Palestinians remain in Israel, and they’ve been demographically paranoid ever since. What’s wrong with these people? I thought they are supposed to be smart.)

    Anyway, the Holocaust rationale for Israel makes no sense.

    Only the religious/historical/cultural rationale is justifiable to some degree(though it was denied to Serbs in Kosovo, ironically at the behest of Jews in US government). And Jews know this. So, why won’t they admit it?
    Because if Israel is justified on grounds of ‘blood and soil’, then white gentile nations can invoke the same thing to argue that, just as Jews deserve Israel cuz of ancient blood-and-soil ties, every white European nation should be ruled according to the rule of blood and soil. We know Jews are very allergic to white gentiles invoking blood-and-soil in their own homelands(though Jews can be flexible, as in Ukraine, when blood-and-soil rage of a people is useful in making trouble for nations Jews don’t like. Jews supported blood-and-soil for Kurds in Iraq too.)

    And so, the bogus narrative continues that Jews needed Israel cuz of the Holocaust.
    This way, Jewish blood-and-soil is masked with ‘progressive’ victimology and ‘white guilt’.

  123. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:
    @syonredux
    Here's Steve's estimate on George W Bush's IQ:

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system]) while Kerry scored around the equivalent of a 120 IQ. Both IQs are adequate to be President, but not hugely impressive.
     
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-article-on-john-f-kerrys-iq.html

    Bush's problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the "smart fraction" ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) who make up his peer group.Couple that with his intellectual laziness.....

    “Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction””

    I don’t know. Did you see him talk?

    Beavis and Butthead are more articulate than him.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction””

    I don’t know. Did you see him talk?
     
    Oh, he's very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush's case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)
    , @Difference Maker
    He was markedly more articulate in old videos
  124. @syonredux
    Here's Steve's estimate on George W Bush's IQ:

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system]) while Kerry scored around the equivalent of a 120 IQ. Both IQs are adequate to be President, but not hugely impressive.
     
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-article-on-john-f-kerrys-iq.html

    Bush's problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the "smart fraction" ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) who make up his peer group.Couple that with his intellectual laziness.....

    I don’t know that Bush was intellectually lazy. I recall reading that he read a lot of books while in the White House. But he did cultivate an anti-intellectual persona. On the other hand, a friend of a friend who was (and presumably still is) a CIA analyst and briefed Bush on occasion was unimpressed with Bush. But he was also a Democrat, so, that may have colored his impressions.

    • Replies: @Numenor
    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:

    a) He raised taxes
    b) He failed to finish off Saddam
    c) He quarrelled with Israel
    d) He was seen as an out-of-touch 'intellectual'

    What lessons do you think Bush Jr. learned from all this?
  125. @Priss Factor
    "Mr. Bush has a pair of Ivy League degrees under his belt, learned to fly fighter planes, and spent 17 years in the business world. I tend to doubt he’s all that dumb, just an object for the unearned conceits of alt-right denizens. This man has an informed opinion on the subject"

    ROTFL.

    C student at Yale. Got in through legacy.

    Moron McCain learned to fly fighter planes.

    17 yrs in business world with all the connections thanks to pa.

    Dumbya would have been like the guy in KING OF THE HILL had his pa not been Sr. Bush(who did have some brains).

    Here’s another interesting piece from Steve on presidential IQ:

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.

    Inspired by this rule of thumb, historian Chapin offered a novel theory for why the first six Presidents were so smart on average, while the braininess of Presidents from Andrew Jackson through William McKinley tended to be unimpressive, and then 20th Century presidents rebounded to be generally fairly bright.

    He suggests that the IQ gap between the average President and the average voter has stayed roughly the same, but the voters have changed in average intelligence level. Up through 1824, the electorate was quite smart because only elite property owners could vote. Then, politics became a kind of national spectator sport with huge turnouts, so the IQ of voters fell to the mean. Therefore, we stopped electing geniuses like Jefferson and Madison and started electing nondescript politicos like Franklin Pierce and Rutherford B. Hayes.

    Then, a century ago, other forms of mass entertainment came along. Turnout dropped, especially among the dimmer elements. This allowed clever men like Nixon, Carter, Bush the Elder (Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, graduating in 2.5 years), and Clinton to win elections.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/does-iq-matter-in-a-president

    “Inspired by this rule of thumb, historian Chapin offered a novel theory for why the first six Presidents were so smart on average”: Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and JQ Adams. Of this group, Washington and Monroe were the dullest (relatively speaking).

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    I suspect that most of those nineteenth-century presidents were actually pretty smart. They were mostly college graduates at a time when that was unusual. James Garfield could write in Latin and Greek at the same time (he was also ambidextrous) and also created a new proof of the Pythagorean theorem! Andrew Johnson is the only president I would say had a fair chance to actually be unintelligent.
  126. @Priss Factor
    "Mr. Bush has a pair of Ivy League degrees under his belt, learned to fly fighter planes, and spent 17 years in the business world. I tend to doubt he’s all that dumb, just an object for the unearned conceits of alt-right denizens. This man has an informed opinion on the subject"

    ROTFL.

    C student at Yale. Got in through legacy.

    Moron McCain learned to fly fighter planes.

    17 yrs in business world with all the connections thanks to pa.

    Dumbya would have been like the guy in KING OF THE HILL had his pa not been Sr. Bush(who did have some brains).

    I take it you find prejudice and random assertion more probative regarding someone’s intellect. I just have to keep hitting myself on the side of the head to remember how smart you are.

    • Replies: @Udolpho
    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen's blog), why do you continue to clutter Sailer's blog with your frequently bizarre and always uninteresting comments?
  127. @Priss Factor
    "Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”"

    I don't know. Did you see him talk?

    Beavis and Butthead are more articulate than him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGf0gl-rc0

    “Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction””

    I don’t know. Did you see him talk?

    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush’s case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)

    • Replies: @LC
    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush’s case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)

    I agree intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate well with articulateness, but that doesn't apply to Bush. His speech issues most likely has a lot to do with his prior alcohol and drug use catching up to him. Check out this video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo
  128. Given the debacles associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, persistent attempts to place George W. Bush in the ranks of the intellectually gifted is a pretty good way to nullify the value of both IQ and HBD in the public sphere.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    If anything, the calamity in Iraq ought to burnish the perception of HBD, since Steve pointed out, in 2003, an HBD reason for why nation building would be so difficult in Iraq.

    George W. Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Krystal, et.al. didn't grok that, not because their IQs were too low, but because HBD was outside the Overton window. They assumed Iraq was full of Ahmed Chalabis and Foad Ajamis ready to flourish once out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.
    , @David R. Merridale
    Given the debacles associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, persistent attempts to place George W. Bush in the ranks of the intellectually gifted is a pretty good way to nullify the value of both IQ and HBD in the public sphere.

    Even if Bush were thick as plank, the people who talked him into those wars were rather intelligent, neocon clever sillies.
  129. @syonredux
    Here's Steve's estimate on George W Bush's IQ:

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system]) while Kerry scored around the equivalent of a 120 IQ. Both IQs are adequate to be President, but not hugely impressive.
     
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-article-on-john-f-kerrys-iq.html

    Bush's problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the "smart fraction" ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) who make up his peer group.Couple that with his intellectual laziness.....

    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”

    I think that puts him around the 94th percentile of the general population. I imagine the amour-propre of most of the participants on this board includes the fancy that that’s beneath them.

    ==

    Our most intellectually inclined presidents in the last century have been Wilson, Hoover, and Nixon, in about that order. Not too edifying. Hoover was also an exceedingly accomplished man in private life and in public administration. Trouble was, no one’s judgment is flawless and, strange as it may seem to the Stevoshpere, intelligence is not the only valuable property a person has.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”


    I think that puts him around the 94th percentile of the general population. I imagine the amour-propre of most of the participants on this board includes the fancy that that’s beneath them.
     
    I would guess that 125 is about the mean for readers of Steve's blog.That's one of the reasons why GW Bush doesn't strike us as particularly smart.To us, he's just an average guy.

    Our most intellectually inclined presidents in the last century have been Wilson, Hoover, and Nixon, in about that order.
     
    Theodore Roosevelt should be added to that list.

    Not too edifying.
     
    TR strikes me as a very successful president.Of course, you neglected to mention him....

    Hoover was also an exceedingly accomplished man in private life and in public administration. Trouble was, no one’s judgment is flawless and, strange as it may seem to the Stevoshpere, intelligence is not the only valuable property a person has.
     
    I don't know.It seems to me that the "Stevosphere" is quite cognizant that IQ alone is not enough to make a great leader.Steve is certainly aware that it is not enough:

    Gregory Cochran, a rocket scientist turned evolutionary biologist, summed up the challenge facing voters. "What really matters in a leader is not being smart, but being right. Who was smarter? Warren G. Harding or V.I. Lenin? I`m sure Lenin could have beaten Harding in chess, but I definitely would rather have lived under Harding than Lenin. Harding was kind of a dumb bunny, but his prejudices and instincts were much more reasonable than Lenin`s, who was wrong about everything."
     
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/does-iq-matter-in-a-president

    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.

    No, not particularly.
     
    By the standards of Ivy League grads that I have known, he is inarticulate.Of course, some of it might be a put-on.

    He is merely not loquacious.
     
    No, he strikes me as quite talkative; he's simply not very good at expressing himself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vnzjsnpM5U

    (And, as a speaker, he improves on his father, who was painful to listen to).
     
    A frightfully low standard.

    A while back, Thomas Sowell noted that it’s common among a certain sort of bourgeois to confuse intelligence and expertise
     
    Well, it does take a certain level of intelligence to acquire certain kinds of expertise.If a man has a PHD in physics, I think that it is reasonable to assume that his IQ is over 100...

    and then to confuse articulateness with intelligence.
     
    That's quite true. I've had a fair number of professors who were quite clumsy when it came to public speaking.
  130. I don’t know. Did you see him talk? Oh, he’s very inarticulate.

    No, not particularly. He is merely not loquacious. (And, as a speaker, he improves on his father, who was painful to listen to).

    A while back, Thomas Sowell noted that it’s common among a certain sort of bourgeois to confuse intelligence and expertise and then to confuse articulateness with intelligence. Applies to the alt-right as well.

  131. @Art Deco
    They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation.

    --

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    1. There is no 'invade-the-world' party;

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft's political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft’s political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.

    I think the neocons definitely prodded the GOP to become more engaged in foreign events after the end of the Vietnam War, and were worried about a possible return to Senator Taft-type non-intervention. Here is a quote from Norman Podhoretz in 1979 addressing this concern:

    There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.

    I don’t know the precise number of Taft followers during the late 70s, early 80s, but if Podhoretz was worried about a return to the non-interventionist mood of the interwar years, there must have been more than five of them.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There were no Taft followers in Congress in 1979 or 1989 bar, perhaps, Ron Paul. Norman Podhoretz was a lapsed literary critic familiar with Manhattan and Long Island salons. He's not going to matter more than the people who had and did make policy. The Republican Party developed the culture it had on foreign policy questions during the period running from 1941 to 1959. New York literary intellectuals did not have squat to do with that, though they may have in later years published the work of some people who did. Podhoretz son-in-law was a 2d echelon official of the State department for a number of years, but Elliot Abrams was only one person in the Reagan brain trust. George Schultz and Caspar Weinberger came out of the corporate world and business school faculties; Alexander Haig, Robert MacFarlane, John Poindexter, and Oliver North were career military; Kenneth Adelman was Jewish, but he was a protégé of Donald Rumsfeld, not an associate of Podhoretz or Irving Kristol.
    , @KA
    Thanks for the quote . Father of current Krystol that is out there supporting letter writing effort with millions ( against Iran) of dollars also worried of the disengagement from militaristic foreign policy.
  132. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factor"] says:

    “Oh, he’s very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush’s case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)”

    I understand that. Allan Bloom, who was surely a very smart guy, wasn’t the most articulate man in the world. Neither was Norman Mailer.

    But at the very least, we could tell they were thinking through stuff.

    In the case of Dubya, I never got any sense that there was any kind of mental activity taking place inside his head.

    And what the hell was that stuff about the lowest point of his presidency being when Kanye West said Bush don’t like black people?

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    In the case of Dubya, I never got any sense that there was any kind of mental activity taking place inside his head.

     

    He was quite a bit more articulate among friends or smaller groups. Once he started worrying about what people would think of something he said, he was lost. Common enough failing, bad in a president, or really any kind of leader. The Left pushed the "cocky" thing to exacerbate his self-confidence issues.

    "And what the hell was that stuff about the lowest point of his presidency being when Kanye West said Bush don’t like black people?"

    Laura was always very concerned about appearances. Typical UMC wife of her generation in that respect - it's why "racism" is kryptonite for Republicans - they get an earful from their wives.
  133. @Cagey Beast
    What is the point you are trying to make with this post and your earlier one claiming the Algerian War was of no great importance to the FN or its voters and was a distant memory by the 1980s? Rather than ask Steve Sailer whether Jean-Marie Le Pen has gone to mass, ridden a unicycle or kissed a kagaroo, why don't you just let us know what you're hoping to prove and disprove with these posts?

    By the way, the socially conservative Catholic radio station, Radio Courtoisie happened to recently have two shows asking "is the Algerian War really over?" on the 25th of last month and "are the attacks in France in 2015 a continuation of the Algerian War?" on the 9th. They seem to be under the mistaken impression that that war still matters to them.

    http://www.radiocourtoisie.fr/?s=algerie

    I thought it was perfectly obvious, but I’ll repeat. FN is not a derivative of 19th century Legitimism or even alienated elements of the latter 3d Republic like Croix-de-feu. It’s an inchoate populist movement responding to current conditions, as was the Poujadiste movement ca. 1955 (with which Le Pen was associated).

    With regard to the Algerian War, there was no schism of any duration. De Gaulle’s conflicts were with the OAS, pieds noir militias led by Lagaillarde and Ortiz, and with figures such as Jacques Soustelle. They never generated an electoral mass in domestic French politics and their influence did not survive their defeat. The French right after 1958 had a Gaullist formation, a technocratic formation, and local grandees. Strands represented by 19th century royalists, by the old Nationalist formations, or by Croix-de-feu, or by fascist flunkies like Doriot and Peucheu were long gone. Pierre Poujade’s movement proved evanescent.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I don't agree. I follow about a half dozen French political websites and podcasts on a regular basis and find the schism caused by the Algerian War is still quite alive in FN debates. Recently there was an open argument caused by Florian Philippot, a senior FN official laying flowers on the grave of Gen. de Gaulle despite the party's strong base of support amongst pieds noirs.

    This topic came up only because the original article in The Atlantic made the tired claim that the FN is the party of Vichy regime nostalgics, which is just not the case. I've read lots of far-right websites from there and the Vichy fans complain about the FN having lost its way long ago, or having never been any good to them from the start. As for FN supporters, I've read angry readers' comments at right-wing sites when they posted a video documentary sympathetic to the Vichy regime's militia. Lots of comments along the lines of: "why are you celebrating this trash?" or "these were the guys who shot my great-uncle, **** them" etc. They have some respect for the French volunteers who fought on the Eastern Front but that's as far as it goes.

  134. @syonredux

    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert – they just executed them.
     
    Well, as I never tire of pointing out, exterminating European Jewry was the smallest of the crimes that the Nazis intended to commit:

    The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union. Had things gone the way that Hitler, Himmler, and Göring expected, German forces would have implemented a Hunger Plan in the Soviet Union in the winter of 1941–1942. As Ukrainian and south Russian agricultural products were diverted to Germany, some 30 million people in Belarus, northern Russia, and Soviet cities were to be starved to death. The Hunger Plan was only a prelude to Generalplan Ost, the colonization plan for the western Soviet Union, which foresaw the elimination of some 50 million people.

    The Germans did manage to carry out policies that bore some resemblance to these plans. They expelled half a million non-Jewish Poles from lands annexed to the Reich. An impatient Himmler ordered a first stage of Generalplan Ost implemented in eastern Poland: ten thousand Polish children were killed and a hundred thousand adults expelled. The Wehrmacht purposefully starved about one million people in the siege of Leningrad, and about a hundred thousand more in planned famines in Ukrainian cities. Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps. These people were purposefully killed: as with the siege of Leningrad, the knowledge and intention to starve people to death was present. Had the Holocaust not taken place, this would be recalled as the worst war crime in modern history.

     

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jul/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

    So compared to 20th century European standards, the Almohads were quite civilized 800 years before.
     
    On the other hand, what the the Almohads did is quite akin to what the Spaniards did in the 15th and 16th centuries....Yet it just doesn't seem to come up very often

    Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps.

    It’s from IHR, but they quote mainstream sources:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    “When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin’s own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot].”

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    “Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: ‘There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans’.”

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

    As Teplyakov also explains here, Red Army “liberation” of the surviving Soviet prisoners in German camps brought no end to the suffering of these hapless men. It wasn’t until recently, when long-suppressed Soviet wartime records began to come to light and long-silenced voices could at last speak out, that the full story of Stalin’s treatment of Soviet prisoners became known. It wasn’t until 1989, for example, that Stalin’s grim Order No. 270 of August 16, 1941 — cited below — was first published.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Hitler wanted the German Sixth Army to fight to the death at Stalingrad. Read Beevor's Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege.
    , @syonredux
    Yeah, various people have tried to blame Stalin for the three million or so Soviet POWs who died under German care in the Winter of '41-Spring of '42 period.It doesn't work.A conscious decision was made to kill those men.

    To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes.
     
    Perhaps not the best example of Nazi magnanimity.Figures for the dead in the (1944) Warsaw Uprising:

    Warsaw, Poland (urban uprising: 1 Aug.-2 Oct. 1944): 200 000 [make link]
    Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 200,000 Poles, mostly civilians
    Spartacus: 18,000 insurgents + 150,000 civilians k. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWwarsawU.htm]
    Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 225,000 "in the largest single atrocity of the war."
    John Erickson, Hitler Versus Stalin ("lost", implied to be KIA)
    Polish Home Army: 15,000
    Germans: 17,000
    Civilians: 200,000-250,000 k., incl. 40,000 shot in 5 days
     
    http://necrometrics.com/battles.htm#Warsaw44
  135. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Art Deco
    They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation.

    --

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    1. There is no 'invade-the-world' party;

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft's political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.

    Yep, and with respect to “invade the world,” Pat Buchanan has never explained or atoned for his rabid support of Vietnam….isn’t Vietnam part of the world? My my things have changed. Jews were very unpopular in one part of the conservative world for their less than hot support of invading that part of the world. I remember many times the charge of disloyalty being hurled.

    ….meanwhile in the current real world, via Razib’s twitter feed, I learned that a pro football player who looks a bit non-white is now a published mathematician: John Urschel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urschel

    http://deadspin.com/ravens-lineman-john-urschel-loves-math-more-than-you-lo-1692687404

    Look at all the head-trauma related tweets. The message is truly getting out. Football is bad for the brain.

    He is Canadian-born, which satisifies one Major Sailer Criterion. But not for the usual reasons.

  136. @SPMoore8
    Are you seriously going to maintain that there are significant racial differences between Jews and Arabs? That's the point, and that's the point under discussion hereabouts.

    Are you seriously going to maintain that there are significant racial differences between Jews and Arabs? That’s the point, and that’s the point under discussion hereabouts.

    Between Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs there are significant differences:

    I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Aren't Arabs Caucasian?
    , @SPMoore8
    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. [...] From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French.

    That's good; that explains the dialog at the end of Frank Zappa's "Dancing Fool." Except:

    #1 - If Ashkenazim are only 45% Arab, then why are they entitled to 100% of the Holy Land?
    Why didn't they make Sicily the Jewish homeland?

    #2 - I keep hearing that the majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahim, not Ashkenazim. Are they, too, seriously different from their Arab brethren? (Aside from my obvious point about often being unable to tell a Jew from a Palestinian without a scorecard.) And what about Sephardim?

    #3 - Given the history of Arabs along the Mediterranean -- including such as Zappa's own family -- how exactly does one disentangle Mediterranean peoples from Arabs, anyway?
  137. @syonredux
    Here's another interesting piece from Steve on presidential IQ:

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.

    Inspired by this rule of thumb, historian Chapin offered a novel theory for why the first six Presidents were so smart on average, while the braininess of Presidents from Andrew Jackson through William McKinley tended to be unimpressive, and then 20th Century presidents rebounded to be generally fairly bright.

    He suggests that the IQ gap between the average President and the average voter has stayed roughly the same, but the voters have changed in average intelligence level. Up through 1824, the electorate was quite smart because only elite property owners could vote. Then, politics became a kind of national spectator sport with huge turnouts, so the IQ of voters fell to the mean. Therefore, we stopped electing geniuses like Jefferson and Madison and started electing nondescript politicos like Franklin Pierce and Rutherford B. Hayes.

    Then, a century ago, other forms of mass entertainment came along. Turnout dropped, especially among the dimmer elements. This allowed clever men like Nixon, Carter, Bush the Elder (Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, graduating in 2.5 years), and Clinton to win elections.
     
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/does-iq-matter-in-a-president


    "Inspired by this rule of thumb, historian Chapin offered a novel theory for why the first six Presidents were so smart on average": Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and JQ Adams. Of this group, Washington and Monroe were the dullest (relatively speaking).

    I suspect that most of those nineteenth-century presidents were actually pretty smart. They were mostly college graduates at a time when that was unusual. James Garfield could write in Latin and Greek at the same time (he was also ambidextrous) and also created a new proof of the Pythagorean theorem! Andrew Johnson is the only president I would say had a fair chance to actually be unintelligent.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Andrew Johnson is the only president I would say had a fair chance to actually be unintelligent.
     
    None of our presidents have been unintelligent, which is to say, none of them have had IQs that were below the White American mean during their lifetimes.The question regarding presidential IQ has to do with how smart they are relative to the "smart fraction" in the country during their lifetimes ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm).
  138. @Art Deco
    I thought it was perfectly obvious, but I'll repeat. FN is not a derivative of 19th century Legitimism or even alienated elements of the latter 3d Republic like Croix-de-feu. It's an inchoate populist movement responding to current conditions, as was the Poujadiste movement ca. 1955 (with which Le Pen was associated).

    With regard to the Algerian War, there was no schism of any duration. De Gaulle's conflicts were with the OAS, pieds noir militias led by Lagaillarde and Ortiz, and with figures such as Jacques Soustelle. They never generated an electoral mass in domestic French politics and their influence did not survive their defeat. The French right after 1958 had a Gaullist formation, a technocratic formation, and local grandees. Strands represented by 19th century royalists, by the old Nationalist formations, or by Croix-de-feu, or by fascist flunkies like Doriot and Peucheu were long gone. Pierre Poujade's movement proved evanescent.

    I don’t agree. I follow about a half dozen French political websites and podcasts on a regular basis and find the schism caused by the Algerian War is still quite alive in FN debates. Recently there was an open argument caused by Florian Philippot, a senior FN official laying flowers on the grave of Gen. de Gaulle despite the party’s strong base of support amongst pieds noirs.

    This topic came up only because the original article in The Atlantic made the tired claim that the FN is the party of Vichy regime nostalgics, which is just not the case. I’ve read lots of far-right websites from there and the Vichy fans complain about the FN having lost its way long ago, or having never been any good to them from the start. As for FN supporters, I’ve read angry readers’ comments at right-wing sites when they posted a video documentary sympathetic to the Vichy regime’s militia. Lots of comments along the lines of: “why are you celebrating this trash?” or “these were the guys who shot my great-uncle, **** them” etc. They have some respect for the French volunteers who fought on the Eastern Front but that’s as far as it goes.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    There is nothing in the way of an active Petainist movement in France of any size. Petain himself was drawing on personnel from a variety of strands whose common feature was an accommodation to circumstance. Pierre Laval came out of the subculture of anti-clerical bourgeois freemasons (though he'd left the Radical Party prior to 1940 and worked as a free-lance local pol), Pierre Peucheu was the director of the steel industry trade association, various and sundry were career military, Joseph Barthelemy was a Catholic academic, &c. It did not have the makings of a cohesive unit after the war even had Petain et al not been discredited and disgraced.
  139. @Buzz Mohawk
    Perhaps it is time for Jewish Europeans to realize that they are finally on the European team. It's what they always wanted, until Theodor Herzl got justifiably sick and tired of waiting.

    Again, when you focus on a common enemy, it is easy to unite. This time around, it wouldn't be a bad thing for all Europeans to do.

    I think the Jewish diaspora strategy is slowly evolving from invite the world (50 years ago) to invite/invade the world (10-20 years ago) to a more right-wing, invade but don’t invite the world, as is emerging in France. Ultimately invite the world isn’t sustainable because it eventually endangers the survival of Israel.

    From a white perspective this more straight-forward, conservative approach is an improvement on previous policies but it still makes it difficult for the West to avoid getting into unnecessary wars in the Middle East and triggering waves of unwanted immigrants in a westward direction.

  140. @syonredux

    Are you seriously going to maintain that there are significant racial differences between Jews and Arabs? That’s the point, and that’s the point under discussion hereabouts.
     
    Between Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs there are significant differences:

    I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..
     
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/

    Aren’t Arabs Caucasian?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Aren’t Arabs Caucasian?
     
    Are they from the Caucasus? No.They are, however, Caucasoid/West Eurasian.However, the continental races are not homogeneous masses. Intra-racial differences exist. Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, about 50% European.That makes them rather distinct from Middle Eastern populations like the Arabs.
  141. @Art Deco
    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”
    --

    I think that puts him around the 94th percentile of the general population. I imagine the amour-propre of most of the participants on this board includes the fancy that that's beneath them.

    ==

    Our most intellectually inclined presidents in the last century have been Wilson, Hoover, and Nixon, in about that order. Not too edifying. Hoover was also an exceedingly accomplished man in private life and in public administration. Trouble was, no one's judgment is flawless and, strange as it may seem to the Stevoshpere, intelligence is not the only valuable property a person has.

    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”

    I think that puts him around the 94th percentile of the general population. I imagine the amour-propre of most of the participants on this board includes the fancy that that’s beneath them.

    I would guess that 125 is about the mean for readers of Steve’s blog.That’s one of the reasons why GW Bush doesn’t strike us as particularly smart.To us, he’s just an average guy.

    Our most intellectually inclined presidents in the last century have been Wilson, Hoover, and Nixon, in about that order.

    Theodore Roosevelt should be added to that list.

    Not too edifying.

    TR strikes me as a very successful president.Of course, you neglected to mention him….

    Hoover was also an exceedingly accomplished man in private life and in public administration. Trouble was, no one’s judgment is flawless and, strange as it may seem to the Stevoshpere, intelligence is not the only valuable property a person has.

    I don’t know.It seems to me that the “Stevosphere” is quite cognizant that IQ alone is not enough to make a great leader.Steve is certainly aware that it is not enough:

    Gregory Cochran, a rocket scientist turned evolutionary biologist, summed up the challenge facing voters. “What really matters in a leader is not being smart, but being right. Who was smarter? Warren G. Harding or V.I. Lenin? I`m sure Lenin could have beaten Harding in chess, but I definitely would rather have lived under Harding than Lenin. Harding was kind of a dumb bunny, but his prejudices and instincts were much more reasonable than Lenin`s, who was wrong about everything.”

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/does-iq-matter-in-a-president

    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.

    No, not particularly.

    By the standards of Ivy League grads that I have known, he is inarticulate.Of course, some of it might be a put-on.

    He is merely not loquacious.

    No, he strikes me as quite talkative; he’s simply not very good at expressing himself:

    (And, as a speaker, he improves on his father, who was painful to listen to).

    A frightfully low standard.

    A while back, Thomas Sowell noted that it’s common among a certain sort of bourgeois to confuse intelligence and expertise

    Well, it does take a certain level of intelligence to acquire certain kinds of expertise.If a man has a PHD in physics, I think that it is reasonable to assume that his IQ is over 100…

    and then to confuse articulateness with intelligence.

    That’s quite true. I’ve had a fair number of professors who were quite clumsy when it came to public speaking.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Theodore Roosevelt should be added to that list.
     
    Have you read his writing? He sought out every hard knock the world had to offer, but raw intellect was not one of his many gifts.

    That’s quite true. I’ve had a fair number of professors who were quite clumsy when it came to public speaking.
     
    Yes, public speaking ability is more social skill than evidence of intellect, and often outstanding intellect leads one to pursue other skills than the social.

    http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    But not always. The great orators channeled their intellect into that direction at a young age. Demosthenes, Churchill, etc...
    , @Art Deco
    No, he strikes me as quite talkative;

    I'm sure you and he have spent lots of time together.
  142. @James Kabala
    I suspect that most of those nineteenth-century presidents were actually pretty smart. They were mostly college graduates at a time when that was unusual. James Garfield could write in Latin and Greek at the same time (he was also ambidextrous) and also created a new proof of the Pythagorean theorem! Andrew Johnson is the only president I would say had a fair chance to actually be unintelligent.

    Andrew Johnson is the only president I would say had a fair chance to actually be unintelligent.

    None of our presidents have been unintelligent, which is to say, none of them have had IQs that were below the White American mean during their lifetimes.The question regarding presidential IQ has to do with how smart they are relative to the “smart fraction” in the country during their lifetimes ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm).

  143. @Anonymous
    Aren't Arabs Caucasian?

    Aren’t Arabs Caucasian?

    Are they from the Caucasus? No.They are, however, Caucasoid/West Eurasian.However, the continental races are not homogeneous masses. Intra-racial differences exist. Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, about 50% European.That makes them rather distinct from Middle Eastern populations like the Arabs.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Caucasian us a commonly accepted racial term; you know that.

    As for Arabs, aren't they a bit heterogenous? It seems likely that some in Syria and Lebanon and elsewhere have some European admixture, whether from ancient seafaring Southern Europeans, later Crusaders, or the white slavery trade from Eastern Europe. In contrast, the Gulf Arabs seem to have more African admixture, presumably through black slavery and manumission.
  144. @syonredux

    Are you seriously going to maintain that there are significant racial differences between Jews and Arabs? That’s the point, and that’s the point under discussion hereabouts.
     
    Between Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs there are significant differences:

    I’m looking at abstracts on Ashkenazi genetics from ASHG 2013 and SMBE 2014 – by the same group, with Shai Carmi as the lead author. They did 128 whole genomes, 50x deep.

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. ( In our book, we had a crude estimate of about 40% European ancestry.) They estimated the split between Europeans and Middle Easterners at about 9000 BC: which sounds about the right date for the entry of the Sardinian-like farmers. From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French. Very little German or Slavic – by that time serious endogamy had set in..
     
    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/ashkenazi-ancestry/

    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. [...] From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French.

    That’s good; that explains the dialog at the end of Frank Zappa’s “Dancing Fool.” Except:

    #1 – If Ashkenazim are only 45% Arab, then why are they entitled to 100% of the Holy Land?
    Why didn’t they make Sicily the Jewish homeland?

    #2 – I keep hearing that the majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahim, not Ashkenazim. Are they, too, seriously different from their Arab brethren? (Aside from my obvious point about often being unable to tell a Jew from a Palestinian without a scorecard.) And what about Sephardim?

    #3 – Given the history of Arabs along the Mediterranean — including such as Zappa’s own family — how exactly does one disentangle Mediterranean peoples from Arabs, anyway?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Why didn’t they make Sicily the Jewish homeland?
     
    No Bible tales about Sicily being the "Promised Land."

    Are they, too, seriously different from their Arab brethren?
     
    Non-Muslim religious minorities in the Middle East (Mizrahim, Christians, etc) actually are somewhat genetically distinct from their Islamic neighbors.For example, the Muslim Arabs have higher levels of SSA (Sub-Saharan African) genes.

    Given the history of Arabs along the Mediterranean — including such as Zappa’s own family — how exactly does one disentangle Mediterranean peoples from Arabs, anyway?
     
    The same way that Northern Europeans are distinguished from Southern Europeans.
  145. @jtgw
    That's a very interesting question: I've never heard of crypto-Islam among the Marranos, but you might expect something along those lines. But in any case, I didn't say the Inquisition was only interested in Jews, but that they WERE interested in Jews, or more precisely crypto-Jews, among other groups. This was in response to a particularly stupid assertion that the Inquisition played no role in the persecution of the Jews. Yes, the Jews were technically Christian, and the reason they were nominally Christian was because they were ordered to convert, leave the country or die. Hmmm, yeah Spain was just a Jewish paradise back then. What are those Heebies complaining about? It's dumb even by the sorry standards of iSteve's neo-Nazi fanboys.

    Wasn’t the main reason Jews pretended to convert was the threat,by Isabella that jews would be forbidden to continue running the negro slave trade?

  146. @Priss Factor
    “'Totally innocent', indeed."

    I meant in context of their political situation, not in spiritual or moral terms. Of course, Palestinians are everyone else. They are people, so there are robbers, rapists, murderers, cheaters, bums, liars, punks, jerks, swindlers, junkies, con-men, and etc. among them.
    And men like Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have been rather loathsome.
    People are people, and people all over the world are pretty scummy.

    BUT, what happened to Palestinians after 1948 was no fault of their own. The great powers allowed massive 'immigration'--invasion was more like it--of European Jews into Palestine. Now, why did so many Jews wanna go there? WWII and the Holocaust. Who done that? Europeans.

    And did Palestinians have any say in what was done to their homeland? No, it was imposed on them. As a result, they lost their homeland forever, a sort of prelude to what is happening to white lands in Europe. (Europeans turned a blind eye to massive Jewish influx into Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and now their own homelands are being overrun by massive influx of Africans and Muslims. You see, European folks who are now being overrun are 'totally innocent' at least in this context because they didn't want it. It's being imposed on them by the globalist elites led by Jewish oligarchs and ideologues.)

    So, Palestinians are not saints. They are flawed people like rest of humanity. But they are totally innocent victims when it comes to Nakba and occupation. They got punished the worst for the crimes of Europeans. They didn't do anything to European Jews, but European Jews took their land and put them under the sword. And America, the greatest power in the world that yammers endlessly about human rights, has been utterly complicit in the destruction of a people who never did anything wrong to Americans.

    What is truly ironic in all this is that most American Jews look upon white gentiles(in America and Russia) like they look upon Palestinians, but white gentiles go out of their way to support the Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

    I mean this is pretty ridiculous and has to stop.

    What is truly ironic in all this is that most American Jews look upon white gentiles(in America and Russia) like they look upon Palestinians, but white gentiles go out of their way to support the Jewish oppression of Palestinians.

    An easy way to understand the difference between Jews and white gentiles is: Jews kick white gentiles’ asses; white gentiles kiss Jews’ asses.

    Now that is surely an oversimplification, but the witless white gentile needs to start somewhere, and starting here is going to prove far more fruitful than starting with the assumption that Jews are powerless and oppressed.

  147. @SPMoore8
    They concluded Ashkenazi Jews were about 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European. In the 2013 abstract, they were pretty specific: they estimated the European ancestry fraction at 55% , plus or minus 2%. [...] From other data (mtDNA) , and from the fact that you see almost zero WHG or ANE in Ashkenazi autosomal genes, one can conclude that the European admixture was mostly Italian, with some southern French.

    That's good; that explains the dialog at the end of Frank Zappa's "Dancing Fool." Except:

    #1 - If Ashkenazim are only 45% Arab, then why are they entitled to 100% of the Holy Land?
    Why didn't they make Sicily the Jewish homeland?

    #2 - I keep hearing that the majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahim, not Ashkenazim. Are they, too, seriously different from their Arab brethren? (Aside from my obvious point about often being unable to tell a Jew from a Palestinian without a scorecard.) And what about Sephardim?

    #3 - Given the history of Arabs along the Mediterranean -- including such as Zappa's own family -- how exactly does one disentangle Mediterranean peoples from Arabs, anyway?

    Why didn’t they make Sicily the Jewish homeland?

    No Bible tales about Sicily being the “Promised Land.”

    Are they, too, seriously different from their Arab brethren?

    Non-Muslim religious minorities in the Middle East (Mizrahim, Christians, etc) actually are somewhat genetically distinct from their Islamic neighbors.For example, the Muslim Arabs have higher levels of SSA (Sub-Saharan African) genes.

    Given the history of Arabs along the Mediterranean — including such as Zappa’s own family — how exactly does one disentangle Mediterranean peoples from Arabs, anyway?

    The same way that Northern Europeans are distinguished from Southern Europeans.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Let's recap. I made the remark that I felt the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would probably result in a blending, because at first glance they are hard to tell apart. In other words, they are very similar racially. Then the original interlocutor did not dispute that point, but suggested a cultural chasm between the two.

    But I am not disputing the cultural chasm, I am disputing the racial chasm, which, after all is fundamental theme hereabouts as it pertains to assimilating into one culture peoples of many different races, and presumably many different racial aptitudes, including cognitive skills, etc. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing HBD or IQ.

    Then you replied with a page claiming 45% ME DNA for Ashkenazim, which is supposed to account for a racial chasm between Israelis and Arabs. That is a significant hurdle for racial assimilation, but not insurmountable, especially when one considers that Ashkenazim are less than 50% of the Jews in Israel (The rest an undocumented blend of Sephardim and Mizrachim).

    Then you further replied that there is more Sub-Saharan DNA among Arabs as a group, but that is not directly pertinent to the discussion, insofar as there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and we are focusing on the likelihood of Israeli Palestinian blending.

    So there are two points that support my contention:

    First, the implied claim that there are significant racial differences between Southern and Northern Europeans, which, at minimum, is no hurdle to assimilation, and second, the suggestion that Palestinians are in fact rather close in DNA to their Israeli brethren:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_and_genetic_studies

  148. @Priss Factor
    "Oh, he’s very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush’s case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)"

    I understand that. Allan Bloom, who was surely a very smart guy, wasn't the most articulate man in the world. Neither was Norman Mailer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtxiCJ7-_9I

    But at the very least, we could tell they were thinking through stuff.

    In the case of Dubya, I never got any sense that there was any kind of mental activity taking place inside his head.

    And what the hell was that stuff about the lowest point of his presidency being when Kanye West said Bush don't like black people?

    In the case of Dubya, I never got any sense that there was any kind of mental activity taking place inside his head.

    He was quite a bit more articulate among friends or smaller groups. Once he started worrying about what people would think of something he said, he was lost. Common enough failing, bad in a president, or really any kind of leader. The Left pushed the “cocky” thing to exacerbate his self-confidence issues.

    “And what the hell was that stuff about the lowest point of his presidency being when Kanye West said Bush don’t like black people?”

    Laura was always very concerned about appearances. Typical UMC wife of her generation in that respect – it’s why “racism” is kryptonite for Republicans – they get an earful from their wives.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I think respectability is a huge deal for UMC women of every time period, though obviously what being respectable means differs hugely over time periods.
  149. @syonredux

    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”


    I think that puts him around the 94th percentile of the general population. I imagine the amour-propre of most of the participants on this board includes the fancy that that’s beneath them.
     
    I would guess that 125 is about the mean for readers of Steve's blog.That's one of the reasons why GW Bush doesn't strike us as particularly smart.To us, he's just an average guy.

    Our most intellectually inclined presidents in the last century have been Wilson, Hoover, and Nixon, in about that order.
     
    Theodore Roosevelt should be added to that list.

    Not too edifying.
     
    TR strikes me as a very successful president.Of course, you neglected to mention him....

    Hoover was also an exceedingly accomplished man in private life and in public administration. Trouble was, no one’s judgment is flawless and, strange as it may seem to the Stevoshpere, intelligence is not the only valuable property a person has.
     
    I don't know.It seems to me that the "Stevosphere" is quite cognizant that IQ alone is not enough to make a great leader.Steve is certainly aware that it is not enough:

    Gregory Cochran, a rocket scientist turned evolutionary biologist, summed up the challenge facing voters. "What really matters in a leader is not being smart, but being right. Who was smarter? Warren G. Harding or V.I. Lenin? I`m sure Lenin could have beaten Harding in chess, but I definitely would rather have lived under Harding than Lenin. Harding was kind of a dumb bunny, but his prejudices and instincts were much more reasonable than Lenin`s, who was wrong about everything."
     
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/does-iq-matter-in-a-president

    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.

    No, not particularly.
     
    By the standards of Ivy League grads that I have known, he is inarticulate.Of course, some of it might be a put-on.

    He is merely not loquacious.
     
    No, he strikes me as quite talkative; he's simply not very good at expressing himself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vnzjsnpM5U

    (And, as a speaker, he improves on his father, who was painful to listen to).
     
    A frightfully low standard.

    A while back, Thomas Sowell noted that it’s common among a certain sort of bourgeois to confuse intelligence and expertise
     
    Well, it does take a certain level of intelligence to acquire certain kinds of expertise.If a man has a PHD in physics, I think that it is reasonable to assume that his IQ is over 100...

    and then to confuse articulateness with intelligence.
     
    That's quite true. I've had a fair number of professors who were quite clumsy when it came to public speaking.

    Theodore Roosevelt should be added to that list.

    Have you read his writing? He sought out every hard knock the world had to offer, but raw intellect was not one of his many gifts.

    That’s quite true. I’ve had a fair number of professors who were quite clumsy when it came to public speaking.

    Yes, public speaking ability is more social skill than evidence of intellect, and often outstanding intellect leads one to pursue other skills than the social.

    http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    But not always. The great orators channeled their intellect into that direction at a young age. Demosthenes, Churchill, etc…

  150. @syonredux

    Why didn’t they make Sicily the Jewish homeland?
     
    No Bible tales about Sicily being the "Promised Land."

    Are they, too, seriously different from their Arab brethren?
     
    Non-Muslim religious minorities in the Middle East (Mizrahim, Christians, etc) actually are somewhat genetically distinct from their Islamic neighbors.For example, the Muslim Arabs have higher levels of SSA (Sub-Saharan African) genes.

    Given the history of Arabs along the Mediterranean — including such as Zappa’s own family — how exactly does one disentangle Mediterranean peoples from Arabs, anyway?
     
    The same way that Northern Europeans are distinguished from Southern Europeans.

    Let’s recap. I made the remark that I felt the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would probably result in a blending, because at first glance they are hard to tell apart. In other words, they are very similar racially. Then the original interlocutor did not dispute that point, but suggested a cultural chasm between the two.

    But I am not disputing the cultural chasm, I am disputing the racial chasm, which, after all is fundamental theme hereabouts as it pertains to assimilating into one culture peoples of many different races, and presumably many different racial aptitudes, including cognitive skills, etc. Otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing HBD or IQ.

    Then you replied with a page claiming 45% ME DNA for Ashkenazim, which is supposed to account for a racial chasm between Israelis and Arabs. That is a significant hurdle for racial assimilation, but not insurmountable, especially when one considers that Ashkenazim are less than 50% of the Jews in Israel (The rest an undocumented blend of Sephardim and Mizrachim).

    Then you further replied that there is more Sub-Saharan DNA among Arabs as a group, but that is not directly pertinent to the discussion, insofar as there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and we are focusing on the likelihood of Israeli Palestinian blending.

    So there are two points that support my contention:

    First, the implied claim that there are significant racial differences between Southern and Northern Europeans, which, at minimum, is no hurdle to assimilation, and second, the suggestion that Palestinians are in fact rather close in DNA to their Israeli brethren:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_and_genetic_studies

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Wouldn't a good test for your thesis be whether there's significant intermarriage between Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens now?
  151. @Art Deco
    If you're going to engage in circular reasoning, it's best not to call other people 'dumb'.

    Mr. Bush has a pair of Ivy League degrees under his belt, learned to fly fighter planes, and spent 17 years in the business world. I tend to doubt he's all that dumb, just an object for the unearned conceits of alt-right denizens. This man has an informed opinion on the subject:

    http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

    That’s laughable.

    He got into the Ivy League partly through legacy connections.

    As for his “business world” experience, he’s never been in a managerial or decision making role. He was kept as a PR Front man in most of his businesses. During the 1990s, he got onto the board of a private equity firm. Some of the PE partners were so shocked by W’s lack of maturity and work ethic that they suggested he leave.

    W is nothing more than the idiot son of a wealthy and influential man.

    To be fair, HW Bush is a competent man. Even in his 90s, he’s still advising on private equity transactions and building political alliances. HW Bush’s other children are also not particularly incompetent. So I think W’s lack of competence is probably not genetic in origin. My guess would be that his alcoholism and cocaine/drug use have impaired his neurological facilities. Anyone who’s dealt with ex-addicts knows that the mental damage is never completely undone.

    W most likely was just a puppet president. The real power in the administration was in the hands of Dick Cheney, the Israeli/neoconservative intelligentsia and oligarchs, the Goldman Sachs crowd (Paulson, etc.), and the CIA/FBI/military. W was nothing more than a front man. Anyone who’s listened to the man speak or debate can’t help but be shocked at his shortcomings. No way was that man in any type of decision making role.

    Of course, Barack Obama isn’t much better. The men pulling his strings are his Jewish advisers (Axelrod, Plouffe, Rahm Emmanuel), the CIA/FBI/military Deep State, Wall Street (Summers, Geithner), and a few Democratic-aligned oligarchs. Obama is a much better speaker than W and somewhat more intelligent, but I really doubt he’s running his administration.

    There’s evidence to suggest the Obama and his parents might’ve worked for the CIA in the past. If we assume this to be true, then maybe Obama’s rise was engineered by the Deep State. That could explain how a relatively undistinguished state senator quickly rose from obscurity to become the Illinois Senator and the the Democratic presidential front runner. Maybe the Deep State connected him with financiers and talented political organizers, while also manipulating news coverage and party bosses.

    Eisenhower warned about the growing influence of the Deep State “military-industrial complex” during the end of his presidency. After JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy of various Deep State figures (Ruby, Oswald, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, E Howard Hunt, David Morales, Cord Meyer) and later RFK, Deep State took control of the presidency. LBJ was obviously a CIA collaborator in the JFK assassination, Nixon was involved in the assassination too, and Gerald Ford helped with the Warren Commission cover up. Bill Clinton helped with the CIA cocaine trafficking through Mena, Arkansas, when Clinton was governor of the state. W’s father was former CIA director. Our government was pretty much been run by Deep State collaborators since JFK’s assassination.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    W most likely was just a puppet president.

    Just make stuff up if it helps you feel better.
  152. @SPMoore8
    Given the debacles associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, persistent attempts to place George W. Bush in the ranks of the intellectually gifted is a pretty good way to nullify the value of both IQ and HBD in the public sphere.

    If anything, the calamity in Iraq ought to burnish the perception of HBD, since Steve pointed out, in 2003, an HBD reason for why nation building would be so difficult in Iraq.

    George W. Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Krystal, et.al. didn’t grok that, not because their IQs were too low, but because HBD was outside the Overton window. They assumed Iraq was full of Ahmed Chalabis and Foad Ajamis ready to flourish once out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    George W. Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Krystal, et.al. didn’t grok that, not because their IQs were too low, but because HBD was outside the Overton window. They assumed Iraq was full of Ahmed Chalabis and Foad Ajamis ready to flourish once out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.
     
    They also didn't factor in the extent to which relatively unchallenged American hegemony would feed internal dissent stateside. Don't know that raw IQ helps there either.
  153. @syonredux

    Aren’t Arabs Caucasian?
     
    Are they from the Caucasus? No.They are, however, Caucasoid/West Eurasian.However, the continental races are not homogeneous masses. Intra-racial differences exist. Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, about 50% European.That makes them rather distinct from Middle Eastern populations like the Arabs.

    Caucasian us a commonly accepted racial term; you know that.

    As for Arabs, aren’t they a bit heterogenous? It seems likely that some in Syria and Lebanon and elsewhere have some European admixture, whether from ancient seafaring Southern Europeans, later Crusaders, or the white slavery trade from Eastern Europe. In contrast, the Gulf Arabs seem to have more African admixture, presumably through black slavery and manumission.

  154. Off/On Topic:

    I reading now one of the evolution books by Robert Ardrey – “The Territorial Imperative”. I find his concept that a being on their home turf has an advantage, it and can almost act as a spring very interesting. The concept has some related ideas in chess and military strategy. It may be what happened when the Spanish kicked out the Moors after 700 years.

  155. http://6abc.com/556111/

    “The boys allegedly told police that they were out playing basketball, and afterwards they came up with the idea that they wanted to commit a robbery.”

  156. @Desiderius

    In the case of Dubya, I never got any sense that there was any kind of mental activity taking place inside his head.

     

    He was quite a bit more articulate among friends or smaller groups. Once he started worrying about what people would think of something he said, he was lost. Common enough failing, bad in a president, or really any kind of leader. The Left pushed the "cocky" thing to exacerbate his self-confidence issues.

    "And what the hell was that stuff about the lowest point of his presidency being when Kanye West said Bush don’t like black people?"

    Laura was always very concerned about appearances. Typical UMC wife of her generation in that respect - it's why "racism" is kryptonite for Republicans - they get an earful from their wives.

    I think respectability is a huge deal for UMC women of every time period, though obviously what being respectable means differs hugely over time periods.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I think respectability is a huge deal for UMC women of every time period, though obviously what being respectable means differs hugely over time periods.
     
    What's interesting is how much UMC women, even GOP-voting UMC women, have bought into the Progressive (sic) standards of respectability. "To each his own" appeals strongly to men of a libertarian bent, but women seem to naturally gravitate to whatever norms are on offer. If libertarians abandon that field, then Progressive (sic) norms carry the day.

    Being in the vanguard of progress is still a powerful source of American common identity.
  157. “They assumed Iraq was full of Ahmed Chalabis and Foad Ajamis ready to flourish once out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.”

    It’s a common fallacy, especially among smart people, to assume that everyone is similar to them.

    • Replies: @KA
    They were rally smart.They told some duffer and a few dufus to go and occupy a house where they would see their own reflections on the mirrors and would see shadow of themselves cast by the morning sun. Alas! Nothing like that panned out . So they tried to get out and found themselves locked in from outside by the same smart people using different keys this time like nation building,debathification,stopping Iran,stopping (or creating new one) AlQida .
  158. @SPMoore8
    Let's recap. I made the remark that I felt the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would probably result in a blending, because at first glance they are hard to tell apart. In other words, they are very similar racially. Then the original interlocutor did not dispute that point, but suggested a cultural chasm between the two.

    But I am not disputing the cultural chasm, I am disputing the racial chasm, which, after all is fundamental theme hereabouts as it pertains to assimilating into one culture peoples of many different races, and presumably many different racial aptitudes, including cognitive skills, etc. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing HBD or IQ.

    Then you replied with a page claiming 45% ME DNA for Ashkenazim, which is supposed to account for a racial chasm between Israelis and Arabs. That is a significant hurdle for racial assimilation, but not insurmountable, especially when one considers that Ashkenazim are less than 50% of the Jews in Israel (The rest an undocumented blend of Sephardim and Mizrachim).

    Then you further replied that there is more Sub-Saharan DNA among Arabs as a group, but that is not directly pertinent to the discussion, insofar as there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and we are focusing on the likelihood of Israeli Palestinian blending.

    So there are two points that support my contention:

    First, the implied claim that there are significant racial differences between Southern and Northern Europeans, which, at minimum, is no hurdle to assimilation, and second, the suggestion that Palestinians are in fact rather close in DNA to their Israeli brethren:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_and_genetic_studies

    Wouldn’t a good test for your thesis be whether there’s significant intermarriage between Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens now?

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    By my analysis, there would be, and a simple search shows 10% intermarriage already, which I predict will increase over time.

    Here's a starter link:

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/shavuot/.premium-1.596678

    People like Jeffrey Goldberg often talk about how many Palestinian Israelis are involved in the professions in Israel. It's inevitable that intermarriage will take place, and probably at significant levels (look at the Jewish intermarriage rate in the modern world, and particularly in the US at 50% or more.)

    I don't think this is disparagement either. Most Americans are well aware that Scots Irish, Irish, and Germans almost continually marry out of their group. That's why probably the vast majority of Americans have ancestors in one, or even all three, groups.
  159. @Jack D
    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert - they just executed them. So compared to 20th century European standards, the Almohads were quite civilized 800 years before.

    Just as we see today with Isis in Iraq, there is a historic pattern in the Muslim world. Harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the city and crack down on anything that is not by the book. Their kids and grandkids start to enjoy the city life and get soft. Then the next group of harsh fundamentalists desert warriors sweep in from the desert and conquer the grandchildren of the old desert warriors. Rinse and repeat. The Almohads were the ISIS of their day.

    I will point out that the Nazis did not give Jews a seven month grace period or opportunity to convert – they just executed them.

    In 1933? You might want to double-check that.

  160. @SPMoore8
    Given the debacles associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, persistent attempts to place George W. Bush in the ranks of the intellectually gifted is a pretty good way to nullify the value of both IQ and HBD in the public sphere.

    Given the debacles associated with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, persistent attempts to place George W. Bush in the ranks of the intellectually gifted is a pretty good way to nullify the value of both IQ and HBD in the public sphere.

    Even if Bush were thick as plank, the people who talked him into those wars were rather intelligent, neocon clever sillies.

  161. Whoops, looks like my comment about Steve futilely trying to score a Fox News gig by playing nice with the jews hit a little close to home.

    Or is it going to be another passive aggressive Komment Kontrol usage where you note that your comment didn’t get approved and then Steve approves it.

  162. @iSteveFan

    That’s a very interesting question: I’ve never heard of crypto-Islam among the Marranos,
     
    Here is some info on it.

    Moriscos (Spanish: [moˈɾiskos], Catalan: [muˈɾiskus], [moˈɾiskos]; Portuguese: mouriscos [mo(w)ˈɾiʃkuʃ], [mo(w)ˈɾiskus]; meaning "Moorish") were former Muslims who were forced to convert to Christianity rather than face death or expulsion from Spain.

    Over time, the term was used in a pejorative sense, applied to those nominal Catholics who were suspected of secretly practicing Islam. The Moriscos were eventually expelled from Spain between 1609 (Valencia) and 1614 (Castile). The last mass prosecution against Moriscos for crypto-Islamic practives occurred in Granada in 1727, with most of those convicted receiving relatively light sentences. From then on, indigenous Islam is considered to have been extinguished in Spain.

    Moriscos (Spanish: [moˈɾiskos], Catalan: [muˈɾiskus], [moˈɾiskos]; Portuguese: mouriscos [mo(w)ˈɾiʃkuʃ], [mo(w)ˈɾiskus]; meaning “Moorish”) were former Muslims who were forced to convert to Christianity rather than face death or expulsion from Spain

    That’s self-contradictory. They could not have been “forced” to convert if there were alternatives permitted to them. An accurate assessment is that they were “allowed” to convert.

    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Your comments are usually good, but that is an even more ridiculous statement than the one Svigor made. By your standard no one could ever be forced to do anything, since death is always a potential alternative. Exile is not as bad as death, but it is still not really an alternative.
  163. LC says:
    @syonredux

    “Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction””

    I don’t know. Did you see him talk?
     
    Oh, he's very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush's case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)

    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush’s case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)

    I agree intelligence doesn’t necessarily correlate well with articulateness, but that doesn’t apply to Bush. His speech issues most likely has a lot to do with his prior alcohol and drug use catching up to him. Check out this video

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    His speech issues most likely has a lot to do with his prior alcohol and drug use catching up to him
     
    Don't forget his father's aphasia. He could have inherited that through nature or nurture.

    "His speech issues most likely has…?" Perhaps you should be checked yourself!

  164. @syonredux
    Here's Steve's estimate on George W Bush's IQ:

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system]) while Kerry scored around the equivalent of a 120 IQ. Both IQs are adequate to be President, but not hugely impressive.
     
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-article-on-john-f-kerrys-iq.html

    Bush's problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the "smart fraction" ( http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) who make up his peer group.Couple that with his intellectual laziness.....

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system])

    This is *exactly* the reason I’m so extremely skeptical of that published claim that Richard Feynman (a notorious jokester) once said his IQ had been tested at 125.

    In my considered opinion, there’s no one in the second half of the twentieth century who had a stronger claim to being the smartest human being in the world than Richard Feynman. And we’re supposed to believe he actually had exactly the same tested IQ as George W. Bush??!!

    As everyone knows, I’m quite skeptical of the more rigid claims advanced by dogmatic IQists. But c’mon. If honest-to-goodness IQ tests actually gave the same score to “W” and Feynman, that single datapoint would be sufficient to totally discredit the very notion of IQ. It’s lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman…

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Presumably, W. was trying to do well on his military aptitude test (to get into the stateside Air National Guard duty during Vietnam). Could it be Feynman mailed it in on his IQ test?
    , @Desiderius

    It’s lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman…
     
    Surely you're joking, Mr. Unz. I would think he's closer to their patron saint.
    , @WhatEvvs
    From the wording you use, I'm not sure what you are skeptical of - the fact that his IQ was actually tested at 123, or of the fact that he claimed it was so?

    http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/brau/H182/Term%20Papers/Ryan%20McPherson.html

    Feynman's younger sister Joan, also a physicist, once said that "[Richard] had a normal IQ. When I was a kid, I sneaked off and got into the files and looked up our IQ’s. Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!" (Sykes 25).

    Sykes, Christopher, ed. No Ordinary Genius: The Illustrated Richard Feynman.

    Also, look in GENIUS, p. 30. His IQ is reported as 125.
    , @WhatEvvs
    1. I was motivated to check the veracity of the story. It's not as I remembered it:

    http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/van.htm

    2. In the process, I came across Feynman's description of what he did for a living:


    “The game I play is a very interesting one,” says Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman in a low-resolution video posted to YouTube. “It’s imagination in a tight straitjacket.”

     

    I find this notable for the fact that he referred to his work as a "game." I take this quite seriously. There was a playful aspect to everything Feynman did. A magician indeed.*

    http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/may-2014/saving-the-feynman-van

    *Feynman's unbelievable creativity and powers of perception:


    "Of particular note is the diagram on the rear of the van:... this diagram shows two muon neutrinos exchanging a particle that Feynman could only conjecture at the time. Years later, such a particle was proven to exist, and called a Z boson. Thus Feynman diagrams expanded their usefulness beyond QED to other areas of theoretical physics.
     
  165. @Ron Unz

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system])
     
    This is *exactly* the reason I'm so extremely skeptical of that published claim that Richard Feynman (a notorious jokester) once said his IQ had been tested at 125.

    In my considered opinion, there's no one in the second half of the twentieth century who had a stronger claim to being the smartest human being in the world than Richard Feynman. And we're supposed to believe he actually had exactly the same tested IQ as George W. Bush??!!

    As everyone knows, I'm quite skeptical of the more rigid claims advanced by dogmatic IQists. But c'mon. If honest-to-goodness IQ tests actually gave the same score to "W" and Feynman, that single datapoint would be sufficient to totally discredit the very notion of IQ. It's lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman...

    Presumably, W. was trying to do well on his military aptitude test (to get into the stateside Air National Guard duty during Vietnam). Could it be Feynman mailed it in on his IQ test?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Sure, that's one possibility. Like I said, Feynman was a notorious prankster and jokester. I'm somewhat more inclined to believe he was just pulling that journalist's leg, and the silly fellow didn't realize it.

    But my main point is there's simply *no* possibility Feynman had an honest-to-goodness true IQ of 125. 251 or maybe even 512 would be likelier. Back in JHS or HS he developed a new type of generalized Calculus after someone gave him a book. In college, he won the Putnam as a last-minute substitute entrant.

    IQ-fetishists have come up with the silliest theories to justify the 125. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he did badly on the Verbal questions. The bottom line is if Feynman really scored 125 on a legitimate IQ test (a test that allowed scores higher than 125) then "IQ Is Bunk."
  166. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.

    Average enlisted IQ in the Army is in the 90s. Average IQ of general rank officers in Army is in the 130s (this is according to a commenter who claimed to have tested thousands of people in different occupations and observed general officers to have IQs 10 points higher than executives of big companies who average in the 120s).

    The difference between enlisted and generals is 40 points in the US Army. Works well enough.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How often do generals give orders to privates?
    , @Art Deco
    Average enlisted IQ in the Army is in the 90s.

    Enlisted personnel make up about 85% of the total troop strength. I seem to recall Linda Gottfriedson offering that the military are debarred by statute from inducting men below the 11th percentile (80 IQ) and as a matter of practice did not induct below the 14th percentile (84).
    , @Anon
    According to the blog proprietor, the minimum IQ is in the 90's:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/average-iq-of-enlisted-men/
    , @Jack D
    Those numbers strike me as exaggerated. Really smart people are rarer than you think. Only 2% of the population has an IQ over 130.
  167. @Anonymous

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.
     
    Average enlisted IQ in the Army is in the 90s. Average IQ of general rank officers in Army is in the 130s (this is according to a commenter who claimed to have tested thousands of people in different occupations and observed general officers to have IQs 10 points higher than executives of big companies who average in the 120s).

    The difference between enlisted and generals is 40 points in the US Army. Works well enough.

    How often do generals give orders to privates?

    • Replies: @Cicero
    Officers do not come out of West Point with stars on their shoulders. At some point in any officer's career, he's going to have to give orders to the enlisted directly. Do they do it more effectively than their more social but less intelligent peers? Maybe, maybe not... but they manage to work their way up to general rank regardless.
  168. @Steve Sailer
    How often do generals give orders to privates?

    Officers do not come out of West Point with stars on their shoulders. At some point in any officer’s career, he’s going to have to give orders to the enlisted directly. Do they do it more effectively than their more social but less intelligent peers? Maybe, maybe not… but they manage to work their way up to general rank regardless.

    • Replies: @Zed, Lord of the Brutals
    Good thing we have an established NCO corps then, isn't it?

    I can't vouch for the US Army numbers, they do seem to have accepted some real crap raw material in the 2005-2008 period. But many of the USMC infantry MOS's have a minimum ASVAB GT score of 100, which roughly correlates to IQ. For reference, my GT is 136, which seems in line with my pre-95 1280 SAT and 31 ACT test scores.

    Many of these men have rough backgrounds and have been short changed on education, but don't be a fool and assume the stereotypical media portrayal is even remotely accurate. They're simply sticking to the FUD/demoralization script attempting to manufacture their own reality.

    General officers are politicians, they often talk to troops only when it benefits their image and/or career. Junior troops often ask troubling and dangerous questions when they're going to a combat zone, you have minimal disciplinary leverage, so it's best to avoid potential problems.
  169. @fnn

    Some three million captured Soviet soldiers died of starvation or disease in German prisoner-of-war camps.
     
    It's from IHR, but they quote mainstream sources:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh. Of an estimated three million German soldiers who fell into Soviet hands, more than two million perished in captivity. Of the 91,000 German troops captured in the Battle of Stalingrad, fewer than 6,000 ever returned to Germany.

    As Teplyakov also explains here, Red Army "liberation" of the surviving Soviet prisoners in German camps brought no end to the suffering of these hapless men. It wasn't until recently, when long-suppressed Soviet wartime records began to come to light and long-silenced voices could at last speak out, that the full story of Stalin's treatment of Soviet prisoners became known. It wasn't until 1989, for example, that Stalin's grim Order No. 270 of August 16, 1941 -- cited below -- was first published.
     

    Hitler wanted the German Sixth Army to fight to the death at Stalingrad. Read Beevor’s Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege.

    • Replies: @fnn
    Which is another issue entirely.
  170. @Art Deco
    I take it you find prejudice and random assertion more probative regarding someone's intellect. I just have to keep hitting myself on the side of the head to remember how smart you are.

    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen’s blog), why do you continue to clutter Sailer’s blog with your frequently bizarre and always uninteresting comments?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution

    No, I've said the moderator is Jew-obsessed. That's not really open to dispute. I think I've also said the only Jews he seems to notice work as studio executives, producers, talent agents, bond traders, and opinion journalists, although a non-specific crew lunching and not playing golf at country clubs seems to come within his field of vision. (Giraldi seems fixated on lobbyists and Israeli politicians).

    My beef is not with Sailer, who strikes me as an amiable monomaniac, as with the lice who crawl on his back.
    , @WhatEvvs
    In other words, you are saying, "we don't want to play with you," because you don't understand what AD is talking about. He brings up things that disturb you so you tell him to scram.

    This is stupid, and no different from what leftists do.

    FWIW, it's obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who "follow a few French blogs."
  171. @Sunbeam
    "In America, most Jews are secular Jews. They go to temple when they have no choice and they take off for holy days, but go skiing rather than observe the holiday. Their religion is liberalism. Norman Podhoretz talked about this a half dozen years ago. "

    Just a musing, I'm not sure a belief system like that can stand the test of time. We know things like race (maybe depending on circumstance) and above all religion can do it.

    Conservatism? Liberalism? Communism? Libertarianism? Capitalism?

    All weak sauce compared to religion.

    >>> Just a musing, I’m not sure a belief system like that can stand the test of time

    The American liberal Jews are (demographically) self-selecting for extinction. Even faster than the Japanese are.

    Looking ahead 3 generations, they will be completely replaced by “modern Orthodox” (which is just a somewhat darker shade of pale, really) and the self-identified “Israeli Americans”.

    the latter are building up their community infra-structure, basically side-stepping and ignoring the “legacy” american Jews.

    The liberal “American Jews” have developed a rather strong ==physical== infra-structure, but 3 generations from now, the “Jewish community Centers” will be as “Jewish” as a YMCA gymnasium is “christian”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here's a question: what's percentage of Israelis actually live in the U.S.?
    , @The Z Blog
    It is an interesting phenomenon. Today, most Americans think of Jews as being like Larry David or Sarah Silverman. Given current demographics, most Americans three generations from now will think of Jews like we currently think of the Amish.
  172. @Karl
    >>> Just a musing, I’m not sure a belief system like that can stand the test of time

    The American liberal Jews are (demographically) self-selecting for extinction. Even faster than the Japanese are.

    Looking ahead 3 generations, they will be completely replaced by "modern Orthodox" (which is just a somewhat darker shade of pale, really) and the self-identified "Israeli Americans".

    the latter are building up their community infra-structure, basically side-stepping and ignoring the "legacy" american Jews.

    The liberal "American Jews" have developed a rather strong ==physical== infra-structure, but 3 generations from now, the "Jewish community Centers" will be as "Jewish" as a YMCA gymnasium is "christian".

    Here’s a question: what’s percentage of Israelis actually live in the U.S.?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    Here’s a question: what’s percentage of Israelis actually live in the U.S.?

     

    Start with this one.

    And this one.
  173. @Dave Pinsen
    I don't know that Bush was intellectually lazy. I recall reading that he read a lot of books while in the White House. But he did cultivate an anti-intellectual persona. On the other hand, a friend of a friend who was (and presumably still is) a CIA analyst and briefed Bush on occasion was unimpressed with Bush. But he was also a Democrat, so, that may have colored his impressions.

    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:

    a) He raised taxes
    b) He failed to finish off Saddam
    c) He quarrelled with Israel
    d) He was seen as an out-of-touch ‘intellectual’

    What lessons do you think Bush Jr. learned from all this?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:

    You missed:


    1. The end of the Cold War redistributed some voters who had been motivated by foreign policy questions.

    2. There was considerable persistent exasperation with the Washington political class and their inability to balance the books even with that tax increase (see the Perot phenomenon).

    3. Clinton was an abnormally talented practitioner of public relations.

    4. The media were in the tank for the Democratic Party (see reportage on the economy that year), and the most talented practitioner of turning the tables on them in Republican circles had died in 1991.

    5. Labor market recovery lagged behind recovery in production (and the media reported on the economy as if the latter had never occurred).

    6. Pat Buchanan took a chunk out of the President's standing

    7. Boredom.

    In other circumstances, I'd offer the Perot phenomenon itself, but I've seen opinion research which indicates that Perot was not drawing disproportionately from Republican voters.


    In truth, though, the 1992 election was plain weird. Fully 13% of the electorate seems to have changed their opinion and rejected the incumbent without any discrete and identifiable catalyst. Swings of that magnitude have happened upon economic Depressions (see federal elections in 1894, 1896, and 1932), mismanaged politico-military operations (see 1918 and 1920), and a concatenation of irritations and embarrassments (1980). No real clue about 1992.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992?

    There is an another incident that I recall.

    GHW Bush vetoed the 1990 Civil Rights Act, labeling it (correctly) "a quota bill.". This caused his poll numbers to spike and the liberals to go into a frenzy. Bush into a panic and he reversed his position signing the 1991 version.

    To a patrician like Bush, being supported by the wrong sort of people for the wrong sort of reasons was to be avoided at all costs. Perhaps he had remorseful over the (perfectly legitimate) Willie Horton ads that helped get him elected.

    GHW Bush was an example of the new type of Republican who despises his own base. It was said that one of the great things about Ronald Reagan was that he didn't give a damn what the New York Times thought of him. That was not the case with his successor.
  174. @Cicero
    Officers do not come out of West Point with stars on their shoulders. At some point in any officer's career, he's going to have to give orders to the enlisted directly. Do they do it more effectively than their more social but less intelligent peers? Maybe, maybe not... but they manage to work their way up to general rank regardless.

    Good thing we have an established NCO corps then, isn’t it?

    I can’t vouch for the US Army numbers, they do seem to have accepted some real crap raw material in the 2005-2008 period. But many of the USMC infantry MOS’s have a minimum ASVAB GT score of 100, which roughly correlates to IQ. For reference, my GT is 136, which seems in line with my pre-95 1280 SAT and 31 ACT test scores.

    Many of these men have rough backgrounds and have been short changed on education, but don’t be a fool and assume the stereotypical media portrayal is even remotely accurate. They’re simply sticking to the FUD/demoralization script attempting to manufacture their own reality.

    General officers are politicians, they often talk to troops only when it benefits their image and/or career. Junior troops often ask troubling and dangerous questions when they’re going to a combat zone, you have minimal disciplinary leverage, so it’s best to avoid potential problems.

  175. @Dave Pinsen
    Hitler wanted the German Sixth Army to fight to the death at Stalingrad. Read Beevor's Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege.

    Which is another issue entirely.

  176. @Dave Pinsen
    Presumably, W. was trying to do well on his military aptitude test (to get into the stateside Air National Guard duty during Vietnam). Could it be Feynman mailed it in on his IQ test?

    Sure, that’s one possibility. Like I said, Feynman was a notorious prankster and jokester. I’m somewhat more inclined to believe he was just pulling that journalist’s leg, and the silly fellow didn’t realize it.

    But my main point is there’s simply *no* possibility Feynman had an honest-to-goodness true IQ of 125. 251 or maybe even 512 would be likelier. Back in JHS or HS he developed a new type of generalized Calculus after someone gave him a book. In college, he won the Putnam as a last-minute substitute entrant.

    IQ-fetishists have come up with the silliest theories to justify the 125. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he did badly on the Verbal questions. The bottom line is if Feynman really scored 125 on a legitimate IQ test (a test that allowed scores higher than 125) then “IQ Is Bunk.”

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Ron, one data point could always be wrong, for a multitude of reasons. We don't need to dwell on this question. IQ has a very strong predictive value, even if it isn't perfect and - of course - doesn't predict everything. Maybe he wasn't interested in the test to the point of finishing early without answering all of the questions and chatting up some girls instead. Maybe he was kidding, and his result was 155 or 175 instead. (I'm not sure if most IQ tests could accurately measure anything beyond 145 or so.) Maybe 125 was the maximum score on that particular test. Maybe he was dead drunk while taking the test. Maybe something else. It could be anything. Not particularly relevant. We know he was extremely smart, and we know IQ tests have great - though not perfect - predictive value regardless. If you ever ran statistical analyses, you know the best thing to do with one highly unusual data point is to throw it away.
    , @Jack D
    The IQ test has both a verbal and a performance component. Feynman also did terribly on parts of his GREs (test to get into grad school) and barely got into Princeton as a result. He scored perfectly on the math section but was completely clueless on the verbal section. He felt like knowing that America was discovered in 1492 was worthless knowledge - if you needed to know that (and why would you, anyway?) you could always look it up in a book. (BTW, speaking of verbal, Feynman spoke with a thick Brooklyn accent.)

    Feynman was a savant who was supremely gifted in the mathematical realm but actually very weak in some other areas. But I think mostly a self-imposed weakness - he felt that there were so many real and important problems out there that he was genuine interested in that he refused to fill his mind with what the rest of the world calls a classical education but to him was just worthless dreck that was of no value to what he was interested in accomplishing. And he was not the kind of guy who was willing to just play the game because that's what you are supposed to do. Literature, poetry, history, geography, etc. - all of that to him was just a total waste of time and he refused to be bothered with it.
    , @Anon 3
    I knew Feynman personally, and while he was extremely gifted mathematically and mechanically, he also had a reputation of being an uncultured hick, in contrast to Gell-Mann who was his main competitor at Caltech. Feynman famously prepared for his trip to Brazil by studying Spanish. "Feynman's Lectures in Physics," based on the course he taught at Caltech in the early '60s did not follow his actual verbiage because, as Feynman famously said, he did not speak "writeable English." He was definitely a bigger-than-life showman, the likes of which are rare today as most white American men have been beaten down by feminism and white guilt. Interestingly, he refused to be classified as Jewish.

    Lately, feminist bloggers have been going after him for having used negging on Las Vegas showgirls in the late 1940s (because of that Feynman is a hero to the denizens of the Manosphere), and also because of his habit of taking his graduate students to topless bars in Pasadena.
  177. @Dave Pinsen
    If anything, the calamity in Iraq ought to burnish the perception of HBD, since Steve pointed out, in 2003, an HBD reason for why nation building would be so difficult in Iraq.

    George W. Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Krystal, et.al. didn't grok that, not because their IQs were too low, but because HBD was outside the Overton window. They assumed Iraq was full of Ahmed Chalabis and Foad Ajamis ready to flourish once out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

    George W. Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Bill Krystal, et.al. didn’t grok that, not because their IQs were too low, but because HBD was outside the Overton window. They assumed Iraq was full of Ahmed Chalabis and Foad Ajamis ready to flourish once out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

    They also didn’t factor in the extent to which relatively unchallenged American hegemony would feed internal dissent stateside. Don’t know that raw IQ helps there either.

  178. @Ron Unz

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system])
     
    This is *exactly* the reason I'm so extremely skeptical of that published claim that Richard Feynman (a notorious jokester) once said his IQ had been tested at 125.

    In my considered opinion, there's no one in the second half of the twentieth century who had a stronger claim to being the smartest human being in the world than Richard Feynman. And we're supposed to believe he actually had exactly the same tested IQ as George W. Bush??!!

    As everyone knows, I'm quite skeptical of the more rigid claims advanced by dogmatic IQists. But c'mon. If honest-to-goodness IQ tests actually gave the same score to "W" and Feynman, that single datapoint would be sufficient to totally discredit the very notion of IQ. It's lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman...

    It’s lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman…

    Surely you’re joking, Mr. Unz. I would think he’s closer to their patron saint.

  179. @Steve Sailer
    Here's a question: what's percentage of Israelis actually live in the U.S.?

    Here’s a question: what’s percentage of Israelis actually live in the U.S.?

    Start with this one.

    And this one.

  180. @Art Deco
    They will simply become more Republican. The first wave turned the GOP into the invade the world party in a generation.

    --

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    1. There is no 'invade-the-world' party;

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft's political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.

    You’ll note that in your “real world” all the doors lock from the outside.

    1) Start by counting up the number of countries in which we have garrisons.

    2) Another Art Deco pointless reference. Well, it has a point. That point being Art Deco needs to peacock on websites. Otherwise, it is another irrelevant reference, a feature of all Art Deco posts.

    3) OK. I never said other wise. I’m just going to assume this is in response to some imagined conversation you had with someone.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    1) Start by counting up the number of countries in which we have garrisons.

    Yeah, I care about the Marine guards and the defense attaché at the U.S. Embassy. The number of billets in the Southern Command was, last time I checked, about 2,000, of whom over 900 were stationed at Guantanamo Bay, an American possession since 1902 with no native population. Billets in all of Tropical and Southern Africa amounted to 5,000 troops. Between 70% and 87% of all American manpower has since the end of the Cold War been stationed in the United States or its possessions. The vast bulk of the remainder ca. 2007 were in six countries: Germany, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. The rest are in dribs and drabs which do not break into five digits. No, Germany and Japan are not American satrapies and the 57,000 American troops in Germany (were they to consist entirely of Army and Marines) would have been perhaps sufficient to subdue an antagonistic territory about the population of Belgium.



    Another Art Deco pointless reference.

    You made a historical statement which is a commonplace alt-right fiction. Now you're going to deny you made it? It's in cold print until Unz deletes it.


    3) OK. I never said other wise. I’m just going to assume this is in response to some imagined conversation you had with someone.

    No, it's a response to your discussion of Jewish voting patterns and the evolution of the GOP. Read your original post and quit lying.
  181. @SFG
    I think respectability is a huge deal for UMC women of every time period, though obviously what being respectable means differs hugely over time periods.

    I think respectability is a huge deal for UMC women of every time period, though obviously what being respectable means differs hugely over time periods.

    What’s interesting is how much UMC women, even GOP-voting UMC women, have bought into the Progressive (sic) standards of respectability. “To each his own” appeals strongly to men of a libertarian bent, but women seem to naturally gravitate to whatever norms are on offer. If libertarians abandon that field, then Progressive (sic) norms carry the day.

    Being in the vanguard of progress is still a powerful source of American common identity.

  182. @ben tillman

    Moriscos (Spanish: [moˈɾiskos], Catalan: [muˈɾiskus], [moˈɾiskos]; Portuguese: mouriscos [mo(w)ˈɾiʃkuʃ], [mo(w)ˈɾiskus]; meaning “Moorish”) were former Muslims who were forced to convert to Christianity rather than face death or expulsion from Spain
     
    That's self-contradictory. They could not have been "forced" to convert if there were alternatives permitted to them. An accurate assessment is that they were "allowed" to convert.

    Your comments are usually good, but that is an even more ridiculous statement than the one Svigor made. By your standard no one could ever be forced to do anything, since death is always a potential alternative. Exile is not as bad as death, but it is still not really an alternative.

  183. @LC
    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.But plenty of people with above average IQs are like that.In Bush’s case, we have his SAT and Military Aptitude scores, and they clearly show that his IQ is not below 100 (the White American Mean)

    I agree intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate well with articulateness, but that doesn't apply to Bush. His speech issues most likely has a lot to do with his prior alcohol and drug use catching up to him. Check out this video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo

    His speech issues most likely has a lot to do with his prior alcohol and drug use catching up to him

    Don’t forget his father’s aphasia. He could have inherited that through nature or nurture.

    “His speech issues most likely has…?” Perhaps you should be checked yourself!

  184. @Karl
    >>> Just a musing, I’m not sure a belief system like that can stand the test of time

    The American liberal Jews are (demographically) self-selecting for extinction. Even faster than the Japanese are.

    Looking ahead 3 generations, they will be completely replaced by "modern Orthodox" (which is just a somewhat darker shade of pale, really) and the self-identified "Israeli Americans".

    the latter are building up their community infra-structure, basically side-stepping and ignoring the "legacy" american Jews.

    The liberal "American Jews" have developed a rather strong ==physical== infra-structure, but 3 generations from now, the "Jewish community Centers" will be as "Jewish" as a YMCA gymnasium is "christian".

    It is an interesting phenomenon. Today, most Americans think of Jews as being like Larry David or Sarah Silverman. Given current demographics, most Americans three generations from now will think of Jews like we currently think of the Amish.

    • Replies: @solontoCroesus

    most Americans three generations from now will think of Jews like we currently think of the Amish.
     
    Do the Amish have a century-plus long history of starting wars, profiting from them, stealing other people's lands, complaining when they demand it back, killing them for resisting, inserting themselves in other nation's institutions, etc?

    Where do these Amish live?
    , @Art Deco
    Today, most Americans think of Jews as being like Larry David or Sarah Silverman.

    No, probably the lawyer they hired for their real estate closing or their vascular surgeon.
  185. @Ron Unz
    Sure, that's one possibility. Like I said, Feynman was a notorious prankster and jokester. I'm somewhat more inclined to believe he was just pulling that journalist's leg, and the silly fellow didn't realize it.

    But my main point is there's simply *no* possibility Feynman had an honest-to-goodness true IQ of 125. 251 or maybe even 512 would be likelier. Back in JHS or HS he developed a new type of generalized Calculus after someone gave him a book. In college, he won the Putnam as a last-minute substitute entrant.

    IQ-fetishists have come up with the silliest theories to justify the 125. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he did badly on the Verbal questions. The bottom line is if Feynman really scored 125 on a legitimate IQ test (a test that allowed scores higher than 125) then "IQ Is Bunk."

    Ron, one data point could always be wrong, for a multitude of reasons. We don’t need to dwell on this question. IQ has a very strong predictive value, even if it isn’t perfect and – of course – doesn’t predict everything. Maybe he wasn’t interested in the test to the point of finishing early without answering all of the questions and chatting up some girls instead. Maybe he was kidding, and his result was 155 or 175 instead. (I’m not sure if most IQ tests could accurately measure anything beyond 145 or so.) Maybe 125 was the maximum score on that particular test. Maybe he was dead drunk while taking the test. Maybe something else. It could be anything. Not particularly relevant. We know he was extremely smart, and we know IQ tests have great – though not perfect – predictive value regardless. If you ever ran statistical analyses, you know the best thing to do with one highly unusual data point is to throw it away.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Sure, Reiner, I'm half-joking when I suggest that the single case of Richard Feynman could overturn 100 years of IQ theory. And in fact, I personally lean toward what I've called the "Weak IQ Hypothesis":

    http://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/

    But what nominally looks to be something like an six- or eight-sigma error isn't exactly trivial. Eight sigmas is a lot of sigmas.

    And my argument isn't wholly facetious. For example, I think most people would agree that the smartest people in world are probably the top theoretical physicists and mathematicians and such. Now without having done any digging, I've never heard anyone mention any of their tested IQs with the sole exception of Feynman's. So it's not impossible many of them might be equally unimpressive. The only really high IQs you ever tend to hear about are allegedly those of various celebrities, most of which are very likely fictitious products of their dishonest PR staff.

    Meanwhile, the best estimate I've seen is that there are at least a couple of hundred Americans with 200+ IQs. Who are they and what have they done? Who knows. Is Ed Witten one of them? Who knows?

    Don't forget that back when IQ research was perfectly acceptable, Stanford's Frederick Terman, who helped develop one of main IQ tests, did a long-term study of all the highest-IQ students in CA, hundreds of them as I recall. What was remarkable was how unremarkable their eventual academic and professional accomplishments were. Certainly well above average, but not a single one of them doing anything spectacular or revolutionary.

    Obviously, with large-scale IQ research largely forbidden these days, there's no hope of unraveling any of these puzzles.
  186. KA says:

    I was expecting some data that suggest the new thesis of Goldberg and Pen from the article and from the comments – the reason of antisemitism lies in fanatic fundamentalism Islam. May be its out there somewhere.
    But until that makes to the visible public domain , we have to be happy with whats available

    This is the statistic


    —the United Kingdom—we will find that anti-Semitic incidents (anti-Jewish to be exact) have doubled in the last year, alone, according to the Community Security Trust. Last year, CST recorded 1,168 anti-Semitic incidents—well over the 535 recorded in 2013.
    –he rise has everything to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict—namely with the bombardment of Gaza, as CST points out. —

    whites perpetrated 44 percent of the anti-Semitic incidents in England, the lion’s share, while Arab or North African belligerence comprised a mere 10 percent. Surprisingly, South Asian offenders made up 37 percent, and only 8 percent were described as Black. According to the numbers, the “Arab-Israeli conflict,” as it metastasizes into Europe, is driven principally by whites, not by Jews or Arabs. I would argue that the same is true in the Levant.

    – this rise is relative; 2009 and 2006 saw similarly high numbers of anti-Semitic attacks, and the reasons were the same—Israeli attacks in the Levant. ”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/23/the-fallacy-of-anti-semitism-rising/

    Alexander Reid Ross is a contributing moderator of the Earth First! Newswire.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I hardly doubt Sikh or Christian Black people would perpetrate anti-Semitic incidents in England. So the following seems to be a reasonable approximation:

    Arab and North African = Muslim 10%
    South Asian = Muslim 37%
    Black = Muslim 8%

    Altogether 55% Muslim, in a country where Muslims make up just maybe 5% (but definitely under 10%) of the population.
  187. KA says:
    @ben tillman

    OT, but Razib Khan just got Watsoned from his new NYT gig after that Gawker post:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/new-york-times-drops-razib-khan-204287.html#.VQuL
     
    Oh, the irony.

    Very sorry to hear this but not at all surprised .
    Some one can work with the military of a racist country or can have son or daughter working and still can survive and flourish in NYT like Goldberg or the Jerusalem based NYT journalists do in NYT while extolling the virtue of the same country or ignoring the immoral racial fanatic sate sponsored violence of the same country .
    They can showcase columnists as OpED contributor who openly express or have expressed racial antagonism most violently against Arab or Iranian.
    But Razib has to find a different outlet for his message that has nothing to do with wars or violence as a state or national policy .

  188. @SanguineEmpiricist
    The white people in the UK need to leverage the Sikh community asap against the muslims who refuse to participate in polite society. The sikh religion is DEFINED by Sikh-matryrs in a campaign against muslim extremists back in the day and they are equally the victims of those very same rapists they have the

    1) Suppression of inbreeding(see HBD chick)
    2) participation in science
    3) could be fooled for muslims to the untrained eye and thus giving cover against the eventual "racist' allegations.
    4) Most sikh people I know move on and want to be considered american or european alongside sikh.

    This will be very important, if you cannot win on immigration completely you need to shift it to the right area.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/23/the-fallacy-of-anti-semitism-rising/

    “whites perpetrated 44 percent of the anti-Semitic incidents in England, the lion’s share, while Arab or North African belligerence comprised a mere 10 percent. Surprisingly, South Asian offenders made up 37 percent, and only 8 percent were described as Black. “

    • Replies: @Jack D
    "South Asian" means Pakistani Muslims and the blacks are also probably mostly Muslims. So when you add Pakistani Muslims back to other Muslims, now they are the majority again.

    I don't know why it would be surprising that South Asian Muslims are anti-Semitic. And of course there are far more Paki immigrants in Britain than Arab, so that accounts for why they constitute the bulk of the non-white offenders.

    Note also that Britain is still around 85% white, so non-whites are offending at several times the white rate (as is usual for most crimes). 15% of the population is committing 56% of these offenses while 85% are committing the remaining 44%.

  189. Forced conversion, of course, was not something specially applied to Jews, but quite often happened to Christians of the ‘wrong’ confession, particularly during the counter reformation. For instance, Austria and its dependent territories were from the 1620′s systematically recatholized. Protestants were forced to either convert or to emigrate (Those were called ‘Exulanten’). Often, emigration was not allowed, so there was not even that choice. Many of these Protestants converted formally only, to wait for an opportunity to flee to some place were they could keep their confession.

    As for the supposed threat of radical Islamists for Jews, the Israeli elite certainly does not see it that way. One has to keep in mind that the main target of radical islamist militants like ISIS or Al Kaida are overwhelmingly not Jews or ‘crusaders’, but other Muslims that they consider as heretics. Because of this, these radical Islamists are often called ‘Takfiris’ in the Arabic world, after the word for declaring another Muslim to be an apostate. Bin Laden with his emphasis on fighting the ‘crusaders’ was quite the exception.

    This behaviour is, of course, quite typical for extremists of every stripe – Monty Python satirized it in their film “Life of Brian” with the ‘People’s Front of Judea’ and the ‘Judean Peoples Front’ hating each other much more than their supposed common enemy, the Romans.

    An ideologically committed Al Kaida or ISIS member will always consider, for instance, shiite islamic Iran and its allies a far bigger threat than the USA or Israel.

    It is true, that there have been a few dozen Muslims in Europe that have carried out terrorist attacks against (at least nominal) Christians and Jews. But in the same time frame thousands of European Muslims have left for Syria and Iraq in order to slaughter other Muslims (and perhaps a few native Christians). There are even Israeli Arabs that have joined ISIS, snubbing the chance to attack all the Jews right before their noses, preferring instead to go through all the trouble in order to get a chance to slit Muslim throat. As well, many Islamist fighters in Afghanistan left for Syria when the civil war broke out there, the fight against ‘crusaders’ being considered of far less importance than that against ‘Rafawidis’ (Schiites) and ‘Nusayris’ (Allawites).

    Israel therefore sees Islamist militants as highly useful tools to spread chaos and destruction in its neighbourhood in order to weaken rivals like Syria. Some – like Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and close adviser to Netanyahu, Michael Oren – have openly said that they would prefer an Al-Qaida regime in Syria. Currently, the Al-Nusra front, the official Syrian branch of Al-Qaida, has a camp directly at the Golan demarcation line, with nothing but the most excellent Israeli-Al Qaida relations, including treatment of wounded:

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/15/bin-laden-and-bibi-together-at-last/

    A radical Takfiri regime in Damascus would be certainly no threat for Israel; it would be preoccupied by its persecution of religious minorities and in regard to foreign policy would consider, like Saudi Arabia, Iran as its primary enemy.

    Even now, with the Syrian rebels sure to lose, it still makes sense for Israel to prop them up, in order to maximise the damage to the Syrian economy. In the last few years before the outbreak of the civil war, Syria was because of a growing economy able to invest again – for the first time since the end of Soviet aid – large amounts into the modernisation of its armed forces. It will be a long time until Syria will be able to do that again.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Some – like Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and close adviser to Netanyahu, Michael Oren – have openly said that they would prefer an Al-Qaida regime in Syria.
     
    Link or it didn't happen. (I really need the link, I could use it elsewhere.)
  190. KA says:
    @anonymous
    "They assumed Iraq was full of Ahmed Chalabis and Foad Ajamis ready to flourish once out from under the thumb of Saddam Hussein."

    It's a common fallacy, especially among smart people, to assume that everyone is similar to them.

    They were rally smart.They told some duffer and a few dufus to go and occupy a house where they would see their own reflections on the mirrors and would see shadow of themselves cast by the morning sun. Alas! Nothing like that panned out . So they tried to get out and found themselves locked in from outside by the same smart people using different keys this time like nation building,debathification,stopping Iran,stopping (or creating new one) AlQida .

  191. @Ron Unz
    Sure, that's one possibility. Like I said, Feynman was a notorious prankster and jokester. I'm somewhat more inclined to believe he was just pulling that journalist's leg, and the silly fellow didn't realize it.

    But my main point is there's simply *no* possibility Feynman had an honest-to-goodness true IQ of 125. 251 or maybe even 512 would be likelier. Back in JHS or HS he developed a new type of generalized Calculus after someone gave him a book. In college, he won the Putnam as a last-minute substitute entrant.

    IQ-fetishists have come up with the silliest theories to justify the 125. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he did badly on the Verbal questions. The bottom line is if Feynman really scored 125 on a legitimate IQ test (a test that allowed scores higher than 125) then "IQ Is Bunk."

    The IQ test has both a verbal and a performance component. Feynman also did terribly on parts of his GREs (test to get into grad school) and barely got into Princeton as a result. He scored perfectly on the math section but was completely clueless on the verbal section. He felt like knowing that America was discovered in 1492 was worthless knowledge – if you needed to know that (and why would you, anyway?) you could always look it up in a book. (BTW, speaking of verbal, Feynman spoke with a thick Brooklyn accent.)

    Feynman was a savant who was supremely gifted in the mathematical realm but actually very weak in some other areas. But I think mostly a self-imposed weakness – he felt that there were so many real and important problems out there that he was genuine interested in that he refused to fill his mind with what the rest of the world calls a classical education but to him was just worthless dreck that was of no value to what he was interested in accomplishing. And he was not the kind of guy who was willing to just play the game because that’s what you are supposed to do. Literature, poetry, history, geography, etc. – all of that to him was just a total waste of time and he refused to be bothered with it.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Feynman was into Regular Guyism, c. 1940, Outer Boroughs Division. He gave off a Bugs Bunny vibe.
    , @Ron Unz
    Perhaps. But whereas some of the GREs do test reading and writing ability, I don't think the IQ Verbal portion requires much historical knowledge or questions about Columbus. I just find it very implausible that his IQ subtests would have been so exceptionally uncorrelated as to produce a 125. In fact, he was always known as very fast on his verbal feed and (I think) quite adept at learning languages.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Yes, that's exactly what I gathered from reading Gleick's book. But I can't say he was narrow-nded. He enjoyed bongos and planning trips to Tanu Tuva. People like what they like. And what he liked was pretty awesome. He was no humorless killjoy.

    And I love the stories people tell about him. When people tell lots of stories about you, it means you are a treasure. I cannot resist telling one:

    He and fam rolled into some gas station in SoCal in the early 60s. They had a large van/camper, whose sides were scrawled with Feynman diagrams. Someone actually knew what they were, approached him, and asked, "Why are there Feynman diagrams on your camper?"

    Feynman said, "Because I am Feynman!"

    I don't even care if it's true or not. Great story.
  192. “Art Deco says:

    “”you to still have to often wade through an enormous amount of anti-gentilic rage””

    ‘Anti-gentilic rage’? You need to get a grip.”

    Said the man who writes much and understands nothing.

    “That’s a passable description of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s writings and some of the elements of it can be found in Leon Wieseltier’s, Robert Wistrich’s, and Hyam Maccoby’s. It’s pretty unusual elsewhere.”

    It’s quite common in popular culture. Look at the kind of things routinely said by Sarah Silverman, or just about any christmas-themed movie made since about 1955. It’s not even uncommon in the precincts of the comments section at this website.

  193. “Udolpho says:

    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen’s blog), why do you continue to clutter Sailer’s blog with your frequently bizarre and always uninteresting comments?”

    One can only assume that Art Deco is bizarre and uninteresting, and that’s all he has to offer.

  194. @KA
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/23/the-fallacy-of-anti-semitism-rising/
    "whites perpetrated 44 percent of the anti-Semitic incidents in England, the lion’s share, while Arab or North African belligerence comprised a mere 10 percent. Surprisingly, South Asian offenders made up 37 percent, and only 8 percent were described as Black. "

    “South Asian” means Pakistani Muslims and the blacks are also probably mostly Muslims. So when you add Pakistani Muslims back to other Muslims, now they are the majority again.

    I don’t know why it would be surprising that South Asian Muslims are anti-Semitic. And of course there are far more Paki immigrants in Britain than Arab, so that accounts for why they constitute the bulk of the non-white offenders.

    Note also that Britain is still around 85% white, so non-whites are offending at several times the white rate (as is usual for most crimes). 15% of the population is committing 56% of these offenses while 85% are committing the remaining 44%.

  195. “Dave Pinsen says:

    I don’t know that Bush was intellectually lazy. I recall reading that he read a lot of books while in the White House.”

    There are (or at least used to be ) women who read lots of Harlequin romances. There are (or at least were) men who read nothing but Louis Lamour westerns. Reading a lot does not necessarily make one intellectually adventurous.

  196. @Menschmaschine
    Forced conversion, of course, was not something specially applied to Jews, but quite often happened to Christians of the 'wrong' confession, particularly during the counter reformation. For instance, Austria and its dependent territories were from the 1620's systematically recatholized. Protestants were forced to either convert or to emigrate (Those were called 'Exulanten'). Often, emigration was not allowed, so there was not even that choice. Many of these Protestants converted formally only, to wait for an opportunity to flee to some place were they could keep their confession.

    As for the supposed threat of radical Islamists for Jews, the Israeli elite certainly does not see it that way. One has to keep in mind that the main target of radical islamist militants like ISIS or Al Kaida are overwhelmingly not Jews or 'crusaders', but other Muslims that they consider as heretics. Because of this, these radical Islamists are often called 'Takfiris' in the Arabic world, after the word for declaring another Muslim to be an apostate. Bin Laden with his emphasis on fighting the 'crusaders' was quite the exception.

    This behaviour is, of course, quite typical for extremists of every stripe - Monty Python satirized it in their film "Life of Brian" with the 'People's Front of Judea' and the 'Judean Peoples Front' hating each other much more than their supposed common enemy, the Romans.

    An ideologically committed Al Kaida or ISIS member will always consider, for instance, shiite islamic Iran and its allies a far bigger threat than the USA or Israel.

    It is true, that there have been a few dozen Muslims in Europe that have carried out terrorist attacks against (at least nominal) Christians and Jews. But in the same time frame thousands of European Muslims have left for Syria and Iraq in order to slaughter other Muslims (and perhaps a few native Christians). There are even Israeli Arabs that have joined ISIS, snubbing the chance to attack all the Jews right before their noses, preferring instead to go through all the trouble in order to get a chance to slit Muslim throat. As well, many Islamist fighters in Afghanistan left for Syria when the civil war broke out there, the fight against 'crusaders' being considered of far less importance than that against 'Rafawidis' (Schiites) and 'Nusayris' (Allawites).

    Israel therefore sees Islamist militants as highly useful tools to spread chaos and destruction in its neighbourhood in order to weaken rivals like Syria. Some - like Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and close adviser to Netanyahu, Michael Oren - have openly said that they would prefer an Al-Qaida regime in Syria. Currently, the Al-Nusra front, the official Syrian branch of Al-Qaida, has a camp directly at the Golan demarcation line, with nothing but the most excellent Israeli-Al Qaida relations, including treatment of wounded:

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/15/bin-laden-and-bibi-together-at-last/

    A radical Takfiri regime in Damascus would be certainly no threat for Israel; it would be preoccupied by its persecution of religious minorities and in regard to foreign policy would consider, like Saudi Arabia, Iran as its primary enemy.

    Even now, with the Syrian rebels sure to lose, it still makes sense for Israel to prop them up, in order to maximise the damage to the Syrian economy. In the last few years before the outbreak of the civil war, Syria was because of a growing economy able to invest again - for the first time since the end of Soviet aid - large amounts into the modernisation of its armed forces. It will be a long time until Syria will be able to do that again.

    Some – like Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and close adviser to Netanyahu, Michael Oren – have openly said that they would prefer an Al-Qaida regime in Syria.

    Link or it didn’t happen. (I really need the link, I could use it elsewhere.)

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I actually found it myself.
    , @Menschmaschine
    Bad guys” backed by Iran are worse for Israel than “bad guys” who are not supported by the Islamic Republic, Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post in a parting interview.

    Oren, in the interview that is to be published in full on Friday, traced the evolution of Israel’s message on Syria during the three weeks of the chemical weapons crisis.

    “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.

    This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.

    “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” he said, adding that this designation did not apply to everyone in the Syrian opposition. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”


    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328


    The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [Syrian President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.

    Even if those bad guys are al-Qaida or [Jabhat] al-Nusra?

    We understand that they are pretty bad guys. Not everyone in the opposition is a bad guy. Still, the greatest danger to Israel was by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran to Damascus, to Beirut.

    http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lines/Diplomacy-Obama-passes-the-kishka-test-326570
  197. KA says:

    Back then, you’ll recall, when the Israeli Prime Minister appeared on Capitol Hill and spoke before our cheering solons, he spoke these words:

    “Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples – a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state.”

    (Applause.)

    “I’m willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it’s my responsibility to lead my people to peace.”

    (Applause.)

    “Now, this is not easy for me. It’s not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace, we’ll be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.”

    This is the face of Bibi the Benevolent, stern but basically a friend of America and an advocate of Western values. But there is another face, which he waited a few years before unveiling, and it isn’t pretty. Speaking in Israel during the recent election campaign, he declared:

    “I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel. The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand.” http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/19/netanyahu-the-george-wallace-of-the-middle-east/

    Maybe reason for antisemitism lies somewhere here .

  198. @KA
    I was expecting some data that suggest the new thesis of Goldberg and Pen from the article and from the comments - the reason of antisemitism lies in fanatic fundamentalism Islam. May be its out there somewhere.
    But until that makes to the visible public domain , we have to be happy with whats available

    This is the statistic

    "
    —the United Kingdom—we will find that anti-Semitic incidents (anti-Jewish to be exact) have doubled in the last year, alone, according to the Community Security Trust. Last year, CST recorded 1,168 anti-Semitic incidents—well over the 535 recorded in 2013.
    --he rise has everything to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict—namely with the bombardment of Gaza, as CST points out. ---


    whites perpetrated 44 percent of the anti-Semitic incidents in England, the lion’s share, while Arab or North African belligerence comprised a mere 10 percent. Surprisingly, South Asian offenders made up 37 percent, and only 8 percent were described as Black. According to the numbers, the “Arab-Israeli conflict,” as it metastasizes into Europe, is driven principally by whites, not by Jews or Arabs. I would argue that the same is true in the Levant.

    -- this rise is relative; 2009 and 2006 saw similarly high numbers of anti-Semitic attacks, and the reasons were the same—Israeli attacks in the Levant. "
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/23/the-fallacy-of-anti-semitism-rising/

    Alexander Reid Ross is a contributing moderator of the Earth First! Newswire.

    I hardly doubt Sikh or Christian Black people would perpetrate anti-Semitic incidents in England. So the following seems to be a reasonable approximation:

    Arab and North African = Muslim 10%
    South Asian = Muslim 37%
    Black = Muslim 8%

    Altogether 55% Muslim, in a country where Muslims make up just maybe 5% (but definitely under 10%) of the population.

  199. @jtgw
    Yeah, only the Jews who converted were targets of the Inquisition BECAUSE JUDAISM WAS OUTLAWED! I suppose instead of "Inquisition" Goldberg could just have said "Spanish anti-Semitism" but that's somehow less catchy.

    Goldberg could just have said “Spanish anti-Semitism” but that’s somehow less catchy.

    Yeah, and for anyone semi-literate it would, perforce, summon the realization that Arabs, who sustained the culture that provided Jews their 500-year long “golden age” were also chased out of Spain.

  200. @The Z Blog
    It is an interesting phenomenon. Today, most Americans think of Jews as being like Larry David or Sarah Silverman. Given current demographics, most Americans three generations from now will think of Jews like we currently think of the Amish.

    most Americans three generations from now will think of Jews like we currently think of the Amish.

    Do the Amish have a century-plus long history of starting wars, profiting from them, stealing other people’s lands, complaining when they demand it back, killing them for resisting, inserting themselves in other nation’s institutions, etc?

    Where do these Amish live?

    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    The Amish can be quite viscous. I live near Amish country. At night, the sound of drive-by shootings is common. Clop-clop-clop-bang. Clop-clop-clop-bang.

    There's a Chabad-Lubavitch colony near me. People often mistakenly think they are Amish.
  201. @reiner Tor

    Some – like Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and close adviser to Netanyahu, Michael Oren – have openly said that they would prefer an Al-Qaida regime in Syria.
     
    Link or it didn't happen. (I really need the link, I could use it elsewhere.)

    I actually found it myself.

  202. @JohnnyWalker123
    Sexual mores are changing among Indians in Britain and the US. In both countries, 1.5/2nd generation Indian women are now more likely to intermarry than Indian men. That represents a major change from the past, when Indian men were more likely to intermarry.

    Sexual mores are changing among Indians in Britain and the US. In both countries, 1.5/2nd generation Indian women are now more likely to intermarry than Indian men. That represents a major change from the past, when Indian men were more likely to intermarry.

    Intermarry with whom?

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    With non-Indian (primarily white females and white males).
  203. @reiner Tor
    Ron, one data point could always be wrong, for a multitude of reasons. We don't need to dwell on this question. IQ has a very strong predictive value, even if it isn't perfect and - of course - doesn't predict everything. Maybe he wasn't interested in the test to the point of finishing early without answering all of the questions and chatting up some girls instead. Maybe he was kidding, and his result was 155 or 175 instead. (I'm not sure if most IQ tests could accurately measure anything beyond 145 or so.) Maybe 125 was the maximum score on that particular test. Maybe he was dead drunk while taking the test. Maybe something else. It could be anything. Not particularly relevant. We know he was extremely smart, and we know IQ tests have great - though not perfect - predictive value regardless. If you ever ran statistical analyses, you know the best thing to do with one highly unusual data point is to throw it away.

    Sure, Reiner, I’m half-joking when I suggest that the single case of Richard Feynman could overturn 100 years of IQ theory. And in fact, I personally lean toward what I’ve called the “Weak IQ Hypothesis”:

    http://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/

    But what nominally looks to be something like an six- or eight-sigma error isn’t exactly trivial. Eight sigmas is a lot of sigmas.

    And my argument isn’t wholly facetious. For example, I think most people would agree that the smartest people in world are probably the top theoretical physicists and mathematicians and such. Now without having done any digging, I’ve never heard anyone mention any of their tested IQs with the sole exception of Feynman’s. So it’s not impossible many of them might be equally unimpressive. The only really high IQs you ever tend to hear about are allegedly those of various celebrities, most of which are very likely fictitious products of their dishonest PR staff.

    Meanwhile, the best estimate I’ve seen is that there are at least a couple of hundred Americans with 200+ IQs. Who are they and what have they done? Who knows. Is Ed Witten one of them? Who knows?

    Don’t forget that back when IQ research was perfectly acceptable, Stanford’s Frederick Terman, who helped develop one of main IQ tests, did a long-term study of all the highest-IQ students in CA, hundreds of them as I recall. What was remarkable was how unremarkable their eventual academic and professional accomplishments were. Certainly well above average, but not a single one of them doing anything spectacular or revolutionary.

    Obviously, with large-scale IQ research largely forbidden these days, there’s no hope of unraveling any of these puzzles.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Johns Hopkins has run something called "The Study of Exceptional Talent" or SET for several decades now and they have quite a bit of data. To qualify, you have to score over 700 on either section of the SAT. Before your 13th birthday. This is believed to correspond to roughly 150+ IQ.

    A few, such as Terence Tao, have gone on to exceptional careers in math and have receive the Field Medal. Lenhard Ng is another. They both qualified before age 9 - this would probably make them more like 200+ (in the mathematical realm, not a full scale score).

    Most qualifiers don't become world famous but generally speaking they do very well in life. A high percentage go on to earn doctoral level degrees. The demographics are about what you would expect - lots of whites, Jews and Asians (more and more Asians). Very few blacks or non-white Hispanics. I attended the award ceremony one year (they give each winner a nice medal on a ribbon and a free lunch) and the winners are called up by surname in alpabetical order and after the 10th or 15th Lee or Li or Liu the audience began to giggle.

    The vast majority are from intact two parent families - it may not take a village to raise a genius but it takes a mommy and a daddy. Somehow the program has escaped affirmative action.

    More than a few of those who are out at the extreme tail (180+ IQ rather than the 150+) are also spergy/crazy/idiot savants to some extent like Grigori Perelman who turned down a $1M prize after solving the Poincaré conjecture. Or maybe people like that feel that they are perennially living surrounded by idiots and they want to have as little as possible to do with us monkeys.
  204. @The Z Blog
    You'll note that in your "real world" all the doors lock from the outside.

    1) Start by counting up the number of countries in which we have garrisons.

    2) Another Art Deco pointless reference. Well, it has a point. That point being Art Deco needs to peacock on websites. Otherwise, it is another irrelevant reference, a feature of all Art Deco posts.

    3) OK. I never said other wise. I'm just going to assume this is in response to some imagined conversation you had with someone.

    1) Start by counting up the number of countries in which we have garrisons.

    Yeah, I care about the Marine guards and the defense attaché at the U.S. Embassy. The number of billets in the Southern Command was, last time I checked, about 2,000, of whom over 900 were stationed at Guantanamo Bay, an American possession since 1902 with no native population. Billets in all of Tropical and Southern Africa amounted to 5,000 troops. Between 70% and 87% of all American manpower has since the end of the Cold War been stationed in the United States or its possessions. The vast bulk of the remainder ca. 2007 were in six countries: Germany, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan. The rest are in dribs and drabs which do not break into five digits. No, Germany and Japan are not American satrapies and the 57,000 American troops in Germany (were they to consist entirely of Army and Marines) would have been perhaps sufficient to subdue an antagonistic territory about the population of Belgium.

    Another Art Deco pointless reference.

    You made a historical statement which is a commonplace alt-right fiction. Now you’re going to deny you made it? It’s in cold print until Unz deletes it.

    3) OK. I never said other wise. I’m just going to assume this is in response to some imagined conversation you had with someone.

    No, it’s a response to your discussion of Jewish voting patterns and the evolution of the GOP. Read your original post and quit lying.

  205. @iSteveFan

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft’s political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.
     
    I think the neocons definitely prodded the GOP to become more engaged in foreign events after the end of the Vietnam War, and were worried about a possible return to Senator Taft-type non-intervention. Here is a quote from Norman Podhoretz in 1979 addressing this concern:

    There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.

    I don't know the precise number of Taft followers during the late 70s, early 80s, but if Podhoretz was worried about a return to the non-interventionist mood of the interwar years, there must have been more than five of them.

    There were no Taft followers in Congress in 1979 or 1989 bar, perhaps, Ron Paul. Norman Podhoretz was a lapsed literary critic familiar with Manhattan and Long Island salons. He’s not going to matter more than the people who had and did make policy. The Republican Party developed the culture it had on foreign policy questions during the period running from 1941 to 1959. New York literary intellectuals did not have squat to do with that, though they may have in later years published the work of some people who did. Podhoretz son-in-law was a 2d echelon official of the State department for a number of years, but Elliot Abrams was only one person in the Reagan brain trust. George Schultz and Caspar Weinberger came out of the corporate world and business school faculties; Alexander Haig, Robert MacFarlane, John Poindexter, and Oliver North were career military; Kenneth Adelman was Jewish, but he was a protégé of Donald Rumsfeld, not an associate of Podhoretz or Irving Kristol.

  206. @Cagey Beast
    I don't agree. I follow about a half dozen French political websites and podcasts on a regular basis and find the schism caused by the Algerian War is still quite alive in FN debates. Recently there was an open argument caused by Florian Philippot, a senior FN official laying flowers on the grave of Gen. de Gaulle despite the party's strong base of support amongst pieds noirs.

    This topic came up only because the original article in The Atlantic made the tired claim that the FN is the party of Vichy regime nostalgics, which is just not the case. I've read lots of far-right websites from there and the Vichy fans complain about the FN having lost its way long ago, or having never been any good to them from the start. As for FN supporters, I've read angry readers' comments at right-wing sites when they posted a video documentary sympathetic to the Vichy regime's militia. Lots of comments along the lines of: "why are you celebrating this trash?" or "these were the guys who shot my great-uncle, **** them" etc. They have some respect for the French volunteers who fought on the Eastern Front but that's as far as it goes.

    There is nothing in the way of an active Petainist movement in France of any size. Petain himself was drawing on personnel from a variety of strands whose common feature was an accommodation to circumstance. Pierre Laval came out of the subculture of anti-clerical bourgeois freemasons (though he’d left the Radical Party prior to 1940 and worked as a free-lance local pol), Pierre Peucheu was the director of the steel industry trade association, various and sundry were career military, Joseph Barthelemy was a Catholic academic, &c. It did not have the makings of a cohesive unit after the war even had Petain et al not been discredited and disgraced.

  207. @syonredux

    Bush’s problem lies in the fact that although a 125 IQ is well above normal, it makes him quite average in terms of the “smart fraction”


    I think that puts him around the 94th percentile of the general population. I imagine the amour-propre of most of the participants on this board includes the fancy that that’s beneath them.
     
    I would guess that 125 is about the mean for readers of Steve's blog.That's one of the reasons why GW Bush doesn't strike us as particularly smart.To us, he's just an average guy.

    Our most intellectually inclined presidents in the last century have been Wilson, Hoover, and Nixon, in about that order.
     
    Theodore Roosevelt should be added to that list.

    Not too edifying.
     
    TR strikes me as a very successful president.Of course, you neglected to mention him....

    Hoover was also an exceedingly accomplished man in private life and in public administration. Trouble was, no one’s judgment is flawless and, strange as it may seem to the Stevoshpere, intelligence is not the only valuable property a person has.
     
    I don't know.It seems to me that the "Stevosphere" is quite cognizant that IQ alone is not enough to make a great leader.Steve is certainly aware that it is not enough:

    Gregory Cochran, a rocket scientist turned evolutionary biologist, summed up the challenge facing voters. "What really matters in a leader is not being smart, but being right. Who was smarter? Warren G. Harding or V.I. Lenin? I`m sure Lenin could have beaten Harding in chess, but I definitely would rather have lived under Harding than Lenin. Harding was kind of a dumb bunny, but his prejudices and instincts were much more reasonable than Lenin`s, who was wrong about everything."
     
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/does-iq-matter-in-a-president

    Oh, he’s very inarticulate.

    No, not particularly.
     
    By the standards of Ivy League grads that I have known, he is inarticulate.Of course, some of it might be a put-on.

    He is merely not loquacious.
     
    No, he strikes me as quite talkative; he's simply not very good at expressing himself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vnzjsnpM5U

    (And, as a speaker, he improves on his father, who was painful to listen to).
     
    A frightfully low standard.

    A while back, Thomas Sowell noted that it’s common among a certain sort of bourgeois to confuse intelligence and expertise
     
    Well, it does take a certain level of intelligence to acquire certain kinds of expertise.If a man has a PHD in physics, I think that it is reasonable to assume that his IQ is over 100...

    and then to confuse articulateness with intelligence.
     
    That's quite true. I've had a fair number of professors who were quite clumsy when it came to public speaking.

    No, he strikes me as quite talkative;

    I’m sure you and he have spent lots of time together.

  208. @Udolpho
    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen's blog), why do you continue to clutter Sailer's blog with your frequently bizarre and always uninteresting comments?

    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution

    No, I’ve said the moderator is Jew-obsessed. That’s not really open to dispute. I think I’ve also said the only Jews he seems to notice work as studio executives, producers, talent agents, bond traders, and opinion journalists, although a non-specific crew lunching and not playing golf at country clubs seems to come within his field of vision. (Giraldi seems fixated on lobbyists and Israeli politicians).

    My beef is not with Sailer, who strikes me as an amiable monomaniac, as with the lice who crawl on his back.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the moderator is Jew-obsessed. That’s not really open to dispute. (...)

    My beef is not with Sailer, who strikes me as an amiable monomaniac, as with the lice who crawl on his back.
     
    We hate you for your freedom.

    Sorry to venture off topic here, I'm sure you've answered elsewhere, but I just missed your answer. So you have stated elsewhere that there was no way France was going to be minority white before the end of this century. I gave you this link, which seems to prove that a full third of "French" babies born in France this year might be non-white, and that their portion is growing rapidly, at roughly one percentage point per annum. I thought that after reading this source, either you'll change your opinion and will accept that France is on a fast track to becoming majority nonwhite or you'll provide us with an alternative explanation. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track your answer.
  209. @iSteveFan

    2. Carriers of the signatures of Robert Taft’s political thinking in Congress between 1958 and 2003 amount to about five individuals and no one else.

    3. Jewish opinion journalists and Jewish voters had precisely nothing to do with phenomenon number 2.
     
    I think the neocons definitely prodded the GOP to become more engaged in foreign events after the end of the Vietnam War, and were worried about a possible return to Senator Taft-type non-intervention. Here is a quote from Norman Podhoretz in 1979 addressing this concern:

    There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.

    I don't know the precise number of Taft followers during the late 70s, early 80s, but if Podhoretz was worried about a return to the non-interventionist mood of the interwar years, there must have been more than five of them.

    Thanks for the quote . Father of current Krystol that is out there supporting letter writing effort with millions ( against Iran) of dollars also worried of the disengagement from militaristic foreign policy.

  210. @Numenor
    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:

    a) He raised taxes
    b) He failed to finish off Saddam
    c) He quarrelled with Israel
    d) He was seen as an out-of-touch 'intellectual'

    What lessons do you think Bush Jr. learned from all this?

    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:

    You missed:

    1. The end of the Cold War redistributed some voters who had been motivated by foreign policy questions.

    2. There was considerable persistent exasperation with the Washington political class and their inability to balance the books even with that tax increase (see the Perot phenomenon).

    3. Clinton was an abnormally talented practitioner of public relations.

    4. The media were in the tank for the Democratic Party (see reportage on the economy that year), and the most talented practitioner of turning the tables on them in Republican circles had died in 1991.

    5. Labor market recovery lagged behind recovery in production (and the media reported on the economy as if the latter had never occurred).

    6. Pat Buchanan took a chunk out of the President’s standing

    7. Boredom.

    In other circumstances, I’d offer the Perot phenomenon itself, but I’ve seen opinion research which indicates that Perot was not drawing disproportionately from Republican voters.

    In truth, though, the 1992 election was plain weird. Fully 13% of the electorate seems to have changed their opinion and rejected the incumbent without any discrete and identifiable catalyst. Swings of that magnitude have happened upon economic Depressions (see federal elections in 1894, 1896, and 1932), mismanaged politico-military operations (see 1918 and 1920), and a concatenation of irritations and embarrassments (1980). No real clue about 1992.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Not to mention that Bush had been quite popular not long before immediately after the successful Gulf War. He went from 87% approval in early 1991 to 29% approval in Aug. 92 - almost a 60% drop without a clear cut single cause. Breaking his "no new taxes" pledge made him seem like a liar and there was a bit of a recession, but I would say that a big factor was that he was just not that lovable and did not really inspire loyalty. At best you felt that he was reasonably competent but never inspiring, so that losing him did not feel like it would be any great loss.
  211. @Anonymous

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.
     
    Average enlisted IQ in the Army is in the 90s. Average IQ of general rank officers in Army is in the 130s (this is according to a commenter who claimed to have tested thousands of people in different occupations and observed general officers to have IQs 10 points higher than executives of big companies who average in the 120s).

    The difference between enlisted and generals is 40 points in the US Army. Works well enough.

    Average enlisted IQ in the Army is in the 90s.

    Enlisted personnel make up about 85% of the total troop strength. I seem to recall Linda Gottfriedson offering that the military are debarred by statute from inducting men below the 11th percentile (80 IQ) and as a matter of practice did not induct below the 14th percentile (84).

  212. @The Z Blog
    It is an interesting phenomenon. Today, most Americans think of Jews as being like Larry David or Sarah Silverman. Given current demographics, most Americans three generations from now will think of Jews like we currently think of the Amish.

    Today, most Americans think of Jews as being like Larry David or Sarah Silverman.

    No, probably the lawyer they hired for their real estate closing or their vascular surgeon.

  213. @JohnnyWalker123
    That's laughable.

    He got into the Ivy League partly through legacy connections.

    As for his "business world" experience, he's never been in a managerial or decision making role. He was kept as a PR Front man in most of his businesses. During the 1990s, he got onto the board of a private equity firm. Some of the PE partners were so shocked by W's lack of maturity and work ethic that they suggested he leave.

    W is nothing more than the idiot son of a wealthy and influential man.

    To be fair, HW Bush is a competent man. Even in his 90s, he's still advising on private equity transactions and building political alliances. HW Bush's other children are also not particularly incompetent. So I think W's lack of competence is probably not genetic in origin. My guess would be that his alcoholism and cocaine/drug use have impaired his neurological facilities. Anyone who's dealt with ex-addicts knows that the mental damage is never completely undone.

    W most likely was just a puppet president. The real power in the administration was in the hands of Dick Cheney, the Israeli/neoconservative intelligentsia and oligarchs, the Goldman Sachs crowd (Paulson, etc.), and the CIA/FBI/military. W was nothing more than a front man. Anyone who's listened to the man speak or debate can't help but be shocked at his shortcomings. No way was that man in any type of decision making role.

    Of course, Barack Obama isn't much better. The men pulling his strings are his Jewish advisers (Axelrod, Plouffe, Rahm Emmanuel), the CIA/FBI/military Deep State, Wall Street (Summers, Geithner), and a few Democratic-aligned oligarchs. Obama is a much better speaker than W and somewhat more intelligent, but I really doubt he's running his administration.

    There's evidence to suggest the Obama and his parents might've worked for the CIA in the past. If we assume this to be true, then maybe Obama's rise was engineered by the Deep State. That could explain how a relatively undistinguished state senator quickly rose from obscurity to become the Illinois Senator and the the Democratic presidential front runner. Maybe the Deep State connected him with financiers and talented political organizers, while also manipulating news coverage and party bosses.

    Eisenhower warned about the growing influence of the Deep State "military-industrial complex" during the end of his presidency. After JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy of various Deep State figures (Ruby, Oswald, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, E Howard Hunt, David Morales, Cord Meyer) and later RFK, Deep State took control of the presidency. LBJ was obviously a CIA collaborator in the JFK assassination, Nixon was involved in the assassination too, and Gerald Ford helped with the Warren Commission cover up. Bill Clinton helped with the CIA cocaine trafficking through Mena, Arkansas, when Clinton was governor of the state. W's father was former CIA director. Our government was pretty much been run by Deep State collaborators since JFK's assassination.

    W most likely was just a puppet president.

    Just make stuff up if it helps you feel better.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    George Bush was a man of fine intellect.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aVZvQhVS8U

    As President Bush said in his interview with Brian Williams, "I read 3 Shakespeares."

  214. @Ron Unz
    Sure, Reiner, I'm half-joking when I suggest that the single case of Richard Feynman could overturn 100 years of IQ theory. And in fact, I personally lean toward what I've called the "Weak IQ Hypothesis":

    http://www.unz.com/article/race-iq-and-wealth/

    But what nominally looks to be something like an six- or eight-sigma error isn't exactly trivial. Eight sigmas is a lot of sigmas.

    And my argument isn't wholly facetious. For example, I think most people would agree that the smartest people in world are probably the top theoretical physicists and mathematicians and such. Now without having done any digging, I've never heard anyone mention any of their tested IQs with the sole exception of Feynman's. So it's not impossible many of them might be equally unimpressive. The only really high IQs you ever tend to hear about are allegedly those of various celebrities, most of which are very likely fictitious products of their dishonest PR staff.

    Meanwhile, the best estimate I've seen is that there are at least a couple of hundred Americans with 200+ IQs. Who are they and what have they done? Who knows. Is Ed Witten one of them? Who knows?

    Don't forget that back when IQ research was perfectly acceptable, Stanford's Frederick Terman, who helped develop one of main IQ tests, did a long-term study of all the highest-IQ students in CA, hundreds of them as I recall. What was remarkable was how unremarkable their eventual academic and professional accomplishments were. Certainly well above average, but not a single one of them doing anything spectacular or revolutionary.

    Obviously, with large-scale IQ research largely forbidden these days, there's no hope of unraveling any of these puzzles.

    Johns Hopkins has run something called “The Study of Exceptional Talent” or SET for several decades now and they have quite a bit of data. To qualify, you have to score over 700 on either section of the SAT. Before your 13th birthday. This is believed to correspond to roughly 150+ IQ.

    A few, such as Terence Tao, have gone on to exceptional careers in math and have receive the Field Medal. Lenhard Ng is another. They both qualified before age 9 – this would probably make them more like 200+ (in the mathematical realm, not a full scale score).

    Most qualifiers don’t become world famous but generally speaking they do very well in life. A high percentage go on to earn doctoral level degrees. The demographics are about what you would expect – lots of whites, Jews and Asians (more and more Asians). Very few blacks or non-white Hispanics. I attended the award ceremony one year (they give each winner a nice medal on a ribbon and a free lunch) and the winners are called up by surname in alpabetical order and after the 10th or 15th Lee or Li or Liu the audience began to giggle.

    The vast majority are from intact two parent families – it may not take a village to raise a genius but it takes a mommy and a daddy. Somehow the program has escaped affirmative action.

    More than a few of those who are out at the extreme tail (180+ IQ rather than the 150+) are also spergy/crazy/idiot savants to some extent like Grigori Perelman who turned down a $1M prize after solving the Poincaré conjecture. Or maybe people like that feel that they are perennially living surrounded by idiots and they want to have as little as possible to do with us monkeys.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    It's been so many years since I much followed IQ issues I'd completely forgotten about Julian Stanley's John Hopkins program, that's been around since I was a child.

    I'd assume that by now there must be many thousands or even tens of thousands of alumni, and although the IQ of youngsters is somewhat malleable, an IQ of 150+ is a fairly high cut-off.

    Given such a large and long sample size, it really would be interesting to see some listing of their top achievers. I'm certainly not disputing they'd be far above average, but with such a skewed sample you'd really expect lots of enormous outliers.
  215. @syonredux
    Steve:"For example, Jeffrey Goldberg’s giant cover story in The Atlantic is full of expressions of ethnic animosity against Christendom"

    Yeah, lots of stage setting in that piece.All of it meant to remind us that somehow European Christians are to blame for the current woes of the Jews:

    The resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is not—or should not be—a surprise. One of the least surprising phenomena in the history of civilization, in fact, is the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which has been the wellspring of Judeophobia for 1,000 years. The Church itself functioned as the centrifuge of anti-Semitism from the time it rebelled against its mother religion until the middle of the 20th century. As Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Great Britain, has observed, Europe has added to the global lexicon of bigotry such terms as Inquisition, blood libel, auto‑da‑fé, ghetto, pogrom, and Holocaust. Europe has blamed the Jews for an encyclopedia of sins.
     
    It would probably be a waste of time to note that the auto‑da‑fé was used against Christian heretics, and that the Inquisition’s purview was restricted to Christians….

    Yet the new anti-Semitism flourishing in corners of the European Muslim community would be impoverished without the incorporation of European fascist tropes. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian of French Cameroonian descent who specializes in Holocaust revisionism and gas-chamber humor, is the inventor of the quenelle, widely understood as an inverted Nazi salute. His followers have taken to photographing themselves making the quenelle in front of synagogues, Holocaust memorials, and sites of past anti-Jewish terrorist attacks. Dieudonné has built an ideological partnership with Alain Soral, the anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist and 9/11 “truther” who was for several years a member of the National Front’s central committee. Soral was photographed not long ago making the quenelle in front of Berlin’s Holocaust memorial.

    The union of Middle Eastern and European forms of anti-Semitic expression has led to bizarre moments. Dave Rich, an official of the Community Security Trust, a Jewish organization that monitors anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom, wrote recently: “Those British Muslims who verbally abuse British Jews on the street are more likely to shout ‘Heil Hitler’ than ‘Allahu akbar’ when they do so. This is despite the fact that their parents and grandparents were probably chased through the very same streets by gangs of neo-Nazi skinheads shouting similar slogans.”
     
    And, of course, the real threat to Europe’s Jewry comes from Nazi-Islam…..

    The marriage of anti-Semitic narratives was consummated in January of last year, during a so-called Day of Rage march in Paris that was organized to protest the leadership of the French president, François Hollande. The rally drew roughly 17,000 people, mostly far-rightists but also many French Muslims.

    “On one side of this march, you had neonationalist and reactionary Catholics, who had strongly and violently opposed gay marriage, and on the other side young people from the banlieues [suburbs], supporters of Dieudonné, often from African and North African background, whose beliefs are based in opposition to the ‘system’ and on victimhood competition,” Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, the Paris director of the American Jewish Committee, told me. “What unites them is their hatred of Jews.” That day, on the streets of Paris, the anti-Hollande message was overtaken by another chanted slogan: “Juif, la France n’est pas à toi”—“Jew, France is not for you.”

     

    And let’s not forget the coming Catholic-Muslim alliance against the Jews….




    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

    You see, the quenelle (“widely understood as an inverted Nazi salute”) is very-very dangerous and very-very obscene. But the US financial support for the Ukrainian neo-Nazis sporting real swastika and idolizing Hitler is OK.
    An Israeli citizen Kolomoisky has been financing the neo-Nazis thugs to protect his wast investments in East Ukraine. The US Zionists are elated and publish a fawning article about this wealthy Jewish man in the Wall Street Journal (the WSJ carefully omits any mentioning of Kolomoisky’s thugs involvement in burning more than 40 civilians alive in Odessa). http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
    The Jewish wife of a Jewish man, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan is totally OK with the neo-Nazis in Kiev government, because these neo-Nazis are very helpful for establishing a Ukrainian serfdom for the benefits of the Western mega-corporations and mega-banks. http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/04/17/zionists-and-anti-semites-in-ukraine-a-strange-union.html

    Mr. Goldberg, mysteriously, completely misses this Ukrainian scandal of Jewish-Nazi collaboration.

    • Replies: @HA
    "An Israeli citizen Kolomoisky has been financing the neo-Nazis thugs to protect his wast investments in East Ukraine. The US Zionists are elated and publish a fawning article about this wealthy Jewish man in the Wall Street Journal..."

    Oh, great – yet another O/T update on annamarina’s fixation with the "wealthy Jewish" Kolomoisky and his vast personal army of Hitler-idolizing thugs. If this is not the plotline for the next Bond villain, then Hollywood is missing out. Does he also have sharks with laser beams? And look, she was able to make it an entire week without satiating our burning desire to hear about him again. Why did you keep us in suspense so long, I wonder?

    It must indeed be perplexing why Jews (and indeed, "the Jewish wife of a Jewish man," if you can believe that!) are not more fearful of a country where a Jew is apparently able to persuade even Hitlerites to join the personal army he was permitted to assemble, than they are of wealthy-Jew-obsessed loons like her and all others who in similar fashion struggle to safeguard the "noble traditions of Judaism". Speaking of which, they're going to need to plant an entire forest in Israel to commemorate her heroism -- no single tree will suffice, unless maybe they can cram one of those California redwoods down there.

  216. @Anonymous

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.
     
    Average enlisted IQ in the Army is in the 90s. Average IQ of general rank officers in Army is in the 130s (this is according to a commenter who claimed to have tested thousands of people in different occupations and observed general officers to have IQs 10 points higher than executives of big companies who average in the 120s).

    The difference between enlisted and generals is 40 points in the US Army. Works well enough.

    According to the blog proprietor, the minimum IQ is in the 90′s:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/average-iq-of-enlisted-men/

  217. @Jack D
    The IQ test has both a verbal and a performance component. Feynman also did terribly on parts of his GREs (test to get into grad school) and barely got into Princeton as a result. He scored perfectly on the math section but was completely clueless on the verbal section. He felt like knowing that America was discovered in 1492 was worthless knowledge - if you needed to know that (and why would you, anyway?) you could always look it up in a book. (BTW, speaking of verbal, Feynman spoke with a thick Brooklyn accent.)

    Feynman was a savant who was supremely gifted in the mathematical realm but actually very weak in some other areas. But I think mostly a self-imposed weakness - he felt that there were so many real and important problems out there that he was genuine interested in that he refused to fill his mind with what the rest of the world calls a classical education but to him was just worthless dreck that was of no value to what he was interested in accomplishing. And he was not the kind of guy who was willing to just play the game because that's what you are supposed to do. Literature, poetry, history, geography, etc. - all of that to him was just a total waste of time and he refused to be bothered with it.

    Feynman was into Regular Guyism, c. 1940, Outer Boroughs Division. He gave off a Bugs Bunny vibe.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Mel Blanc was from San Francisco and his Bugs Bunny NY accent was fake, but Feynman came by his honestly. You might say that Bugs Bunny gave off a Richard Feynman vibe.

    Feynman entered MIT in 1935 (at age 17) and by 1940 he would have been at grad school in Princeton so you have to move that date back a bit.
    , @SPMoore8
    Perhaps there's a bit too much concern about the effects of IQ beyond a certain threshhold, say 5% or at most 1% (which, I believe comes out to about 125 for the former and 135 for the latter.) (And I am not being capacious for my own benefit either, since I tested beyond those points and my adult son tested well beyond me. ) My experience in life (early '60's) is that the real differences once you get to the top 10% or so is largely a matter of application and environment. I would make some exception for physics and/or math, but even there a lot can be done just with drive and Sitzfleisch.

    But isn't the real issue that certain groups (defined as "races") have means that are significantly below the Caucasian norm? I mean it really doesn't matter, you don't get some kind of badge if you have an IQ >165. But if you have an IQ of below 90, well, yeah, you are much more likely to engage impulsive (and destructive) behaviors, likely to be unemployed or unemployable, and likely to commit crimes. And we are talking about 30%-40% of the population here, depending on which group you are referring to.

    It seems to me that that is where we should center the discussion on IQ, because that is where the deleterious social effects are. Certainly there's no question that people of African or Amerind descent can be brilliant, just that they will be rarer, because of the distribution, and by the same token people of such descent will be more common in the lower, self-destructive, criminal groupings. It's not about racism or lead paint, and it's not about denying humanity to a self-pitying Ta Nehisi Coates: it's an explanation for some of our intractable social problems which remain after decades of anti-racist self-examination. At the same time, there are plenty of dumb white people too, and they also, along with their similarly challenged black neighbors need to fit into the "information society."

    The key wedge issue right now appears to be Latin immigration, on the thesis that it is highly Amerind (Mestizo) and would therefore have deleterious effects on the largely Caucasian America we know. This would affect not only IQ, but also (probably) height, weight, skin tone, etc. I would agree, and I think the attitude of the uber-host of this site (Ron Unz) is probably a bit too sanguine about how this would turn around in the short term. But it cannot be helped if the (soon to be minority) white population refuses to focus on having children, and if the political and economic leaders are unwilling to do anything to control Southern Hemisphere immigration.
  218. @Art Deco
    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:

    You missed:


    1. The end of the Cold War redistributed some voters who had been motivated by foreign policy questions.

    2. There was considerable persistent exasperation with the Washington political class and their inability to balance the books even with that tax increase (see the Perot phenomenon).

    3. Clinton was an abnormally talented practitioner of public relations.

    4. The media were in the tank for the Democratic Party (see reportage on the economy that year), and the most talented practitioner of turning the tables on them in Republican circles had died in 1991.

    5. Labor market recovery lagged behind recovery in production (and the media reported on the economy as if the latter had never occurred).

    6. Pat Buchanan took a chunk out of the President's standing

    7. Boredom.

    In other circumstances, I'd offer the Perot phenomenon itself, but I've seen opinion research which indicates that Perot was not drawing disproportionately from Republican voters.


    In truth, though, the 1992 election was plain weird. Fully 13% of the electorate seems to have changed their opinion and rejected the incumbent without any discrete and identifiable catalyst. Swings of that magnitude have happened upon economic Depressions (see federal elections in 1894, 1896, and 1932), mismanaged politico-military operations (see 1918 and 1920), and a concatenation of irritations and embarrassments (1980). No real clue about 1992.

    Not to mention that Bush had been quite popular not long before immediately after the successful Gulf War. He went from 87% approval in early 1991 to 29% approval in Aug. 92 – almost a 60% drop without a clear cut single cause. Breaking his “no new taxes” pledge made him seem like a liar and there was a bit of a recession, but I would say that a big factor was that he was just not that lovable and did not really inspire loyalty. At best you felt that he was reasonably competent but never inspiring, so that losing him did not feel like it would be any great loss.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    I remember the unraveling of Bush's presidency very clearly. It was shocking - like something out of a Shakespeare play, where the mob turned on the leader. I attribute it to the fact that Bush relaxed and showed his true patrician cards. I'm strange in that I'm a genetic Democrat who enjoys patricians and their shtick, but most Americans don't. Including Republicans. Everyone turned on him.

    Bush 44 learned from Poppy's mistakes and hauled out the dirt and corn pone, hard.
  219. @Steve Sailer
    Feynman was into Regular Guyism, c. 1940, Outer Boroughs Division. He gave off a Bugs Bunny vibe.

    Mel Blanc was from San Francisco and his Bugs Bunny NY accent was fake, but Feynman came by his honestly. You might say that Bugs Bunny gave off a Richard Feynman vibe.

    Feynman entered MIT in 1935 (at age 17) and by 1940 he would have been at grad school in Princeton so you have to move that date back a bit.

  220. @solontoCroesus

    most Americans three generations from now will think of Jews like we currently think of the Amish.
     
    Do the Amish have a century-plus long history of starting wars, profiting from them, stealing other people's lands, complaining when they demand it back, killing them for resisting, inserting themselves in other nation's institutions, etc?

    Where do these Amish live?

    The Amish can be quite viscous. I live near Amish country. At night, the sound of drive-by shootings is common. Clop-clop-clop-bang. Clop-clop-clop-bang.

    There’s a Chabad-Lubavitch colony near me. People often mistakenly think they are Amish.

  221. @Anonymous

    According to British psychometrician Chris Brand, the military adage that if a leader is more than 30 IQ points smarter than his average follower, he will have trouble communicating effectively stems from British Army research during World War II.
     
    Average enlisted IQ in the Army is in the 90s. Average IQ of general rank officers in Army is in the 130s (this is according to a commenter who claimed to have tested thousands of people in different occupations and observed general officers to have IQs 10 points higher than executives of big companies who average in the 120s).

    The difference between enlisted and generals is 40 points in the US Army. Works well enough.

    Those numbers strike me as exaggerated. Really smart people are rarer than you think. Only 2% of the population has an IQ over 130.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    John Urschel is one of them:

    http://www.theplayerstribune.com/why-i-play-football/
  222. @Art Deco
    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution

    No, I've said the moderator is Jew-obsessed. That's not really open to dispute. I think I've also said the only Jews he seems to notice work as studio executives, producers, talent agents, bond traders, and opinion journalists, although a non-specific crew lunching and not playing golf at country clubs seems to come within his field of vision. (Giraldi seems fixated on lobbyists and Israeli politicians).

    My beef is not with Sailer, who strikes me as an amiable monomaniac, as with the lice who crawl on his back.

    the moderator is Jew-obsessed. That’s not really open to dispute. (…)

    My beef is not with Sailer, who strikes me as an amiable monomaniac, as with the lice who crawl on his back.

    We hate you for your freedom.

    Sorry to venture off topic here, I’m sure you’ve answered elsewhere, but I just missed your answer. So you have stated elsewhere that there was no way France was going to be minority white before the end of this century. I gave you this link, which seems to prove that a full third of “French” babies born in France this year might be non-white, and that their portion is growing rapidly, at roughly one percentage point per annum. I thought that after reading this source, either you’ll change your opinion and will accept that France is on a fast track to becoming majority nonwhite or you’ll provide us with an alternative explanation. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to track your answer.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I've seen the birth and death statistics for France and the total fertility statistics as well. Native-born women in France have a fertility rate about 10% below that nation's mean. Total fertility rates for France are near replacement levels. About 20% of the births in France are to foreign-born mothers, and that includes every kind of immigrant, not just black African immigrants. I doubt black French from Martinique or La Reunion are much of a threat to the burgesses of Bordeaux.
  223. @Steve Sailer
    Feynman was into Regular Guyism, c. 1940, Outer Boroughs Division. He gave off a Bugs Bunny vibe.

    Perhaps there’s a bit too much concern about the effects of IQ beyond a certain threshhold, say 5% or at most 1% (which, I believe comes out to about 125 for the former and 135 for the latter.) (And I am not being capacious for my own benefit either, since I tested beyond those points and my adult son tested well beyond me. ) My experience in life (early ’60′s) is that the real differences once you get to the top 10% or so is largely a matter of application and environment. I would make some exception for physics and/or math, but even there a lot can be done just with drive and Sitzfleisch.

    But isn’t the real issue that certain groups (defined as “races”) have means that are significantly below the Caucasian norm? I mean it really doesn’t matter, you don’t get some kind of badge if you have an IQ >165. But if you have an IQ of below 90, well, yeah, you are much more likely to engage impulsive (and destructive) behaviors, likely to be unemployed or unemployable, and likely to commit crimes. And we are talking about 30%-40% of the population here, depending on which group you are referring to.

    It seems to me that that is where we should center the discussion on IQ, because that is where the deleterious social effects are. Certainly there’s no question that people of African or Amerind descent can be brilliant, just that they will be rarer, because of the distribution, and by the same token people of such descent will be more common in the lower, self-destructive, criminal groupings. It’s not about racism or lead paint, and it’s not about denying humanity to a self-pitying Ta Nehisi Coates: it’s an explanation for some of our intractable social problems which remain after decades of anti-racist self-examination. At the same time, there are plenty of dumb white people too, and they also, along with their similarly challenged black neighbors need to fit into the “information society.”

    The key wedge issue right now appears to be Latin immigration, on the thesis that it is highly Amerind (Mestizo) and would therefore have deleterious effects on the largely Caucasian America we know. This would affect not only IQ, but also (probably) height, weight, skin tone, etc. I would agree, and I think the attitude of the uber-host of this site (Ron Unz) is probably a bit too sanguine about how this would turn around in the short term. But it cannot be helped if the (soon to be minority) white population refuses to focus on having children, and if the political and economic leaders are unwilling to do anything to control Southern Hemisphere immigration.

  224. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Ron Unz

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system])
     
    This is *exactly* the reason I'm so extremely skeptical of that published claim that Richard Feynman (a notorious jokester) once said his IQ had been tested at 125.

    In my considered opinion, there's no one in the second half of the twentieth century who had a stronger claim to being the smartest human being in the world than Richard Feynman. And we're supposed to believe he actually had exactly the same tested IQ as George W. Bush??!!

    As everyone knows, I'm quite skeptical of the more rigid claims advanced by dogmatic IQists. But c'mon. If honest-to-goodness IQ tests actually gave the same score to "W" and Feynman, that single datapoint would be sufficient to totally discredit the very notion of IQ. It's lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman...

    From the wording you use, I’m not sure what you are skeptical of – the fact that his IQ was actually tested at 123, or of the fact that he claimed it was so?

    http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/brau/H182/Term%20Papers/Ryan%20McPherson.html

    Feynman’s younger sister Joan, also a physicist, once said that “[Richard] had a normal IQ. When I was a kid, I sneaked off and got into the files and looked up our IQ’s. Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!” (Sykes 25).

    Sykes, Christopher, ed. No Ordinary Genius: The Illustrated Richard Feynman.

    Also, look in GENIUS, p. 30. His IQ is reported as 125.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    That's astonishing. I'd thought the only source was Feynman's offhand remark to Gleick, his biographer, and had always vaguely assumed it was some sort of joke or prank on his part. But his sister's independent testimony indicates it seems to have been true.

    So "W" and Feynman apparently had almost exactly the same tested IQ. I'm completely flabbergasted...
  225. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Udolpho
    Given that you denounce Sailer as an anti-Semite and racist when you comment on Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen's blog), why do you continue to clutter Sailer's blog with your frequently bizarre and always uninteresting comments?

    In other words, you are saying, “we don’t want to play with you,” because you don’t understand what AD is talking about. He brings up things that disturb you so you tell him to scram.

    This is stupid, and no different from what leftists do.

    FWIW, it’s obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who “follow a few French blogs.”

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    FWIW, it’s obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who “follow a few French blogs.”

    When the question is whether or not the French right still discuss the Algerian War, de Gaulle's handling of Algerian independence and the resulting violent dislocation of the pieds noirs, then knowledge gleaned from reading French right-wing websites is relevant. Do they discuss these topics and care about them still? Yes they do. Was the split over how the Algerian War ended a major reason for the FN's formation? Yes it was. Have some of those hard feelings and sharp breaks been smoothed over as the years went on? Yes. How do I come to these conclusions about such things? I read their open debates and arguments via the web. It's really not too grandiose a claim that I'm making.
    , @silviosilver

    FWIW, it’s obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who “follow a few French blogs.”
     
    Actually, that's not obvious at all. Artie loves to present facts as though he's recollecting them from memory, but in reality it's all a result of furious googling and piecing together a story on the fly. Interact with him long and you'll eventually realize this.
  226. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Jack D
    Not to mention that Bush had been quite popular not long before immediately after the successful Gulf War. He went from 87% approval in early 1991 to 29% approval in Aug. 92 - almost a 60% drop without a clear cut single cause. Breaking his "no new taxes" pledge made him seem like a liar and there was a bit of a recession, but I would say that a big factor was that he was just not that lovable and did not really inspire loyalty. At best you felt that he was reasonably competent but never inspiring, so that losing him did not feel like it would be any great loss.

    I remember the unraveling of Bush’s presidency very clearly. It was shocking – like something out of a Shakespeare play, where the mob turned on the leader. I attribute it to the fact that Bush relaxed and showed his true patrician cards. I’m strange in that I’m a genetic Democrat who enjoys patricians and their shtick, but most Americans don’t. Including Republicans. Everyone turned on him.

    Bush 44 learned from Poppy’s mistakes and hauled out the dirt and corn pone, hard.

    • Replies: @Numenor
    Bush Sr. was openly critical of the 'Christian Zionist' element of his party, in spite of its political importance. He didn't like or understand these people. His son was very different in this regard.
  227. @Jack D
    Those numbers strike me as exaggerated. Really smart people are rarer than you think. Only 2% of the population has an IQ over 130.
  228. @Dave Pinsen
    Wouldn't a good test for your thesis be whether there's significant intermarriage between Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens now?

    By my analysis, there would be, and a simple search shows 10% intermarriage already, which I predict will increase over time.

    Here’s a starter link:

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/shavuot/.premium-1.596678

    People like Jeffrey Goldberg often talk about how many Palestinian Israelis are involved in the professions in Israel. It’s inevitable that intermarriage will take place, and probably at significant levels (look at the Jewish intermarriage rate in the modern world, and particularly in the US at 50% or more.)

    I don’t think this is disparagement either. Most Americans are well aware that Scots Irish, Irish, and Germans almost continually marry out of their group. That’s why probably the vast majority of Americans have ancestors in one, or even all three, groups.

  229. @WhatEvvs
    In other words, you are saying, "we don't want to play with you," because you don't understand what AD is talking about. He brings up things that disturb you so you tell him to scram.

    This is stupid, and no different from what leftists do.

    FWIW, it's obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who "follow a few French blogs."

    FWIW, it’s obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who “follow a few French blogs.”

    When the question is whether or not the French right still discuss the Algerian War, de Gaulle’s handling of Algerian independence and the resulting violent dislocation of the pieds noirs, then knowledge gleaned from reading French right-wing websites is relevant. Do they discuss these topics and care about them still? Yes they do. Was the split over how the Algerian War ended a major reason for the FN’s formation? Yes it was. Have some of those hard feelings and sharp breaks been smoothed over as the years went on? Yes. How do I come to these conclusions about such things? I read their open debates and arguments via the web. It’s really not too grandiose a claim that I’m making.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs

    When the question is whether or not the French right still discuss the Algerian War, de Gaulle’s handling of Algerian independence and the resulting violent dislocation of the pieds noirs, then knowledge gleaned from reading French right-wing websites is relevant.
     
    Without context and knowledge of history, not to say a knowledge of who is actually speaking, these discussions you sample on the net are worthless. Totally and completely worthless. Internet discussions are worthless (yes, including this one). Internet relationships are unreal, flimsy and based on nothing real. Whatever.

    I've read on blogs that discussion of Algeria is pretty much verboten, and that when Americans guest teach in France and they bring up the subject, as we have done with Vietnam (endlessly) in classrooms, there is a shocked silence. Muslims students are shocked, ethnic French students are shocked. Does that mean anything to you?

    In any case, you ripped my comment out of context. I was responding to the utterly childish, "we don't want to play with you" directed towards Art Deco, as if an Internet comment board had admissions standards. Grow up, man.

  230. @reiner Tor

    the moderator is Jew-obsessed. That’s not really open to dispute. (...)

    My beef is not with Sailer, who strikes me as an amiable monomaniac, as with the lice who crawl on his back.
     
    We hate you for your freedom.

    Sorry to venture off topic here, I'm sure you've answered elsewhere, but I just missed your answer. So you have stated elsewhere that there was no way France was going to be minority white before the end of this century. I gave you this link, which seems to prove that a full third of "French" babies born in France this year might be non-white, and that their portion is growing rapidly, at roughly one percentage point per annum. I thought that after reading this source, either you'll change your opinion and will accept that France is on a fast track to becoming majority nonwhite or you'll provide us with an alternative explanation. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track your answer.

    I’ve seen the birth and death statistics for France and the total fertility statistics as well. Native-born women in France have a fertility rate about 10% below that nation’s mean. Total fertility rates for France are near replacement levels. About 20% of the births in France are to foreign-born mothers, and that includes every kind of immigrant, not just black African immigrants. I doubt black French from Martinique or La Reunion are much of a threat to the burgesses of Bordeaux.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Art Deco, you failed to provide a link to your statistics. Maybe you just wrote off the top of your head, which is fine, but recently you underestimated the percentage of Muslims, so maybe you had better double checked your numbers - which would have the additional advantage of being able to provide me with the link.

    Foreign born is not a very useful category: all three of the Charlie Hebdo perpetrators were over 30, and of course they were all born in France. I presume their wives were also French-born. Does this make them white French? Of course not.

    According to Wikipedia, over 13% of the under 18 population was born to non-European parents, in 2005. Since the numbers could be rapidly moving (e.g. again according to Wikipedia, the French-born Algerian population grew by over 18% in the six years between 1999 and 2005, while the immigrant Algerian population also grew by over 18% during that time period), this definitely means the percentage of nonwhites among newborns must have been way over 13% in 2005.

    Yes, we're far away from a Muslim majority, but we're not that far away from a nonwhite majority (i.e. a white French plurality), after which the French will be powerless to stop further immigration. Actually, the French already seem to be powerless to do so.

    So what is the source of your information, and how do you think the numbers will look like in the future? And, foremost, what is your explanation as to the rapidly growing number of newborns screened for sickle-cell anemia? Why did the percentage jump from 19% in 2000 to 31.5% in 2010 (and presumably well over 35% by 2015)? What is your guess as to the reason for this?
  231. @Art Deco
    W most likely was just a puppet president.

    Just make stuff up if it helps you feel better.

    George Bush was a man of fine intellect.

    As President Bush said in his interview with Brian Williams, “I read 3 Shakespeares.”

  232. @WhatEvvs
    In other words, you are saying, "we don't want to play with you," because you don't understand what AD is talking about. He brings up things that disturb you so you tell him to scram.

    This is stupid, and no different from what leftists do.

    FWIW, it's obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who "follow a few French blogs."

    FWIW, it’s obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who “follow a few French blogs.”

    Actually, that’s not obvious at all. Artie loves to present facts as though he’s recollecting them from memory, but in reality it’s all a result of furious googling and piecing together a story on the fly. Interact with him long and you’ll eventually realize this.

  233. @Jack D
    The IQ test has both a verbal and a performance component. Feynman also did terribly on parts of his GREs (test to get into grad school) and barely got into Princeton as a result. He scored perfectly on the math section but was completely clueless on the verbal section. He felt like knowing that America was discovered in 1492 was worthless knowledge - if you needed to know that (and why would you, anyway?) you could always look it up in a book. (BTW, speaking of verbal, Feynman spoke with a thick Brooklyn accent.)

    Feynman was a savant who was supremely gifted in the mathematical realm but actually very weak in some other areas. But I think mostly a self-imposed weakness - he felt that there were so many real and important problems out there that he was genuine interested in that he refused to fill his mind with what the rest of the world calls a classical education but to him was just worthless dreck that was of no value to what he was interested in accomplishing. And he was not the kind of guy who was willing to just play the game because that's what you are supposed to do. Literature, poetry, history, geography, etc. - all of that to him was just a total waste of time and he refused to be bothered with it.

    Perhaps. But whereas some of the GREs do test reading and writing ability, I don’t think the IQ Verbal portion requires much historical knowledge or questions about Columbus. I just find it very implausible that his IQ subtests would have been so exceptionally uncorrelated as to produce a 125. In fact, he was always known as very fast on his verbal feed and (I think) quite adept at learning languages.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    What I understood from reading Surely you're Joking Mr Feynman is that he was very good at hearing and imitating the prosody of other languages to the extent that he could fool native speakers of those languages.

    What I have noticed is that non-native Spanish speakers, for example, do not manage to imitate the intonation and prosody of Spanish for the most part and I can hear the difference.
    , @Jack D
    The Wechsler test (the WAIS) has sections on "general knowledge" . For example, they might ask "About how far is it from New York to London?" or "What is the approximate population of the United States?" or "What is the average height of an American man?" This is exactly the kind of information that Feynman categorically refused to clutter his head with. To him, questions like that didn't even TOUCH what it meant to be intelligent.
  234. @Jack D
    Johns Hopkins has run something called "The Study of Exceptional Talent" or SET for several decades now and they have quite a bit of data. To qualify, you have to score over 700 on either section of the SAT. Before your 13th birthday. This is believed to correspond to roughly 150+ IQ.

    A few, such as Terence Tao, have gone on to exceptional careers in math and have receive the Field Medal. Lenhard Ng is another. They both qualified before age 9 - this would probably make them more like 200+ (in the mathematical realm, not a full scale score).

    Most qualifiers don't become world famous but generally speaking they do very well in life. A high percentage go on to earn doctoral level degrees. The demographics are about what you would expect - lots of whites, Jews and Asians (more and more Asians). Very few blacks or non-white Hispanics. I attended the award ceremony one year (they give each winner a nice medal on a ribbon and a free lunch) and the winners are called up by surname in alpabetical order and after the 10th or 15th Lee or Li or Liu the audience began to giggle.

    The vast majority are from intact two parent families - it may not take a village to raise a genius but it takes a mommy and a daddy. Somehow the program has escaped affirmative action.

    More than a few of those who are out at the extreme tail (180+ IQ rather than the 150+) are also spergy/crazy/idiot savants to some extent like Grigori Perelman who turned down a $1M prize after solving the Poincaré conjecture. Or maybe people like that feel that they are perennially living surrounded by idiots and they want to have as little as possible to do with us monkeys.

    It’s been so many years since I much followed IQ issues I’d completely forgotten about Julian Stanley’s John Hopkins program, that’s been around since I was a child.

    I’d assume that by now there must be many thousands or even tens of thousands of alumni, and although the IQ of youngsters is somewhat malleable, an IQ of 150+ is a fairly high cut-off.

    Given such a large and long sample size, it really would be interesting to see some listing of their top achievers. I’m certainly not disputing they’d be far above average, but with such a skewed sample you’d really expect lots of enormous outliers.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    This article doesn't name names (and there don't seem to be a lot of famous alumni besides Tao) but it states that lots and lots end up as tenure track faculty, esp. in math. This is not the path to sure riches in America today but it's an honorable and logical gig for someone with a high IQ.

    http://euler.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/euler/files/users/144617/public/Brody.pdf

  235. @WhatEvvs
    From the wording you use, I'm not sure what you are skeptical of - the fact that his IQ was actually tested at 123, or of the fact that he claimed it was so?

    http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/brau/H182/Term%20Papers/Ryan%20McPherson.html

    Feynman's younger sister Joan, also a physicist, once said that "[Richard] had a normal IQ. When I was a kid, I sneaked off and got into the files and looked up our IQ’s. Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!" (Sykes 25).

    Sykes, Christopher, ed. No Ordinary Genius: The Illustrated Richard Feynman.

    Also, look in GENIUS, p. 30. His IQ is reported as 125.

    That’s astonishing. I’d thought the only source was Feynman’s offhand remark to Gleick, his biographer, and had always vaguely assumed it was some sort of joke or prank on his part. But his sister’s independent testimony indicates it seems to have been true.

    So “W” and Feynman apparently had almost exactly the same tested IQ. I’m completely flabbergasted…

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Ron, (if I may) - this is all on the internet. Learn to use Amazon's "look inside" feature.

    With respect to IQ tests....call me skeptical. In their millions they tell us something. But they can't tell us anything about an individual. We are all more than the sum of our parts.

    I read somewhere that Einstein said he felt his theories in his muscles. I think he had some "sense" that led him in various directions, that was independent of pure intellect. Of course, he had a lot of intellect as well. You need both.

  236. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Ron Unz
    Perhaps. But whereas some of the GREs do test reading and writing ability, I don't think the IQ Verbal portion requires much historical knowledge or questions about Columbus. I just find it very implausible that his IQ subtests would have been so exceptionally uncorrelated as to produce a 125. In fact, he was always known as very fast on his verbal feed and (I think) quite adept at learning languages.

    What I understood from reading Surely you’re Joking Mr Feynman is that he was very good at hearing and imitating the prosody of other languages to the extent that he could fool native speakers of those languages.

    What I have noticed is that non-native Spanish speakers, for example, do not manage to imitate the intonation and prosody of Spanish for the most part and I can hear the difference.

  237. HA says:
    @annamaria
    You see, the quenelle ("widely understood as an inverted Nazi salute") is very-very dangerous and very-very obscene. But the US financial support for the Ukrainian neo-Nazis sporting real swastika and idolizing Hitler is OK.
    An Israeli citizen Kolomoisky has been financing the neo-Nazis thugs to protect his wast investments in East Ukraine. The US Zionists are elated and publish a fawning article about this wealthy Jewish man in the Wall Street Journal (the WSJ carefully omits any mentioning of Kolomoisky's thugs involvement in burning more than 40 civilians alive in Odessa). http://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
    The Jewish wife of a Jewish man, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan is totally OK with the neo-Nazis in Kiev government, because these neo-Nazis are very helpful for establishing a Ukrainian serfdom for the benefits of the Western mega-corporations and mega-banks. http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/04/17/zionists-and-anti-semites-in-ukraine-a-strange-union.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TpZa4OMFVk
    Mr. Goldberg, mysteriously, completely misses this Ukrainian scandal of Jewish-Nazi collaboration.

    “An Israeli citizen Kolomoisky has been financing the neo-Nazis thugs to protect his wast investments in East Ukraine. The US Zionists are elated and publish a fawning article about this wealthy Jewish man in the Wall Street Journal…”

    Oh, great – yet another O/T update on annamarina’s fixation with the “wealthy Jewish” Kolomoisky and his vast personal army of Hitler-idolizing thugs. If this is not the plotline for the next Bond villain, then Hollywood is missing out. Does he also have sharks with laser beams? And look, she was able to make it an entire week without satiating our burning desire to hear about him again. Why did you keep us in suspense so long, I wonder?

    It must indeed be perplexing why Jews (and indeed, “the Jewish wife of a Jewish man,” if you can believe that!) are not more fearful of a country where a Jew is apparently able to persuade even Hitlerites to join the personal army he was permitted to assemble, than they are of wealthy-Jew-obsessed loons like her and all others who in similar fashion struggle to safeguard the “noble traditions of Judaism”. Speaking of which, they’re going to need to plant an entire forest in Israel to commemorate her heroism — no single tree will suffice, unless maybe they can cram one of those California redwoods down there.

  238. @The Priss Factor
    Art Deco

    “Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:”

    My take:

    Th recession of 91-92 was a lot worse than economists give credit to. In fact, I think it was a series of “rolling recessions” since 1987. Trust me, I was in the low end labor market at the time. I also think that there was a lot of correction going on due to the Cold War ending. Many defense companies were merging at the time. California actually was one of the last states to come out of the recession of the early 90′s. The movie “Falling Down” captures this fairly well. I also think, in retrospect, Bush Sr was a weak leader and the voters picked up on that.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Yes - the recession was horrible, and Bush didn't know the price of milk, or something like that. I hated Bush the Elder but I also thought it was totally unfair to tar and feather the POTUS over something like that. He was called "out of touch" which is the American way of saying stuck up patrician. Toff.

    Then there was that stupid "debate" where the black female moderator Carol Something or Other sneered at "The Education President" - remember that?

    Then the media piled on. Honestly, when the media want to kill you, they can and do. Et tu, Brian Williams? Those who live by the sword...
  239. I don’t know. I am friends with a lot of physicists, including the one who has Feynman’s old job, at Cal Tech. And while they can all do math things beyond my comprehension, on any other subject you talk to them about (politics, geography, wine) they’re merely reasonably intelligent human beings, not superhumans.

  240. @Ron Unz
    It's been so many years since I much followed IQ issues I'd completely forgotten about Julian Stanley's John Hopkins program, that's been around since I was a child.

    I'd assume that by now there must be many thousands or even tens of thousands of alumni, and although the IQ of youngsters is somewhat malleable, an IQ of 150+ is a fairly high cut-off.

    Given such a large and long sample size, it really would be interesting to see some listing of their top achievers. I'm certainly not disputing they'd be far above average, but with such a skewed sample you'd really expect lots of enormous outliers.

    This article doesn’t name names (and there don’t seem to be a lot of famous alumni besides Tao) but it states that lots and lots end up as tenure track faculty, esp. in math. This is not the path to sure riches in America today but it’s an honorable and logical gig for someone with a high IQ.

    http://euler.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/euler/files/users/144617/public/Brody.pdf

  241. @Ron Unz
    Perhaps. But whereas some of the GREs do test reading and writing ability, I don't think the IQ Verbal portion requires much historical knowledge or questions about Columbus. I just find it very implausible that his IQ subtests would have been so exceptionally uncorrelated as to produce a 125. In fact, he was always known as very fast on his verbal feed and (I think) quite adept at learning languages.

    The Wechsler test (the WAIS) has sections on “general knowledge” . For example, they might ask “About how far is it from New York to London?” or “What is the approximate population of the United States?” or “What is the average height of an American man?” This is exactly the kind of information that Feynman categorically refused to clutter his head with. To him, questions like that didn’t even TOUCH what it meant to be intelligent.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Did Feynman get that from reading "Sherlock Holmes" stories? Sherlock refuses to know whether the earth goes around the sun or vice-versa because it would take up space in his brain for distinguishing types of cigar ashes.

    That's not actually how it works.

    , @Stan Adams
    Feynman was a smart guy, but it's dumb to think that we don't need to know certain things about the world.

    Numbers have no meaning without context. "A million Americans" sounds like a lot, but it's less than one-third of one-percent of the U.S. population. You see this all the time - reporters spew out impressive-sounding statistics, but they don't give the context.

    The average American man is 5'10"-ish - barefoot. (Of course, 5'8" guys always say they're 5'10", 5'10" guys say they're 6', and 6' guys say they're 6'2".) The average Dutchman is 6'1" (or 186 cm, if you must). The average Mexican man is 5'4", give or take.

    Feynman was on the tall side, wasn't he?
  242. @andy


    Sexual mores are changing among Indians in Britain and the US. In both countries, 1.5/2nd generation Indian women are now more likely to intermarry than Indian men. That represents a major change from the past, when Indian men were more likely to intermarry.
     
    Intermarry with whom?

    With non-Indian (primarily white females and white males).

  243. @Jack D
    The Wechsler test (the WAIS) has sections on "general knowledge" . For example, they might ask "About how far is it from New York to London?" or "What is the approximate population of the United States?" or "What is the average height of an American man?" This is exactly the kind of information that Feynman categorically refused to clutter his head with. To him, questions like that didn't even TOUCH what it meant to be intelligent.

    Did Feynman get that from reading “Sherlock Holmes” stories? Sherlock refuses to know whether the earth goes around the sun or vice-versa because it would take up space in his brain for distinguishing types of cigar ashes.

    That’s not actually how it works.

    • Replies: @HA
    "Sherlock refuses to know whether the earth goes around the sun or vice-versa because it would take up space in his brain for distinguishing types of cigar ashes.

    That’s not actually how it works."


    Actually, it kind of is, at least to some extent. The Indian (Rajasthani) bards who are able to memorize long phone-book-sized epic poems (several times as large as the Iliad and Odyssey combined, and whereas the Homeric tradition of recitation encouraged improvisation, the memorization of the former was required to be exact) were illiterate. When a few of them were taught to read, their memory lapsed, suggesting that the portions of their brains that had previously been devoted to memorization were reconfigured for text processing, and therefore no longer available for their previous purpose. There are other ways to explain that, but a simple capacity constraint is the most obvious one.

    Would Homer, or Ray Charles, or Stevie Wonder have been able to be the artistic geniuses they were without those neurons that would ordinarily be assigned with the drudgery of visual processing?

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/11/20/homer-in-india

  244. […] the comment section of Steve Sailer’s blog, the widely admired Ron Unz said the following about physicist Richard […]

  245. @reiner Tor

    Some – like Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and close adviser to Netanyahu, Michael Oren – have openly said that they would prefer an Al-Qaida regime in Syria.
     
    Link or it didn't happen. (I really need the link, I could use it elsewhere.)

    Bad guys” backed by Iran are worse for Israel than “bad guys” who are not supported by the Islamic Republic, Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post in a parting interview.

    Oren, in the interview that is to be published in full on Friday, traced the evolution of Israel’s message on Syria during the three weeks of the chemical weapons crisis.

    “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.

    This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.

    “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” he said, adding that this designation did not apply to everyone in the Syrian opposition. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”

    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328

    The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [Syrian President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.

    Even if those bad guys are al-Qaida or [Jabhat] al-Nusra?

    We understand that they are pretty bad guys. Not everyone in the opposition is a bad guy. Still, the greatest danger to Israel was by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran to Damascus, to Beirut.

    http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lines/Diplomacy-Obama-passes-the-kishka-test-326570

  246. @WhatEvvs
    I remember the unraveling of Bush's presidency very clearly. It was shocking - like something out of a Shakespeare play, where the mob turned on the leader. I attribute it to the fact that Bush relaxed and showed his true patrician cards. I'm strange in that I'm a genetic Democrat who enjoys patricians and their shtick, but most Americans don't. Including Republicans. Everyone turned on him.

    Bush 44 learned from Poppy's mistakes and hauled out the dirt and corn pone, hard.

    Bush Sr. was openly critical of the ‘Christian Zionist’ element of his party, in spite of its political importance. He didn’t like or understand these people. His son was very different in this regard.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Yes. Part of the patrician thing.
  247. HA says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Did Feynman get that from reading "Sherlock Holmes" stories? Sherlock refuses to know whether the earth goes around the sun or vice-versa because it would take up space in his brain for distinguishing types of cigar ashes.

    That's not actually how it works.

    “Sherlock refuses to know whether the earth goes around the sun or vice-versa because it would take up space in his brain for distinguishing types of cigar ashes.

    That’s not actually how it works.”

    Actually, it kind of is, at least to some extent. The Indian (Rajasthani) bards who are able to memorize long phone-book-sized epic poems (several times as large as the Iliad and Odyssey combined, and whereas the Homeric tradition of recitation encouraged improvisation, the memorization of the former was required to be exact) were illiterate. When a few of them were taught to read, their memory lapsed, suggesting that the portions of their brains that had previously been devoted to memorization were reconfigured for text processing, and therefore no longer available for their previous purpose. There are other ways to explain that, but a simple capacity constraint is the most obvious one.

    Would Homer, or Ray Charles, or Stevie Wonder have been able to be the artistic geniuses they were without those neurons that would ordinarily be assigned with the drudgery of visual processing?

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/11/20/homer-in-india

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I used to know a lot of phone numbers by heart until around the year 2000, when I bought my first cell phone. Then I quickly forgot all phone numbers, and now I only know maybe four or five phone numbers altogether, including my own cell phone and office number. (But it doesn't include my home number, which I always have to look up in my cell phone if anybody asks me. BTW I also had to look up my own phone number after I moved to another country and had a new cell phone, but then after a few years I memorized it because I always felt stupid when people asked me my own phone number and I had to look it up...)

    If you stop lifting heavy weights, your muscles will quickly get weaker. Maybe the brain also works like that. I definitely noticed that when I do something a lot, I get better at it. When I no longer need it, I get lazier, and my skills just evaporate. I'm sure I could learn a lot of phone numbers by heart if I needed to, but it could initially be difficult.

  248. @Numenor
    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:

    a) He raised taxes
    b) He failed to finish off Saddam
    c) He quarrelled with Israel
    d) He was seen as an out-of-touch 'intellectual'

    What lessons do you think Bush Jr. learned from all this?

    Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992?

    There is an another incident that I recall.

    GHW Bush vetoed the 1990 Civil Rights Act, labeling it (correctly) “a quota bill.”. This caused his poll numbers to spike and the liberals to go into a frenzy. Bush into a panic and he reversed his position signing the 1991 version.

    To a patrician like Bush, being supported by the wrong sort of people for the wrong sort of reasons was to be avoided at all costs. Perhaps he had remorseful over the (perfectly legitimate) Willie Horton ads that helped get him elected.

    GHW Bush was an example of the new type of Republican who despises his own base. It was said that one of the great things about Ronald Reagan was that he didn’t give a damn what the New York Times thought of him. That was not the case with his successor.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Other than the fact that it helped to reinforce the idea of Bush as a wishy-washy kind of guy without firm principles, I don't think that Bush signing the Civil Rights Act of 1991 really had that big an effect. Most people didn't know or care about this bill (unless they are employment lawyers). What this bill did was reverse a couple of pro-employer Supreme Court decisions and make it easier for employees to sue - they could also get a jury trial and punitive damages. This is too snoozy and "inside baseball" for the average person to care about, especially since the average person is not running a large business that gets a lot of discrimination complaints. I would rate this very low on the list of reasons why he lost. I'm sure that it didn't get him many liberal votes but I doubt it cost him many either.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Perhaps [Bush] had [been] remorseful over the (perfectly legitimate) Willie Horton ads that helped get him elected.
     
    Did Al Gore feel the same remorse for introducing them?
  249. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Cagey Beast
    FWIW, it’s obvious that AD knows a lot more about French politics than anyone here, who “follow a few French blogs.”

    When the question is whether or not the French right still discuss the Algerian War, de Gaulle's handling of Algerian independence and the resulting violent dislocation of the pieds noirs, then knowledge gleaned from reading French right-wing websites is relevant. Do they discuss these topics and care about them still? Yes they do. Was the split over how the Algerian War ended a major reason for the FN's formation? Yes it was. Have some of those hard feelings and sharp breaks been smoothed over as the years went on? Yes. How do I come to these conclusions about such things? I read their open debates and arguments via the web. It's really not too grandiose a claim that I'm making.

    When the question is whether or not the French right still discuss the Algerian War, de Gaulle’s handling of Algerian independence and the resulting violent dislocation of the pieds noirs, then knowledge gleaned from reading French right-wing websites is relevant.

    Without context and knowledge of history, not to say a knowledge of who is actually speaking, these discussions you sample on the net are worthless. Totally and completely worthless. Internet discussions are worthless (yes, including this one). Internet relationships are unreal, flimsy and based on nothing real. Whatever.

    I’ve read on blogs that discussion of Algeria is pretty much verboten, and that when Americans guest teach in France and they bring up the subject, as we have done with Vietnam (endlessly) in classrooms, there is a shocked silence. Muslims students are shocked, ethnic French students are shocked. Does that mean anything to you?

    In any case, you ripped my comment out of context. I was responding to the utterly childish, “we don’t want to play with you” directed towards Art Deco, as if an Internet comment board had admissions standards. Grow up, man.

  250. @Numenor
    Bush Sr. was openly critical of the 'Christian Zionist' element of his party, in spite of its political importance. He didn't like or understand these people. His son was very different in this regard.

    Yes. Part of the patrician thing.

  251. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Name Withheld
    @The Priss Factor
    Art Deco

    "Why did Bush Sr. lose power in 1992? I can think of several reasons:"

    My take:

    Th recession of 91-92 was a lot worse than economists give credit to. In fact, I think it was a series of "rolling recessions" since 1987. Trust me, I was in the low end labor market at the time. I also think that there was a lot of correction going on due to the Cold War ending. Many defense companies were merging at the time. California actually was one of the last states to come out of the recession of the early 90's. The movie "Falling Down" captures this fairly well. I also think, in retrospect, Bush Sr was a weak leader and the voters picked up on that.

    Yes – the recession was horrible, and Bush didn’t know the price of milk, or something like that. I hated Bush the Elder but I also thought it was totally unfair to tar and feather the POTUS over something like that. He was called “out of touch” which is the American way of saying stuck up patrician. Toff.

    Then there was that stupid “debate” where the black female moderator Carol Something or Other sneered at “The Education President” – remember that?

    Then the media piled on. Honestly, when the media want to kill you, they can and do. Et tu, Brian Williams? Those who live by the sword…

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    James Baker trying to rein in West Bank settlements didn't help the elder Bush's re-election bid. His son made sure never to make that mistake.

    I don't care what the polls claim, Perot hurt Bush, and badly, by providing an alternative to the Republicans for patriotic white guys.

  252. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Ron Unz
    That's astonishing. I'd thought the only source was Feynman's offhand remark to Gleick, his biographer, and had always vaguely assumed it was some sort of joke or prank on his part. But his sister's independent testimony indicates it seems to have been true.

    So "W" and Feynman apparently had almost exactly the same tested IQ. I'm completely flabbergasted...

    Ron, (if I may) – this is all on the internet. Learn to use Amazon’s “look inside” feature.

    With respect to IQ tests….call me skeptical. In their millions they tell us something. But they can’t tell us anything about an individual. We are all more than the sum of our parts.

    I read somewhere that Einstein said he felt his theories in his muscles. I think he had some “sense” that led him in various directions, that was independent of pure intellect. Of course, he had a lot of intellect as well. You need both.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Granted. But we all have limited time and focus and I've never been sufficiently interested in the matter to bother investigating it. Which is why I sometimes browse the comment-threads of various websites, including this one.
  253. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Jack D
    The IQ test has both a verbal and a performance component. Feynman also did terribly on parts of his GREs (test to get into grad school) and barely got into Princeton as a result. He scored perfectly on the math section but was completely clueless on the verbal section. He felt like knowing that America was discovered in 1492 was worthless knowledge - if you needed to know that (and why would you, anyway?) you could always look it up in a book. (BTW, speaking of verbal, Feynman spoke with a thick Brooklyn accent.)

    Feynman was a savant who was supremely gifted in the mathematical realm but actually very weak in some other areas. But I think mostly a self-imposed weakness - he felt that there were so many real and important problems out there that he was genuine interested in that he refused to fill his mind with what the rest of the world calls a classical education but to him was just worthless dreck that was of no value to what he was interested in accomplishing. And he was not the kind of guy who was willing to just play the game because that's what you are supposed to do. Literature, poetry, history, geography, etc. - all of that to him was just a total waste of time and he refused to be bothered with it.

    Yes, that’s exactly what I gathered from reading Gleick’s book. But I can’t say he was narrow-nded. He enjoyed bongos and planning trips to Tanu Tuva. People like what they like. And what he liked was pretty awesome. He was no humorless killjoy.

    And I love the stories people tell about him. When people tell lots of stories about you, it means you are a treasure. I cannot resist telling one:

    He and fam rolled into some gas station in SoCal in the early 60s. They had a large van/camper, whose sides were scrawled with Feynman diagrams. Someone actually knew what they were, approached him, and asked, “Why are there Feynman diagrams on your camper?”

    Feynman said, “Because I am Feynman!”

    I don’t even care if it’s true or not. Great story.

  254. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Ron Unz

    I estimated that on the IQ test-like sections of the military aptitude tests that Bush scored somewhere around the equivalent of a 125 IQ (which is in line with his 1206 SAT score [under the harder pre-1995 scoring system])
     
    This is *exactly* the reason I'm so extremely skeptical of that published claim that Richard Feynman (a notorious jokester) once said his IQ had been tested at 125.

    In my considered opinion, there's no one in the second half of the twentieth century who had a stronger claim to being the smartest human being in the world than Richard Feynman. And we're supposed to believe he actually had exactly the same tested IQ as George W. Bush??!!

    As everyone knows, I'm quite skeptical of the more rigid claims advanced by dogmatic IQists. But c'mon. If honest-to-goodness IQ tests actually gave the same score to "W" and Feynman, that single datapoint would be sufficient to totally discredit the very notion of IQ. It's lucky that the Malcolm Gladwell and his friends have probably never heard of Richard Feynman...

    1. I was motivated to check the veracity of the story. It’s not as I remembered it:

    http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/van.htm

    2. In the process, I came across Feynman’s description of what he did for a living:

    “The game I play is a very interesting one,” says Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman in a low-resolution video posted to YouTube. “It’s imagination in a tight straitjacket.”

    I find this notable for the fact that he referred to his work as a “game.” I take this quite seriously. There was a playful aspect to everything Feynman did. A magician indeed.*

    http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/may-2014/saving-the-feynman-van

    *Feynman’s unbelievable creativity and powers of perception:

    “Of particular note is the diagram on the rear of the van:… this diagram shows two muon neutrinos exchanging a particle that Feynman could only conjecture at the time. Years later, such a particle was proven to exist