The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Turkheimer in Vox: Demonizing Charles Murray Is Good for the Jews
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Vox:

There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes
Our response to criticisms.

Updated by Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett Jun 15, 2017, 12:00pm EDT

Actually, however, it turns out that the three academics don’t agree among themselves. Turkheimer admits:

In fact, I will close by noting that not even the three of us are completely in agreement about it: I (Turkheimer) am convinced that the question is irredeemably unscientific; Nisbett accepts it as a legitimate scientific question, and thinks evidence points fairly strongly in the direction of the black-white gap being entirely environmental in origin; while Harden questions the quality of the existing evidence, but thinks more determinative data may be found in future genetic knowledge.

It’s probably not a coincidence that the younger academic, Harden, takes a less extremist stance than the two older professors. Dr. Harden will likely be around a lot longer than Turkheimer and Nisbett, so she’s more concerned about what the rapid advance in genomic science will uncover over the rest of her lifetime than are the two older guys.

Turkeimer more or less admits something I’ve believed since 1995: that anti IQ science denialism is largely driven by Jewish paranoia and prejudice against gentiles: many Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.

Or, more plausibly, that awareness that American Jews have a higher mean IQ than American white gentiles will lead to college / job quotas like Jews were burdened with in the 1920s.

I recall that back in the 1970s, many Jewish intellectuals such as Nathan Glazer were strenuously opposed to the new quotas benefitting blacks and Hispanics. But over time their opposition muted as they realized that quotas against whites in general tended to have a much less deleterious effect on Jewish career prospects than the quotas against Jews in the 1920s.

And, since 1969 Jews were able to construct a mighty firewall between it being respectable to express anti-white sentiments (e.g., #OscarsTooWhite / White Privilege) and it being completely unacceptable to express anti-Jewish sentiments (e.g., nobody talks about the parallel concepts of #OscarsTooJewish / Jewish Privilege).

Turkheimer writes:

To convince the reader that there is no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences in complex behavior to genetic and environmental causes, I have to move the discussion in an even more uncomfortable direction. Consider the assertion that Jews are more materialistic than non-Jews. (I am Jewish, I have used a version of this example before, and I am not accusing anyone involved in this discussion of anti-Semitism. My point is to interrogate the scientific difference between assertions about blacks and assertions about Jews.)

One could try to avoid the question by hoping that materialism isn’t a measurable trait like IQ, except that it is; or that materialism might not be heritable in individuals, except that it is nearly certain it would be if someone bothered to check; or perhaps that Jews aren’t really a race, although they certainly differ ancestrally from non-Jews; or that one wouldn’t actually find an average difference in materialism, but it seems perfectly plausible that one might. (In case anyone is interested, a biological theory of Jewish behavior, by the white nationalist psychologist Kevin MacDonald, actually exists.)

If you were persuaded by Murray and Harris’s conclusion that the black-white IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea that the same kind of thinking might apply to the personality traits of Jews, I have one question: Why? Couldn’t there just as easily be a science of whether Jews are genetically “tuned to” (Harris’s phrase) different levels of materialism than gentiles?

On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.

Turkheimer’s example is a bit of a misdirection, since it would be more straightforward in this debate over IQ to discuss higher Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQs.

My guess, however, is that most American gentiles, of whatever race, recognize that Jews tend to be smarter — e.g., 1/50th of the U.S. population makes up about 1/3rd of the Forbes 400 — and admire them for that fact.

While I oppose quotas, on the other hand, there is a reasonable concept, which I got from David Brooks, that smarter American ethnic groups should feel a sense of noblesse oblige toward the average people amongst whom they have thrived. (Brooks referred, gingerly, to “new meritocratic elites,” but obviously Jews are the dominant group within the new meritocratic elites who have displaced the old WASP elites.)

The most obvious form of noblesse oblige would be for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their traditional urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration. Some Jews, such as Mickey Kaus and Stephen Miller, are exemplars of 21st Century noblesse oblige, but even Brooks can’t bring himself around to promoting moderation and prudence on immigration policy.

This is not to say that all Jews feel that IQ science is not good for the Jews. Murray’s Jewish co-author Richard Herrnstein, for example, felt that honesty about IQ was good for the Jews. But, my observations are that the old question — “Is it good for the Jews?” — is what motivates a lot of the leaders of IQ science denialism, from S.J. Gould to Eric Turkheimer.

 
Hide 226 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Thomas says:

    The idea that they would owe noblesse oblige towards Haven Monahan-type blond beasts would be anathema to most American Jews. We wuzn’t allowed in the country club ‘n’ dreck.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Perhaps victimhood, in addition to materialism, is an inborn trait.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/vox-demonizing-charles-murray-is-really-about-protecting-jews/#comment-1905629
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. You capitalize the ‘J’ in ‘Jews’ and even the ‘A’ in the adjective ‘Ashkenazi’ but you use the lower case for the ‘G’ in ‘Gentile’.

    Must be this anti-Gentilism I’ve heard about. I shall have to complain to Steve Sailer, who finds these things all around him, about this

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    We need to make goy the g-word - a slur unspeakable in polite company - and then take ownership of it: "It's our word. We can use it, but you can't."

    Wazzup, my goyim brethren?
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    The use of the word "gentile" as a synonym for non-Jewish has an implication that may not be understood by all of its users.

    The word comes from the Latin gens, gentis which can mean a clan or group of kinsmen (e.g., the Julio-Claudian gens), or more generally a tribe or nation. Thus it is used in the phrase jus gentium, the law of nations.

    In the Vulgate Bible, the word is used, e.g., in Psalm 2:1 - Quare fremuerunt gentes et populi meditati sunt inania? - with the meaning of gentes in this context being "heathen." Thus, at least, the Authorized Version translates it: "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" Squire Jennens, in his lyric for Messiah has rendered it "nations," as set most magnificently by Handel:

    https://youtu.be/3lFJHGGErcQ

    Perhaps the Squire thought "nations" more genteel than "heathen." However, when a Jew calls someone who is not a Jew a "gentile," he is calling him a heathen. When a non-Jew identifies himself as a "gentile," he is describing himself as heathen. Of course, assuming he be a Christian, or a Mahommedan, he does not and should not regard himself as a heathen. Heathen seems to me to have a pejorative cast; perhaps someone here who knows Hebrew can say whether the corresponding Hebrew word in Psalm 2 also does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Ivy says:

    Expect that noblesse oblige concerns related narrowly to IQ will be watered down before any acknowledgement of tribal loyalty. That should represent at least a few more decades of delay, and further consolidation of power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    This should apply to individuals, not groups. It's probsbly less sensible to expect this sort of behavior from Joe Finklestein the Jewish plumber than from Tom Goldberg the Harvard economics professor. Similarly, it's reasonable to expect this of very smart gentile whites like Mitt Romney and very smart blacks like Barack Obama. If you won the damned lottery w.r.t. IQ, yu ought to have some concern for the less fortunate members of your society who didn't win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Yak-15 says:

    I somewhat agree with Steve’s sentiments in the last paragraph but immigration is a somewhat odd direction to take. Perhaps it would be better framed in a universalist sense rather than simply transitioning to national migration.

    Jews should realize how annoying they become when they try to rework existing social orders in the societies that host them. Especially societies that have allowed them to thrive and thus far have been free of the purges and pogroms that characterized earlier Jewish relationships with host societies. But that would demand too much self-reflection and would ask that Jews try to understand why they have been persecuted by nearly every culture, nation and empire in history.

    Perhaps mass Arab immigration into Europe may demonstrate to Jews the importance of maintaining the existing social order. But, then again, that is

    NOT WHO WE ARE…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. A quote from Kevin Macdonald:

    It is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite pattern is found for infants from North Germany. The Israeli infants were much more likely to become “inconsolably upset” in reaction to strangers, whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the North German babies were the opposite — findings that fit with the hypothesis that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

    Never mind materialism, it seems that xenophobia is the most important trait here. You cannot expect the same noblesse oblige as the Parsi when your instinct is to be terrified of strangers. The only thing you can do is try to destroy the identity of the stranger, so that it becomes less fearful for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    it seems plausible to me that a population living as a minority for a long time might evolve higher levels of paranoia and xenophobia

    or alternatively their level of these things is *normal* and euros evolved over time to have less

    (nb you can explain traits like "materialism" as a function of paranoia)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Randal says:

    But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.

    Turkheimer appears, based upon your extracts, to be arguing that regardless of the evidence it is unscientific to accept hypotheses that are regarded, in the particular society we live in, as being morally unacceptable.

    Is this really what he is arguing, because it would appear on the face of it to be a pretty remarkable thing for a scientist to believe? It’s pretty much a direct refutation of “sapere aude”, and of course the “Enlightenment” would have been snuffed out at birth if that approach had been successfully enforced.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Noblesse oblige to Jewish men means marrying good looking shiksa’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    Hey, Steve's suggestion is already being widely put into practice!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @anony-mouse
    You capitalize the 'J' in 'Jews' and even the 'A' in the adjective 'Ashkenazi' but you use the lower case for the 'G' in 'Gentile'.

    Must be this anti-Gentilism I've heard about. I shall have to complain to Steve Sailer, who finds these things all around him, about this

    We need to make goy the g-word – a slur unspeakable in polite company – and then take ownership of it: “It’s our word. We can use it, but you can’t.”

    Wazzup, my goyim brethren?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Agree.
    Russian poet M. U. Lermontov (probably #2 after Pushkin):
    *
    Ох, ты гой еси, царь Иван Васильевич!
    pronounced as
    "Ouh, ty goy esi, tzar Ivan Vasilievich!".
    *
    http://lingua.russianplanet.ru/library/lermontov/kupec.htm
    , @John Derbyshire
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. neutral says:

    am convinced that the question is irredeemably unscientific

    One could argue this if one had theories that linked intelligence to the moons of Saturn, but to say this to reject the idea of linking genes to intelligence it is in fact what is truly irredeemably unscientific here.

    Read More
    • Agree: Forbes, reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Turkheimer says:

    On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.

    So basically we shouldn’t explore these things because the answers might be too dangerous. Even if one were to agree with Turkheimer about that, he has to realize that no one has ever been able to halt inquiry for long on the grounds that it’s too dangerous. If there’s a genetic explanation, researchers will eventually find it.

    (Also, Turkheimer seems to be blissfully unaware of how much he sounds like the Grand Inquisitor, warning scholars away from knowledge that it is unsafe for man to possess.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dennis Dale
    The Narrative rests on no moral foundation greater than this appeal to consequences. The willingness of these scholars to look stupid astounds me. I can only assume they take the stakes to be that high. This is a remarkable bit of text:

    On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.
     
    His first sentence is giving up the game from the start. Things are where we want them to be, he says, so why tempt fate with the scientific method? Indeed, what good is the scientific method, I wonder. He would take away Galileo's telescope if it kept us inert.

    And people forget how to argue; what follows the "but" in no way disproves what preceded it (thus the all but meaningless, weaselly "helps us")--indeed, if these "false hypotheses" are out there, and indeed false, isn't it incumbent upon us to disprove them, which is quite possible as he points out (and fear)?

    He's like the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky, instead of turning away Jesus, he's turning away Science, with the admonition your presence here is not helpful.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Jack D says:

    Turkeimer’s materialism example is just a bunch of hand-waving. What if, instead of “materialism”, you substitute “Tay-Sachs Disease”? Turnkeimer has just “proven” that Tay-Sachs Disease has nothing to do with being Jewish and we shouldn’t even look for a genetic basis for it. Only anti-Semites associate Tay-Sachs Disease with Judaism.

    Maybe Turkeimer is going in the wrong direction here – we are supposed to laugh at the obvious ridiculous of the idea that materialism is genetic, but maybe it’s not as ridiculous as Turkeimer thinks. His appeals are all appeals to moral authority, not appeals to science. IQ is not allowed to have a genetic basis because Hitler -that’s fundamentally his whole argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Yes. And also, even if everyone believed the wrong thing about Jews' relative propensity to materialism, there would be no social cost to it. Whereas the dogged insistence that blacks and whites are, deep down, equally capable as students, as firemen, professors and rocket scientists, has resulted in a vast misallocation of resources.

    And, really, are the Jews you know all that "materialistic"? I can believe that the up-and-coming Jewish merchant class, in the 1920s-1960s, appeared materialistic in the eyes of the gentile elites of the time, who could live comfortable lives thanks to their hard-driving grandfathers. But today? Nah, I don't see that materialism. Our kids slack off with the best of them.

    , @Olorin

    IQ is not allowed to have a genetic basis because Hitler -that’s fundamentally his whole argument.
     
    Considering what the "Hitler" memeplex has been constructed to mean, can any of us think of a better argument than precisely that one?

    It's the Nuclear Option, 24/7. In all directions. Forever. As airtight as "anti-Semitism," "racism," or any of the other -isms and their children, the -phobias.

    It has long struck me as isomeric with the story where the supposed master of the cosmos--mathematician extraordinaire--says to two upright primates, "Look, apples! Don't eat the apples! Uh oh, you ate the apples! [boom]"

    This is seriously primitive thinking. Evolving humans always go where the big mysteries are. Stuck humans squat in the dust. Somewhere in between are the rentiers.
    , @Broski
    He doesn't think materialism is unlikely to be linked to Jewish genes. On the contrary, he is nearly certain of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.

    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you’re likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Why are there more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say?
    , @Chrisnonymous

    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”?
     
    Straw man. Sailer wasn't speaking to intergroup differences but to noblesse oblige.
    , @AM

    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?
     
    Yep.

    I'm sorry to say that when you find an organization dedicated to open borders or some sort of "Call out the hate group" (SPLC anyone), you will almost always find one or more ethnic Jews. It hardly ever fails. Add to the lopsided Jewish presence in media production and ownership and add to the Soros like billionaires and there it is.

    It appears there's just something about being an off the wagon ethnic Jew that to makes them a little too eager to tell everyone how to live and/or "fix" things. You can't compare it to Hispanics because they don't end up as movie producers. No other minority groups end up in those same positions of influence. (Fun fact: porn directors are out of portion Jewish, too) Orthodox/observant Jews don't seem to have that problem but then they don't choose lines of work that take them away from their communities.

    Once you go looking for the pattern, it's there. What's to be done about it is different question. Jews historically end up as scapegoats for a failing elite class. For instance, we controlled the contents of all movies and porn production with the Hays Code, so it didn't matter that Jews tended to own movie production. Once the governing elite got tired of governing, then they just didn't care what got thrown out for mass consumption. Sure, you can blame Jewish influence. I blame a society fatigued of controlling itself.
    , @Stealth
    Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Unknown, but I do know that Episcopalians are not an ethnic group in the same way Jewish people are. My great aunt's former E. church had a lot of black congregants, and a black minister. It is certainly not a church that discourages conversion.

    I guess "Episcopalian" is a word people use when they get tired of "WASP."

    , @Steve Sailer
    A pretty fair comparison is Jews and Italians in America. They mostly arrived at the same and lived in the same cities. But Italians appear to be more openminded about immigration policy, a lot less into Ellis Island ethnocentric schmaltz than Jews.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”?

     

    There was no Jewish Charles Lindbergh.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. David says:

    With respect, I think you’re wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.

    Most Vermonters couldn’t tell you why much of their food comes labeled with a K or U. So I don’t think it ever occurred to them that our last governor was a Jew or that the mayor of Burlington, out largest town, is. If they were exposed to the fact, it wouldn’t register or mean anything. Noticing that is not a thing here.

    And Shumlin was such a Jew! Poor Vermonters playing with uranium ore thinking all rocks are gneiss.

    Read More
    • Agree: whoever
    • Replies: @AM
    Hey there! I'm ex-VT native.

    "Poor Vermonters playing with uranium ore thinking all rocks are gneiss."

    Yes, this is a correct assessment. :) But in fairness, I'm going to defend the native stock. Jewish populations tend to be urban and Vermont is a very rural place even today. Why would they know, exactly? There's a few communities of Mennonites in Northern VT that are much easier to observe than any Jew.

    At any rate, VT is overrun now with hipster Brooklynites, including some Jews and I have to assume it's all thanks to the car. It is what is. I'm waiting for a collapse within the next 40-50 years or so.
    , @anon

    With respect, I think you’re wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew
     
    yes - it's the weirdest thing. most minorities notice but most white people don't.
    , @ScarletNumber

    Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.
     
    Oh, please. Bernie Sanders couldn't be more Jewish if his name was Israel Rubin. It is so obvious that it isn't worth mentioning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. BenKenobi says:

    I can’t believe they pointed out Kevin MacDonald and his work without any editorializing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. bjdubbs says:

    Most Americans have no idea who’s Jewish. Jazz Shaw at HotAir did not know that Michael Bloomberg, Lloyd Blankfein, and Janet Yellen were Jewish, and Jazz Shaw is somebody who is paid to know this kind of stuff.

    hotair.com/archives/2016/11/06/noted-liberal-plays-bizarre-desperate-11th-hour-jewish-card-trump/

    If Jazz Shaw doesn’t know Blankfein and Bloomberg are Jewish, then very, very few Americans do. (I suspect that that the guy who bought New Republic a few years ago, Chris Hayes, had no idea he was buying a Jewish magazine, or that a guy named Chris firing two Jewish editors would be a problem). Jews then *vastly* overestimate how many Americans know or care that so-and-so is Jewish. Basically, Jews think about anti-semitism all the time, and 99% of non-Jewish Americans have no idea that Rothstein is a Jewish name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    So he's a "moron" if he didn't know her last name is Jewish...

    ...but would be an "anti-semite" if he noticed.

    Airtight little schtick, that.

    , @Perspective
    Technically, Rothstein is a German name. Before the 1787 Austro-Hungarian law that mandated last names for Jews, Jews mainly had patronyms such as Yehuda Ben Yosef for example. (Ben = Son, Bat = daughter)
    , @Crawfurdmuir

    I suspect that that the guy who bought New Republic a few years ago, Chris Hayes, had no idea he was buying a Jewish magazine, or that a guy named Chris firing two Jewish editors would be a problem.
     
    The New Republic was not a "Jewish magazine" - not, at least, in the same sense that (say) Commentary is one.

    TNR was founded by WASPs, the Morgan partner Willard Straight and his wife Dorothy Payne Whitney. While it frequently published Jewish writers, e.g., Walter Lippmann, control remained in the hands of its founding family for many years. Its editor throughout the 'fifties was their son Michael Straight, who had been recruited into Anthony Blunt's Communist cell at Cambridge - the same one that included Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Kim Philby. Under Straight's editorship, the magazine was a leading voice in criticising "McCarthyism." Straight was also a leading member of the Committee for an Effective Congress, which, it transpired, prepared the famous speech delivered by Sen. Ralph Flanders denouncing McCarthy.

    The magazine was purchased by Marty Peretz in 1974, so one could say it fell into Jewish ownership then. The best way to describe TNR is as a leftist publication that has always been run by comsymps, and sometimes they have been Jews.
    , @Anonymous
    This is really a factor. If Jews were visibly different from Whites, like Asians or Blacks the situation would be vastly different.

    People who aren't in certain narrow class or regional niches don't deal with Jews much and they really don't have any idea of the level of jewish power.

    Jews are seen as successful and bright, but most don't understand the connection jews have to each other, or their devotion to Israel. They are seen as a slightly different religious group like Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses'...they meet at the temple on the weekend, hear a sermon, socialize and go home - and that's the extent of it.

    Most Americans really aren't perceptive enough to connect the dots and realize they are living in a different society than they've known. They sense that things are different, but aren't capable of understanding why. Even if you explained it to them it wouldn't completely register, because Jews just look and sound too much like other white Americans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. J.Ross says: • Website

    It’s interesting that you tie it so directly to Jews, and you are certainly logical, and Jews certainly are inexhaustibly paranoid and self-centered. However, I am content that the whole thing is explained in terms of the big white elephant we paid for with our life savings and have been tending for a generation, and that we cannot afford to admit was a mistake: the whole civil rights mess. I think the left’s existential dependence on cognitive dissonance and not keeping track of Eastasia ever trading places with Eurasia explains it. Consider their reaction to the book “Stop Helping Us.”
    One of the strongest redpilling experiences is to go back to the statements and predictions of the sixties and see that the monstrous “racists” were absolutely dead on right all down the line, and the progressives on the right side of history come off now like white Rastafarians.
    Furthermore there is a threat to the current Judeo-friendly (but not exclusively or specifically Jewish) power structure besides direct attack. In allowing whites to unapologetically separate, in unmaking the all-stymying swamp that they trap us in, in allowing police departments and employers to unapologetically discriminate, we can expect to see life improve by every metric for disgusting peasants in flyover country.
    A Jew with a high IQ, family connections, good work ethic, family connections, and agile verbal skills should expext to beat a Gentile competitor most of the time — but it doesn’t hurt if the Jew can benefit from secret Apartheid while the Gentile is subjected to Section Eight housing experiments, expansionist urban crime, Affirmative Action, and everything else made possible by the Civil Rights movement and the crusade to end qualitative characteristics. In fact, on an even playing field, there might even arise bizarre spikes where the Jew’s natural advantages cannot save him from other factors that would become possible in a post-Civil Rights world, like popular awareness of an individual’s reputation.
    They have money. They’re not trying to get money. What they want is for Rusty Shackleford to commit suicide, get lost in an electronic lotus, chase the opioid dragon or get “knocked out” without media or police attention.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @Jack D
    Turkeimer's materialism example is just a bunch of hand-waving. What if, instead of "materialism", you substitute "Tay-Sachs Disease"? Turnkeimer has just "proven" that Tay-Sachs Disease has nothing to do with being Jewish and we shouldn't even look for a genetic basis for it. Only anti-Semites associate Tay-Sachs Disease with Judaism.

    Maybe Turkeimer is going in the wrong direction here - we are supposed to laugh at the obvious ridiculous of the idea that materialism is genetic, but maybe it's not as ridiculous as Turkeimer thinks. His appeals are all appeals to moral authority, not appeals to science. IQ is not allowed to have a genetic basis because Hitler -that's fundamentally his whole argument.

    Yes. And also, even if everyone believed the wrong thing about Jews’ relative propensity to materialism, there would be no social cost to it. Whereas the dogged insistence that blacks and whites are, deep down, equally capable as students, as firemen, professors and rocket scientists, has resulted in a vast misallocation of resources.

    And, really, are the Jews you know all that “materialistic”? I can believe that the up-and-coming Jewish merchant class, in the 1920s-1960s, appeared materialistic in the eyes of the gentile elites of the time, who could live comfortable lives thanks to their hard-driving grandfathers. But today? Nah, I don’t see that materialism. Our kids slack off with the best of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I can believe that the up-and-coming Jewish merchant class, in the 1920s-1960s, appeared materialistic in the eyes of the gentile elites of the time, who could live comfortable lives thanks to their hard-driving grandfathers.
     
    I'd guess that a good chunk of it is looking over their shoulders in response to the sound of rapidly-approaching footsteps. And they were prescient. Jews did end up displacing a portion of the gentile elites, both in business and academia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Olorin says:

    I’m guessing the fear is more like:

    If the goyim were allowed to parse out our IQ subpopulations as genetically closely as the Ashkenazim get to do–only include up to our 4th or 5th cousins–there will be goyische subpopulations with a higher mean IQ than those usually touted as the superiors of whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don't know.

    , @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Yes, this is precisely what we're worried about. It's remarkable that you figured this out. I imagine you must be in one of the genius subpopulations that will clean our clocks in chess. We really worry about stuff like that.
    , @AnotherDad

    I’m guessing the fear is more like:

    If the goyim were allowed to parse out our IQ subpopulations as genetically closely as the Ashkenazim get to do–only include up to our 4th or 5th cousins–there will be goyische subpopulations with a higher mean IQ than those usually touted as the superiors of whites.
     

    Fear? Huh? Why would Jews fear that?

    Sure, their are plenty of white gentile "families" that are smarter than Jews so what? There are really smart Jewish and Chinese, Japanese, Korean ... families as well. But our smart white gentile families are not fully endogamous. While their certainly are branches that stay smart--and successful and upper class--for generations. There are also leaves and then branches that are eventually breeding off into the larger gentile population. I.e. these families are not an ethnic group.

    Get over it. Jews--or more specifically the Ashkenazim are smart. They are the smartest ethnic group in the world. Its because they were
    a) selected for literacy--the ability to be literate--from the start of rabbinic Judaism
    and
    b) operated as a middle man minority--specifically doing money lending--on top of the reasonably smart (by world standards) Europeans

    There are other smart middle man ethnic groups. The overseas Chinese. But they aren't as smart as the Jews. They weren't middle man minorities on top of European whites. The Indian Brahmins--also with a long tradition of literacy--very smart. So are the Parsis. But they weren't being selected for IQ over an above European whites, but over and above Indians. A selected sub-population--say Indian Brahmins *in the United States* probably are smarter than the Jews. (The Brahmins here are highly selected.) But they are not a distinct ethnic group by themselves. They are not endogamous here--specifically they'll drag brides from home and outbreed here.

    Of actual existing ethnic groups, the Ashkenazi Jews are the smartest. That may not last with high outbreeding and very high fertility by the ultra-Orthodox who I doubt are really the pick of the litter and don't have anything like the sort of selection Ashkenazi traditionally had. But right now the Ashkenazi are the IQ champs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Olorin says:
    @bjdubbs
    Most Americans have no idea who's Jewish. Jazz Shaw at HotAir did not know that Michael Bloomberg, Lloyd Blankfein, and Janet Yellen were Jewish, and Jazz Shaw is somebody who is paid to know this kind of stuff.

    hotair.com/archives/2016/11/06/noted-liberal-plays-bizarre-desperate-11th-hour-jewish-card-trump/

    If Jazz Shaw doesn't know Blankfein and Bloomberg are Jewish, then very, very few Americans do. (I suspect that that the guy who bought New Republic a few years ago, Chris Hayes, had no idea he was buying a Jewish magazine, or that a guy named Chris firing two Jewish editors would be a problem). Jews then *vastly* overestimate how many Americans know or care that so-and-so is Jewish. Basically, Jews think about anti-semitism all the time, and 99% of non-Jewish Americans have no idea that Rothstein is a Jewish name.

    https://twitter.com/betsyscribeindc/status/870410119372210176

    So he’s a “moron” if he didn’t know her last name is Jewish…

    …but would be an “anti-semite” if he noticed.

    Airtight little schtick, that.

    Read More
    • LOL: James Richard
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. AM says:

    many Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.

    In fairness, this seems to be a concern of most of gentile cucked America, too. I will assume that the vast majority of people I encounter online and in person are not Jewish. The consensus seems to be something like: If IQ doesn’t have some random allotment, if the Cosby show is more exception than rule, then OMG WHITES ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR AND WE WILL HAVE TO GO RIGHT BACK SEGREGATION THIS SECOND. EEKK! Right.

    To me, that’s the thing about dealing with the Jewish influence: it requires the active consent of the general populace. There is a great deal of benefit to the population as whole to hang onto this taboo.

    What’s everyone’s easy, favorite black hat villain other Hitler? The KKK of course.

    If you accept the idea that IQ is paired with impulse control and that blacks have lower IQs on average, or even simply that black per capita have a high crime rate, then all of sudden the KKK looks like a bunch of white guys trying to protect their homes and families. That doesn’t make it correct still because trials are necessary to real justice. But suddenly they go from mysterious, evil motivations…to rather human.

    And that will never do in a world that’s lost it’s religion. Radical egalitarianism runs very deep for a population that in part descends from puritans and have abandoned any other form of morality. If “not a racist” is not a real virtue (and to a certain extent it’s not), then who they are? How are they “good” people then?

    “I’m not racist” sounds so warm and fuzzy to Christians (because in part we are not allowed to discriminate within a church along those lines) that it’s this one last “in” to not be weird. Christians too can “fit in” to an increasingly secular society. I have lost count of the “don’t be racist” Homilies I’ve listened to because they’re safe and don’t involve anything uncomfortable. (The irony being of course, they’re given to a bunch of white Northeastern transplants who have no roots in the local population.)

    Anyway, most of society, not just Jews, at this point in time have a lot invested in assuming that race is only skin deep. If it were just Jews thinking along these lines, they wouldn’t have chance, regardless of their placement within society. But there’s a lot more going on and a lot more at stake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    It’s worth bearing in mind that some high-profile African American intellectuals and NAM activists play roles in making this subject taboo too. They have an incentive to deny average group differences in IQ, since diversity sinecures and Affirmative Action are largely based on the belief that differences in outcomes are due to discrimination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It’s worth bearing in mind that some high-profile African American intellectuals and NAM activists play roles in making this subject taboo too.

    Perhaps, but there really aren't that many high-profile African American intellectuals anymore. We've reached a point where Genius T. Coates is just about the highest-profile African American intellectual.

    Most intellectual disputes these days involve Jews on at least one side, if not both sides. They have the IQ, the energy, the self-confidence, the contentiousness, the money, the ethnic dispensation, and so forth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. AM says:
    @David
    With respect, I think you're wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don't know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.

    Most Vermonters couldn't tell you why much of their food comes labeled with a K or U. So I don't think it ever occurred to them that our last governor was a Jew or that the mayor of Burlington, out largest town, is. If they were exposed to the fact, it wouldn't register or mean anything. Noticing that is not a thing here.

    And Shumlin was such a Jew! Poor Vermonters playing with uranium ore thinking all rocks are gneiss.

    Hey there! I’m ex-VT native.

    “Poor Vermonters playing with uranium ore thinking all rocks are gneiss.”

    Yes, this is a correct assessment. :) But in fairness, I’m going to defend the native stock. Jewish populations tend to be urban and Vermont is a very rural place even today. Why would they know, exactly? There’s a few communities of Mennonites in Northern VT that are much easier to observe than any Jew.

    At any rate, VT is overrun now with hipster Brooklynites, including some Jews and I have to assume it’s all thanks to the car. It is what is. I’m waiting for a collapse within the next 40-50 years or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Veracitor says:

    Turkheimer may be sort of old, but he knows how to use the word “interrogate” like an undergraduate Grievance Studies major.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. One of the stupidest things in Turkheimer’s “argument” is his utter inability to distinguish between a question being what he regards as morally suspect and its being scientifically legitimate.

    Really, there is an is-ought distinction, Mr. Turkheimer, and you should make an attempt to understand it.

    There are clear phenotypic differences in IQ across races — even Turkheimer can’t dispute that. So how is the question of whether those differences are to some degree genetically based not a scientific question? Is it really impossible for the methods of science to express the question sharply and to answer it? What makes IQ so special that it — in contrast to countless other phenotypic traits — is beyond the reach of science? It just makes no sense. Turkheimer sounds like a fool when he makes claims that entail such bizarre things.

    If he truly believes that the moral problems of genetic research with regard to racial differences trump the standard scientific imperative to understand our world, then he should just be honest enough to say so. Pretending that such research somehow just isn’t science is nothing but disingenuous and frankly stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Turkheimer equivocates wildly on the sense in which the study of IQ differences across races/ethnicities is "unscientific". One moment he's acting as though such questions can't be scientifically expressed, or, alternatively, scientifically answered. Either of those views is sheer idiocy.

    But he also says such things as such questions being "scientifically empty", or, alternatively, of no real scientific value. But either claim is pretty much absurd on its face.

    The reason scientists would care about whether IQ differences have a genetic component across races is essentially the same reason ordinary people do: because differences in average IQ have enormous impact on society. IQ affects the sorts of academic programs people can pursue, the sorts of jobs people can hold, the sorts of economic outcomes they can expect. They are related to crime rates. Very few things in our society which we value are unaffected by IQ.

    If we care about the functioning of our society -- as social scientists are supposed to -- then IQ is an unavoidable issue, and the issue of differences across races is unavoidable. That's just the way it is.

    Indeed, it's precisely because cognitive ability is so consequential in our society that the question of differences across races on that metric is so very sensitive.

    The point being this. Turkheimer is welcome to argue that, when it comes to the question of IQ differences across races, the sensitivity is so great, and the potential for social and moral damage so high, that the question should not be pursued. He is obliged to argue, though, that this holds true despite its clear and basic importance in the social sciences.

    What we get from Turkheimer instead is meaningless, moralizing, smearing mumbo-jumbo.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Olorin says:
    @Jack D
    Turkeimer's materialism example is just a bunch of hand-waving. What if, instead of "materialism", you substitute "Tay-Sachs Disease"? Turnkeimer has just "proven" that Tay-Sachs Disease has nothing to do with being Jewish and we shouldn't even look for a genetic basis for it. Only anti-Semites associate Tay-Sachs Disease with Judaism.

    Maybe Turkeimer is going in the wrong direction here - we are supposed to laugh at the obvious ridiculous of the idea that materialism is genetic, but maybe it's not as ridiculous as Turkeimer thinks. His appeals are all appeals to moral authority, not appeals to science. IQ is not allowed to have a genetic basis because Hitler -that's fundamentally his whole argument.

    IQ is not allowed to have a genetic basis because Hitler -that’s fundamentally his whole argument.

    Considering what the “Hitler” memeplex has been constructed to mean, can any of us think of a better argument than precisely that one?

    It’s the Nuclear Option, 24/7. In all directions. Forever. As airtight as “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” or any of the other -isms and their children, the -phobias.

    It has long struck me as isomeric with the story where the supposed master of the cosmos–mathematician extraordinaire–says to two upright primates, “Look, apples! Don’t eat the apples! Uh oh, you ate the apples! [boom]”

    This is seriously primitive thinking. Evolving humans always go where the big mysteries are. Stuck humans squat in the dust. Somewhere in between are the rentiers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Olorin
    I'm guessing the fear is more like:

    If the goyim were allowed to parse out our IQ subpopulations as genetically closely as the Ashkenazim get to do--only include up to our 4th or 5th cousins--there will be goyische subpopulations with a higher mean IQ than those usually touted as the superiors of whites.

    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don’t know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    There's been a lot of interbreeding, but if you could find purebred old stock New Englanders or NY Dutch, they would be pretty smart I think. If Jews are 20 or 25% of billionaires, Nobelists, etc. who are the other 80%?
    , @Olorin
    Me neither. But I sure would like to see the decks cleared politically to ask.

    I'm getting weary of having to keep rehashing these 20th century political and social taboos.
    , @syonredux

    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don’t know.
     
    Could look at some of the family lines that originated in the Puritan Great Migration. Perhaps the Eliots:

    The Eliot family is the American branch of one of several British families to hold this surname. This branch is based in Boston but originated in East Coker, Yeovil, Somerset. It is one of the Boston Brahmins, a bourgeois family,[1] whose ancestors had become wealthy and held sway over the American education system. All are the descendants of two men named Andrew Eliot, father and son, who emigrated from East Coker to Beverly, Massachusetts between 1668 and 1670. The elder Andrew (1627-March 1, 1703/04) served the town and colony in a number of positions and in 1692 was chosen as a juror in the Salem witch trials. His son Andrew (1651-September 12, 1688) married Mercy Shattuck in 1680 in Beverly and died by drowning after falling off a ship.
    The ranks include several college presidents, one Nobel prize winner, and presidents of American professional associations. Charles W. Eliot transformed Harvard from a college to a research institution, a model which many American universities have followed. William Greenleaf Eliot co-founded Washington University in St. Louis in 1853 and Thomas H. Eliot was chancellor of that institution from 1962-71; William Greenleaf Eliot's son Thomas Lamb Eliot went further west and was a seminal figure in the founding of Reed College in Portland, Oregon in 1911. The poet T. S. Eliot moved to England and his ashes were interred in East Coker, England. He wanted to be laid to rest in the original birthplace of his first American ancestor and other Eliot ancestors.
    Another branch of the American Eliot family descend from Rev. John Eliot of Roxbury, Massachusetts, known as the “Apostle to the Indians.” His son, John Eliot, Jr., was the first pastor of the First Church of Christ in Newton. In turn, John Eliot Jr.'s son, Joseph Eliot, became a pastor in Guilford, Connecticut, and later fathered Jared Eliot, another pastor as well as agricultural writer.
     

    Well-known descendants of Andrew Eliot include:
    Andrew Eliot, prominent Boston Congregational minister
    Charles Eliot, landscape architect and son of Charles William Eliot, uncle of Thomas H. Eliot
    Charles Eliot Norton, American scholar and man of letters. He was first cousin to Charles William Eliot.
    Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard University, son of Samuel Atkins Eliot
    Rev. Christopher Rhodes Eliot, Unitarian minister and author, son of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    Edward Cranch Eliot[2] President of the American Bar Association
    Frederick May Eliot, President of the American Unitarian Association from 1937–1958, son of Christopher Rhodes Eliot.
    Henry Ware Eliot, businessman and President of the Academy of Science, St. Louis, son of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    John Eliot, co-founder of the Massachusetts Historical Society with Jeremy Belknap, the first such Historical Society of its kind, and son of Andrew Eliot.
    Martha May Eliot, a pediatrician and expert in public health; she served as director of the Children’s Bureau’s Division of Child and Maternal Health in the 1920s and 1930s, and is credited with drafting language on women and children in the Social Security Act. Martha May Eliot lived a quiet but public life as a lesbian with her lifelong domestic partner, Ethel Collins Dunham. She was a daughter of Christopher Rhodes Eliot.
    Samuel Eliot (banker), Boston banker and merchant
    Samuel Atkins Eliot, politician who served in the United States House of Representatives, Massachusetts House of Representatives, Massachusetts Senate and was also mayor of Boston and treasurer of Harvard University. Son of Samuel Eliot and father of Charles William Eliot.
    Samuel Atkins Eliot II, President of the American Unitarian Association from 1900–1927, son of Charles William Eliot
    Samuel Atkins Eliot, Jr., American novelist, son of Samuel Atkins Eliot II
    Samuel Eliot, historian, educator, trustee of Massachusetts General Hospital, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Massachusetts Historical Society. He was the cousin of Charles Eliot Norton.
    Samuel Eliot Morison, historian, Rear Admiral, United States Naval Reserve. He was the grandson of Samuel Eliot.
    Thomas Dawes Eliot, U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts. Brother of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    Thomas H. Eliot, Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis, U.S. Congressman, son of Samuel Atkins Eliot II
    Rev. Thomas Lamb Eliot, Regent and Trustee of Reed College. Son of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    Thomas Stearns Eliot (better known as T. S. Eliot), Nobel prize winner, poet, playwright, literary critic and publisher. Son of Henry Ware Eliot.
    Theodore Lyman Eliot I, president of San Francisco Art Institute, grandson of Charles William Eliot, brother of Thomas H. Eliot and Samuel Atkins Eliot Jr, father of Theodore Lyman Eliot II. His brother-in-law was Albert Bigelow, the peace activist.
    Theodore Lyman Eliot II (United States Ambassador to Afghanistan, 1973–1978), nephew of Thomas H. Eliot and Samuel Atkins Eliot Jr, great-grandson of Charles William Eliot, great-great grandson of Samuel Atkins Eliot. Charles Eliot, the landscape architect, was his great-uncle.
    William Greenleaf Eliot, co-founder and third chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis
    Andrew Eliot Rice, a founder of Peace Corps, grandson of Samuel Atkins Eliot II.
    Edward Samuel Ritchie, American inventor and physicist, great-grandson of Andrew Eliot, the Boston minister

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_family_(America)
    , @black sea
    The Adams family of Massachusetts and the Lowell family of same come to mind. Accomplished in many areas and through several generations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @International Jew

    for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.
     
    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to "deconstruct the American people"? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

    Why are there more Jews in places where you’re likely to hear what they have to say?

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    Higher mean IQ. Greater family pressure to succeed academically and financially. Positive role models. Greater concentration in the urban Northeast and West Coast. etc...
    , @HI
    One hypothesis is because elite institutions select for Jewish values. Harvard has something like 10% gentiles (vs. 60+% in the general population, and ~30% Jews (vs. 2-3% in the general population). It may not be because they select for Jews, but it might be because they select for Jewish values. So the high school leader active in ROTC or Future Farmers of America gets rejected, while the founder of the gay-straight alliance, or the Bangladeshi who writes Black Lives Matter 100 times, gets selected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @International Jew

    for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.
     
    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to "deconstruct the American people"? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”?

    Straw man. Sailer wasn’t speaking to intergroup differences but to noblesse oblige.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. AM says:
    @International Jew

    for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.
     
    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to "deconstruct the American people"? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Yep.

    I’m sorry to say that when you find an organization dedicated to open borders or some sort of “Call out the hate group” (SPLC anyone), you will almost always find one or more ethnic Jews. It hardly ever fails. Add to the lopsided Jewish presence in media production and ownership and add to the Soros like billionaires and there it is.

    It appears there’s just something about being an off the wagon ethnic Jew that to makes them a little too eager to tell everyone how to live and/or “fix” things. You can’t compare it to Hispanics because they don’t end up as movie producers. No other minority groups end up in those same positions of influence. (Fun fact: porn directors are out of portion Jewish, too) Orthodox/observant Jews don’t seem to have that problem but then they don’t choose lines of work that take them away from their communities.

    Once you go looking for the pattern, it’s there. What’s to be done about it is different question. Jews historically end up as scapegoats for a failing elite class. For instance, we controlled the contents of all movies and porn production with the Hays Code, so it didn’t matter that Jews tended to own movie production. Once the governing elite got tired of governing, then they just didn’t care what got thrown out for mass consumption. Sure, you can blame Jewish influence. I blame a society fatigued of controlling itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    I am Episcopalian. And some of the most rabid SJWs I know are my cousins (who also happened to have grown up very wealthy). Our church is burdened with a rapacious social justice sect that insists on homosexual priests conducting mass and being married in our church by other gay priests.

    Go throughout Chicago and you will see many Episcopalian churches with rainbow flags, BLM placards and "no hate here" posters.

    My church is largely hijacked by monstrous imbeciles who think these actions will make them more pious and increase our flock. Meanwhile, my home church withers in size as the kids aren't returning to the suburbs and aren't having kids. And they wonder why it's falling apart. It's disgraceful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Thomas
    The idea that they would owe noblesse oblige towards Haven Monahan-type blond beasts would be anathema to most American Jews. We wuzn't allowed in the country club 'n' dreck.

    Perhaps victimhood, in addition to materialism, is an inborn trait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Luke Lea says:

    “Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.”

    They fear the goyishe kopf whose mental inferiority they were traditionally not afraid to admit, at least among themselves. But those were illiterate Polish peasants, and that was a medieval world in which Jews, under the arenda system, were the hired overseers representing an absentee aristocracy. Given that background, that there was not a lot more Polish anti-semitism has always seemed like the most surprising thing to me.

    But anyway, in the case of Anglo-Americans we are talking about the least anti-semitic population in history, whom they have been busily trying to turn into a minority. Irving Kristol’s essay, “On the Political Stupidity of the Jews” is a good read in this context: https://goo.gl/Lr9D5f

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. biz says:

    These guys are revealing their bluff and revealing their cards. They should have stopped after that first Vox piece.

    I know that I am right but we shouldn’t do the studies that would prove that I’m right.’

    Those are not the arguments of someone who is confident in their claims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. dr kill says:

    but thinks more determinative data may be found in future genetic knowledge.

    No shit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. timothy says:

    Pinker wrapped up his lecture on the Cochran, Harpending, and Hardy article on Ashkenazi intelligence with a Powerpoint slide asking the question, “But is it good for the Jews?” It got big laughst from the audience at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. “This question occurs to most people [i.e. most people in that audience] when they hear about this research,” Pinker said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Tiny Duck says:

    White peoples are the greatest danger to Jewish existence

    See Germany and most of Europe

    Facts are that Muslim treat Jews the best and Jews and people of Colour get along great without white interference

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @anonymous
    The Honorable Louis Farrakhan begs to differ.
    , @fish
    "Batman... Batman... Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a *bat* gets all of my press? This town needs an enema!"

    - Leonard Pitts
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Muslims hate everybody, including other Muslims. Keep dreamin'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. biz says:
    @Neil Templeton
    Why are there more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say?

    Higher mean IQ. Greater family pressure to succeed academically and financially. Positive role models. Greater concentration in the urban Northeast and West Coast. etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Alternate but not incompatible explanation. On average, they really like to be heard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. JohnnyD says:

    When I talk with my fellow Jews about immigration, it quickly becomes apparent that they’re concerned about two things: 1.) How supporting a movement to restrict immigration is somehow an insult to their great-grandparents, who were immigrants from Russia. 2.) How immigration restriction could lead to antisemitism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    I've gotten to the point where I talk about settlers (pre-1880 or so) and immigrants. Very different people, even if both they came without money. Jews especially, were prone to settle in cities which made making money is a much easier proposition. The people who built the country have a different mindset and heritage than those that took advantage of it's existence.

    I've also started to shrug my shoulders about the natives. Yes, we moved and killed some. Yes, we broke promises to some. They did the same to us. We were bottled up on the coast for over 200 years. It's only the Civil War that made the technology difference wildly unequal.

    So no, Jewish immigrant, you're not the same as settler. As far as I'm concerned they're welcome, but the interests have to align. They don't for the most part right now. That in and of itself can cause a rise in antisemitism. Given some of the rather hard core attitudes I see in segments of the alt-right, it's going to be problem if the borders the close and soon. Reason checks out and it's seemingly impossible to get back.

    The great irony of course is that the heartland evangelicals are the American Jew's best friend and Jews as a group can't seem to stand them.Life: you can't make this stuff up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Broski says:
    @Jack D
    Turkeimer's materialism example is just a bunch of hand-waving. What if, instead of "materialism", you substitute "Tay-Sachs Disease"? Turnkeimer has just "proven" that Tay-Sachs Disease has nothing to do with being Jewish and we shouldn't even look for a genetic basis for it. Only anti-Semites associate Tay-Sachs Disease with Judaism.

    Maybe Turkeimer is going in the wrong direction here - we are supposed to laugh at the obvious ridiculous of the idea that materialism is genetic, but maybe it's not as ridiculous as Turkeimer thinks. His appeals are all appeals to moral authority, not appeals to science. IQ is not allowed to have a genetic basis because Hitler -that's fundamentally his whole argument.

    He doesn’t think materialism is unlikely to be linked to Jewish genes. On the contrary, he is nearly certain of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. sabril says:

    The simpler explanation is intellectual fashion + virtue signalling. Which would also explain why left-wing Jews are so rabidly anti-Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @anony-mouse
    You capitalize the 'J' in 'Jews' and even the 'A' in the adjective 'Ashkenazi' but you use the lower case for the 'G' in 'Gentile'.

    Must be this anti-Gentilism I've heard about. I shall have to complain to Steve Sailer, who finds these things all around him, about this

    The use of the word “gentile” as a synonym for non-Jewish has an implication that may not be understood by all of its users.

    The word comes from the Latin gens, gentis which can mean a clan or group of kinsmen (e.g., the Julio-Claudian gens), or more generally a tribe or nation. Thus it is used in the phrase jus gentium, the law of nations.

    In the Vulgate Bible, the word is used, e.g., in Psalm 2:1 – Quare fremuerunt gentes et populi meditati sunt inania? – with the meaning of gentes in this context being “heathen.” Thus, at least, the Authorized Version translates it: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” Squire Jennens, in his lyric for Messiah has rendered it “nations,” as set most magnificently by Handel:

    Perhaps the Squire thought “nations” more genteel than “heathen.” However, when a Jew calls someone who is not a Jew a “gentile,” he is calling him a heathen. When a non-Jew identifies himself as a “gentile,” he is describing himself as heathen. Of course, assuming he be a Christian, or a Mahommedan, he does not and should not regard himself as a heathen. Heathen seems to me to have a pejorative cast; perhaps someone here who knows Hebrew can say whether the corresponding Hebrew word in Psalm 2 also does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @old jew
    I checked Psalm 2:1 in blueletterbible.org

    The word for heathens is Goyim
    , @Ben Kurtz
    The Hebrew word in question at Psalm 2:1 is "goyim," which is the plural of "goy." "Goy," in the first instance, simply means "nation," and in Biblical usage is not pejorative. In fact, the Jewish nation itself is referred to using the term "goy" elsewhere in scripture, such as at Deuteronomy 26:5.

    Only later, basically in European Yiddish usage, did the term really pick up the strong connotation of "non-Jewish nation" or "non-Jewish individual," along with an associated pejorative sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Stan Adams
    We need to make goy the g-word - a slur unspeakable in polite company - and then take ownership of it: "It's our word. We can use it, but you can't."

    Wazzup, my goyim brethren?

    Agree.
    Russian poet M. U. Lermontov (probably #2 after Pushkin):
    *
    Ох, ты гой еси, царь Иван Васильевич!
    pronounced as
    “Ouh, ty goy esi, tzar Ivan Vasilievich!”.
    *

    http://lingua.russianplanet.ru/library/lermontov/kupec.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. jJay says:

    Whenever I read something about IQ scores I do a ^F asian.

    Zilch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @candid_observer
    One of the stupidest things in Turkheimer's "argument" is his utter inability to distinguish between a question being what he regards as morally suspect and its being scientifically legitimate.

    Really, there is an is-ought distinction, Mr. Turkheimer, and you should make an attempt to understand it.

    There are clear phenotypic differences in IQ across races -- even Turkheimer can't dispute that. So how is the question of whether those differences are to some degree genetically based not a scientific question? Is it really impossible for the methods of science to express the question sharply and to answer it? What makes IQ so special that it -- in contrast to countless other phenotypic traits -- is beyond the reach of science? It just makes no sense. Turkheimer sounds like a fool when he makes claims that entail such bizarre things.

    If he truly believes that the moral problems of genetic research with regard to racial differences trump the standard scientific imperative to understand our world, then he should just be honest enough to say so. Pretending that such research somehow just isn't science is nothing but disingenuous and frankly stupid.

    Turkheimer equivocates wildly on the sense in which the study of IQ differences across races/ethnicities is “unscientific”. One moment he’s acting as though such questions can’t be scientifically expressed, or, alternatively, scientifically answered. Either of those views is sheer idiocy.

    But he also says such things as such questions being “scientifically empty”, or, alternatively, of no real scientific value. But either claim is pretty much absurd on its face.

    The reason scientists would care about whether IQ differences have a genetic component across races is essentially the same reason ordinary people do: because differences in average IQ have enormous impact on society. IQ affects the sorts of academic programs people can pursue, the sorts of jobs people can hold, the sorts of economic outcomes they can expect. They are related to crime rates. Very few things in our society which we value are unaffected by IQ.

    If we care about the functioning of our society — as social scientists are supposed to — then IQ is an unavoidable issue, and the issue of differences across races is unavoidable. That’s just the way it is.

    Indeed, it’s precisely because cognitive ability is so consequential in our society that the question of differences across races on that metric is so very sensitive.

    The point being this. Turkheimer is welcome to argue that, when it comes to the question of IQ differences across races, the sensitivity is so great, and the potential for social and moral damage so high, that the question should not be pursued. He is obliged to argue, though, that this holds true despite its clear and basic importance in the social sciences.

    What we get from Turkheimer instead is meaningless, moralizing, smearing mumbo-jumbo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    Spot on accurate
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @TelfoedJohn
    A quote from Kevin Macdonald:

    It is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite pattern is found for infants from North Germany. The Israeli infants were much more likely to become "inconsolably upset" in reaction to strangers, whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the North German babies were the opposite — findings that fit with the hypothesis that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and ethnocentrism.
     
    Never mind materialism, it seems that xenophobia is the most important trait here. You cannot expect the same noblesse oblige as the Parsi when your instinct is to be terrified of strangers. The only thing you can do is try to destroy the identity of the stranger, so that it becomes less fearful for you.

    it seems plausible to me that a population living as a minority for a long time might evolve higher levels of paranoia and xenophobia

    or alternatively their level of these things is *normal* and euros evolved over time to have less

    (nb you can explain traits like “materialism” as a function of paranoia)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Stan Adams
    We need to make goy the g-word - a slur unspeakable in polite company - and then take ownership of it: "It's our word. We can use it, but you can't."

    Wazzup, my goyim brethren?
    Read More
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur
    There's an old Jewish joke about the Jew who wants to join a non-Jewish country club. He changes his name, his accent, wardrobe, and makes all sorts of sacrifices to get his chance. When he finally is interviewed by the membership committee, he knocks every question out of the park. He's in! Except there's one member who isn't quite sure and says, "you know you look a little Jewish."

    He protests, "I'm not Jewish, I am a goy!"

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @David
    With respect, I think you're wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don't know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.

    Most Vermonters couldn't tell you why much of their food comes labeled with a K or U. So I don't think it ever occurred to them that our last governor was a Jew or that the mayor of Burlington, out largest town, is. If they were exposed to the fact, it wouldn't register or mean anything. Noticing that is not a thing here.

    And Shumlin was such a Jew! Poor Vermonters playing with uranium ore thinking all rocks are gneiss.

    With respect, I think you’re wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew

    yes – it’s the weirdest thing. most minorities notice but most white people don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    Why do the militant blacks hate Jews? Is it Islam? Then, why do Jews do everything in their power to support the radical blacks?

    I worked with the militants, years ago, and they had the most complicated, bizarre conspiracy theories. Intense Jew-hatred was a big part of it and it made no sense to me. Something about Africa being the real root of Judaism and then Christianity. white people took it all away from them and made it about Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Moshe says:

    Full disclosure: Thusfar I have not won a Nobel Prize or been solvent. So, in accordance with my instructions from the command center, I am loyaly doing my part to bring down the Jewish Average so as to delay the Noticing –> Pitchforks.

    So obviously my concern about this (mythical!) antisemitic sentiment is motivated in part by the fact that I don’t appear to have hitherto benefitted by the accustomed Success! standards of fame and fortune, yet – should the pitchforks come for the Jews (as, admittedly, they Never Ever do nor does anyone today fantasize about that Day of Reckoning) I will suffer the consequences of my internet history, without having priorly benefited from that (rather handsome, so there’s that) Semitic face with Success!

    That out of the way:

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.

    Oh, it will be easy for you guys to blow smoke by pointing to differences here and there at this precise moment in time (as if, the blacks were ever less upitty and the goyim less philosemitic – because all that counts is the snapshot of Today!) but ultimately, the precise same jealously, feelings of inferiority, anger and claims of collusion are the precise same as blacks exhibit towards whites.

    Hoo boy, look at Steve’s comment section when a week ago he praised Jewish Success – and Steve MODERATES his comments, and people self moderate their own and this….isn’t even one of the hundreds of popular antisemitic forums!

    And you say that Jews have no motivation to obfuscate their success and higher intelligence?

    Heck, is there ANY difference between We Wuz Kangs and Jews Won Science Nobels Because They Stole Ideas From Non Jews (and also because they collude to keep the goy man down!). And this is PRECISELY what people have claimed HERE (and note my previous comment about what that says about how large the sentiment is beyond this forum) and precisely what blacks claim about whites.

    I do not obfuscate ideas that I believe to be true nor – more relevantly – do I fear engaging in crimethink or crimespeech – WHAT SO EVER.

    This is both a cause and an effect of why (take comfort in this) you have more money than me. I love considering and speaking uncomfortable truths which, can be financially problematic no matter how large your verbal acumen) and which may also therefore be the result of having less to lose.

    But saner and more timid Hebrews may have food cause to try and stave off being Rhodesia’ad by the more numerous and more violent hordes of imbeciles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.
     

    Some attitudinal similarities. But overall not in the way you mean it.

    The key difference is easy to sum up: whites actually do win Nobel prizes--most of them in fact.

    In other words, white gentiles create highly functional societies, without any Jews around.

    Blacks do not. Black anger and "we wuz kangs" comes from being unable to create functional societies, or--for many--even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society. Blacks don't actually want whites to "go away", they want whites to give them more stuff. (I actually respect real black nationalists who are aware of their community's problems and think being dependent on the white man is bad. I think they are deluded about what their societies would actually be like, but I respect the desire to build it themselves.)

    In contrast, Jews didn't create the European or American society. They are a smart and aggressive middle minority who as a result do well in the high quality/high trust societies gentiles create. But they didn't build those societies. In fact, it's close to the reverse. Jews--the Ashkenazi--clearly got their initial IQ boost from the literacy requirement imposed by rabbinic Judaism. (The dropouts are my ancestors, not yours.) But they have their world beating IQ by being a middle man minority looting on top of a competent/successful European host society. Literacy, and especially Jewish business knowledge and networking gave even dumber Jews a huge advantage. But in general to be more successful--and hence more likely to pass on your genes--you needed to be smarter than the goyim. Any Jews in Arabia, or South East Asia or Africa would have found both far inferior middle man opportunities, and would not have undergone as intense selection as outwitting those peoples would have been a bit to quite a bit easier. The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from--both materially and in terms of "stolen" genetic selection--European gentile societies. They didn't create European success, but were essentially created or at least "forged" by it.

    And "anti-Semitism"--at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here--is about the negative behavior--political and cultural--of Jews. We want Jews to "shape up"--stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or "fellow Americans"--or go away.

    Whatever levels of jealousy or resentment, there's just a fundamental difference between an attitude that is "give us stuff" and an attitude that is "leave us alone".

    , @mobi

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.
     

    Sure.

    And of course, whites go out of their way to get away from blacks, just like jews go out of their...wait. Never mind.

    Then, there's the fact that, absent an entire modern, functioning technological society built by whites (non-jews), blacks would descend into a global Haiti in one or two generations, en route back to the jungle, just like if we removed the entire contribution of jews throughout history, whites would ... wait. Never mind.

    Not to mention the fact that very smart whites outnumber very smart jews by a factor of - what, 10? - just like very smart blacks outnumber ... wait, never mind.

    But other than that - ya, they're clearly basically the same thing.


    No doubt, the jews' greatest of all talents - that for self-serving sophistry - exists for good reason - it must serve you well, and may even be essential for you.

    Good for you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don't know.

    There’s been a lot of interbreeding, but if you could find purebred old stock New Englanders or NY Dutch, they would be pretty smart I think. If Jews are 20 or 25% of billionaires, Nobelists, etc. who are the other 80%?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    On the Dutch in particular - the inbreeding is really bad. Want to know a state where cousin marriage is still legal? Connecticut.

    The FDR was pretty inbred and married a cousin. If you read a biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt, he married his cousin for his first wife and a 2nd cousin for his 2nd wife.

    They might seem smart and in the case of the Vanderbilts they were. But the inbreeding - crazy stuff.

    Being wealthy seems to require a very specific drive that is passed down in families. Inbreeding does seem to catch up eventually but as long as there is enough diversity cousin marrying keeps all the lovely money (and drive) in the family.
    , @FKA Max

    According to Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, a review of American Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 1972, 72% of American Nobel Prize laureates identified a Protestant background.[18] Overall, 84.2% of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans in Chemistry,[18] 60% in Medicine,[18] and 58.6% in Physics[18] between 1901 and 1972 were won by Protestants.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merton_thesis#Support

    In a paper written in 2009 for the Quarterly Journal of Economics, entitled Was Weber Wrong?, Becker and Woessmann argue that Protestants were more successful because they had the advantage of a better and longer education. Further research has led them to conclude that the educational advantage began soon after Martin Luther broke away from the established Church in the 16th century and has continued to play its part in creating economic success throughout Europe.

    Luther wanted women as well as men to be able to read the Bible, he points out. Not only did his followers set out to establish church schools in every parish, but girls went there as well as boys, he says. "We looked into the records of school building in the German federal state of Brandenburg in the 16th century, and discovered that there were disproportionately more girls in school than boys. Protestantism, it seems, was an early driver of emancipation. At that time, remember, Catholic areas didn't even have any boys' schools.
     
    - https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research

    As I pointed out in a short note a few years ago, Richard Lynn published an entire *book* on Jewish intelligence, and among other things, he provided an entire listing of the 32 available IQ studies of American Jews, nearly all of which show figures well above the white 100 average:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    However, the widespread figure of IQ=115 which always used to float around the Internet a decade or two ago seems complete nonsense. I think only one or two of the 32 studies produced a figure that high, and most of the ones from recent decades seem to average around IQ=110-112, which is a much more reasonable figure.

    However, much more intriguingly, I pointed out that the average for the 14 studies from 1920-1937 was scarcely above the white average, being only 101.5, while the average of the nine studies from 1944-1960 was still only 107, while only the last nine studies from 1970-2008 averaged 111 (all of these were Flynn-adjusted). This stunning rise of tested Jewish IQ over merely a couple of generations obviously cannot be genetic and the pattern seems too striking for measurement-effects, very likely pointing to the impact of affluence, or educational/cultural factors.

    Furthermore, there seems enormous evidence that in the last couple of decades or so, there’s been a considerable decline in Jewish academic achievement, though the actual factors responsible are not entirely clear
     
    - http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1732044

    Given such a wide range of scores, it’s fascinating to ask what the overall Jewish IQ is. Averaging across all six subtests, Jewish Americans outperformed U.S. whites by 0.12 SD. Converting that into a composite IQ requires knowing the intercorrelations of the subtests, however on a comparable battery of tests (the WISC-R), someone who averages +0.12 SD across all the subtests has a composite score that is +0.13 SD, equating to a full-scale IQ of 102.

    This is substantially lower than the U.S. Jewish mean of 110 commonly cited by Richard Lynn. Of course it depends on the test. If one goes by tests like the SAT, which are all about verbal and math talent, Jews should easily score 110, but on a more comprehensive global sample of intellectual abilities, it seems U.S. Jews are virtually tied with U.S. whites.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1731626


    Race Religion Number Math + Verbal SAT
    Wh Unitarian 1,745 1073
    Wh Quaker 894 1037
    Wh Judaism 25,600 1030 * Jewish Avg
    Al Quaker 1,009 1029
    [...]
    And here’s a 2002 report on high SAT scoring groups from Gene Expression: Average SAT score by religion for 2002, average ~1000, about 40% of each students take it
    Unitarian-Universalists 1209
    Judaism 1161
    Quakers 1153

    – http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq.html
     
    - http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1730862

    Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.

    The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/#comment-1846450
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. A more charitable explanation is that he feels it’s safest to use, as an example of a negative stereotype, one for a group to which he has a pass, just as Sam Harris did when he talked about racial genetics in this interview:

    I believe Harris was responding to Twitter messages I left him about the gene MAOA in African Americans and Arabs.

    Overall, this “debate” among scientists is using weak arguments on both sides. I also don’t think that Charles Murray, Jason Richwine, and James Watson deserve all the defending that they get because they express themselves so poorly, and they inject agendas into their science that aren’t always well supported by the science. I’m much more interested in the work of Davide Piffer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Charles Murray expresses himself poorly where? I think this is the one thing you cannot say about him. Are there any categoric critics of Charles Murray who are not pointedly dishonest?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. AM says:
    @JohnnyD
    When I talk with my fellow Jews about immigration, it quickly becomes apparent that they're concerned about two things: 1.) How supporting a movement to restrict immigration is somehow an insult to their great-grandparents, who were immigrants from Russia. 2.) How immigration restriction could lead to antisemitism.

    I’ve gotten to the point where I talk about settlers (pre-1880 or so) and immigrants. Very different people, even if both they came without money. Jews especially, were prone to settle in cities which made making money is a much easier proposition. The people who built the country have a different mindset and heritage than those that took advantage of it’s existence.

    I’ve also started to shrug my shoulders about the natives. Yes, we moved and killed some. Yes, we broke promises to some. They did the same to us. We were bottled up on the coast for over 200 years. It’s only the Civil War that made the technology difference wildly unequal.

    So no, Jewish immigrant, you’re not the same as settler. As far as I’m concerned they’re welcome, but the interests have to align. They don’t for the most part right now. That in and of itself can cause a rise in antisemitism. Given some of the rather hard core attitudes I see in segments of the alt-right, it’s going to be problem if the borders the close and soon. Reason checks out and it’s seemingly impossible to get back.

    The great irony of course is that the heartland evangelicals are the American Jew’s best friend and Jews as a group can’t seem to stand them.Life: you can’t make this stuff up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    Just to clarify this comment, I'm thinking that the kind of antisemitism that's the worst nightmare of average Jew will rise in America if we can't close the borders. I don't see the Clintons or people like the Clintons having any issue blaming Jews if chaos descends.
    , @JohnnyD
    @Am,
    I know a Jewish guy whose ancestors settled in Savannah, Georgia during the eighteenth century. Would you consider him to be part of the "pre-1880 settlers"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. AM says:
    @Jack D
    There's been a lot of interbreeding, but if you could find purebred old stock New Englanders or NY Dutch, they would be pretty smart I think. If Jews are 20 or 25% of billionaires, Nobelists, etc. who are the other 80%?

    On the Dutch in particular – the inbreeding is really bad. Want to know a state where cousin marriage is still legal? Connecticut.

    The FDR was pretty inbred and married a cousin. If you read a biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt, he married his cousin for his first wife and a 2nd cousin for his 2nd wife.

    They might seem smart and in the case of the Vanderbilts they were. But the inbreeding – crazy stuff.

    Being wealthy seems to require a very specific drive that is passed down in families. Inbreeding does seem to catch up eventually but as long as there is enough diversity cousin marrying keeps all the lovely money (and drive) in the family.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    Inbreeding catches up very quickly. See the example that is the Hapsburgs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @bjdubbs
    Most Americans have no idea who's Jewish. Jazz Shaw at HotAir did not know that Michael Bloomberg, Lloyd Blankfein, and Janet Yellen were Jewish, and Jazz Shaw is somebody who is paid to know this kind of stuff.

    hotair.com/archives/2016/11/06/noted-liberal-plays-bizarre-desperate-11th-hour-jewish-card-trump/

    If Jazz Shaw doesn't know Blankfein and Bloomberg are Jewish, then very, very few Americans do. (I suspect that that the guy who bought New Republic a few years ago, Chris Hayes, had no idea he was buying a Jewish magazine, or that a guy named Chris firing two Jewish editors would be a problem). Jews then *vastly* overestimate how many Americans know or care that so-and-so is Jewish. Basically, Jews think about anti-semitism all the time, and 99% of non-Jewish Americans have no idea that Rothstein is a Jewish name.

    https://twitter.com/betsyscribeindc/status/870410119372210176

    Technically, Rothstein is a German name. Before the 1787 Austro-Hungarian law that mandated last names for Jews, Jews mainly had patronyms such as Yehuda Ben Yosef for example. (Ben = Son, Bat = daughter)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Stealth says:
    @International Jew

    for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.
     
    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to "deconstruct the American people"? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

    Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Unknown, but I do know that Episcopalians are not an ethnic group in the same way Jewish people are. My great aunt’s former E. church had a lot of black congregants, and a black minister. It is certainly not a church that discourages conversion.

    I guess “Episcopalian” is a word people use when they get tired of “WASP.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I guess “Episcopalian” is a word people use when they get tired of “WASP.”
     
    Is "episcopalian" synonymous with "WASP"? I had assumed it was synonymous with "athiest".
    , @Yak-15
    For a time the Episcopalian church took in a lot of Catholics who went through a divorce.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. utu says:

    “Turkheimer’s example is a bit of a misdirection, since it would be more straightforward in this debate over IQ to discuss higher Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQs.”

    Perhaps.

    “My guess, however, is that most American gentiles, of whatever race, recognize that Jews tend to be smarter — e.g., 1/50th of the U.S. population makes up about 1/3rd of the Forbes 400 — and admire them for that fact.”

    Or maybe Sailer is practicing misdirection. Why not talk about Jewish materialism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @bjdubbs
    Most Americans have no idea who's Jewish. Jazz Shaw at HotAir did not know that Michael Bloomberg, Lloyd Blankfein, and Janet Yellen were Jewish, and Jazz Shaw is somebody who is paid to know this kind of stuff.

    hotair.com/archives/2016/11/06/noted-liberal-plays-bizarre-desperate-11th-hour-jewish-card-trump/

    If Jazz Shaw doesn't know Blankfein and Bloomberg are Jewish, then very, very few Americans do. (I suspect that that the guy who bought New Republic a few years ago, Chris Hayes, had no idea he was buying a Jewish magazine, or that a guy named Chris firing two Jewish editors would be a problem). Jews then *vastly* overestimate how many Americans know or care that so-and-so is Jewish. Basically, Jews think about anti-semitism all the time, and 99% of non-Jewish Americans have no idea that Rothstein is a Jewish name.

    https://twitter.com/betsyscribeindc/status/870410119372210176

    I suspect that that the guy who bought New Republic a few years ago, Chris Hayes, had no idea he was buying a Jewish magazine, or that a guy named Chris firing two Jewish editors would be a problem.

    The New Republic was not a “Jewish magazine” – not, at least, in the same sense that (say) Commentary is one.

    TNR was founded by WASPs, the Morgan partner Willard Straight and his wife Dorothy Payne Whitney. While it frequently published Jewish writers, e.g., Walter Lippmann, control remained in the hands of its founding family for many years. Its editor throughout the ‘fifties was their son Michael Straight, who had been recruited into Anthony Blunt’s Communist cell at Cambridge – the same one that included Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Kim Philby. Under Straight’s editorship, the magazine was a leading voice in criticising “McCarthyism.” Straight was also a leading member of the Committee for an Effective Congress, which, it transpired, prepared the famous speech delivered by Sen. Ralph Flanders denouncing McCarthy.

    The magazine was purchased by Marty Peretz in 1974, so one could say it fell into Jewish ownership then. The best way to describe TNR is as a leftist publication that has always been run by comsymps, and sometimes they have been Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Olorin says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don't know.

    Me neither. But I sure would like to see the decks cleared politically to ask.

    I’m getting weary of having to keep rehashing these 20th century political and social taboos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. syonredux says:

    To convince the reader that there is no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences in complex behavior to genetic and environmental causes,

    Wonder if the old boy’s ever seen this:

    Daniel Freedman was a professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago. For his doctoral thesis, he did adoption studies with dogs. He had noticed that different dog breeds had different personalities, and thought it would be interesting to see if personality was inborn, or if it was somehow caused by the way in which the mother raised her puppies. Totally inborn. Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly. Shetland sheepdogs were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive that Dan had to wear gloves when playing with puppies that were only three weeks old. Basenjis were aloof and independent.

    He decided to try the same thing with human infants of different breeds. Excuse me, different races. He looked at newborn babies in a hospital in San Francisco where his first child had been born. He compared Cantonese babies with babies of Northern European origin. The division of sexes was the same, the mothers were the same age, they had about the same number of previous children, and they had been administered the same drugs in the same amounts during labor.

    White babies started to cry more easily, and once they started, they were more difficult to console. Chinese babies adapted to almost any position in which they were placed; for example, when placed face down in their cribs, they tended to keep their faces buried in the sheets rather than immediately turning to one side, as the Caucasian babies did. They briefly pressed the baby’s nose with a cloth, forcing him to breath with his mouth. Most white (and black) babies fight this maneuver by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands, and this is reported in Western pediatric textbooks as normal. While the average Chinese baby would simply lay on his back, breathing through the mouth, accepting the cloth without a fight. There are movies of this: they are apparently quite striking, and should be on YouTube. I talked to a prof who showed these movies to students in a class at an Ivy league university: they really, really hated it. They should emigrate to a different reality – one of those probability lines outside the Blight, full of butt-kicking pixies, avuncular gay men, Melanesian super-hackers, and female Fields medalists. And unicorns.

    Later, he looked at Navaho babies: they’re like Chinese, only more so.

    Japanese babies are like Chinese, but less so: more irritable, but not as irritable as white kids.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/dan-freedmans-babies/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    The broader issue, I think, isn’t noblesse oblige, but where it’s directed, as I mentioned to Steve via Twitter. And I don’t really see a difference between the Jewish and non-Jewish elites I’m familiar with when it comes to this. It’s really more of Steve’s “leapfrogging loyalties” versus “concentric loyalty”, where the elites tend to be leap froggers.

    For example, among venture capitalists, Fred Wilson (gentile), Albert Wenger (gentile), and Brad Feld (Jew) all engaged in public matching campaigns to donate to the same lefty causes such as the ACLU (leapfrogging, given its focus on immigration) and Planned Parenthood. Similarly, gentile Chris Sacca, who once bragged about not tipping his Uber drivers, donates to a charity that digs wells in Africa.

    So, they all practice forms noblesse oblige.

    In contrast, you’ve got Jewish billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Sandy Weill who engage in more traditional forms of noblesse oblige (mega donations to hospitals and universities), but — Bloomberg, at least — is a leapfrogger on immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    Sandy Weill's dismantling of Glass-Steagall is proof that we live in a plutocracy.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    In contrast, you’ve got Jewish billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Sandy Weill who engage in more traditional forms of noblesse oblige

     

    Don't forget Soros.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Tiny Duck
    White peoples are the greatest danger to Jewish existence

    See Germany and most of Europe

    Facts are that Muslim treat Jews the best and Jews and people of Colour get along great without white interference

    The Honorable Louis Farrakhan begs to differ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @bjdubbs
    Most Americans have no idea who's Jewish. Jazz Shaw at HotAir did not know that Michael Bloomberg, Lloyd Blankfein, and Janet Yellen were Jewish, and Jazz Shaw is somebody who is paid to know this kind of stuff.

    hotair.com/archives/2016/11/06/noted-liberal-plays-bizarre-desperate-11th-hour-jewish-card-trump/

    If Jazz Shaw doesn't know Blankfein and Bloomberg are Jewish, then very, very few Americans do. (I suspect that that the guy who bought New Republic a few years ago, Chris Hayes, had no idea he was buying a Jewish magazine, or that a guy named Chris firing two Jewish editors would be a problem). Jews then *vastly* overestimate how many Americans know or care that so-and-so is Jewish. Basically, Jews think about anti-semitism all the time, and 99% of non-Jewish Americans have no idea that Rothstein is a Jewish name.

    https://twitter.com/betsyscribeindc/status/870410119372210176

    This is really a factor. If Jews were visibly different from Whites, like Asians or Blacks the situation would be vastly different.

    People who aren’t in certain narrow class or regional niches don’t deal with Jews much and they really don’t have any idea of the level of jewish power.

    Jews are seen as successful and bright, but most don’t understand the connection jews have to each other, or their devotion to Israel. They are seen as a slightly different religious group like Mormons or Jehovahs Witnesses’…they meet at the temple on the weekend, hear a sermon, socialize and go home – and that’s the extent of it.

    Most Americans really aren’t perceptive enough to connect the dots and realize they are living in a different society than they’ve known. They sense that things are different, but aren’t capable of understanding why. Even if you explained it to them it wouldn’t completely register, because Jews just look and sound too much like other white Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. NOTA says:
    @Ivy
    Expect that noblesse oblige concerns related narrowly to IQ will be watered down before any acknowledgement of tribal loyalty. That should represent at least a few more decades of delay, and further consolidation of power.

    This should apply to individuals, not groups. It’s probsbly less sensible to expect this sort of behavior from Joe Finklestein the Jewish plumber than from Tom Goldberg the Harvard economics professor. Similarly, it’s reasonable to expect this of very smart gentile whites like Mitt Romney and very smart blacks like Barack Obama. If you won the damned lottery w.r.t. IQ, yu ought to have some concern for the less fortunate members of your society who didn’t win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "If you won the damned lottery w.r.t. IQ, you ought to have some concern for the less fortunate members of your society who didn’t win."

    Why? Where is it written in history that this is the actual case of what happens? Better go re-read Hobbes's Leviathan for mankind's natural state sans a social contract/legal agreement not to do one another great harm.

    Noblesse Oblige. Sounds so quaint. How is quaint going to do vs. BLM; Cultural Marxism; etc. all the other reality-based isms in 21st century?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. syonredux says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don't know.

    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don’t know.

    Could look at some of the family lines that originated in the Puritan Great Migration. Perhaps the Eliots:

    The Eliot family is the American branch of one of several British families to hold this surname. This branch is based in Boston but originated in East Coker, Yeovil, Somerset. It is one of the Boston Brahmins, a bourgeois family,[1] whose ancestors had become wealthy and held sway over the American education system. All are the descendants of two men named Andrew Eliot, father and son, who emigrated from East Coker to Beverly, Massachusetts between 1668 and 1670. The elder Andrew (1627-March 1, 1703/04) served the town and colony in a number of positions and in 1692 was chosen as a juror in the Salem witch trials. His son Andrew (1651-September 12, 1688) married Mercy Shattuck in 1680 in Beverly and died by drowning after falling off a ship.
    The ranks include several college presidents, one Nobel prize winner, and presidents of American professional associations. Charles W. Eliot transformed Harvard from a college to a research institution, a model which many American universities have followed. William Greenleaf Eliot co-founded Washington University in St. Louis in 1853 and Thomas H. Eliot was chancellor of that institution from 1962-71; William Greenleaf Eliot’s son Thomas Lamb Eliot went further west and was a seminal figure in the founding of Reed College in Portland, Oregon in 1911. The poet T. S. Eliot moved to England and his ashes were interred in East Coker, England. He wanted to be laid to rest in the original birthplace of his first American ancestor and other Eliot ancestors.
    Another branch of the American Eliot family descend from Rev. John Eliot of Roxbury, Massachusetts, known as the “Apostle to the Indians.” His son, John Eliot, Jr., was the first pastor of the First Church of Christ in Newton. In turn, John Eliot Jr.’s son, Joseph Eliot, became a pastor in Guilford, Connecticut, and later fathered Jared Eliot, another pastor as well as agricultural writer.

    Well-known descendants of Andrew Eliot include:
    Andrew Eliot, prominent Boston Congregational minister
    Charles Eliot, landscape architect and son of Charles William Eliot, uncle of Thomas H. Eliot
    Charles Eliot Norton, American scholar and man of letters. He was first cousin to Charles William Eliot.
    Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard University, son of Samuel Atkins Eliot
    Rev. Christopher Rhodes Eliot, Unitarian minister and author, son of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    Edward Cranch Eliot[2] President of the American Bar Association
    Frederick May Eliot, President of the American Unitarian Association from 1937–1958, son of Christopher Rhodes Eliot.
    Henry Ware Eliot, businessman and President of the Academy of Science, St. Louis, son of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    John Eliot, co-founder of the Massachusetts Historical Society with Jeremy Belknap, the first such Historical Society of its kind, and son of Andrew Eliot.
    Martha May Eliot, a pediatrician and expert in public health; she served as director of the Children’s Bureau’s Division of Child and Maternal Health in the 1920s and 1930s, and is credited with drafting language on women and children in the Social Security Act. Martha May Eliot lived a quiet but public life as a lesbian with her lifelong domestic partner, Ethel Collins Dunham. She was a daughter of Christopher Rhodes Eliot.
    Samuel Eliot (banker), Boston banker and merchant
    Samuel Atkins Eliot, politician who served in the United States House of Representatives, Massachusetts House of Representatives, Massachusetts Senate and was also mayor of Boston and treasurer of Harvard University. Son of Samuel Eliot and father of Charles William Eliot.
    Samuel Atkins Eliot II, President of the American Unitarian Association from 1900–1927, son of Charles William Eliot
    Samuel Atkins Eliot, Jr., American novelist, son of Samuel Atkins Eliot II
    Samuel Eliot, historian, educator, trustee of Massachusetts General Hospital, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Massachusetts Historical Society. He was the cousin of Charles Eliot Norton.
    Samuel Eliot Morison, historian, Rear Admiral, United States Naval Reserve. He was the grandson of Samuel Eliot.
    Thomas Dawes Eliot, U.S. Congressman from Massachusetts. Brother of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    Thomas H. Eliot, Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis, U.S. Congressman, son of Samuel Atkins Eliot II
    Rev. Thomas Lamb Eliot, Regent and Trustee of Reed College. Son of William Greenleaf Eliot.
    Thomas Stearns Eliot (better known as T. S. Eliot), Nobel prize winner, poet, playwright, literary critic and publisher. Son of Henry Ware Eliot.
    Theodore Lyman Eliot I, president of San Francisco Art Institute, grandson of Charles William Eliot, brother of Thomas H. Eliot and Samuel Atkins Eliot Jr, father of Theodore Lyman Eliot II. His brother-in-law was Albert Bigelow, the peace activist.
    Theodore Lyman Eliot II (United States Ambassador to Afghanistan, 1973–1978), nephew of Thomas H. Eliot and Samuel Atkins Eliot Jr, great-grandson of Charles William Eliot, great-great grandson of Samuel Atkins Eliot. Charles Eliot, the landscape architect, was his great-uncle.
    William Greenleaf Eliot, co-founder and third chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis
    Andrew Eliot Rice, a founder of Peace Corps, grandson of Samuel Atkins Eliot II.
    Edward Samuel Ritchie, American inventor and physicist, great-grandson of Andrew Eliot, the Boston minister

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_family_(America)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. NOTA says:
    @George Taylor
    Noblesse oblige to Jewish men means marrying good looking shiksa's.

    Hey, Steve’s suggestion is already being widely put into practice!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. AM says:
    @AM
    I've gotten to the point where I talk about settlers (pre-1880 or so) and immigrants. Very different people, even if both they came without money. Jews especially, were prone to settle in cities which made making money is a much easier proposition. The people who built the country have a different mindset and heritage than those that took advantage of it's existence.

    I've also started to shrug my shoulders about the natives. Yes, we moved and killed some. Yes, we broke promises to some. They did the same to us. We were bottled up on the coast for over 200 years. It's only the Civil War that made the technology difference wildly unequal.

    So no, Jewish immigrant, you're not the same as settler. As far as I'm concerned they're welcome, but the interests have to align. They don't for the most part right now. That in and of itself can cause a rise in antisemitism. Given some of the rather hard core attitudes I see in segments of the alt-right, it's going to be problem if the borders the close and soon. Reason checks out and it's seemingly impossible to get back.

    The great irony of course is that the heartland evangelicals are the American Jew's best friend and Jews as a group can't seem to stand them.Life: you can't make this stuff up.

    Just to clarify this comment, I’m thinking that the kind of antisemitism that’s the worst nightmare of average Jew will rise in America if we can’t close the borders. I don’t see the Clintons or people like the Clintons having any issue blaming Jews if chaos descends.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Gentile says:

    The most obvious form of noblesse oblige would be for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their traditional urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.

    Not sure if mass immigration is a good strategy though. Third-world immigration to the US would increase Jewish-gentile IQ gap so then there would, presumably, be even greater incentive for the gentile peasants to come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @anon

    With respect, I think you’re wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew
     
    yes - it's the weirdest thing. most minorities notice but most white people don't.

    Why do the militant blacks hate Jews? Is it Islam? Then, why do Jews do everything in their power to support the radical blacks?

    I worked with the militants, years ago, and they had the most complicated, bizarre conspiracy theories. Intense Jew-hatred was a big part of it and it made no sense to me. Something about Africa being the real root of Judaism and then Christianity. white people took it all away from them and made it about Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. If you were persuaded by Murray and Harris’s conclusion that the black-white IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea that the same kind of thinking might apply to the personality traits of Jews, I have one question: Why? Couldn’t there just as easily be a science of whether Jews are genetically “tuned to” (Harris’s phrase) different levels of materialism than gentiles?

    On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.

    I take this as more of a dare than an argument – follow your curiosities and stick to empirically testing measures of IQ and personality and we’ll accuse you of being Literally Hitler.

    Would Turkheimer propose that there’s no significant difference in intelligence between chimpanzees and humans? What accounts for this except genes?

    Is the existence of differences in intelligence between dog breeds even controversial? What would account for this besides the genetic makeup of the respective breeds?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. @Dave Pinsen
    The broader issue, I think, isn't noblesse oblige, but where it's directed, as I mentioned to Steve via Twitter. And I don't really see a difference between the Jewish and non-Jewish elites I'm familiar with when it comes to this. It's really more of Steve's "leapfrogging loyalties" versus "concentric loyalty", where the elites tend to be leap froggers.

    For example, among venture capitalists, Fred Wilson (gentile), Albert Wenger (gentile), and Brad Feld (Jew) all engaged in public matching campaigns to donate to the same lefty causes such as the ACLU (leapfrogging, given its focus on immigration) and Planned Parenthood. Similarly, gentile Chris Sacca, who once bragged about not tipping his Uber drivers, donates to a charity that digs wells in Africa.

    So, they all practice forms noblesse oblige.

    In contrast, you've got Jewish billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Sandy Weill who engage in more traditional forms of noblesse oblige (mega donations to hospitals and universities), but -- Bloomberg, at least -- is a leapfrogger on immigration.

    Sandy Weill’s dismantling of Glass-Steagall is proof that we live in a plutocracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Drake says:

    Regarding ethnic differences in IQ in the US, doesn’t immigration make that a certainty?

    The reason is that immigrants from some countries are selected from the educated elite far more than others.

    For instance, 76 percent of Indian immigrants had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Compared to only 13 percent of recent Mexican immigrants.

    Even if native Indians and Mexicans had the same average IQ, these different immigration patterns mean Indian-Americans will have higher IQs than Mexican-Americans.

    This seems like the simplest, most irrefutable argument for ethnic IQ differences in America.

    Why is this line of argument strong?

    - It doesn’t require arguing about IQ differences in the native populations, it only requires different education profiles among immigrants. It assumes that IQ is correlated with college degrees, which is a very defensible.

    - Immigrants come from dozens of different countries. If even one immigrant group is either above or below average, we have proven our position.

    - It avoids talking about either blacks or whites, since most immigrants don’t come from either group.

    - It has the added benefit of showing that immigration leads to greater inequality, which makes it harder for liberals to defend.

    I think of this as a basic, beginner argument, that forces denialists to admit the possibility of IQ differences even if they don’t accept it in other cases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Which is why it has been adopted in real practice by 99% of adult Americans. At least 50% of whom refuse to honestly acknowledge such in their professed positions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Steve, you are obviously aware that the IQ gap doesn’t begin to explain their relative overrepresentation in the professions, academia, the media, and business.

    Why even bother with these anachronistic appeals to noblesse oblige? That isn’t a norm generally applicable to relations between conquerors and their subjects. You sound like Murray affirming that he is a “Jewish and Asian supremacist” when answering the accusation that he is a white supremacist.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Regular people are on avg very provincial. They don’t care too much what’s going on at national levels even at international at least in deeper ways. Most people watch most popular tv channel and media outlets but tend to be more concerned about local happenings. Seems some of us can be described even being against this as a natural globalist, because the places we live can be so boring that we need or have curiosity to expand our “general knowledge” beyond our geo-cultural boundaries. This may explain this hiatus between “genuine people of the masses” and people who read Unz platform. Normies have a provincial mind and this narrow their capacity to connect the dots because what’s happening is a kind of globalized ideological production just like what’s really happen with concrete products. A american shoes that are produced in China, whatever Germany and US. A cultural appropriation: a ideological product that was produced in American or Canadian universities, travel throughout western world and now is debated in Tallinn universities. We may can differentiate regular from above avg minds (in perpetually qualitative criteria) based on how curious people are to search the causes of the effects, yes because we are all the time interacting with effects if ourselves can be defined as effects too. Many of this pseudo sciences on post modernism are based on the work exclusively above the effects as if they were the causes or as if cause and effect are the same thing, self-causal. For example, “environment cause different adaptation/behavior”. Even we know that is the genes/instincts that finally define the behavior in short and long term responses, is not wrong to say that we create our own environment and that some “personalized environments” cause different behaviors or otherwise. We carry the environment we are more prone to produce, and we adapt in calm or in forced ways our turtle neck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. J.Ross says: • Website
    @nooffensebut
    A more charitable explanation is that he feels it's safest to use, as an example of a negative stereotype, one for a group to which he has a pass, just as Sam Harris did when he talked about racial genetics in this interview:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcsnoh2SMRo

    I believe Harris was responding to Twitter messages I left him about the gene MAOA in African Americans and Arabs.

    Overall, this "debate" among scientists is using weak arguments on both sides. I also don't think that Charles Murray, Jason Richwine, and James Watson deserve all the defending that they get because they express themselves so poorly, and they inject agendas into their science that aren't always well supported by the science. I'm much more interested in the work of Davide Piffer.

    Charles Murray expresses himself poorly where? I think this is the one thing you cannot say about him. Are there any categoric critics of Charles Murray who are not pointedly dishonest?

    Read More
    • Replies: @nooffensebut
    Charles Murray feels that the race issue has received an unfair amount of focus after he and Herrnstein called themselves "agnostic" on the genetics-IQ-race issue. He hedges on that in inconsistent ways (like frequently citing hereditarians). In fact, the New Republic essay they wrote to promote The Bell Curve added additional focus to the issue. I agree with their overall analysis of the racial issues and agree that it was a necessary topic to address. Murray feels that he stands on firmer ground with his predictions of a "rise of the cognitive elite" and strengthening meritocracy, which he connected to his libertarian philosophy. The media might approve more of that analysis, but it has not aged well based on SAT data, and he refuses to acknowledge that. He hates Trump, but he is following the Trump strategy of never admitting any flaw.

    He is getting more attention now just because he was censored. The government didn't censor him. He is an elitist libertarian who remarks about "muting" people on Twitter and evaluates which commentators have left the fold for supporting Trump.

    He pretends to be a compassionate libertarian, but when he presented his case for replacing all government help with a basic income for everyone, including Bill Gates, the Intelligence Squared audience gave him the biggest losing score that I have ever seen. Clearly some people agree with me that compassionate libertarianism is an oxymoronic phrase.

    He pretends to be a serious scientist, but he speaks in inflammatory ways about global warming research. Libertarians tend to be richer than most, so I think they should back up their criticisms by creating demonstrably better climate models, but they have no interest in doing that because they are corporate shills.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @NOTA
    This should apply to individuals, not groups. It's probsbly less sensible to expect this sort of behavior from Joe Finklestein the Jewish plumber than from Tom Goldberg the Harvard economics professor. Similarly, it's reasonable to expect this of very smart gentile whites like Mitt Romney and very smart blacks like Barack Obama. If you won the damned lottery w.r.t. IQ, yu ought to have some concern for the less fortunate members of your society who didn't win.

    “If you won the damned lottery w.r.t. IQ, you ought to have some concern for the less fortunate members of your society who didn’t win.”

    Why? Where is it written in history that this is the actual case of what happens? Better go re-read Hobbes’s Leviathan for mankind’s natural state sans a social contract/legal agreement not to do one another great harm.

    Noblesse Oblige. Sounds so quaint. How is quaint going to do vs. BLM; Cultural Marxism; etc. all the other reality-based isms in 21st century?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Dennis Dale says: • Website
    @Clark Westwood
    Turkheimer says:

    On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.
     
    So basically we shouldn't explore these things because the answers might be too dangerous. Even if one were to agree with Turkheimer about that, he has to realize that no one has ever been able to halt inquiry for long on the grounds that it's too dangerous. If there's a genetic explanation, researchers will eventually find it.

    (Also, Turkheimer seems to be blissfully unaware of how much he sounds like the Grand Inquisitor, warning scholars away from knowledge that it is unsafe for man to possess.)

    The Narrative rests on no moral foundation greater than this appeal to consequences. The willingness of these scholars to look stupid astounds me. I can only assume they take the stakes to be that high. This is a remarkable bit of text:

    On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.

    His first sentence is giving up the game from the start. Things are where we want them to be, he says, so why tempt fate with the scientific method? Indeed, what good is the scientific method, I wonder. He would take away Galileo’s telescope if it kept us inert.

    And people forget how to argue; what follows the “but” in no way disproves what preceded it (thus the all but meaningless, weaselly “helps us”)–indeed, if these “false hypotheses” are out there, and indeed false, isn’t it incumbent upon us to disprove them, which is quite possible as he points out (and fear)?

    He’s like the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky, instead of turning away Jesus, he’s turning away Science, with the admonition your presence here is not helpful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood

    The willingness of these scholars to look stupid astounds me. I can only assume they take the stakes to be that high.
     
    It astounds me, too. We need a word for this phenomenon -- when scientists intentionally lead people away from what they know, or strongly suspect, to be true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Dennis Dale says: • Website

    Noblesse oblige can’t be transferred to a meritocratic elite because the only group sacrificing its identity are white Christians. Everyone else will feel, more and more as we diversify, the pull away from the center toward their own sense of ethnic obligation.

    We’d have to smash identity politics first, and that’s rapidly approaching impossible as the fait accompli of a multiracial US comes into being.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. JohnnyD says:
    @AM
    I've gotten to the point where I talk about settlers (pre-1880 or so) and immigrants. Very different people, even if both they came without money. Jews especially, were prone to settle in cities which made making money is a much easier proposition. The people who built the country have a different mindset and heritage than those that took advantage of it's existence.

    I've also started to shrug my shoulders about the natives. Yes, we moved and killed some. Yes, we broke promises to some. They did the same to us. We were bottled up on the coast for over 200 years. It's only the Civil War that made the technology difference wildly unequal.

    So no, Jewish immigrant, you're not the same as settler. As far as I'm concerned they're welcome, but the interests have to align. They don't for the most part right now. That in and of itself can cause a rise in antisemitism. Given some of the rather hard core attitudes I see in segments of the alt-right, it's going to be problem if the borders the close and soon. Reason checks out and it's seemingly impossible to get back.

    The great irony of course is that the heartland evangelicals are the American Jew's best friend and Jews as a group can't seem to stand them.Life: you can't make this stuff up.

    @Am,
    I know a Jewish guy whose ancestors settled in Savannah, Georgia during the eighteenth century. Would you consider him to be part of the “pre-1880 settlers”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @black sea
    One third of the original settlers of Savannah were Jews. The first white child born in Savannah, Philip Minis, was Jewish.
    , @AM
    Pre-1880 Jewish peoples tended be slave or other merchants and settle in cities. The slave trade was probably why that family was in Savannah, Georgia. It's stretch to call them settlers.

    There are people who built this country (and Canada) and that's all of my ancestors, who farmed, etc. Diaspora Jews fall into patterns and what they aren't is homesteaders in the wilderness. Interestingly, they'll do that in Israel, but no other land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @International Jew
    Yes. And also, even if everyone believed the wrong thing about Jews' relative propensity to materialism, there would be no social cost to it. Whereas the dogged insistence that blacks and whites are, deep down, equally capable as students, as firemen, professors and rocket scientists, has resulted in a vast misallocation of resources.

    And, really, are the Jews you know all that "materialistic"? I can believe that the up-and-coming Jewish merchant class, in the 1920s-1960s, appeared materialistic in the eyes of the gentile elites of the time, who could live comfortable lives thanks to their hard-driving grandfathers. But today? Nah, I don't see that materialism. Our kids slack off with the best of them.

    I can believe that the up-and-coming Jewish merchant class, in the 1920s-1960s, appeared materialistic in the eyes of the gentile elites of the time, who could live comfortable lives thanks to their hard-driving grandfathers.

    I’d guess that a good chunk of it is looking over their shoulders in response to the sound of rapidly-approaching footsteps. And they were prescient. Jews did end up displacing a portion of the gentile elites, both in business and academia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. “Whites”= Arnold Schwarzenegger
    “Jews”= Danny deVito

    Forcedly speaking

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. Dr. X says:

    Turkeimer more or less admits something I’ve believed since 1995: that anti IQ science denialism is largely driven by Jewish paranoia and prejudice against gentiles: many Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.

    I, as a white Christian, haven’t got the slightest problem with high Jewish IQ scores.

    I DO, however, have a problem with the fact that the Jews seem to employ their high IQ for the following purposes:

    1) Subversion of the U.S. Constitution (when it suits them to do so)
    2) Subversion of traditional American, Protestant, culture and morality with pornography, feminism, miscegenation, gun control, and financial manipulation
    3) Subversion of the American nation, the American taxpayer, and the American military to the state of Israel, which bans many things that American Jews advocate for the goyim (e.g., homosexual marriage and miscegenation)
    4) Clannishness and nepotism
    5) Communism, psychotherapy, and feminism
    6) The notion that they are the Chosen People of God, and thus empowered to subvert and kill their enemies by any treacherous means, including women and children, which is celebrated in their religion. Numerous passages in Jewish scripture and lore attest to this, for instance, the story of Judith beheading the enemy general after having intercourse with him, the story of Esther and Mordecai subverting the Persian throne and killing 75,000 enemies of the Jews, the killing of Egyptian babies and the Egyptian army by Yahweh, the slaughter of the Amalekite women and children (sanctioned by Yahweh) in the book of Samuel, etc. And of course the torture and execution of Jesus of Nazareth of charges of blasphemy for criticizing all of this.

    If a Jewish surgeon with an IQ of 140 wants to make $300k a year excising cancerous tumors, more power to him. It’s the other stuff that’s the problem…

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Really? Judith beheading the enemy general is an example of Jewish treachery? The Greeks let's say, would never celebrate anything similar? That Homer fellow was really Homer Goldstein ,I hear tell.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Judith claimed she didn't do him, although with Jael and Sisera, there is some doubt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. HI says:
    @Neil Templeton
    Why are there more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say?

    One hypothesis is because elite institutions select for Jewish values. Harvard has something like 10% gentiles (vs. 60+% in the general population, and ~30% Jews (vs. 2-3% in the general population). It may not be because they select for Jews, but it might be because they select for Jewish values. So the high school leader active in ROTC or Future Farmers of America gets rejected, while the founder of the gay-straight alliance, or the Bangladeshi who writes Black Lives Matter 100 times, gets selected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG
    That's not what "gentile" means.

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves "goys" that this is a category that includes all the world's non-whites.

    , @Travis
    more accurate to state Harvard is ~15% WASPs and ~25% Jewish today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @biz
    Higher mean IQ. Greater family pressure to succeed academically and financially. Positive role models. Greater concentration in the urban Northeast and West Coast. etc...

    Alternate but not incompatible explanation. On average, they really like to be heard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Steve (Stepin Fetchit Shabbos Goy) Sailer is such a pathetic Jew ass-kisser.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Nice, but next time cite to the record. In the meantime STFU, whoever you might be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    White peoples are the greatest danger to Jewish existence

    See Germany and most of Europe

    Facts are that Muslim treat Jews the best and Jews and people of Colour get along great without white interference

    “Batman… Batman… Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a *bat* gets all of my press? This town needs an enema!”

    - Leonard Pitts

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @J.Ross
    Charles Murray expresses himself poorly where? I think this is the one thing you cannot say about him. Are there any categoric critics of Charles Murray who are not pointedly dishonest?

    Charles Murray feels that the race issue has received an unfair amount of focus after he and Herrnstein called themselves “agnostic” on the genetics-IQ-race issue. He hedges on that in inconsistent ways (like frequently citing hereditarians). In fact, the New Republic essay they wrote to promote The Bell Curve added additional focus to the issue. I agree with their overall analysis of the racial issues and agree that it was a necessary topic to address. Murray feels that he stands on firmer ground with his predictions of a “rise of the cognitive elite” and strengthening meritocracy, which he connected to his libertarian philosophy. The media might approve more of that analysis, but it has not aged well based on SAT data, and he refuses to acknowledge that. He hates Trump, but he is following the Trump strategy of never admitting any flaw.

    He is getting more attention now just because he was censored. The government didn’t censor him. He is an elitist libertarian who remarks about “muting” people on Twitter and evaluates which commentators have left the fold for supporting Trump.

    He pretends to be a compassionate libertarian, but when he presented his case for replacing all government help with a basic income for everyone, including Bill Gates, the Intelligence Squared audience gave him the biggest losing score that I have ever seen. Clearly some people agree with me that compassionate libertarianism is an oxymoronic phrase.

    He pretends to be a serious scientist, but he speaks in inflammatory ways about global warming research. Libertarians tend to be richer than most, so I think they should back up their criticisms by creating demonstrably better climate models, but they have no interest in doing that because they are corporate shills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Oh, so you're using "inarticulate" to mean "politically different." I was worried about that line about "having to defend him" and it looks like I was right.
    You should read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and reflect deeply upon its meaning. He's not talking about Stalin-apologists sixty years ago, he's talking about your soul right now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Drake
    Regarding ethnic differences in IQ in the US, doesn't immigration make that a certainty?

    The reason is that immigrants from some countries are selected from the educated elite far more than others.

    For instance, 76 percent of Indian immigrants had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Compared to only 13 percent of recent Mexican immigrants.

    Even if native Indians and Mexicans had the same average IQ, these different immigration patterns mean Indian-Americans will have higher IQs than Mexican-Americans.

    This seems like the simplest, most irrefutable argument for ethnic IQ differences in America.

    Why is this line of argument strong?

    - It doesn't require arguing about IQ differences in the native populations, it only requires different education profiles among immigrants. It assumes that IQ is correlated with college degrees, which is a very defensible.

    - Immigrants come from dozens of different countries. If even one immigrant group is either above or below average, we have proven our position.

    - It avoids talking about either blacks or whites, since most immigrants don't come from either group.

    - It has the added benefit of showing that immigration leads to greater inequality, which makes it harder for liberals to defend.

    I think of this as a basic, beginner argument, that forces denialists to admit the possibility of IQ differences even if they don't accept it in other cases.

    Which is why it has been adopted in real practice by 99% of adult Americans. At least 50% of whom refuse to honestly acknowledge such in their professed positions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Mr. Anon says:

    While I oppose quotas, on the other hand, there is a reasonable concept, which I got from David Brooks, that smarter American ethnic groups should feel a sense of noblesse oblige toward the average people amongst whom they have thrived.

    I see little evidence that white gentile elites feel much of a sense of noblesse oblige toward the more average members of their own ethnic group, at least in the anglo-saxon countries. It is perhaps too much to hope that such noblesse oblige will be expressed inter-ethnically.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Or, more plausibly, that awareness that American Jews have a higher mean IQ than American white gentiles will lead to college / job quotas like Jews were burdened with in the 1920s.

    Actually there appears to be an implicit quota against non-Jewish whites. The pseudonymous blogger Yggdrasil (who was a John’s Hopkins classmate of Sam Francis) published a study awhile back that showed blacks, browns and Jews disproportionately outnumber whites in academia and job earnings when accounting for IQ. In particular, at Harvard, Jews in the same IQ cohort, vastly outnumbered whites in proportion to their share of the population.

    http://www.whitenationalism.com/div/Diversity.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Mr. Anon says:

    In assessing any policy, I only consider one criterion: Is it good for white gentiles?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. FKA Max says:
    @Jack D
    There's been a lot of interbreeding, but if you could find purebred old stock New Englanders or NY Dutch, they would be pretty smart I think. If Jews are 20 or 25% of billionaires, Nobelists, etc. who are the other 80%?

    According to Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, a review of American Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 1972, 72% of American Nobel Prize laureates identified a Protestant background.[18] Overall, 84.2% of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans in Chemistry,[18] 60% in Medicine,[18] and 58.6% in Physics[18] between 1901 and 1972 were won by Protestants.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merton_thesis#Support

    In a paper written in 2009 for the Quarterly Journal of Economics, entitled Was Weber Wrong?, Becker and Woessmann argue that Protestants were more successful because they had the advantage of a better and longer education. Further research has led them to conclude that the educational advantage began soon after Martin Luther broke away from the established Church in the 16th century and has continued to play its part in creating economic success throughout Europe.

    Luther wanted women as well as men to be able to read the Bible, he points out. Not only did his followers set out to establish church schools in every parish, but girls went there as well as boys, he says. “We looked into the records of school building in the German federal state of Brandenburg in the 16th century, and discovered that there were disproportionately more girls in school than boys. Protestantism, it seems, was an early driver of emancipation. At that time, remember, Catholic areas didn’t even have any boys’ schools.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research

    As I pointed out in a short note a few years ago, Richard Lynn published an entire *book* on Jewish intelligence, and among other things, he provided an entire listing of the 32 available IQ studies of American Jews, nearly all of which show figures well above the white 100 average:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-super-flynn-effects-in-germans-jews-and-hispanics/

    However, the widespread figure of IQ=115 which always used to float around the Internet a decade or two ago seems complete nonsense. I think only one or two of the 32 studies produced a figure that high, and most of the ones from recent decades seem to average around IQ=110-112, which is a much more reasonable figure.

    However, much more intriguingly, I pointed out that the average for the 14 studies from 1920-1937 was scarcely above the white average, being only 101.5, while the average of the nine studies from 1944-1960 was still only 107, while only the last nine studies from 1970-2008 averaged 111 (all of these were Flynn-adjusted). This stunning rise of tested Jewish IQ over merely a couple of generations obviously cannot be genetic and the pattern seems too striking for measurement-effects, very likely pointing to the impact of affluence, or educational/cultural factors.

    Furthermore, there seems enormous evidence that in the last couple of decades or so, there’s been a considerable decline in Jewish academic achievement, though the actual factors responsible are not entirely clear

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1732044

    Given such a wide range of scores, it’s fascinating to ask what the overall Jewish IQ is. Averaging across all six subtests, Jewish Americans outperformed U.S. whites by 0.12 SD. Converting that into a composite IQ requires knowing the intercorrelations of the subtests, however on a comparable battery of tests (the WISC-R), someone who averages +0.12 SD across all the subtests has a composite score that is +0.13 SD, equating to a full-scale IQ of 102.

    This is substantially lower than the U.S. Jewish mean of 110 commonly cited by Richard Lynn. Of course it depends on the test. If one goes by tests like the SAT, which are all about verbal and math talent, Jews should easily score 110, but on a more comprehensive global sample of intellectual abilities, it seems U.S. Jews are virtually tied with U.S. whites.

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1731626

    Race Religion Number Math + Verbal SAT
    Wh Unitarian 1,745 1073
    Wh Quaker 894 1037
    Wh Judaism 25,600 1030 * Jewish Avg
    Al Quaker 1,009 1029
    [...]
    And here’s a 2002 report on high SAT scoring groups from Gene Expression: Average SAT score by religion for 2002, average ~1000, about 40% of each students take it
    Unitarian-Universalists 1209
    Judaism 1161
    Quakers 1153

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq.html

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1730862

    Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.

    The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing inequalities of wealth, education and political power!

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/#comment-1846450

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Anonymous
    Steve (Stepin Fetchit Shabbos Goy) Sailer is such a pathetic Jew ass-kisser.

    Nice, but next time cite to the record. In the meantime STFU, whoever you might be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @John Derbyshire

    There’s an old Jewish joke about the Jew who wants to join a non-Jewish country club. He changes his name, his accent, wardrobe, and makes all sorts of sacrifices to get his chance. When he finally is interviewed by the membership committee, he knocks every question out of the park. He’s in! Except there’s one member who isn’t quite sure and says, “you know you look a little Jewish.”

    He protests, “I’m not Jewish, I am a goy!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Olorin
    I'm guessing the fear is more like:

    If the goyim were allowed to parse out our IQ subpopulations as genetically closely as the Ashkenazim get to do--only include up to our 4th or 5th cousins--there will be goyische subpopulations with a higher mean IQ than those usually touted as the superiors of whites.

    Yes, this is precisely what we’re worried about. It’s remarkable that you figured this out. I imagine you must be in one of the genius subpopulations that will clean our clocks in chess. We really worry about stuff like that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    No, but we do constitute the vast majority of Nobel prize winners, as Jack D points out at 48. Though I was once called "anti Semitic" for suggesting that quite innocently.

    And we have much lower rates of certain types of crazy.

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/mental-illness-and-the-jews/

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.560128

    http://forward.com/news/350067/jews-must-take-mental-illness-out-of-the-shadows/

    Never much liked chess. Played it as a kid when Bobby Fischer was publishing his column in was it Boys' Life and followed him up till Reykjavik and a few years after. Liked being outside more. Also electronics and music.

    Ya see, while we Europa-Americans are in fact more altruistic and less prone to recognizing ill-will till it really hurts us...we also react badly to having our altruism and kindness weaponized against us.

    When that turns into a global grievance industry that wants to turn us into the moral saponifying agent for the rest of humanity, our desire to rinse it all down the drain should come as no surprise.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. MEH 0910 says:

    One could try to avoid the question by hoping that materialism isn’t a measurable trait like IQ, except that it is; or that materialism might not be heritable in individuals, except that it is nearly certain it would be if someone bothered to check; or perhaps that Jews aren’t really a race, although they certainly differ ancestrally from non-Jews; or that one wouldn’t actually find an average difference in materialism, but it seems perfectly plausible that one might.

    Turkheimer is making a strong argument here that the question is NOT irredeemably unscientific.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. black sea says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Can you name any?

    Perhaps people who have a Darwin or a Keynes in their family tree, or a member of the writing clan of Waughs and Cockburns. But in America, I don't know.

    The Adams family of Massachusetts and the Lowell family of same come to mind. Accomplished in many areas and through several generations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Several generations centuries ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    People won’t resent success if they believe it’s the product of hard work, but they will resent it if it’s the product of some ‘unfair’ advantage possessed by the successful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. black sea says:
    @JohnnyD
    @Am,
    I know a Jewish guy whose ancestors settled in Savannah, Georgia during the eighteenth century. Would you consider him to be part of the "pre-1880 settlers"?

    One third of the original settlers of Savannah were Jews. The first white child born in Savannah, Philip Minis, was Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    Yep. And there's a good chance they sold slaves for a living, much like you see Jews today who sell diamonds in NYC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Vinay says:

    “Turkheimer’s example is a bit of a misdirection, since it would be more straightforward in this debate over IQ to discuss higher Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQs.”

    No, it’s the correct example because he wants to compare a negative trait associated with Jews (materialism), with IQ in African Americans. And his question is, would you really want to know this?

    It’s a good question because no legitimate purpose seems to be served by comparing aggregate materialism between groups, and the potential for harm is obvious. So why are aggregate IQ differences a legitimate form of enquiry?

    One obvious answer to this is that anti-discrimination policies don’t presume that all ethnic groups are equally materialistic. So IQ is different that way. But, then again, anti-discrimination policy doesn’t have to necessarily make any assumption of IQ, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    It’s a good question because no legitimate purpose seems to be served by comparing aggregate materialism between groups, and the potential for harm is obvious. So why are aggregate IQ differences a legitimate form of enquiry?

    One obvious answer to this is that anti-discrimination policies don’t presume that all ethnic groups are equally materialistic. So IQ is different that way. But, then again, anti-discrimination policy doesn’t have to necessarily make any assumption of IQ, either.
     

    Vinay, valid point about the negative trait example.

    But on anti-discrimination and IQ:

    --> "Anti-discrimination" is propaganda in word choice as is "civil rights". What's going on is a whole anti-white, anti-male and anti-native/citizen ideology. There's a whole lot to be gained by me, my kids, descendants by debunking it. (I think my girls even benefit from debunking the anti-male crap. What they'd most benefit by in the long run is good husbands with good jobs.)

    --> Directly on the IQ point "educational romanticism"--kudos to whomever coined that--is a tremendous misallocation of resources in our society.
    We do lots stupid stuff "closing the racial achievement gap" which in turn motivates a lot of the "all kids college ready" nonsense. (Both goals of my kids' school district.) A good part of the college bubble could be deflated if we could get dump the bogus logic of Griggs, admit that IQ matters across the employment spectrum and just get back to occupational testing. (Like the military is allowed to use.) This is all pretty much blocked by the "racist testing!" canard.

    --> You're right you can have anti-discrimination policy that doesn't make assumptions about IQ. But we don't have that. That's the whole point!

    --> When you do "anti-discrimination" IQ knowledge changes--improves--the politics.
    Let's say you're in a multi-ethnic society and politics requires you to have some sort of "race" or "ethnic" fairness to compensate for big differences in group achievement. Example: India's reservation system. It's actually a heck of a lot better--ultimately less contentious--if the society has the IQ knowledge and admits what it is doing. "Yes the Brahmins are way smarter than these ST, SC and OBC folks, but they don't deserve to get all the good jobs in our democratic nation." As contentious as this is, it's way better than a politics of conspiracy where the lower achieving groups are left are constantly blaming smart groups for "cheating" or "stealing all the good stuff" or "structural racism".

    For instance an inflator/deflator limit of 4x sounds pretty "fair" to me. Your group couldn't be over or under represented by 4 times. So say you're doling out med school admissions in the US. Indians couldn't be more 4%, Chinese 6%, Jews 8%, while blacks couldn't be less than 3%, "Hispanics" 4%. And within each group you can select the very best folks. This is way better than "disparate impact" where say the low quality of the black applicants for Chicago PD jobs forces you to drop your testing standards to a "write your name" test in order to get proportional black candidates. Rather you figure out a quota and go--and hire the best blacks you can find.

    IQ knowledge reduces the damage because the "cheating" is in public. Everyone knows score and why its being done. You'll still have contention, but not the lying. You'll have more good faith efforts to understand the other guys and more acceptance and willingness to "take one for the team".

    ~~~

    Finally what is the purpose of this research? Knowledge!

    You do academic research just to learn stuff about the world. To be smarter, to be more knowledgeable, to have a more accurate picture of reality.

    And the evolution of IQ group differences is about the most important piece of knowledge you can have. If you have any serious interest in understanding human history, why what happened happened and how we got here--IQ knowledge is critical. IQ knowledge is critical to any study of anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics. Those fields are basically jokes when they spin up theories about differences in human populations but ignore the genetic differences between those populations, especially in IQ and other mental traits.

    With due credit to Faber College, "Knowledge is good".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    SISSY expected her baby late in November. Katie and Evy went to a lot of trouble to avoid
    discussing it with Sissy. They were certain it would be another stillbirth and they reasoned that
    the less said about it, the less Sissy would have to remember afterward. But Sissy did such a
    revolutionary thing that they had to talk about it. She announced that she was going to have a
    doctor when the baby came and that she was going to a hospital.

    Her mother and, sisters were stunned. No Rommely women had had a doctor at childbirth, ever.
    It didn’t seem right. You called in a midwife, a neighbor woman, or your mother, and you got
    through the business secretively and behind closed doors and kept the men out. Babies were
    women’s business. As for hospitals, everyone knew you went there only to die.

    Sissy told them they were way behind the times; that midwives were things of the past. Besides,
    she informed them proudly, she had no say in the matter. Her Steve insisted on the doctor and
    the hospital. And that wasn’t all.

    Sissy was going to have a Jewish doctor!

    “Why, Sissy? Why?” asked her shocked sisters.

    “Because Jewish doctors are more sympathetic than Christian ones at a time like that.”

    “I’ve nothing against the Jews,” began Katie, “but …”

    “Look! Just because Dr. Aaronstein’s, people look at a star when they pray and our people look
    at a cross has nothing to do with whether he’s a good doctor or not.”

    “But I’d think you’d want a doctor of your own faith around at a time of …” (Katie was going to
    say, “death” but checked herself in time) … “birth.”

    “Oh, sugar!” said Sissy contemptuously.

    “Like should stick to like. You don’t see Jews calling in Christian doctors,” said Evy, thinking she
    had made a telling point.

    “Why should they,” countered Sissy, “when they and everybody else knows that the Jewish
    doctors are smarter.”

    - Betty Smith, “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn”

    Yeah, the Gentiles have noticed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Sailer:

    It’s probably not a coincidence that the younger academic, Harden, takes a less extremist stance than the two older professors. Dr. Harden will likely be around a lot longer than Turkheimer and Nisbett, so she’s more concerned about what the rapid advance in genomic science will uncover over the rest of her lifetime than are the two older guys.

    Harden and others are already attempting a goodthink academic indoctrination workaround to the political awkwardness of scientifically acknowledging genetic differences regarding race and intelligence. They call themselves the Hereditarian Left and use a “Rawlsian framework” to argue for socialist redistribution of “goods in a society.” Here’s a short powerpoint by Harden and company:

    Fortune’s Favor: Implications of Behavioral Genetic Research for Distributive and Retributive Justice

    Her powerpoint unwittingly (or brazenly) echoes Steven Colbert’s satirical “I don’t see race!” idiotic blindness with the promotion of John Rawls’s “original position” and “veil of ignorance” social contract theory.

    Harden gives the choice of

    (superior) genes = inherent merit ~or~
    (superior) genes = undeserved luck

    The weasel word / straw man here is the melodramatic use of “merit.” Value or asset in a given context is what matters (e.g. height in the NBA or runway modeling). Basically her argument is “Yeah okay so your undeserved lucky genes make you smarter. So what? You didn’t build that!” The implication being that the fruits of your (and your ancestors) labor and intellect should be meted out to the unfortunate (stupid) Orcs.

    Disclaimer at powerpoint’s conclusion:

    Behavioral genetic research does not necessarily support any one political ideology.

    Strangely, though, Harden’s leftist/socialist sympathies are plainly stated. Shouldn’t she be neutral? The powerpoint begs the question that “Distributive Justice’’ is the desired social goal and doesn’t provide a case for alternative viewpoints.

    Steve, are you up for a Twitter debate with HBD-aware Harden? I would love to see how far she doubles down on ‘social justice’ agnostic of broadly negative consequences for the nation. What does she think of l’affaire Richwine, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Rawls was pretty strongly in favor of immigration restriction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. gregor says:

    If you were persuaded by Murray and Harris’s conclusion that the black-white IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea that the same kind of thinking might apply to the personality traits of Jews …

    Yeah, that mere suggestion doesn’t really make me uncomfortable. It’s a separate claim and whether it’s true or not has no bearing on the claim at hand, unless you can assign both to a broader class and demonstrate that all such claims are necessarily false. Which he does not even try to do. Weak.

    Incidentally, I don’t know that “materialism” is quite how I would describe the stereotype. I’m no expert, but I’ve always heard it as “greedy” or “money-grubbing.” Most of my exposure to the stereotype has been the verb that used to refer to ruthless bargaining or business tactics. (And as far as I can tell, most people just use it as an expression rather than maliciously). If I were to investigate this question, that is the aspect I would look into, i.e., if perhaps Jews and Gentiles are/were playing by somewhat different rules. If, say, Gentile societies tend to play more “friendly” rules and the Jewish minority plays by strict “tournament” rules, so to speak. Or they simply have different senses of fair play. I could see how some contention could have arisen. But I would wonder how much of this was perception vs reality, how much was specifically Jewish vs just minority behavior, how much was really genetic and if any of the differences are still there today. I doubt the expression “to welsh” reflects some genetic predisposition to be unreliable. At any rate, it’s an empirical question that will probably never be investigated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @Dr. X

    Turkeimer more or less admits something I’ve believed since 1995: that anti IQ science denialism is largely driven by Jewish paranoia and prejudice against gentiles: many Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.
     
    I, as a white Christian, haven't got the slightest problem with high Jewish IQ scores.

    I DO, however, have a problem with the fact that the Jews seem to employ their high IQ for the following purposes:

    1) Subversion of the U.S. Constitution (when it suits them to do so)
    2) Subversion of traditional American, Protestant, culture and morality with pornography, feminism, miscegenation, gun control, and financial manipulation
    3) Subversion of the American nation, the American taxpayer, and the American military to the state of Israel, which bans many things that American Jews advocate for the goyim (e.g., homosexual marriage and miscegenation)
    4) Clannishness and nepotism
    5) Communism, psychotherapy, and feminism
    6) The notion that they are the Chosen People of God, and thus empowered to subvert and kill their enemies by any treacherous means, including women and children, which is celebrated in their religion. Numerous passages in Jewish scripture and lore attest to this, for instance, the story of Judith beheading the enemy general after having intercourse with him, the story of Esther and Mordecai subverting the Persian throne and killing 75,000 enemies of the Jews, the killing of Egyptian babies and the Egyptian army by Yahweh, the slaughter of the Amalekite women and children (sanctioned by Yahweh) in the book of Samuel, etc. And of course the torture and execution of Jesus of Nazareth of charges of blasphemy for criticizing all of this.

    If a Jewish surgeon with an IQ of 140 wants to make $300k a year excising cancerous tumors, more power to him. It's the other stuff that's the problem...

    Really? Judith beheading the enemy general is an example of Jewish treachery? The Greeks let’s say, would never celebrate anything similar? That Homer fellow was really Homer Goldstein ,I hear tell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    Judith beheading the enemy general is an example of Jewish treachery? The Greeks let’s say, would never celebrate anything similar?
     
    Italian artists were fond of the story of Judith and Holofernes

    Botticelli
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Sandro_Botticelli_-_Retour_de_Judith_1.JPG

    Mantegna
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Andrea_Mantegna_099.jpg

    Gentileschi
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Artemisia_Gentileschi_Judith_Maidservant_DIA.jpg

    Another extra gory version by Gentileschi
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Artemisia_Gentileschi_-_Giuditta_decapita_Oloferne_-_Google_Art_Project-Adjust.jpg

    Baglione
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Baglione_Judith.jpg

    Caravaggio
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Judith_Beheading_Holofernes-Caravaggio_%28c.1598-9%29.jpg

    Possibly another Caravaggio (looks like his work to me)
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Caravaggio_Judith_1607_-_disputed_2016_attribution.jpg

    Donatello
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Giuditta_di_donatello_04.JPG

    Galizia
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Judith_with_the_head_of_Holofernes.jpg

    Michelangelo
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Michelangelo_Buonarroti_038.jpg

    Giorgione
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Giorgione_-_Judith_-_Eremitage.jpg

    Saraceni
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Carlo_Saraceni_001.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Dave Pinsen
    It's worth bearing in mind that some high-profile African American intellectuals and NAM activists play roles in making this subject taboo too. They have an incentive to deny average group differences in IQ, since diversity sinecures and Affirmative Action are largely based on the belief that differences in outcomes are due to discrimination.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that some high-profile African American intellectuals and NAM activists play roles in making this subject taboo too.

    Perhaps, but there really aren’t that many high-profile African American intellectuals anymore. We’ve reached a point where Genius T. Coates is just about the highest-profile African American intellectual.

    Most intellectual disputes these days involve Jews on at least one side, if not both sides. They have the IQ, the energy, the self-confidence, the contentiousness, the money, the ethnic dispensation, and so forth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Broaden it to activists and you get more. E.g., Valerie Jarrett isn't really an intellectual, but she's got some new diversity organization she's running.

    High profile women are also part of this to, to the extend that the quest for more senior management and board sinecures for them gets yoked to the broader diversity/inclusion agenda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @International Jew

    for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.
     
    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to "deconstruct the American people"? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

    A pretty fair comparison is Jews and Italians in America. They mostly arrived at the same and lived in the same cities. But Italians appear to be more openminded about immigration policy, a lot less into Ellis Island ethnocentric schmaltz than Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I think Italian Americans like Ellis Island schmaltz as much as Jews, but just don't think that means favoring open borders.

    The best of the newer congressmen on immigration issues is Lou Barletta.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Barletta
    , @International Jew
    I asked you why you think the Jews are especially bad, compared to other immigrants, on the "deconstructing America" score, and you give me one group that you think is better. That's called moving the goalposts.
    , @Jack D
    I can think of six million reasons why they look at this differently. There is no equivalent of the story of the MS St. Louis ( the "Voyage of the Damned") forming a part of the Italian-American self-conception. It wasn't a matter of life and death. When the doors slammed after the Immigration Act of '24, Cousin Luigi stayed home in Palermo - he was poor but OK. But Cousin Leib - the letters stopped coming in '41 and that was it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. J.Ross says: • Website
    @nooffensebut
    Charles Murray feels that the race issue has received an unfair amount of focus after he and Herrnstein called themselves "agnostic" on the genetics-IQ-race issue. He hedges on that in inconsistent ways (like frequently citing hereditarians). In fact, the New Republic essay they wrote to promote The Bell Curve added additional focus to the issue. I agree with their overall analysis of the racial issues and agree that it was a necessary topic to address. Murray feels that he stands on firmer ground with his predictions of a "rise of the cognitive elite" and strengthening meritocracy, which he connected to his libertarian philosophy. The media might approve more of that analysis, but it has not aged well based on SAT data, and he refuses to acknowledge that. He hates Trump, but he is following the Trump strategy of never admitting any flaw.

    He is getting more attention now just because he was censored. The government didn't censor him. He is an elitist libertarian who remarks about "muting" people on Twitter and evaluates which commentators have left the fold for supporting Trump.

    He pretends to be a compassionate libertarian, but when he presented his case for replacing all government help with a basic income for everyone, including Bill Gates, the Intelligence Squared audience gave him the biggest losing score that I have ever seen. Clearly some people agree with me that compassionate libertarianism is an oxymoronic phrase.

    He pretends to be a serious scientist, but he speaks in inflammatory ways about global warming research. Libertarians tend to be richer than most, so I think they should back up their criticisms by creating demonstrably better climate models, but they have no interest in doing that because they are corporate shills.

    Oh, so you’re using “inarticulate” to mean “politically different.” I was worried about that line about “having to defend him” and it looks like I was right.
    You should read George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” and reflect deeply upon its meaning. He’s not talking about Stalin-apologists sixty years ago, he’s talking about your soul right now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nooffensebut
    Expressing inconsistent ideas is poor expression. SAT data have no inherent politics. Everyone is politically different from me. If you loved him so much, you would make an effort to spin some consistent narrative for him. At least his maneuverings conform to his employer's wishes. Only AEI employees should have to peddle their bullshit. Where's your cut?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. IHTG says:
    @HI
    One hypothesis is because elite institutions select for Jewish values. Harvard has something like 10% gentiles (vs. 60+% in the general population, and ~30% Jews (vs. 2-3% in the general population). It may not be because they select for Jews, but it might be because they select for Jewish values. So the high school leader active in ROTC or Future Farmers of America gets rejected, while the founder of the gay-straight alliance, or the Bangladeshi who writes Black Lives Matter 100 times, gets selected.

    That’s not what “gentile” means.

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Not to mention that the plural of goy is not goys but goyim. Unless you send your kid to a kindsgarten.
    , @syonredux

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.
     
    Probably won't help. I've spent some time the last few months acquainting myself with the major organs of the "Alt-Right" (The Right Stuff, Daily Stormer, Alt-Right.com, Red Ice Radio, Counter-Currents, etc), and the overall intellectual level is pretty low. To cite just one example, there's an episode of The Daily Shoah where Mike Enoch ( I think ) talks about how German, unlike French and Spanish, does not use grammatical gender......


    *
    , @mobi

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.
     
    But the context is that it's a preferred term of contempt for white gentiles, by jews. And thus, a dismissal of said contempt.

    Is there a similar term which encompasses only white 'goy'?

    I think they're using it correctly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    It’s worth bearing in mind that some high-profile African American intellectuals and NAM activists play roles in making this subject taboo too.

    Perhaps, but there really aren't that many high-profile African American intellectuals anymore. We've reached a point where Genius T. Coates is just about the highest-profile African American intellectual.

    Most intellectual disputes these days involve Jews on at least one side, if not both sides. They have the IQ, the energy, the self-confidence, the contentiousness, the money, the ethnic dispensation, and so forth.

    Broaden it to activists and you get more. E.g., Valerie Jarrett isn’t really an intellectual, but she’s got some new diversity organization she’s running.

    High profile women are also part of this to, to the extend that the quest for more senior management and board sinecures for them gets yoked to the broader diversity/inclusion agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. U. Ranus says:

    Murray’s Jewish co-author Richard Herrnstein, for example, felt that honesty about IQ was good for the Jews.

    What Herrnstein really did was to successfully educate his fellow Jews on the interaction between a meritocratic society and IQ. Assortative mating. The emergence of a new cognitive overclass.

    It won’t have escaped the jews among his readers that new overclass means not exactly the old overclass.

    Maybe the sexual harassmen craze at college and the workplace is just coincidental “stupidity”, as Cochran would call it. Maybe the craze just happens to preferentially hit the very smart goys who might otherwise have happily sweet talked smart gals into assortatively mating their way into a new cognitive overclass. The one Herrnstein warned his fellow Jews about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    You don't miss much eh? One would have to wake up pretty early to pull the wool over your eyes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Stogumber says:

    But are Jews really so smart?

    Steve himself wrote that the NYT is falling to its own retconning. And this can be generalized – there are many examples where Jews fall to the lies other Jews invented. Take the myths about Russian pogroms around 1900.

    On the short run, believing favorable lies can make someone more stable and self-centered; on the long run it makes him too inflexible to win. Between 1870 and 1930, Jews had a lot of opportunities to overcome the weak German antisemite opposition; but they were too inflexible to succeed. Hannah Arendt at least had a lot of criticism for Jewish strategies and tactics – it seems she didn’t believe that Jews were smart enough (rather “too smart by half”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    But are Jews really so smart?
     
    Actually, you bring up an excellent point. Conspiracy theories look at IQ and the general success of Jews in the US and throughout history (deserved mind you, they work hard) and think they must be running everything. But they are only ever less than 5% of population in most time.

    They are clever, but they are, when taken as a whole, not particularly wise. They show a great deal of what I've come to think of as "mind blindness". Within their own society they value traits that are generally speaking, going to make them an anathema to almost any outside culture and blind to that fact as well.

    The story of Joseph in the OT is the perfect example of clever, but not wise. He's clever, but he's got the obnoxious about him, to the point even his brothers can't stand him. He rises to the top of the household only to find himself in trouble with some funny business between him and the mistress of the house. (The way it's written inclines the reader to imagine it was false, but why would that be - the guy, for whatever reason, can't even shut up around his brothers and is clearly ambitious)

    As a prisoner, Joseph cleverly interprets some dreams and Pharaoh makes him his number 2. The author (and presumably Joseph) imagines this to be end result of God, the giver of good things.

    In real life, a good sane leader does not make a foreign prisoner, in for rape, his number 2, even if does believe him. He might say thank you by releasing him with some gifts, but he's stranger and foreigner. Sanity would be turning to his court for help. Since we know that inbreeding was epic with Egyptian pharaohs, it's quite probable the guy was this side clinically insane. But the author for sure doesn't pick up on that and we have to presume Joseph doesn't either.

    So then he whomps an amazing plan that supposedly nobody ever thought of called: save some crops for bad harvests. Then his brothers, who tried to kill him, come to him for food during the famine. Instead doing something vaguely normal like revealing himself or telling them to pound it, we get some sort of weepy reunion scene with Egyptian law enforcement acting out in the middle of the family drama. Then the people of Egypt end up stuck supporting not only a foriegn prisoner, but now the entire family of sheep herders and their wives and children.

    The next scene/part of the Bible (I believe) cuts straight to their slavery in Egypt like that was some sort of unpredictable event/punishment from God. But if you can see Joseph's story from the Egyptian POV it was going to happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Turkheimer’s example is a bit of a misdirection, since it would be more straightforward in this debate over IQ to discuss higher Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQs.

    Turkheimer deliberately picked a trait (materialism) that lacks a reliable measuring scale, has 1/1000 the amount of research literature devoted to IQ, is probably much less heritable than intelligence, and for which group differences are not as consequential. He is right, that does make genetic questions about materialism less “scientific” than the same questions about IQ. But of course that’s also an argument for treating the questions as scientific when they are about IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    This is where they really don't want to go, in my opinion,...

    What about those at the pinnacle, did they need high IQ’s? No doubt, it took cunning to see good opportunities. But other personality factors besides intelligence could lead to fortune. One could even keep this with a psychological Darwinian orientation by suggesting that risk taking, or aggressiveness-both traits often claimed to have genetic bases-led to great profit. — Jews (2R 1.3%; 3R 62%) carry low-activity MAOA at much higher rates than Whites (2R 0.2%; 3R 36%) http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/monoamine-oxidase-bibliography.html
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/#comment-1903952


    Here is the direct quote from Steven Pinker:

    [T]he low-activity version of the gene is even more common in Chinese men ([55] percent of whom carry it), and the Chinese are neither descended from warriors in their recent history nor particularly prone to social pathology in modern societies.

    – http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2011/10/kill-popular-science.html

    He (deliberately?) ignores or does not seem to be aware of the high number of pathological gamblers among Asians/Chinese, that I pointed to above.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1814572
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @U. Ranus
    Murray’s Jewish co-author Richard Herrnstein, for example, felt that honesty about IQ was good for the Jews.

    What Herrnstein really did was to successfully educate his fellow Jews on the interaction between a meritocratic society and IQ. Assortative mating. The emergence of a new cognitive overclass.

    It won't have escaped the jews among his readers that new overclass means not exactly the old overclass.

    Maybe the sexual harassmen craze at college and the workplace is just coincidental "stupidity", as Cochran would call it. Maybe the craze just happens to preferentially hit the very smart goys who might otherwise have happily sweet talked smart gals into assortatively mating their way into a new cognitive overclass. The one Herrnstein warned his fellow Jews about.

    You don’t miss much eh? One would have to wake up pretty early to pull the wool over your eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @U. Ranus
    For your reading pleasure, here's something I wrote almost a year ago:

    When we know that intelligence is genetic, a significant difference in average intelligence tells us how much Jews must be biologically separated from us.

    Thus, “race isn’t real”, “everybody is equal” and “intelligence isn’t genetic” (and its precursor, “intelligence isn’t real”) are all protective rings to keep us from forming a concept of the Jew as its own biological category.

    Once we accept enough genetic separation to maintain 0.5 to 1 SD difference in general intelligence over centuries of living in the same place, there’s basically no other personality trait either in which we have to assume the average Jew to be “just like us.”

    The current fixation of HBD on intelligence alone is another protective ring, btw.

     

    Seems cousin Turkheimer agrees with me, no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @J.Ross
    Oh, so you're using "inarticulate" to mean "politically different." I was worried about that line about "having to defend him" and it looks like I was right.
    You should read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and reflect deeply upon its meaning. He's not talking about Stalin-apologists sixty years ago, he's talking about your soul right now.

    Expressing inconsistent ideas is poor expression. SAT data have no inherent politics. Everyone is politically different from me. If you loved him so much, you would make an effort to spin some consistent narrative for him. At least his maneuverings conform to his employer’s wishes. Only AEI employees should have to peddle their bullshit. Where’s your cut?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. FKA Max says:
    @academic gossip

    Turkheimer’s example is a bit of a misdirection, since it would be more straightforward in this debate over IQ to discuss higher Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQs.
     
    Turkheimer deliberately picked a trait (materialism) that lacks a reliable measuring scale, has 1/1000 the amount of research literature devoted to IQ, is probably much less heritable than intelligence, and for which group differences are not as consequential. He is right, that does make genetic questions about materialism less "scientific" than the same questions about IQ. But of course that's also an argument for treating the questions as scientific when they are about IQ.

    This is where they really don’t want to go, in my opinion,…

    What about those at the pinnacle, did they need high IQ’s? No doubt, it took cunning to see good opportunities. But other personality factors besides intelligence could lead to fortune. One could even keep this with a psychological Darwinian orientation by suggesting that risk taking, or aggressiveness-both traits often claimed to have genetic bases-led to great profit. — Jews (2R 1.3%; 3R 62%) carry low-activity MAOA at much higher rates than Whites (2R 0.2%; 3R 36%) http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2013/01/monoamine-oxidase-bibliography.html

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/genetics-of-racial-differences-in-intelligence-updated/#comment-1903952

    Here is the direct quote from Steven Pinker:

    [T]he low-activity version of the gene is even more common in Chinese men ([55] percent of whom carry it), and the Chinese are neither descended from warriors in their recent history nor particularly prone to social pathology in modern societies.

    http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.com/2011/10/kill-popular-science.html

    He (deliberately?) ignores or does not seem to be aware of the high number of pathological gamblers among Asians/Chinese, that I pointed to above.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1814572

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Lot says:
    @Steve Sailer
    A pretty fair comparison is Jews and Italians in America. They mostly arrived at the same and lived in the same cities. But Italians appear to be more openminded about immigration policy, a lot less into Ellis Island ethnocentric schmaltz than Jews.

    I think Italian Americans like Ellis Island schmaltz as much as Jews, but just don’t think that means favoring open borders.

    The best of the newer congressmen on immigration issues is Lou Barletta.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Barletta

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Italian-Americans are all over the place on immigration policy. It's almost like they feel that America is a free country so you get to make up your own mind. Very retrograde, I realize, but that's the way they are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Lot says:
    @kaganovitch
    Really? Judith beheading the enemy general is an example of Jewish treachery? The Greeks let's say, would never celebrate anything similar? That Homer fellow was really Homer Goldstein ,I hear tell.

    Judith beheading the enemy general is an example of Jewish treachery? The Greeks let’s say, would never celebrate anything similar?

    Italian artists were fond of the story of Judith and Holofernes

    Botticelli

    Mantegna

    Gentileschi

    Another extra gory version by Gentileschi

    Baglione

    Caravaggio

    Possibly another Caravaggio (looks like his work to me)

    Donatello

    Galizia

    Michelangelo

    Giorgione

    Saraceni

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Lot
    I think Italian Americans like Ellis Island schmaltz as much as Jews, but just don't think that means favoring open borders.

    The best of the newer congressmen on immigration issues is Lou Barletta.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Barletta

    Italian-Americans are all over the place on immigration policy. It’s almost like they feel that America is a free country so you get to make up your own mind. Very retrograde, I realize, but that’s the way they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    How are the Irish? My personal encounters with them are that they've got the same weepy Ellis Island melodrama going on. Does that hold up statistically?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. AM says:
    @JohnnyD
    @Am,
    I know a Jewish guy whose ancestors settled in Savannah, Georgia during the eighteenth century. Would you consider him to be part of the "pre-1880 settlers"?

    Pre-1880 Jewish peoples tended be slave or other merchants and settle in cities. The slave trade was probably why that family was in Savannah, Georgia. It’s stretch to call them settlers.

    There are people who built this country (and Canada) and that’s all of my ancestors, who farmed, etc. Diaspora Jews fall into patterns and what they aren’t is homesteaders in the wilderness. Interestingly, they’ll do that in Israel, but no other land.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    So the only kind of "real" settlers are farmers? Ben Franklin, Paul Revere - all parasites?

    Was the only kind of trade in Savannah the slave trade? There were no Jewish doctors or lawyers, shopkeepers, jewelers, etc. - the only thing they could do was buy and sell slaves? What about the ship captains who bought the slaves in Africa - were they all Jews too? You should get together with the Black Muslims because they believe the same kind of crap.

    It was the custom of wealthy merchants (including Jews) in the south to have a home in town and a plantation in the countryside, so the Jewish merchants were farmers too.

    (Confederate) Major Raphael Moses is considered the father of the Georgia peach farming business. He figured out a way to pack the peaches so that they would survive a journey to the big cities of the North, which increased their value tremendously.

    http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/business-economy/raphael-moses-1812-1893

    He was also an important commissary officer during the Civil War. The Union troops just took whatever they wanted in the South but the Confederates always paid for what they took, even in their raids into Yankee territory. The bad news is that they paid in Confederate money.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. AM says:
    @black sea
    One third of the original settlers of Savannah were Jews. The first white child born in Savannah, Philip Minis, was Jewish.

    Yep. And there’s a good chance they sold slaves for a living, much like you see Jews today who sell diamonds in NYC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. lavoisier says: • Website

    I find the question of whether group differences in observed intelligence can be at least partially explained by genetics as having an obvious answer. Of course genetics is certain to play a role in group differences in a complex biological behavior such as intelligence.

    What to me is more interesting is that the data suggest that Ashkenazi Jews and certain Asian groups have higher mean IQ scores than do White people. If this is indeed true, and I suspect that it is, it does not explain the historic fact that the greatest civilizations and their accomplishments were arguably the product of White people. By White people I am referring to White geniuses such as Copernicus, Maxwell, Newton, Aristotle, Galileo, Darwin, Locke.

    In absolute terms the number of White geniuses will be much higher than the number of Jewish geniuses. This is a critical point that is easy to forget when discussing higher average Jewish IQ. I remember reading somewhere that just in the United States, with a very large population of Jews, the number of non-Jewish white geniuses (>145 IQ) exceeds the absolute number of Jews with a similar IQ by a factor of nearly 8:1. This disparity would suggest that all things being equal, the Jews in America should not have come to dominate so much of the higher intellectual and cultural life in the United States. Other factors must be at play in this dominance besides IQ, and that a true meritocracy based on cognitive ability has not emerged in our nation at all. I think Ron Unz has been critical in discovering this illegitimate aspect of Jewish dominance at the Ivy League.

    As far as the Eastern Asian superiority I am troubled how this superiority, albeit a rather modest superiority on IQ tests, did not translate into superior cultural accomplishment throughout history. Asian civilizations have much to be proud of, but to be fair, their accomplishments have not been of the same order of magnitude as have been the accomplishments of Western civilization.

    Why is this?

    It may be that the most relevant question here is not the average IQ of a given population, but rather the absolute number of creative geniuses a given population will produce. After all it is not the average person that is the creator of the civilization. It is the genius.

    So perhaps the more interesting question to be investigating in these IQ studies is the characteristics of genius in the various human populations. How do they differ? How are they similar? And perhaps more importantly, what is the correlation between IQ, or problem solving ability, and creativity?

    Count me as unconvinced that the White man is the intellectual inferior of the Jewish man or the Asian man.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. AM says:
    @Stogumber
    But are Jews really so smart?

    Steve himself wrote that the NYT is falling to its own retconning. And this can be generalized - there are many examples where Jews fall to the lies other Jews invented. Take the myths about Russian pogroms around 1900.

    On the short run, believing favorable lies can make someone more stable and self-centered; on the long run it makes him too inflexible to win. Between 1870 and 1930, Jews had a lot of opportunities to overcome the weak German antisemite opposition; but they were too inflexible to succeed. Hannah Arendt at least had a lot of criticism for Jewish strategies and tactics - it seems she didn't believe that Jews were smart enough (rather "too smart by half").

    But are Jews really so smart?

    Actually, you bring up an excellent point. Conspiracy theories look at IQ and the general success of Jews in the US and throughout history (deserved mind you, they work hard) and think they must be running everything. But they are only ever less than 5% of population in most time.

    They are clever, but they are, when taken as a whole, not particularly wise. They show a great deal of what I’ve come to think of as “mind blindness”. Within their own society they value traits that are generally speaking, going to make them an anathema to almost any outside culture and blind to that fact as well.

    The story of Joseph in the OT is the perfect example of clever, but not wise. He’s clever, but he’s got the obnoxious about him, to the point even his brothers can’t stand him. He rises to the top of the household only to find himself in trouble with some funny business between him and the mistress of the house. (The way it’s written inclines the reader to imagine it was false, but why would that be – the guy, for whatever reason, can’t even shut up around his brothers and is clearly ambitious)

    As a prisoner, Joseph cleverly interprets some dreams and Pharaoh makes him his number 2. The author (and presumably Joseph) imagines this to be end result of God, the giver of good things.

    In real life, a good sane leader does not make a foreign prisoner, in for rape, his number 2, even if does believe him. He might say thank you by releasing him with some gifts, but he’s stranger and foreigner. Sanity would be turning to his court for help. Since we know that inbreeding was epic with Egyptian pharaohs, it’s quite probable the guy was this side clinically insane. But the author for sure doesn’t pick up on that and we have to presume Joseph doesn’t either.

    So then he whomps an amazing plan that supposedly nobody ever thought of called: save some crops for bad harvests. Then his brothers, who tried to kill him, come to him for food during the famine. Instead doing something vaguely normal like revealing himself or telling them to pound it, we get some sort of weepy reunion scene with Egyptian law enforcement acting out in the middle of the family drama. Then the people of Egypt end up stuck supporting not only a foriegn prisoner, but now the entire family of sheep herders and their wives and children.

    The next scene/part of the Bible (I believe) cuts straight to their slavery in Egypt like that was some sort of unpredictable event/punishment from God. But if you can see Joseph’s story from the Egyptian POV it was going to happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stealth
    Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Unknown, but I do know that Episcopalians are not an ethnic group in the same way Jewish people are. My great aunt's former E. church had a lot of black congregants, and a black minister. It is certainly not a church that discourages conversion.

    I guess "Episcopalian" is a word people use when they get tired of "WASP."

    I guess “Episcopalian” is a word people use when they get tired of “WASP.”

    Is “episcopalian” synonymous with “WASP”? I had assumed it was synonymous with “athiest”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Is “episcopalian” synonymous with “WASP”? I had assumed it was synonymous with “athiest”.
     
    LOL! It is now, unfortunately. There are seemingly two traditions within Episcopalians: the devout CS Lewis types and the social climbers. There is value to having the social climbers attend church, even if it's not sincere. Atheism is really bad for people spiritually. Church attendance also gives the elite a connection to the great society, which they no longer have.

    The other denominations usually occasted with WASPs in the US are Methodists and Presbyterians. Trump is very old school WASP in being a Presbyterian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. AM says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Italian-Americans are all over the place on immigration policy. It's almost like they feel that America is a free country so you get to make up your own mind. Very retrograde, I realize, but that's the way they are.

    How are the Irish? My personal encounters with them are that they’ve got the same weepy Ellis Island melodrama going on. Does that hold up statistically?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. jb says:

    You know, I am actually really happy with the two Vox articles! The thing is, I would certainly acknowledge that it has not been conclusively proven that there is a genetic component to the black/white IQ difference; if this is what Murray and Harris were claiming I would have to dissent. As far as I am concerned, there are two assertions I would like to see widely accepted:

    1) To the best of our ability to measure intelligence, American blacks are significantly less intelligent than American whites, and have been for some time. (This fact has all sorts of implications, regardless of the origin of the gap).

    2) The origin of the IQ gap is unclear, and it is possible for reasonable, well informed people to believe that it is partially genetic. (I.e., the cause of the gap is an open question).

    The thing is, although it is never stated quite so baldly, the two Vox articles are clearly in agreement with my point 1). Further, except for Turkheimer — whose arguments are blatantly moral and political — it seems to me that the articles are consistent with my point 2).

    The fact that even staunch defenders of the established wisdom are forced to concede that the IQ gap is real and that its origin is an open question is a huge big deal, and I would encourage everyone with a media platform to take those two points and run with them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    General behavioral quality gaps between racial groups seems real, constatable at naked eyes and intractable at least via "environmental interventions".
    , @lavoisier
    If you take the genetic or biological component out as causal, to whatever degree, of the differences in group intelligence, you are left with environmental or social causes. This inevitably triggers the charge of racism as the cause, and gives the black population another reason to hate whitey.

    Biology has to be part of this discussion.

    And it should be a part of the discussion of other observed group differences as well.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Dennis Dale
    The Narrative rests on no moral foundation greater than this appeal to consequences. The willingness of these scholars to look stupid astounds me. I can only assume they take the stakes to be that high. This is a remarkable bit of text:

    On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.
     
    His first sentence is giving up the game from the start. Things are where we want them to be, he says, so why tempt fate with the scientific method? Indeed, what good is the scientific method, I wonder. He would take away Galileo's telescope if it kept us inert.

    And people forget how to argue; what follows the "but" in no way disproves what preceded it (thus the all but meaningless, weaselly "helps us")--indeed, if these "false hypotheses" are out there, and indeed false, isn't it incumbent upon us to disprove them, which is quite possible as he points out (and fear)?

    He's like the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky, instead of turning away Jesus, he's turning away Science, with the admonition your presence here is not helpful.

    The willingness of these scholars to look stupid astounds me. I can only assume they take the stakes to be that high.

    It astounds me, too. We need a word for this phenomenon — when scientists intentionally lead people away from what they know, or strongly suspect, to be true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Agreed. It's not the same thing, but FUD is a good marker. Any time you see academics throwing around as much FUD as in those Vox articles it is a good clue there is a not yet proven truth being denied.

    That was a long winded way of saying "they doth protest too much."

    For fun, here is a publication with that exact title: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9805496
    bonus points for being on the somewhat related topic of the efficacy of special education: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1998-12442-015
    , @guest
    "We need a word for this phenomenon"

    It's called lying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Dr. X

    Turkeimer more or less admits something I’ve believed since 1995: that anti IQ science denialism is largely driven by Jewish paranoia and prejudice against gentiles: many Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.
     
    I, as a white Christian, haven't got the slightest problem with high Jewish IQ scores.

    I DO, however, have a problem with the fact that the Jews seem to employ their high IQ for the following purposes:

    1) Subversion of the U.S. Constitution (when it suits them to do so)
    2) Subversion of traditional American, Protestant, culture and morality with pornography, feminism, miscegenation, gun control, and financial manipulation
    3) Subversion of the American nation, the American taxpayer, and the American military to the state of Israel, which bans many things that American Jews advocate for the goyim (e.g., homosexual marriage and miscegenation)
    4) Clannishness and nepotism
    5) Communism, psychotherapy, and feminism
    6) The notion that they are the Chosen People of God, and thus empowered to subvert and kill their enemies by any treacherous means, including women and children, which is celebrated in their religion. Numerous passages in Jewish scripture and lore attest to this, for instance, the story of Judith beheading the enemy general after having intercourse with him, the story of Esther and Mordecai subverting the Persian throne and killing 75,000 enemies of the Jews, the killing of Egyptian babies and the Egyptian army by Yahweh, the slaughter of the Amalekite women and children (sanctioned by Yahweh) in the book of Samuel, etc. And of course the torture and execution of Jesus of Nazareth of charges of blasphemy for criticizing all of this.

    If a Jewish surgeon with an IQ of 140 wants to make $300k a year excising cancerous tumors, more power to him. It's the other stuff that's the problem...

    Judith claimed she didn’t do him, although with Jael and Sisera, there is some doubt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    In the Talmud, it say that Jael did Sisera seven times so that he would be really exhausted when she tried to killed him, but it was for a good cause so it wasn't a sin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. U. Ranus says:
    @kaganovitch
    You don't miss much eh? One would have to wake up pretty early to pull the wool over your eyes.

    For your reading pleasure, here’s something I wrote almost a year ago:

    When we know that intelligence is genetic, a significant difference in average intelligence tells us how much Jews must be biologically separated from us.

    Thus, “race isn’t real”, “everybody is equal” and “intelligence isn’t genetic” (and its precursor, “intelligence isn’t real”) are all protective rings to keep us from forming a concept of the Jew as its own biological category.

    Once we accept enough genetic separation to maintain 0.5 to 1 SD difference in general intelligence over centuries of living in the same place, there’s basically no other personality trait either in which we have to assume the average Jew to be “just like us.”

    The current fixation of HBD on intelligence alone is another protective ring, btw.

    Seems cousin Turkheimer agrees with me, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The current fixation of HBD on intelligence alone

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-study-of-man-jewish-personality-traits/
    One psychologist (P. Eisenberg, Journal of Consulting Psychology, Volume, 1937) conducted a rather careful study of several hundred students at Columbia and Bamard colleges to determine factors related to feelings of dominance. (“The dominant individual feels self-confident, has a high self-evaluation, feels superior, feels at ease with people, and feels that he can control others. . . .”) He found that the Jews generally felt more dominant than either Protestants or Catholics, and offered the explanation that “‘the Jewish group . . . due to feelings of insecurity . . . react by compensating.”

    Several studies have agreed in finding New York Jewish high-school and college students more aggressive, on the average, than non-Jewish students. This aggressiveness may offer an added psychological explanation for such pre-eminence as Jews have achieved in particular areas of American business, art, or intellect. Yet there is a common tendency, even among psychologists who really know better, to relapse into a racial or hereditary explanation of Jewish success in these fields and to neglect the social factors that have conditioned that success. British social scientists, long eugenics-minded, are notoriously guilty of this error.

    This study, conducted a few years ago by Audrey Shuey (Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 15, 1942) examined the intelligence of 3,000 freshmen at New York University’s Washington Square College. No reliable difference was found between the intelligence of Christian and Jewish students. The over-all ranking by religious groups was Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, in descending order of intelligence, but when the groups were equated by social characteristics—e.g type of secondary education, country of birth, age, etc.—their scores became more equal.

    the divergent intelligence scores obtained by members of subsections of the Jewish population in accordance with their degree of Americanization and social status: tests have ranked Polish Jewish children in a New York school as more intelligent than Russian Jewish children; New York University students with native-born Jewish parents as more intelligent than those with foreign-born Jewish parents; and Jews of high socio-economic status as more intelligent than Jews of low status.

    American Jews have a lower incidence of insanity than non-Jews, but Jewish insanity generally has an emotional rather than organic origin—probably more so than among non-Jews.

    All studies with which the writer is acquainted agree that Jewish students are more liberal and radical than non-Jewish students in their attitudes on political, social, and religious matters. Specifically, Jewish students have been found to be more opposed to prohibition, and more sympathetic to pacifism and communism, more liberal in their attitude to sexual mores and birth control, and, invariably, less religious than Catholics or Protestants.

    It is known that alcoholism and alcoholic psychoses are exceedingly rare among Jews; the proscriptions against intoxication are possibly due to a deep cultural orientation toward reality. Dr. Wechsler, who postulates such an orientation in his article cited above, points out that the emphasis upon realism and the avoidance of mysticism in Jewish religion was later reinforced by the “stern external necessity” of facing reality in the social struggle for survival. This view fits in with the importance given to education and learning in the Jewish family, and would help to explain why Jews are generally unable to accept the reality-escape of chronic alcoholism.
    , @Jack D
    Depends on who "us" is. As has been alluded to in this thread, if you were to apply a proper filters, you could identify a subgroup of Protestants (old stock New Englanders, NY Dutch, etc.) who are just as smart as the Jews. Are the Vanderbilts and the Roosevelts, the Cabots and the Lowells, etc. no longer "us" with respect to other whites because they are a smart, high functioning subgroup?

    The joke is on you BTW - while this other group robs you blind much more than the Jews (if Jews are 20% of the elite then this group is most of the other 80%) , you focus all your anger on the Joos and give these other guys a complete pass. They know they're not like you - their kids aren't marrying any trash (though they might be marrying Jews nowadays) but you consider them to be part of your group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Tiny Duck
    White peoples are the greatest danger to Jewish existence

    See Germany and most of Europe

    Facts are that Muslim treat Jews the best and Jews and people of Colour get along great without white interference

    Muslims hate everybody, including other Muslims. Keep dreamin’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. With regards to the The Bell Curve, Murray mentioned that Herrnstein wanted to not include the portion regarding Jewish IQ and Murray insisted on leaving it in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for that. Here is an article from Murray stating that:
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jewish-genius/

    I have personal experience with the reluctance of Jews to talk about Jewish accomplishment—my co-author, the late Richard Herrnstein, gently resisted the paragraphs on Jewish IQ that I insisted on putting in The Bell Curve (1994).
     
    He goes on to write:

    Hence my view that something in the genes explains elevated Jewish IQ.
     
    And:

    No one has yet presented an alternative to the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending theory that can match it for documentation. But, as someone who suspects that elevated Jewish intelligence was (a) not confined to Ashkenazim and (b) antedates the Middle Ages, I will outline the strands of an alternative explanation that should be explored.
     
    Interesting article. One odd coincidence, this is the second potentially controversial article published on April 1 that I have seen lately. Is something up with that?

    P.S. Lead paragraph of the article:

    Since its first issue in 1945, COMMENTARY has published hundreds of articles about Jews and Judaism. As one would expect, they cover just about every important aspect of the topic. But there is a lacuna, and not one involving some obscure bit of Judaica. COMMENTARY has never published a systematic discussion of one of the most obvious topics of all: the extravagant overrepresentation of Jews, relative to their numbers, in the top ranks of the arts, sciences, law, medicine, finance, entrepreneurship, and the media.
     
    It was listed as a feature article and is the only one with a graphic at https://www.commentarymagazine.com/issues/2007-april/

    Contemporary discussion at GNXP (including Greg Cochran): http://www.unz.com/gnxp/charles-murray-on-jewish-genius/
    The author's pseudonym is fun (Darth Quixote).
    More from Razib at http://www.unz.com/gnxp/jewish-genius-the-follow-up/
    The main link to the letters/responses is broken there, but available at https://web.archive.org/web/20070918225852/https://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10916&page=all

    Of course our host covered this at the time:
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/charles-murrays-jewish-genius
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/jews-iq-exchange/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Steve Sailer
    A pretty fair comparison is Jews and Italians in America. They mostly arrived at the same and lived in the same cities. But Italians appear to be more openminded about immigration policy, a lot less into Ellis Island ethnocentric schmaltz than Jews.

    I asked you why you think the Jews are especially bad, compared to other immigrants, on the “deconstructing America” score, and you give me one group that you think is better. That’s called moving the goalposts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    Did you ignore the entirety of my post?

    I'll summarize: Jews end up in positions of public influence (media, academics, law, and occasionally politics) that other immigrants do not. Further, when they secularize they almost always push policies that are destructive to America, like open borders or in the case of Europe, championing Islamic migration. In Russia they persecuted Christian farmers (Ukraine) and Orthodox Jews alike.

    When Jews keep the Covenant, they don't tend to rogue on everyone.

    There's only refusing to believe the pattern here. It's up to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Dave Pinsen
    The broader issue, I think, isn't noblesse oblige, but where it's directed, as I mentioned to Steve via Twitter. And I don't really see a difference between the Jewish and non-Jewish elites I'm familiar with when it comes to this. It's really more of Steve's "leapfrogging loyalties" versus "concentric loyalty", where the elites tend to be leap froggers.

    For example, among venture capitalists, Fred Wilson (gentile), Albert Wenger (gentile), and Brad Feld (Jew) all engaged in public matching campaigns to donate to the same lefty causes such as the ACLU (leapfrogging, given its focus on immigration) and Planned Parenthood. Similarly, gentile Chris Sacca, who once bragged about not tipping his Uber drivers, donates to a charity that digs wells in Africa.

    So, they all practice forms noblesse oblige.

    In contrast, you've got Jewish billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Sandy Weill who engage in more traditional forms of noblesse oblige (mega donations to hospitals and universities), but -- Bloomberg, at least -- is a leapfrogger on immigration.

    In contrast, you’ve got Jewish billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Sandy Weill who engage in more traditional forms of noblesse oblige

    Don’t forget Soros.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Jack D says:
    @IHTG
    That's not what "gentile" means.

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves "goys" that this is a category that includes all the world's non-whites.

    Not to mention that the plural of goy is not goys but goyim. Unless you send your kid to a kindsgarten.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. utu says:
    @U. Ranus
    For your reading pleasure, here's something I wrote almost a year ago:

    When we know that intelligence is genetic, a significant difference in average intelligence tells us how much Jews must be biologically separated from us.

    Thus, “race isn’t real”, “everybody is equal” and “intelligence isn’t genetic” (and its precursor, “intelligence isn’t real”) are all protective rings to keep us from forming a concept of the Jew as its own biological category.

    Once we accept enough genetic separation to maintain 0.5 to 1 SD difference in general intelligence over centuries of living in the same place, there’s basically no other personality trait either in which we have to assume the average Jew to be “just like us.”

    The current fixation of HBD on intelligence alone is another protective ring, btw.

     

    Seems cousin Turkheimer agrees with me, no?

    The current fixation of HBD on intelligence alone

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-study-of-man-jewish-personality-traits/

    One psychologist (P. Eisenberg, Journal of Consulting Psychology, Volume, 1937) conducted a rather careful study of several hundred students at Columbia and Bamard colleges to determine factors related to feelings of dominance. (“The dominant individual feels self-confident, has a high self-evaluation, feels superior, feels at ease with people, and feels that he can control others. . . .”) He found that the Jews generally felt more dominant than either Protestants or Catholics, and offered the explanation that “‘the Jewish group . . . due to feelings of insecurity . . . react by compensating.”

    Several studies have agreed in finding New York Jewish high-school and college students more aggressive, on the average, than non-Jewish students. This aggressiveness may offer an added psychological explanation for such pre-eminence as Jews have achieved in particular areas of American business, art, or intellect. Yet there is a common tendency, even among psychologists who really know better, to relapse into a racial or hereditary explanation of Jewish success in these fields and to neglect the social factors that have conditioned that success. British social scientists, long eugenics-minded, are notoriously guilty of this error.

    This study, conducted a few years ago by Audrey Shuey (Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 15, 1942) examined the intelligence of 3,000 freshmen at New York University’s Washington Square College. No reliable difference was found between the intelligence of Christian and Jewish students. The over-all ranking by religious groups was Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, in descending order of intelligence, but when the groups were equated by social characteristics—e.g type of secondary education, country of birth, age, etc.—their scores became more equal.

    the divergent intelligence scores obtained by members of subsections of the Jewish population in accordance with their degree of Americanization and social status: tests have ranked Polish Jewish children in a New York school as more intelligent than Russian Jewish children; New York University students with native-born Jewish parents as more intelligent than those with foreign-born Jewish parents; and Jews of high socio-economic status as more intelligent than Jews of low status.

    American Jews have a lower incidence of insanity than non-Jews, but Jewish insanity generally has an emotional rather than organic origin—probably more so than among non-Jews.

    All studies with which the writer is acquainted agree that Jewish students are more liberal and radical than non-Jewish students in their attitudes on political, social, and religious matters. Specifically, Jewish students have been found to be more opposed to prohibition, and more sympathetic to pacifism and communism, more liberal in their attitude to sexual mores and birth control, and, invariably, less religious than Catholics or Protestants.

    It is known that alcoholism and alcoholic psychoses are exceedingly rare among Jews; the proscriptions against intoxication are possibly due to a deep cultural orientation toward reality. Dr. Wechsler, who postulates such an orientation in his article cited above, points out that the emphasis upon realism and the avoidance of mysticism in Jewish religion was later reinforced by the “stern external necessity” of facing reality in the social struggle for survival. This view fits in with the importance given to education and learning in the Jewish family, and would help to explain why Jews are generally unable to accept the reality-escape of chronic alcoholism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Yak-15 says:
    @AM

    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?
     
    Yep.

    I'm sorry to say that when you find an organization dedicated to open borders or some sort of "Call out the hate group" (SPLC anyone), you will almost always find one or more ethnic Jews. It hardly ever fails. Add to the lopsided Jewish presence in media production and ownership and add to the Soros like billionaires and there it is.

    It appears there's just something about being an off the wagon ethnic Jew that to makes them a little too eager to tell everyone how to live and/or "fix" things. You can't compare it to Hispanics because they don't end up as movie producers. No other minority groups end up in those same positions of influence. (Fun fact: porn directors are out of portion Jewish, too) Orthodox/observant Jews don't seem to have that problem but then they don't choose lines of work that take them away from their communities.

    Once you go looking for the pattern, it's there. What's to be done about it is different question. Jews historically end up as scapegoats for a failing elite class. For instance, we controlled the contents of all movies and porn production with the Hays Code, so it didn't matter that Jews tended to own movie production. Once the governing elite got tired of governing, then they just didn't care what got thrown out for mass consumption. Sure, you can blame Jewish influence. I blame a society fatigued of controlling itself.

    I am Episcopalian. And some of the most rabid SJWs I know are my cousins (who also happened to have grown up very wealthy). Our church is burdened with a rapacious social justice sect that insists on homosexual priests conducting mass and being married in our church by other gay priests.

    Go throughout Chicago and you will see many Episcopalian churches with rainbow flags, BLM placards and “no hate here” posters.

    My church is largely hijacked by monstrous imbeciles who think these actions will make them more pious and increase our flock. Meanwhile, my home church withers in size as the kids aren’t returning to the suburbs and aren’t having kids. And they wonder why it’s falling apart. It’s disgraceful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    My church is largely hijacked by monstrous imbeciles who think these actions will make them more pious and increase our flock. Meanwhile, my home church withers in size as the kids aren’t returning to the suburbs and aren’t having kids. And they wonder why it’s falling apart. It’s disgraceful.
     
    They're really the new social climbers, kind of. It's sad. I was not religious for at least two decades. My husband and I decided to go back to church and we had a choice. If CS Lewis' church was still around, we would have gone there I think. As it is, we're Catholics.
    , @Anonymous
    You think that's SJWs gone crazy?
    I don't know about the Episcopal church in America, but in England the CofE has always been extremely gay.

    In the Brentwood, Beverly Hills neighborhoods of Los Angeles the most popular Rabbi for Bar Bat Mitzvahs and increasing rare weddings is an ethnic Chinese lesbian Rabbi married to a black American Muslim convert who attends the events as the Rebbitzen. Aiii yaiii.

    A favorite full in the blanks speech for the Bar Bat Mitzvah kids is a convuluted mess trying to prove that the biblical command to kill men "who lay with other men as a man lays with a woman" doesn't really mean what it says.

    The liberal Rabbis are working on finding something in the Hebrew bible proving that G d approved transsexual operations and hormone treatment.

    As long as the liberals concentrate on trans gender they won't concentrate for the next item on their agenda, decriminalizing pedophilia and reducing the age of consent to age 5.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. syonredux says:
    @IHTG
    That's not what "gentile" means.

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves "goys" that this is a category that includes all the world's non-whites.

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.

    Probably won’t help. I’ve spent some time the last few months acquainting myself with the major organs of the “Alt-Right” (The Right Stuff, Daily Stormer, Alt-Right.com, Red Ice Radio, Counter-Currents, etc), and the overall intellectual level is pretty low. To cite just one example, there’s an episode of The Daily Shoah where Mike Enoch ( I think ) talks about how German, unlike French and Spanish, does not use grammatical gender……

    *

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    I’ve spent some time the last few months acquainting myself with the major organs of the “Alt-Right” (The Right Stuff, Daily Stormer, Alt-Right.com, Red Ice Radio, Counter-Currents, etc), and the overall intellectual level is pretty low.
     
    Those are websites looking for click throughs and daily content. If you're looking for intellectual, head over to Lawrence Auster's archived blog http://www.amnation.com/vfr/, along with Moldbug. (Moldbug is more reactionary, though.)

    The thing is, if you can sort through the insecure, tin-foil hat stuff, there's usually something good even on the low brow sites. I don't usually waste much time anymore with it.
    , @Jack D

    there’s an episode of The Daily Shoah where Mike Enoch ( I think ) talks about how German, unlike French and Spanish, does not use grammatical gender……
     
    When he speaks it, it doesn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. res says:
    @Clark Westwood

    The willingness of these scholars to look stupid astounds me. I can only assume they take the stakes to be that high.
     
    It astounds me, too. We need a word for this phenomenon -- when scientists intentionally lead people away from what they know, or strongly suspect, to be true.

    Agreed. It’s not the same thing, but FUD is a good marker. Any time you see academics throwing around as much FUD as in those Vox articles it is a good clue there is a not yet proven truth being denied.

    That was a long winded way of saying “they doth protest too much.”

    For fun, here is a publication with that exact title: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9805496
    bonus points for being on the somewhat related topic of the efficacy of special education: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1998-12442-015

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. JamesG says: • Website

    “Is it good for the Jews?” — is what motivates a lot of the leaders of IQ science denialism, from S.J. Gould to Eric Turkheimer.

    Another opportunity to post my all-time favorite Gould quotation:

    S J Gould in the March 29, 1984 issue of The New York Review of Books:

    I am hopeless at deductive sequencing…I never scored particularly well on so-called objective tests of intelligence because they stress logical reasoning…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. res says:
    @Return of Shawn
    With regards to the The Bell Curve, Murray mentioned that Herrnstein wanted to not include the portion regarding Jewish IQ and Murray insisted on leaving it in.

    Thanks for that. Here is an article from Murray stating that:

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jewish-genius/

    I have personal experience with the reluctance of Jews to talk about Jewish accomplishment—my co-author, the late Richard Herrnstein, gently resisted the paragraphs on Jewish IQ that I insisted on putting in The Bell Curve (1994).

    He goes on to write:

    Hence my view that something in the genes explains elevated Jewish IQ.

    And:

    No one has yet presented an alternative to the Cochran-Hardy-Harpending theory that can match it for documentation. But, as someone who suspects that elevated Jewish intelligence was (a) not confined to Ashkenazim and (b) antedates the Middle Ages, I will outline the strands of an alternative explanation that should be explored.

    Interesting article. One odd coincidence, this is the second potentially controversial article published on April 1 that I have seen lately. Is something up with that?

    P.S. Lead paragraph of the article:

    Since its first issue in 1945, COMMENTARY has published hundreds of articles about Jews and Judaism. As one would expect, they cover just about every important aspect of the topic. But there is a lacuna, and not one involving some obscure bit of Judaica. COMMENTARY has never published a systematic discussion of one of the most obvious topics of all: the extravagant overrepresentation of Jews, relative to their numbers, in the top ranks of the arts, sciences, law, medicine, finance, entrepreneurship, and the media.

    It was listed as a feature article and is the only one with a graphic at https://www.commentarymagazine.com/issues/2007-april/

    Contemporary discussion at GNXP (including Greg Cochran): http://www.unz.com/gnxp/charles-murray-on-jewish-genius/
    The author’s pseudonym is fun (Darth Quixote).
    More from Razib at http://www.unz.com/gnxp/jewish-genius-the-follow-up/
    The main link to the letters/responses is broken there, but available at https://web.archive.org/web/20070918225852/https://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10916&page=all

    Of course our host covered this at the time:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/charles-murrays-jewish-genius

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/jews-iq-exchange/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Yak-15 says:
    @candid_observer
    Turkheimer equivocates wildly on the sense in which the study of IQ differences across races/ethnicities is "unscientific". One moment he's acting as though such questions can't be scientifically expressed, or, alternatively, scientifically answered. Either of those views is sheer idiocy.

    But he also says such things as such questions being "scientifically empty", or, alternatively, of no real scientific value. But either claim is pretty much absurd on its face.

    The reason scientists would care about whether IQ differences have a genetic component across races is essentially the same reason ordinary people do: because differences in average IQ have enormous impact on society. IQ affects the sorts of academic programs people can pursue, the sorts of jobs people can hold, the sorts of economic outcomes they can expect. They are related to crime rates. Very few things in our society which we value are unaffected by IQ.

    If we care about the functioning of our society -- as social scientists are supposed to -- then IQ is an unavoidable issue, and the issue of differences across races is unavoidable. That's just the way it is.

    Indeed, it's precisely because cognitive ability is so consequential in our society that the question of differences across races on that metric is so very sensitive.

    The point being this. Turkheimer is welcome to argue that, when it comes to the question of IQ differences across races, the sensitivity is so great, and the potential for social and moral damage so high, that the question should not be pursued. He is obliged to argue, though, that this holds true despite its clear and basic importance in the social sciences.

    What we get from Turkheimer instead is meaningless, moralizing, smearing mumbo-jumbo.

    Spot on accurate

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. HBD Guy says:

    Hi Steve: IQ issues raised in VOX hinge on assuming IQ = intelligence They differ and that accounts for much of varying interpretations of data. Maybe, you could write about the difference between IQ and intelligence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. @jb
    You know, I am actually really happy with the two Vox articles! The thing is, I would certainly acknowledge that it has not been conclusively proven that there is a genetic component to the black/white IQ difference; if this is what Murray and Harris were claiming I would have to dissent. As far as I am concerned, there are two assertions I would like to see widely accepted:

    1) To the best of our ability to measure intelligence, American blacks are significantly less intelligent than American whites, and have been for some time. (This fact has all sorts of implications, regardless of the origin of the gap).

    2) The origin of the IQ gap is unclear, and it is possible for reasonable, well informed people to believe that it is partially genetic. (I.e., the cause of the gap is an open question).

    The thing is, although it is never stated quite so baldly, the two Vox articles are clearly in agreement with my point 1). Further, except for Turkheimer -- whose arguments are blatantly moral and political -- it seems to me that the articles are consistent with my point 2).

    The fact that even staunch defenders of the established wisdom are forced to concede that the IQ gap is real and that its origin is an open question is a huge big deal, and I would encourage everyone with a media platform to take those two points and run with them.

    General behavioral quality gaps between racial groups seems real, constatable at naked eyes and intractable at least via “environmental interventions”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Moshe
    Full disclosure: Thusfar I have not won a Nobel Prize or been solvent. So, in accordance with my instructions from the command center, I am loyaly doing my part to bring down the Jewish Average so as to delay the Noticing --> Pitchforks.

    So obviously my concern about this (mythical!) antisemitic sentiment is motivated in part by the fact that I don't appear to have hitherto benefitted by the accustomed Success! standards of fame and fortune, yet - should the pitchforks come for the Jews (as, admittedly, they Never Ever do nor does anyone today fantasize about that Day of Reckoning) I will suffer the consequences of my internet history, without having priorly benefited from that (rather handsome, so there's that) Semitic face with Success!

    That out of the way:

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.

    Oh, it will be easy for you guys to blow smoke by pointing to differences here and there at this precise moment in time (as if, the blacks were ever less upitty and the goyim less philosemitic - because all that counts is the snapshot of Today!) but ultimately, the precise same jealously, feelings of inferiority, anger and claims of collusion are the precise same as blacks exhibit towards whites.

    Hoo boy, look at Steve's comment section when a week ago he praised Jewish Success - and Steve MODERATES his comments, and people self moderate their own and this....isn't even one of the hundreds of popular antisemitic forums!

    And you say that Jews have no motivation to obfuscate their success and higher intelligence?

    Heck, is there ANY difference between We Wuz Kangs and Jews Won Science Nobels Because They Stole Ideas From Non Jews (and also because they collude to keep the goy man down!). And this is PRECISELY what people have claimed HERE (and note my previous comment about what that says about how large the sentiment is beyond this forum) and precisely what blacks claim about whites.

    I do not obfuscate ideas that I believe to be true nor - more relevantly - do I fear engaging in crimethink or crimespeech - WHAT SO EVER.

    This is both a cause and an effect of why (take comfort in this) you have more money than me. I love considering and speaking uncomfortable truths which, can be financially problematic no matter how large your verbal acumen) and which may also therefore be the result of having less to lose.

    But saner and more timid Hebrews may have food cause to try and stave off being Rhodesia'ad by the more numerous and more violent hordes of imbeciles.

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.

    Some attitudinal similarities. But overall not in the way you mean it.

    The key difference is easy to sum up: whites actually do win Nobel prizes–most of them in fact.

    In other words, white gentiles create highly functional societies, without any Jews around.

    Blacks do not. Black anger and “we wuz kangs” comes from being unable to create functional societies, or–for many–even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society. Blacks don’t actually want whites to “go away”, they want whites to give them more stuff. (I actually respect real black nationalists who are aware of their community’s problems and think being dependent on the white man is bad. I think they are deluded about what their societies would actually be like, but I respect the desire to build it themselves.)

    In contrast, Jews didn’t create the European or American society. They are a smart and aggressive middle minority who as a result do well in the high quality/high trust societies gentiles create. But they didn’t build those societies. In fact, it’s close to the reverse. Jews–the Ashkenazi–clearly got their initial IQ boost from the literacy requirement imposed by rabbinic Judaism. (The dropouts are my ancestors, not yours.) But they have their world beating IQ by being a middle man minority looting on top of a competent/successful European host society. Literacy, and especially Jewish business knowledge and networking gave even dumber Jews a huge advantage. But in general to be more successful–and hence more likely to pass on your genes–you needed to be smarter than the goyim. Any Jews in Arabia, or South East Asia or Africa would have found both far inferior middle man opportunities, and would not have undergone as intense selection as outwitting those peoples would have been a bit to quite a bit easier. The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from–both materially and in terms of “stolen” genetic selection–European gentile societies. They didn’t create European success, but were essentially created or at least “forged” by it.

    And “anti-Semitism”–at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here–is about the negative behavior–political and cultural–of Jews. We want Jews to “shape up”–stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or “fellow Americans”–or go away.

    Whatever levels of jealousy or resentment, there’s just a fundamental difference between an attitude that is “give us stuff” and an attitude that is “leave us alone”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    ". Black anger and “we wuz kangs” comes from being unable to create functional societies, or–for many–even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society."
     
    They can create functional societies for other blacks. Whites from a certain POV are quite strange creatures. A modest lifestyle and protecting your family well is no, not the height of European achievement or civilization, but there is nothing wrong with it as a way to spend a life.

    "And “anti-Semitism”–at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here–is about the negative behavior–political and cultural–of Jews. We want Jews to “shape up”–stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or “fellow Americans”–or go away."
     
    I am agreed. I don't hate Jews and I don't think they're even capable of conspiracies because on the balance they don't seem all that smart. ;) The issue is that modern, secularized Jews in particular are no way aligned with the interests of the country. In sense I feel like I want shake their shoulders and scream "Stop being your own stereotype!". It ends poorly if the US collapses and everyone is looking for someone to blame.
    , @Moshe
    Obviously I disagree. I'll sum up your lack of logical thinking in this post by pointing out that Jews are a quarter of 1% of countries in the running for Science Nobels while Whites are 85% and blacks are 4%.

    With blacks low IQ, their 4% managed to only .5% of a Nobel (the winner is half black).

    Whites with their mediocre IQ and 85% of the population in Nobel Possible countries managed to win 60%

    Jews with their normal IQ managed to win 25% of Nobels. That's 25% of Nobels even though they are 0.25% of the populace in countries with adequate universities.

    That address the EXTREME INNUMERACY in public display IN YOUR SECOND SENTENCE.

    Fisking the rest seems like a waste of time. I can't speak for your general condition, but the accuracy and logic in this comment is a credit neither to you nor your race.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    we wuz mune men
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Yak-15 says:
    @AM
    On the Dutch in particular - the inbreeding is really bad. Want to know a state where cousin marriage is still legal? Connecticut.

    The FDR was pretty inbred and married a cousin. If you read a biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt, he married his cousin for his first wife and a 2nd cousin for his 2nd wife.

    They might seem smart and in the case of the Vanderbilts they were. But the inbreeding - crazy stuff.

    Being wealthy seems to require a very specific drive that is passed down in families. Inbreeding does seem to catch up eventually but as long as there is enough diversity cousin marrying keeps all the lovely money (and drive) in the family.

    Inbreeding catches up very quickly. See the example that is the Hapsburgs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Yak-15 says:
    @Stealth
    Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Unknown, but I do know that Episcopalians are not an ethnic group in the same way Jewish people are. My great aunt's former E. church had a lot of black congregants, and a black minister. It is certainly not a church that discourages conversion.

    I guess "Episcopalian" is a word people use when they get tired of "WASP."

    For a time the Episcopalian church took in a lot of Catholics who went through a divorce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. AM says:
    @International Jew
    I asked you why you think the Jews are especially bad, compared to other immigrants, on the "deconstructing America" score, and you give me one group that you think is better. That's called moving the goalposts.

    Did you ignore the entirety of my post?

    I’ll summarize: Jews end up in positions of public influence (media, academics, law, and occasionally politics) that other immigrants do not. Further, when they secularize they almost always push policies that are destructive to America, like open borders or in the case of Europe, championing Islamic migration. In Russia they persecuted Christian farmers (Ukraine) and Orthodox Jews alike.

    When Jews keep the Covenant, they don’t tend to rogue on everyone.

    There’s only refusing to believe the pattern here. It’s up to you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. mobi says:
    @IHTG
    That's not what "gentile" means.

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves "goys" that this is a category that includes all the world's non-whites.

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.

    But the context is that it’s a preferred term of contempt for white gentiles, by jews. And thus, a dismissal of said contempt.

    Is there a similar term which encompasses only white ‘goy’?

    I think they’re using it correctly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    "Goy" is not a term of contempt. It just means "people" or "nation", and it can refer to Jews too. For example in Genesis 12:2, where God promises Abraham,

    "And I will make of thee a great nation"

    "nation" corresponds to "goy" in the original Hebrew.

    If "goy" is ever used pejoratively, that is only a reflection of the speaker's attitude. Same as "bagpipe player" is only pejorative if the speaker dislikes the sound of bagpipes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Travis says:
    @HI
    One hypothesis is because elite institutions select for Jewish values. Harvard has something like 10% gentiles (vs. 60+% in the general population, and ~30% Jews (vs. 2-3% in the general population). It may not be because they select for Jews, but it might be because they select for Jewish values. So the high school leader active in ROTC or Future Farmers of America gets rejected, while the founder of the gay-straight alliance, or the Bangladeshi who writes Black Lives Matter 100 times, gets selected.

    more accurate to state Harvard is ~15% WASPs and ~25% Jewish today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. AM says:
    @AnotherDad

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.
     

    Some attitudinal similarities. But overall not in the way you mean it.

    The key difference is easy to sum up: whites actually do win Nobel prizes--most of them in fact.

    In other words, white gentiles create highly functional societies, without any Jews around.

    Blacks do not. Black anger and "we wuz kangs" comes from being unable to create functional societies, or--for many--even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society. Blacks don't actually want whites to "go away", they want whites to give them more stuff. (I actually respect real black nationalists who are aware of their community's problems and think being dependent on the white man is bad. I think they are deluded about what their societies would actually be like, but I respect the desire to build it themselves.)

    In contrast, Jews didn't create the European or American society. They are a smart and aggressive middle minority who as a result do well in the high quality/high trust societies gentiles create. But they didn't build those societies. In fact, it's close to the reverse. Jews--the Ashkenazi--clearly got their initial IQ boost from the literacy requirement imposed by rabbinic Judaism. (The dropouts are my ancestors, not yours.) But they have their world beating IQ by being a middle man minority looting on top of a competent/successful European host society. Literacy, and especially Jewish business knowledge and networking gave even dumber Jews a huge advantage. But in general to be more successful--and hence more likely to pass on your genes--you needed to be smarter than the goyim. Any Jews in Arabia, or South East Asia or Africa would have found both far inferior middle man opportunities, and would not have undergone as intense selection as outwitting those peoples would have been a bit to quite a bit easier. The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from--both materially and in terms of "stolen" genetic selection--European gentile societies. They didn't create European success, but were essentially created or at least "forged" by it.

    And "anti-Semitism"--at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here--is about the negative behavior--political and cultural--of Jews. We want Jews to "shape up"--stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or "fellow Americans"--or go away.

    Whatever levels of jealousy or resentment, there's just a fundamental difference between an attitude that is "give us stuff" and an attitude that is "leave us alone".

    “. Black anger and “we wuz kangs” comes from being unable to create functional societies, or–for many–even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society.”

    They can create functional societies for other blacks. Whites from a certain POV are quite strange creatures. A modest lifestyle and protecting your family well is no, not the height of European achievement or civilization, but there is nothing wrong with it as a way to spend a life.

    “And “anti-Semitism”–at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here–is about the negative behavior–political and cultural–of Jews. We want Jews to “shape up”–stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or “fellow Americans”–or go away.”

    I am agreed. I don’t hate Jews and I don’t think they’re even capable of conspiracies because on the balance they don’t seem all that smart. ;) The issue is that modern, secularized Jews in particular are no way aligned with the interests of the country. In sense I feel like I want shake their shoulders and scream “Stop being your own stereotype!”. It ends poorly if the US collapses and everyone is looking for someone to blame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bunyip
    Jews will be attacked no matter what they do so they need to 'get their retaliation in first'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. mobi says:
    @Moshe
    Full disclosure: Thusfar I have not won a Nobel Prize or been solvent. So, in accordance with my instructions from the command center, I am loyaly doing my part to bring down the Jewish Average so as to delay the Noticing --> Pitchforks.

    So obviously my concern about this (mythical!) antisemitic sentiment is motivated in part by the fact that I don't appear to have hitherto benefitted by the accustomed Success! standards of fame and fortune, yet - should the pitchforks come for the Jews (as, admittedly, they Never Ever do nor does anyone today fantasize about that Day of Reckoning) I will suffer the consequences of my internet history, without having priorly benefited from that (rather handsome, so there's that) Semitic face with Success!

    That out of the way:

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.

    Oh, it will be easy for you guys to blow smoke by pointing to differences here and there at this precise moment in time (as if, the blacks were ever less upitty and the goyim less philosemitic - because all that counts is the snapshot of Today!) but ultimately, the precise same jealously, feelings of inferiority, anger and claims of collusion are the precise same as blacks exhibit towards whites.

    Hoo boy, look at Steve's comment section when a week ago he praised Jewish Success - and Steve MODERATES his comments, and people self moderate their own and this....isn't even one of the hundreds of popular antisemitic forums!

    And you say that Jews have no motivation to obfuscate their success and higher intelligence?

    Heck, is there ANY difference between We Wuz Kangs and Jews Won Science Nobels Because They Stole Ideas From Non Jews (and also because they collude to keep the goy man down!). And this is PRECISELY what people have claimed HERE (and note my previous comment about what that says about how large the sentiment is beyond this forum) and precisely what blacks claim about whites.

    I do not obfuscate ideas that I believe to be true nor - more relevantly - do I fear engaging in crimethink or crimespeech - WHAT SO EVER.

    This is both a cause and an effect of why (take comfort in this) you have more money than me. I love considering and speaking uncomfortable truths which, can be financially problematic no matter how large your verbal acumen) and which may also therefore be the result of having less to lose.

    But saner and more timid Hebrews may have food cause to try and stave off being Rhodesia'ad by the more numerous and more violent hordes of imbeciles.

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.

    Sure.

    And of course, whites go out of their way to get away from blacks, just like jews go out of their…wait. Never mind.

    Then, there’s the fact that, absent an entire modern, functioning technological society built by whites (non-jews), blacks would descend into a global Haiti in one or two generations, en route back to the jungle, just like if we removed the entire contribution of jews throughout history, whites would … wait. Never mind.

    Not to mention the fact that very smart whites outnumber very smart jews by a factor of – what, 10? – just like very smart blacks outnumber … wait, never mind.

    But other than that – ya, they’re clearly basically the same thing.

    No doubt, the jews’ greatest of all talents – that for self-serving sophistry – exists for good reason – it must serve you well, and may even be essential for you.

    Good for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. AM says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I guess “Episcopalian” is a word people use when they get tired of “WASP.”
     
    Is "episcopalian" synonymous with "WASP"? I had assumed it was synonymous with "athiest".

    Is “episcopalian” synonymous with “WASP”? I had assumed it was synonymous with “athiest”.

    LOL! It is now, unfortunately. There are seemingly two traditions within Episcopalians: the devout CS Lewis types and the social climbers. There is value to having the social climbers attend church, even if it’s not sincere. Atheism is really bad for people spiritually. Church attendance also gives the elite a connection to the great society, which they no longer have.

    The other denominations usually occasted with WASPs in the US are Methodists and Presbyterians. Trump is very old school WASP in being a Presbyterian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. AM says:
    @syonredux

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.
     
    Probably won't help. I've spent some time the last few months acquainting myself with the major organs of the "Alt-Right" (The Right Stuff, Daily Stormer, Alt-Right.com, Red Ice Radio, Counter-Currents, etc), and the overall intellectual level is pretty low. To cite just one example, there's an episode of The Daily Shoah where Mike Enoch ( I think ) talks about how German, unlike French and Spanish, does not use grammatical gender......


    *

    I’ve spent some time the last few months acquainting myself with the major organs of the “Alt-Right” (The Right Stuff, Daily Stormer, Alt-Right.com, Red Ice Radio, Counter-Currents, etc), and the overall intellectual level is pretty low.

    Those are websites looking for click throughs and daily content. If you’re looking for intellectual, head over to Lawrence Auster’s archived blog http://www.amnation.com/vfr/, along with Moldbug. (Moldbug is more reactionary, though.)

    The thing is, if you can sort through the insecure, tin-foil hat stuff, there’s usually something good even on the low brow sites. I don’t usually waste much time anymore with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Those are websites looking for click throughs and daily content. If you’re looking for intellectual, head over to Lawrence Auster’s archived blog http://www.amnation.com/vfr/,
     
    I've read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though....

    along with Moldbug. (Moldbug is more reactionary, though.)
     
    When it comes to Moldbug, I'd rather read Carlyle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Jack D says:

    The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from–both materially and in terms of “stolen” genetic selection–European gentile societies.

    Only if you take the Marxist view that property is theft. As you say, Jews were a middle-man minority. Think of the middle-man functions in our society. Retailing, for example. Was Sam Walton a “looter” or a creator of value? When Wal-Mart buys a head of broccoli from a farmer for 25 cents and sells it to you for $1.38, are they “stealing” from the farmer? Only from the stupidest Marxist point of view.

    The Jews were invited to Poland by the Polish kings precisely in order to set up such middle-man businesses. The locals for whatever reason didn’t want to/weren’t capable of doing these jobs. The same process is still going on in other parts of the world. In every Egyptian village, there is a lingerie store run by a Chinese family. Egyptian women look like they are wearing flour sacks on the outside, but underneath they (and their husbands) like really kinky underwear. Are the Chinese “looting” the Egyptian peasants who buy this stuff or are they providing a service that the locals apparently want?

    BTW, if Jews are just parasites, how is it that Israel, starting from nothing, has achieved close to European levels of prosperity in a region where everyone else is poor (not counting oil wealth)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    BTW, if Jews are just parasites, how is it that Israel, starting from nothing, has achieved close to European levels of prosperity in a region where everyone else is poor (not counting oil wealth)?
     
    Israel is different. It is the Jewish homeland. They invest it. They fight for it.

    You're correct in the other part of your thoughts. There's nothing wrong with being in the middle man business, or the banking for that matter. It is a useful service as long it's honest.

    The issue is that long term it becomes unsustainable because Jews use their intelligence and ambition and tend to work their ways to positions of influence. Then consciously or not, tend to use that position to help their families rather than the host countries. A Jew in Poland is "renting" for lack of better way to say it.

    Joseph in the OT is the perfect example and wrote up a long post on my thoughts on this thread. And modernly, the endless moralizing from a highly secularized people who mostly are merchants and bankers, historically? Come on.

    In Israel, that country is their family for all practical purposes. They quite willingly enforce policies that appear unthinkable (and "immoral") if they lived in the US. Abortion has some interesting restrictions as does marriage within Israel. There's lovely border wall and they take no Africans..even the Ethiopian Jews are clearly a source of tension.

    The Jews quite often deserve the success they have. They are intelligent, ambitious, and I have no reason think they are more dishonest than the average bear. I've liked quite a few that I've met. But geesh, the mind blindness - holy smokes.
    , @Anon 2
    By 1550 90% of the world's Jews lived in the
    Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Mostly they
    ended up in Poland not so much because they were
    invited by kings but because they were expelled, often
    repeatedly, from England, Spain, France, Italy, and the
    German states. Poland, because of its size and religious
    tolerance, became a magnet for many dissidents from all over
    Europe, not just Jews. Russia, while watching the expulsions
    of Jews from Western Europe, made sure they would not
    end up on their territory, and simply banned Jews from
    settling in Russian lands
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Ben Kurtz says: • Website

    What gets me is Turkheimer’s flat-out and flagrant intellectual dishonesty.

    He writes: “Nisbett accepts it as a legitimate scientific question, and thinks evidence points fairly strongly in the direction of the black-white gap being entirely environmental in origin.”

    No he doesn’t!

    In the very same article, Nisbett himself writes: “my view is the only reasonable response,” to the question of what percentage of black-white IQ differences is due to genes, is: “It is not possible to give a meaningful estimate of the percentage.”

    If Nisbett was strongly convinced that the gap is “entirely environmental in origin,” as Turkheimer claims, Nisbett never would have written that, let alone in the same article. Moreover, Nisbett made his statement about ‘no meaningful estimate’ in the context of a question that asked for responses like “0 percent” or “0 to 40 percent.”

    If you read Nisbett carefully, he seems (i) convinced that genetics has a substantial influence on present-day black/white IQ gaps, (ii) fearful of admitting that in print, (iii) unwilling to lie abjectly about his beliefs, and (iv) hopeful that he’ll get to retire before genetic science allows a good and specific estimate to be proffered. If he was even remotely as certain about environment being more or less the sole cause, as Turkheimer makes him out to be, he clearly would have plumped for either “o” or “0 to 40,” and left it at that. The fact that he objected to those answer options gives him away entirely.

    Nisbett’s data also suggests that the wider black/white gaps that existed in the past more likely had some sort of environmental component, but as these gaps have narrowed over the second half of the 20th century the rate of closure keeps slowing (and by some measures, such as the NAEP and, though more open to selection biases, the SAT); given that after the Civil Rights era we’ve tried every remedy we can think of to improve the learning environment, the narrower but still substantial gaps that remain and more and more likely to be down to heritable traits.

    Finally, Nisbett is careful to ignore what I think is the single most important trend in the achievement gap debate: Black students from families earning $200k+ per year score about as well on the SAT as white students from families earning less than $20k per year, and as you go down the black income scale and up the white income scale, the gap simply widens. Black students with every environmental advantage growing up can’t definitively beat white students with every environmental handicap growing up. If that doesn’t put paid to the environmental hypothesis, it’s hard to imagine what would.

    Graph and discussion here: https://benkurtzblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/the-blackwhite-sat-gap/

    Read More
    • Agree: MEH 0910
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  152. Jack D says:
    @U. Ranus
    For your reading pleasure, here's something I wrote almost a year ago:

    When we know that intelligence is genetic, a significant difference in average intelligence tells us how much Jews must be biologically separated from us.

    Thus, “race isn’t real”, “everybody is equal” and “intelligence isn’t genetic” (and its precursor, “intelligence isn’t real”) are all protective rings to keep us from forming a concept of the Jew as its own biological category.

    Once we accept enough genetic separation to maintain 0.5 to 1 SD difference in general intelligence over centuries of living in the same place, there’s basically no other personality trait either in which we have to assume the average Jew to be “just like us.”

    The current fixation of HBD on intelligence alone is another protective ring, btw.

     

    Seems cousin Turkheimer agrees with me, no?

    Depends on who “us” is. As has been alluded to in this thread, if you were to apply a proper filters, you could identify a subgroup of Protestants (old stock New Englanders, NY Dutch, etc.) who are just as smart as the Jews. Are the Vanderbilts and the Roosevelts, the Cabots and the Lowells, etc. no longer “us” with respect to other whites because they are a smart, high functioning subgroup?

    The joke is on you BTW – while this other group robs you blind much more than the Jews (if Jews are 20% of the elite then this group is most of the other 80%) , you focus all your anger on the Joos and give these other guys a complete pass. They know they’re not like you – their kids aren’t marrying any trash (though they might be marrying Jews nowadays) but you consider them to be part of your group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Are the Vanderbilts and the Roosevelts, the Cabots and the Lowells, etc. no longer “us” with respect to other whites because they are a smart, high functioning subgroup?
     
    Yes, because they're starting to treat their position in society as a "rental". They've moved in attitude towards secular, diaspora Jews. The poor schmuck in the heartland or even across town are not their problem. They're "citizens of the world".

    Once upon a time, not that long ago, people in those positions went to church and kept their scandals to themselves because they felt the responsibility of those positions. They were in a leadership role for all the people who were of lower social classes.

    Now the Clintons can openly have sex scandals and just generally be corrupt and their fellow elites just eye roll for having them been so blatant about it.

    One of the reasons the elite are losing their lunch over Trump is that he represents who they used to be. That the wealth brought responsibility for their fellow countrymen. Jewish people historically have never felt that responsibility, or if it did, it manifests itself like it does in the US. "Fix yourself to be a secular Jew, then we'll talk".

    I don't necessarily blame the Jews for not wanting to invest in a foriegn culture, because it's situational. It's also why I blame the failure of the WASPs for our current situation. It's they who have failed. Whatever Jewish influence exists, it exists because the current generation cares nothing for their country or fellow countrymen.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. AM says:
    @Jack D

    The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from–both materially and in terms of “stolen” genetic selection–European gentile societies.
     
    Only if you take the Marxist view that property is theft. As you say, Jews were a middle-man minority. Think of the middle-man functions in our society. Retailing, for example. Was Sam Walton a "looter" or a creator of value? When Wal-Mart buys a head of broccoli from a farmer for 25 cents and sells it to you for $1.38, are they "stealing" from the farmer? Only from the stupidest Marxist point of view.

    The Jews were invited to Poland by the Polish kings precisely in order to set up such middle-man businesses. The locals for whatever reason didn't want to/weren't capable of doing these jobs. The same process is still going on in other parts of the world. In every Egyptian village, there is a lingerie store run by a Chinese family. Egyptian women look like they are wearing flour sacks on the outside, but underneath they (and their husbands) like really kinky underwear. Are the Chinese "looting" the Egyptian peasants who buy this stuff or are they providing a service that the locals apparently want?

    BTW, if Jews are just parasites, how is it that Israel, starting from nothing, has achieved close to European levels of prosperity in a region where everyone else is poor (not counting oil wealth)?

    BTW, if Jews are just parasites, how is it that Israel, starting from nothing, has achieved close to European levels of prosperity in a region where everyone else is poor (not counting oil wealth)?

    Israel is different. It is the Jewish homeland. They invest it. They fight for it.

    You’re correct in the other part of your thoughts. There’s nothing wrong with being in the middle man business, or the banking for that matter. It is a useful service as long it’s honest.

    The issue is that long term it becomes unsustainable because Jews use their intelligence and ambition and tend to work their ways to positions of influence. Then consciously or not, tend to use that position to help their families rather than the host countries. A Jew in Poland is “renting” for lack of better way to say it.

    Joseph in the OT is the perfect example and wrote up a long post on my thoughts on this thread. And modernly, the endless moralizing from a highly secularized people who mostly are merchants and bankers, historically? Come on.

    In Israel, that country is their family for all practical purposes. They quite willingly enforce policies that appear unthinkable (and “immoral”) if they lived in the US. Abortion has some interesting restrictions as does marriage within Israel. There’s lovely border wall and they take no Africans..even the Ethiopian Jews are clearly a source of tension.

    The Jews quite often deserve the success they have. They are intelligent, ambitious, and I have no reason think they are more dishonest than the average bear. I’ve liked quite a few that I’ve met. But geesh, the mind blindness – holy smokes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Fron about 1850 to 1920 the Zionist project was supported by the wealthiest families in Europe, Rothschilds, Montefiores and other financial fraud Jewish billionaires
    From 1922 to 1948 Israel was supported financially by Britian and Jews living in America with a lot of help from the Soviet Union. Russia btw sponsored the UN resolution that Israel become a nation. The Russian, other Soviet and E European nations under the Soviet boot exerted great pressure on other UN delegations to vote to make Israel a nation.

    Since the 1950s, Israel has been supported by the American taxpayer financially, diplomatically and militarily.

    In fact, most years, the GNP of Israel is the same as the amount of American dollars given to Israel by our craven bought and enslaved politicians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. AM says:
    @Jack D
    Depends on who "us" is. As has been alluded to in this thread, if you were to apply a proper filters, you could identify a subgroup of Protestants (old stock New Englanders, NY Dutch, etc.) who are just as smart as the Jews. Are the Vanderbilts and the Roosevelts, the Cabots and the Lowells, etc. no longer "us" with respect to other whites because they are a smart, high functioning subgroup?

    The joke is on you BTW - while this other group robs you blind much more than the Jews (if Jews are 20% of the elite then this group is most of the other 80%) , you focus all your anger on the Joos and give these other guys a complete pass. They know they're not like you - their kids aren't marrying any trash (though they might be marrying Jews nowadays) but you consider them to be part of your group.

    Are the Vanderbilts and the Roosevelts, the Cabots and the Lowells, etc. no longer “us” with respect to other whites because they are a smart, high functioning subgroup?

    Yes, because they’re starting to treat their position in society as a “rental”. They’ve moved in attitude towards secular, diaspora Jews. The poor schmuck in the heartland or even across town are not their problem. They’re “citizens of the world”.

    Once upon a time, not that long ago, people in those positions went to church and kept their scandals to themselves because they felt the responsibility of those positions. They were in a leadership role for all the people who were of lower social classes.

    Now the Clintons can openly have sex scandals and just generally be corrupt and their fellow elites just eye roll for having them been so blatant about it.

    One of the reasons the elite are losing their lunch over Trump is that he represents who they used to be. That the wealth brought responsibility for their fellow countrymen. Jewish people historically have never felt that responsibility, or if it did, it manifests itself like it does in the US. “Fix yourself to be a secular Jew, then we’ll talk”.

    I don’t necessarily blame the Jews for not wanting to invest in a foriegn culture, because it’s situational. It’s also why I blame the failure of the WASPs for our current situation. It’s they who have failed. Whatever Jewish influence exists, it exists because the current generation cares nothing for their country or fellow countrymen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is 2017, not 1917 or 1817 or 1717 The Vanderbilts, Roosevelts, Lowells and Cabots have no money, power or influence any more. The Vanderbilts still have some inherited money but no influence unless you consider Anderson Cooper influential.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Jack D says:

    Nisbett’s data also suggests that the wider black/white gaps that existed in the past more likely had some sort of environmental component, but as these gaps have narrowed over the second half of the 20th century the rate of closure keeps slowing (and by some measures, such as the NAEP and, though more open to selection biases, the SAT); given that after the Civil Rights era we’ve tried every remedy we can think of to improve the learning environment, the narrower but still substantial gaps that remain and more and more likely to be down to heritable traits.

    This makes perfect sense if you look for example at things like height differences between Asian-
    Americans and white Americans. In the past, the gap was clearly driven by nutritional differences during childhood but in the post WWII period as the Asian-American diet comes to more closely resemble the Western diet, the differences have gone down but not disappeared. So by now, what is left is mostly genetic. But if Asians were like American blacks and leftists, they would keep blaming white people for the continuing gap – white people must still be exuding some hidden miasma of racism that is somehow keeping them short.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ben Kurtz
    "Hidden miasma of racism." Ha -- I like it. I've been using "‘evil Racist eye-lasers which the White man uses to keep down the Black man" for some time, but I might just steal your expression.

    https://benkurtzblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/the-rabid-right-is-too-polite/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Jack D says:
    @syonredux

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.
     
    Probably won't help. I've spent some time the last few months acquainting myself with the major organs of the "Alt-Right" (The Right Stuff, Daily Stormer, Alt-Right.com, Red Ice Radio, Counter-Currents, etc), and the overall intellectual level is pretty low. To cite just one example, there's an episode of The Daily Shoah where Mike Enoch ( I think ) talks about how German, unlike French and Spanish, does not use grammatical gender......


    *

    there’s an episode of The Daily Shoah where Mike Enoch ( I think ) talks about how German, unlike French and Spanish, does not use grammatical gender……

    When he speaks it, it doesn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Moshe says:
    @AnotherDad

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.
     

    Some attitudinal similarities. But overall not in the way you mean it.

    The key difference is easy to sum up: whites actually do win Nobel prizes--most of them in fact.

    In other words, white gentiles create highly functional societies, without any Jews around.

    Blacks do not. Black anger and "we wuz kangs" comes from being unable to create functional societies, or--for many--even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society. Blacks don't actually want whites to "go away", they want whites to give them more stuff. (I actually respect real black nationalists who are aware of their community's problems and think being dependent on the white man is bad. I think they are deluded about what their societies would actually be like, but I respect the desire to build it themselves.)

    In contrast, Jews didn't create the European or American society. They are a smart and aggressive middle minority who as a result do well in the high quality/high trust societies gentiles create. But they didn't build those societies. In fact, it's close to the reverse. Jews--the Ashkenazi--clearly got their initial IQ boost from the literacy requirement imposed by rabbinic Judaism. (The dropouts are my ancestors, not yours.) But they have their world beating IQ by being a middle man minority looting on top of a competent/successful European host society. Literacy, and especially Jewish business knowledge and networking gave even dumber Jews a huge advantage. But in general to be more successful--and hence more likely to pass on your genes--you needed to be smarter than the goyim. Any Jews in Arabia, or South East Asia or Africa would have found both far inferior middle man opportunities, and would not have undergone as intense selection as outwitting those peoples would have been a bit to quite a bit easier. The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from--both materially and in terms of "stolen" genetic selection--European gentile societies. They didn't create European success, but were essentially created or at least "forged" by it.

    And "anti-Semitism"--at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here--is about the negative behavior--political and cultural--of Jews. We want Jews to "shape up"--stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or "fellow Americans"--or go away.

    Whatever levels of jealousy or resentment, there's just a fundamental difference between an attitude that is "give us stuff" and an attitude that is "leave us alone".

    Obviously I disagree. I’ll sum up your lack of logical thinking in this post by pointing out that Jews are a quarter of 1% of countries in the running for Science Nobels while Whites are 85% and blacks are 4%.

    With blacks low IQ, their 4% managed to only .5% of a Nobel (the winner is half black).

    Whites with their mediocre IQ and 85% of the population in Nobel Possible countries managed to win 60%

    Jews with their normal IQ managed to win 25% of Nobels. That’s 25% of Nobels even though they are 0.25% of the populace in countries with adequate universities.

    That address the EXTREME INNUMERACY in public display IN YOUR SECOND SENTENCE.

    Fisking the rest seems like a waste of time. I can’t speak for your general condition, but the accuracy and logic in this comment is a credit neither to you nor your race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Ben Kurtz says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Nisbett’s data also suggests that the wider black/white gaps that existed in the past more likely had some sort of environmental component, but as these gaps have narrowed over the second half of the 20th century the rate of closure keeps slowing (and by some measures, such as the NAEP and, though more open to selection biases, the SAT); given that after the Civil Rights era we’ve tried every remedy we can think of to improve the learning environment, the narrower but still substantial gaps that remain and more and more likely to be down to heritable traits.
     
    This makes perfect sense if you look for example at things like height differences between Asian-
    Americans and white Americans. In the past, the gap was clearly driven by nutritional differences during childhood but in the post WWII period as the Asian-American diet comes to more closely resemble the Western diet, the differences have gone down but not disappeared. So by now, what is left is mostly genetic. But if Asians were like American blacks and leftists, they would keep blaming white people for the continuing gap - white people must still be exuding some hidden miasma of racism that is somehow keeping them short.

    “Hidden miasma of racism.” Ha — I like it. I’ve been using “‘evil Racist eye-lasers which the White man uses to keep down the Black man” for some time, but I might just steal your expression.

    https://benkurtzblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/the-rabid-right-is-too-polite/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    A pretty fair comparison is Jews and Italians in America. They mostly arrived at the same and lived in the same cities. But Italians appear to be more openminded about immigration policy, a lot less into Ellis Island ethnocentric schmaltz than Jews.

    I can think of six million reasons why they look at this differently. There is no equivalent of the story of the MS St. Louis ( the “Voyage of the Damned”) forming a part of the Italian-American self-conception. It wasn’t a matter of life and death. When the doors slammed after the Immigration Act of ’24, Cousin Luigi stayed home in Palermo – he was poor but OK. But Cousin Leib – the letters stopped coming in ’41 and that was it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    I can think of six million reasons why they look at this differently. There is no equivalent of the story of the MS St. Louis ( the “Voyage of the Damned”) forming a part of the Italian-American self-conception.
     
    Oh, good grief. Does this sense that others owe you things ever stop?

    The Holocaust is not a free pass to think you're entitled to citizenship in any nation. And as matter fact, the Jews were practically given a nation of their own because of it. The Ukrainians had to wait until well after to the Jews to get their nation back after Holodmor. And still...we "owe you" a safe place to be. Well, no.

    How about the Jews learn to take up arms and defend themselves? They do that in Israel. It can be done. The OT talks about some badasked Hebrew warriors. Where's that tradition? How about understanding the tense, guest/host nature of Judaism in any place but Israel? The best rabbis do understand that. It appears that most Jews do not. headshake

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @AnotherDad

    HOW FUCKIN BLIND CAN YOU GUYS BE TO NOT NOTICE THAT YOU ARE THE NI**ERS IN THIS EQUATION?!

    Just as the Blacks : Whites = Whites : Jews.
     

    Some attitudinal similarities. But overall not in the way you mean it.

    The key difference is easy to sum up: whites actually do win Nobel prizes--most of them in fact.

    In other words, white gentiles create highly functional societies, without any Jews around.

    Blacks do not. Black anger and "we wuz kangs" comes from being unable to create functional societies, or--for many--even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society. Blacks don't actually want whites to "go away", they want whites to give them more stuff. (I actually respect real black nationalists who are aware of their community's problems and think being dependent on the white man is bad. I think they are deluded about what their societies would actually be like, but I respect the desire to build it themselves.)

    In contrast, Jews didn't create the European or American society. They are a smart and aggressive middle minority who as a result do well in the high quality/high trust societies gentiles create. But they didn't build those societies. In fact, it's close to the reverse. Jews--the Ashkenazi--clearly got their initial IQ boost from the literacy requirement imposed by rabbinic Judaism. (The dropouts are my ancestors, not yours.) But they have their world beating IQ by being a middle man minority looting on top of a competent/successful European host society. Literacy, and especially Jewish business knowledge and networking gave even dumber Jews a huge advantage. But in general to be more successful--and hence more likely to pass on your genes--you needed to be smarter than the goyim. Any Jews in Arabia, or South East Asia or Africa would have found both far inferior middle man opportunities, and would not have undergone as intense selection as outwitting those peoples would have been a bit to quite a bit easier. The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from--both materially and in terms of "stolen" genetic selection--European gentile societies. They didn't create European success, but were essentially created or at least "forged" by it.

    And "anti-Semitism"--at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here--is about the negative behavior--political and cultural--of Jews. We want Jews to "shape up"--stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or "fellow Americans"--or go away.

    Whatever levels of jealousy or resentment, there's just a fundamental difference between an attitude that is "give us stuff" and an attitude that is "leave us alone".

    we wuz mune men

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Jack D says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    Judith claimed she didn't do him, although with Jael and Sisera, there is some doubt.

    In the Talmud, it say that Jael did Sisera seven times so that he would be really exhausted when she tried to killed him, but it was for a good cause so it wasn’t a sin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    In the Talmud, it say that Jael did Sisera seven times so that he would be really exhausted when she tried to killed him, but it was for a good cause so it wasn’t a sin.
     
    Completely necessary, given that Sisera was an ancient superhero:

    Also according to the Midrash,[13] Sisera had previously conquered every country against which he had fought. His voice was so strong that, when he called loudly, the most solid wall would shake and the wildest animal would fall dead. Deborah was the only one who could withstand his voice and not be stirred from her place. Sisera caught fish enough in his beard when bathing in the Kishon to provision his whole army, and thirty-one kings followed Sisera merely for the opportunity of drinking, or otherwise using, the waters of Israel.[11]
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. It seems like every thread about Jews fits a pattern. Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.

    The cycle of stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    It seems like every thread about Jews fits a pattern. Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.

    The cycle of stupidity.
     
    Yes, and similarly, endless stories here and elsewhere reporting on the daily havoc caused by blacks, triggering a flood of really hurtful comments about black dysfunction, thereby serving to justify the bad attitudes of blacks in the first place.

    Idiots!
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.
     
    Steve is a smart guy and an incorrigible mensch; he often pulls his punches in an attempt to “nudge” the recalcitrant by means of reason and good humor. Some of us commenters are a little more blunt. This moderated forum has been excellent for allowing everyone to engage without too much shouting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. syonredux says:
    @AM

    I’ve spent some time the last few months acquainting myself with the major organs of the “Alt-Right” (The Right Stuff, Daily Stormer, Alt-Right.com, Red Ice Radio, Counter-Currents, etc), and the overall intellectual level is pretty low.
     
    Those are websites looking for click throughs and daily content. If you're looking for intellectual, head over to Lawrence Auster's archived blog http://www.amnation.com/vfr/, along with Moldbug. (Moldbug is more reactionary, though.)

    The thing is, if you can sort through the insecure, tin-foil hat stuff, there's usually something good even on the low brow sites. I don't usually waste much time anymore with it.

    Those are websites looking for click throughs and daily content. If you’re looking for intellectual, head over to Lawrence Auster’s archived blog http://www.amnation.com/vfr/,

    I’ve read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though….

    along with Moldbug. (Moldbug is more reactionary, though.)

    When it comes to Moldbug, I’d rather read Carlyle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    I’ve read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though….
     
    He's alt-right, at least to me. :) I'm pretty sure no "respectable" conservative publication would publish his thoughts on women, progressivism, the races, and Jews.

    When it comes to Moldbug, I’d rather read Carlyle.
     
    I've skimmed some Moldbug. I don't have the 2nd life required to read through all of it. I'll have to look up Carlyle.
    , @Clark Westwood

    I’ve read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though….
     
    I think Auster considered himself Alt-Right. IIRC, his blog was where I first came across that term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. guest says:
    @Clark Westwood

    The willingness of these scholars to look stupid astounds me. I can only assume they take the stakes to be that high.
     
    It astounds me, too. We need a word for this phenomenon -- when scientists intentionally lead people away from what they know, or strongly suspect, to be true.

    “We need a word for this phenomenon”

    It’s called lying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Jack D
    In the Talmud, it say that Jael did Sisera seven times so that he would be really exhausted when she tried to killed him, but it was for a good cause so it wasn't a sin.

    In the Talmud, it say that Jael did Sisera seven times so that he would be really exhausted when she tried to killed him, but it was for a good cause so it wasn’t a sin.

    Completely necessary, given that Sisera was an ancient superhero:

    Also according to the Midrash,[13] Sisera had previously conquered every country against which he had fought. His voice was so strong that, when he called loudly, the most solid wall would shake and the wildest animal would fall dead. Deborah was the only one who could withstand his voice and not be stirred from her place. Sisera caught fish enough in his beard when bathing in the Kishon to provision his whole army, and thirty-one kings followed Sisera merely for the opportunity of drinking, or otherwise using, the waters of Israel.[11]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Jack D says:
    @AM
    Pre-1880 Jewish peoples tended be slave or other merchants and settle in cities. The slave trade was probably why that family was in Savannah, Georgia. It's stretch to call them settlers.

    There are people who built this country (and Canada) and that's all of my ancestors, who farmed, etc. Diaspora Jews fall into patterns and what they aren't is homesteaders in the wilderness. Interestingly, they'll do that in Israel, but no other land.

    So the only kind of “real” settlers are farmers? Ben Franklin, Paul Revere – all parasites?

    Was the only kind of trade in Savannah the slave trade? There were no Jewish doctors or lawyers, shopkeepers, jewelers, etc. – the only thing they could do was buy and sell slaves? What about the ship captains who bought the slaves in Africa – were they all Jews too? You should get together with the Black Muslims because they believe the same kind of crap.

    It was the custom of wealthy merchants (including Jews) in the south to have a home in town and a plantation in the countryside, so the Jewish merchants were farmers too.

    (Confederate) Major Raphael Moses is considered the father of the Georgia peach farming business. He figured out a way to pack the peaches so that they would survive a journey to the big cities of the North, which increased their value tremendously.

    http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/business-economy/raphael-moses-1812-1893

    He was also an important commissary officer during the Civil War. The Union troops just took whatever they wanted in the South but the Confederates always paid for what they took, even in their raids into Yankee territory. The bad news is that they paid in Confederate money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    "So the only kind of “real” settlers are farmers? Ben Franklin, Paul Revere – all parasites?
     
    How many Jews put their lives on the line for this country at any point in time? I'll wait...(a very long time)

    Some have, to their credit, but they are not usually patriots in any country. Rates of military service, except in Israel where it's required are almost non-existent. That you've found the one exception in the Civil War era is fabulous. It's an exception, not the rule.

    Was the only kind of trade in Savannah the slave trade? There were no Jewish doctors or lawyers, shopkeepers, jewelers, etc. – the only thing they could do was buy and sell slaves? What about the ship captains who bought the slaves in Africa – were they all Jews too? You should get together with the Black Muslims because they believe the same kind of crap.
     
    Defensive, aren't we? Did you know that slave markets often closed on Jewish holidays? And highly doubt Savannah, GA needed just oodles of lawyers and jewelers in the colonial era.

    And no, the captains were not Jewish. Quite often they were English or Dutch.

    There is no point in denying the truth. The greatest Jews understand the truth of their people's experience and in doing so have a great connection to all of humanity.

    It was the custom of wealthy merchants (including Jews) in the south to have a home in town and a plantation in the countryside, so the Jewish merchants were farmers too.
     
    LOL! A hobby farm is not homesteading in the wilderness. My God, the mind blindness here. There is nothing wrong with Jews as they are, as long as they keep the Covenant and are honest. But until they understand that a hobby farm is not homestead or to translate today, a nice summer place on a lake is nothing like living on the Great Lakes year around in a modest home where you shovel your snow yourself, nothing changes.

    It's okay that Jews are rich. Just stop trying to be poor and the makers of great nations. Ugh.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. AM says:
    @Jack D
    So the only kind of "real" settlers are farmers? Ben Franklin, Paul Revere - all parasites?

    Was the only kind of trade in Savannah the slave trade? There were no Jewish doctors or lawyers, shopkeepers, jewelers, etc. - the only thing they could do was buy and sell slaves? What about the ship captains who bought the slaves in Africa - were they all Jews too? You should get together with the Black Muslims because they believe the same kind of crap.

    It was the custom of wealthy merchants (including Jews) in the south to have a home in town and a plantation in the countryside, so the Jewish merchants were farmers too.

    (Confederate) Major Raphael Moses is considered the father of the Georgia peach farming business. He figured out a way to pack the peaches so that they would survive a journey to the big cities of the North, which increased their value tremendously.

    http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/business-economy/raphael-moses-1812-1893

    He was also an important commissary officer during the Civil War. The Union troops just took whatever they wanted in the South but the Confederates always paid for what they took, even in their raids into Yankee territory. The bad news is that they paid in Confederate money.

    “So the only kind of “real” settlers are farmers? Ben Franklin, Paul Revere – all parasites?

    How many Jews put their lives on the line for this country at any point in time? I’ll wait…(a very long time)

    Some have, to their credit, but they are not usually patriots in any country. Rates of military service, except in Israel where it’s required are almost non-existent. That you’ve found the one exception in the Civil War era is fabulous. It’s an exception, not the rule.

    Was the only kind of trade in Savannah the slave trade? There were no Jewish doctors or lawyers, shopkeepers, jewelers, etc. – the only thing they could do was buy and sell slaves? What about the ship captains who bought the slaves in Africa – were they all Jews too? You should get together with the Black Muslims because they believe the same kind of crap.

    Defensive, aren’t we? Did you know that slave markets often closed on Jewish holidays? And highly doubt Savannah, GA needed just oodles of lawyers and jewelers in the colonial era.

    And no, the captains were not Jewish. Quite often they were English or Dutch.

    There is no point in denying the truth. The greatest Jews understand the truth of their people’s experience and in doing so have a great connection to all of humanity.

    It was the custom of wealthy merchants (including Jews) in the south to have a home in town and a plantation in the countryside, so the Jewish merchants were farmers too.

    LOL! A hobby farm is not homesteading in the wilderness. My God, the mind blindness here. There is nothing wrong with Jews as they are, as long as they keep the Covenant and are honest. But until they understand that a hobby farm is not homestead or to translate today, a nice summer place on a lake is nothing like living on the Great Lakes year around in a modest home where you shovel your snow yourself, nothing changes.

    It’s okay that Jews are rich. Just stop trying to be poor and the makers of great nations. Ugh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. AM says:
    @syonredux

    Those are websites looking for click throughs and daily content. If you’re looking for intellectual, head over to Lawrence Auster’s archived blog http://www.amnation.com/vfr/,
     
    I've read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though....

    along with Moldbug. (Moldbug is more reactionary, though.)
     
    When it comes to Moldbug, I'd rather read Carlyle.

    I’ve read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though….

    He’s alt-right, at least to me. :) I’m pretty sure no “respectable” conservative publication would publish his thoughts on women, progressivism, the races, and Jews.

    When it comes to Moldbug, I’d rather read Carlyle.

    I’ve skimmed some Moldbug. I don’t have the 2nd life required to read through all of it. I’ll have to look up Carlyle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. AM says:
    @Jack D
    I can think of six million reasons why they look at this differently. There is no equivalent of the story of the MS St. Louis ( the "Voyage of the Damned") forming a part of the Italian-American self-conception. It wasn't a matter of life and death. When the doors slammed after the Immigration Act of '24, Cousin Luigi stayed home in Palermo - he was poor but OK. But Cousin Leib - the letters stopped coming in '41 and that was it.

    I can think of six million reasons why they look at this differently. There is no equivalent of the story of the MS St. Louis ( the “Voyage of the Damned”) forming a part of the Italian-American self-conception.

    Oh, good grief. Does this sense that others owe you things ever stop?

    The Holocaust is not a free pass to think you’re entitled to citizenship in any nation. And as matter fact, the Jews were practically given a nation of their own because of it. The Ukrainians had to wait until well after to the Jews to get their nation back after Holodmor. And still…we “owe you” a safe place to be. Well, no.

    How about the Jews learn to take up arms and defend themselves? They do that in Israel. It can be done. The OT talks about some badasked Hebrew warriors. Where’s that tradition? How about understanding the tense, guest/host nature of Judaism in any place but Israel? The best rabbis do understand that. It appears that most Jews do not. headshake

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    This has nothing to do with others owing the Jews things. It has to do with sympathy for the underdog, the refugee, etc. Now this sympathy may be misplaced - Libyan "refugee" bombers are nothing like the passengers of the St. Louis and it's stupid to analogize them. They are both floating on boats and that's about it. But it's better than having nothing but contempt for your co-religionists the way upper class WASPS have contempt for working class whites. The road to hell is paved with good intentions but bad intentions ARE hell in themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @syonredux

    Those are websites looking for click throughs and daily content. If you’re looking for intellectual, head over to Lawrence Auster’s archived blog http://www.amnation.com/vfr/,
     
    I've read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though....

    along with Moldbug. (Moldbug is more reactionary, though.)
     
    When it comes to Moldbug, I'd rather read Carlyle.

    I’ve read Auster. He was a really smart guy. Not sure that he counts as Alt-Right, though….

    I think Auster considered himself Alt-Right. IIRC, his blog was where I first came across that term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. old jew says:
    @Crawfurdmuir
    The use of the word "gentile" as a synonym for non-Jewish has an implication that may not be understood by all of its users.

    The word comes from the Latin gens, gentis which can mean a clan or group of kinsmen (e.g., the Julio-Claudian gens), or more generally a tribe or nation. Thus it is used in the phrase jus gentium, the law of nations.

    In the Vulgate Bible, the word is used, e.g., in Psalm 2:1 - Quare fremuerunt gentes et populi meditati sunt inania? - with the meaning of gentes in this context being "heathen." Thus, at least, the Authorized Version translates it: "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" Squire Jennens, in his lyric for Messiah has rendered it "nations," as set most magnificently by Handel:

    https://youtu.be/3lFJHGGErcQ

    Perhaps the Squire thought "nations" more genteel than "heathen." However, when a Jew calls someone who is not a Jew a "gentile," he is calling him a heathen. When a non-Jew identifies himself as a "gentile," he is describing himself as heathen. Of course, assuming he be a Christian, or a Mahommedan, he does not and should not regard himself as a heathen. Heathen seems to me to have a pejorative cast; perhaps someone here who knows Hebrew can say whether the corresponding Hebrew word in Psalm 2 also does.

    I checked Psalm 2:1 in blueletterbible.org

    The word for heathens is Goyim

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Goyim means "nations", not "heathens". Implicitly, it means "foreign nations" - nations other than the Jews. Judaism has no concept of "people of the book" where they give credit specifically to Muslims and Christians as being related religions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Joe Walker says: • Website

    My guess, however, is that most American gentiles, of whatever race, recognize that Jews tend to be smarter — e.g., 1/50th of the U.S. population makes up about 1/3rd of the Forbes 400 — and admire them for that fact.

    Let me correct you on this point: Most white American gentiles might admire them for this fact if it were not for the other fact that many Jews use their higher IQs to undermine white American gentiles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  173. mobi says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    It seems like every thread about Jews fits a pattern. Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.

    The cycle of stupidity.

    It seems like every thread about Jews fits a pattern. Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.

    The cycle of stupidity.

    Yes, and similarly, endless stories here and elsewhere reporting on the daily havoc caused by blacks, triggering a flood of really hurtful comments about black dysfunction, thereby serving to justify the bad attitudes of blacks in the first place.

    Idiots!

    Read More
    • Agree: AM
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Sarcasm noted, Whites (including Jews) bear some guilt for the horrific treatment of blacks and the expected long-term resentment.

    However, to address your point, black dysfunction is easily quantifiable and exists whether or not whites are present. (an ethical person will treat people as individuals and only generalize when necessary). In contrast, most attacks on Jews rely on anecdotes, exaggerations, outright lies, and double standards. I would suggest these attacks are a huge negative sum game, but feel free to keep playing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Jack D says:
    @old jew
    I checked Psalm 2:1 in blueletterbible.org

    The word for heathens is Goyim

    Goyim means “nations”, not “heathens”. Implicitly, it means “foreign nations” – nations other than the Jews. Judaism has no concept of “people of the book” where they give credit specifically to Muslims and Christians as being related religions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    Goyim means “nations”, not “heathens”. Implicitly, it means “foreign nations”
     
    Also, 'Goyishe Kopf' means 'Foreign nation-head'.
    , @AM

    Judaism has no concept of “people of the book” where they give credit specifically to Muslims and Christians as being related religions.
     
    And this attitude mostly certainly increases the feelings of fellowship, particularly in Christian nations. ahem :)
    , @Old Jew
    Jack,

    You are absolutely right.

    But at the time Psalm 2 was written (say 2800 years ago) there did not exist yet “people of the book”. Whoever was not one of the B'nay Israel (and 2800 year ago no Diaspora Jews are mentioned), was automatically a disbeliever in the God of Israel, thus a "heathen".

    I lack the scholarship, to know who translated this Psalms into English for the first time ( way before the KJV), but the translation to "heathens" appears to identify correctly the intent of the Psalm author.

    I wonder whether the Koyne Greek language, into which the Psalms were translated (Septuagint, 200 B.C.) had a word for "Heathen" since the Greek were polytheists themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Olorin
    I'm guessing the fear is more like:

    If the goyim were allowed to parse out our IQ subpopulations as genetically closely as the Ashkenazim get to do--only include up to our 4th or 5th cousins--there will be goyische subpopulations with a higher mean IQ than those usually touted as the superiors of whites.

    I’m guessing the fear is more like:

    If the goyim were allowed to parse out our IQ subpopulations as genetically closely as the Ashkenazim get to do–only include up to our 4th or 5th cousins–there will be goyische subpopulations with a higher mean IQ than those usually touted as the superiors of whites.

    Fear? Huh? Why would Jews fear that?

    Sure, their are plenty of white gentile “families” that are smarter than Jews so what? There are really smart Jewish and Chinese, Japanese, Korean … families as well. But our smart white gentile families are not fully endogamous. While their certainly are branches that stay smart–and successful and upper class–for generations. There are also leaves and then branches that are eventually breeding off into the larger gentile population. I.e. these families are not an ethnic group.

    Get over it. Jews–or more specifically the Ashkenazim are smart. They are the smartest ethnic group in the world. Its because they were
    a) selected for literacy–the ability to be literate–from the start of rabbinic Judaism
    and
    b) operated as a middle man minority–specifically doing money lending–on top of the reasonably smart (by world standards) Europeans

    There are other smart middle man ethnic groups. The overseas Chinese. But they aren’t as smart as the Jews. They weren’t middle man minorities on top of European whites. The Indian Brahmins–also with a long tradition of literacy–very smart. So are the Parsis. But they weren’t being selected for IQ over an above European whites, but over and above Indians. A selected sub-population–say Indian Brahmins *in the United States* probably are smarter than the Jews. (The Brahmins here are highly selected.) But they are not a distinct ethnic group by themselves. They are not endogamous here–specifically they’ll drag brides from home and outbreed here.

    Of actual existing ethnic groups, the Ashkenazi Jews are the smartest. That may not last with high outbreeding and very high fertility by the ultra-Orthodox who I doubt are really the pick of the litter and don’t have anything like the sort of selection Ashkenazi traditionally had. But right now the Ashkenazi are the IQ champs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. mobi says:
    @Jack D
    Goyim means "nations", not "heathens". Implicitly, it means "foreign nations" - nations other than the Jews. Judaism has no concept of "people of the book" where they give credit specifically to Muslims and Christians as being related religions.

    Goyim means “nations”, not “heathens”. Implicitly, it means “foreign nations”

    Also, ‘Goyishe Kopf’ means ‘Foreign nation-head’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @mobi

    Somebody needs to tell the alt-righters who go around calling themselves “goys” that this is a category that includes all the world’s non-whites.
     
    But the context is that it's a preferred term of contempt for white gentiles, by jews. And thus, a dismissal of said contempt.

    Is there a similar term which encompasses only white 'goy'?

    I think they're using it correctly.

    “Goy” is not a term of contempt. It just means “people” or “nation”, and it can refer to Jews too. For example in Genesis 12:2, where God promises Abraham,

    “And I will make of thee a great nation”

    “nation” corresponds to “goy” in the original Hebrew.

    If “goy” is ever used pejoratively, that is only a reflection of the speaker’s attitude. Same as “bagpipe player” is only pejorative if the speaker dislikes the sound of bagpipes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    “Goy” is not a term of contempt....If “goy” is ever used pejoratively, that is only a reflection of the speaker’s attitude.
     
    You know, if y'all stopped assuming we're stupid, it might work better. I think, though, it might be asking a pine tree to be oak.
    , @Anonymous
    Stop lying. It means a 2 legged animal, unclean thing, a piece of filth
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. AM says:
    @Yak-15
    I am Episcopalian. And some of the most rabid SJWs I know are my cousins (who also happened to have grown up very wealthy). Our church is burdened with a rapacious social justice sect that insists on homosexual priests conducting mass and being married in our church by other gay priests.

    Go throughout Chicago and you will see many Episcopalian churches with rainbow flags, BLM placards and "no hate here" posters.

    My church is largely hijacked by monstrous imbeciles who think these actions will make them more pious and increase our flock. Meanwhile, my home church withers in size as the kids aren't returning to the suburbs and aren't having kids. And they wonder why it's falling apart. It's disgraceful.

    My church is largely hijacked by monstrous imbeciles who think these actions will make them more pious and increase our flock. Meanwhile, my home church withers in size as the kids aren’t returning to the suburbs and aren’t having kids. And they wonder why it’s falling apart. It’s disgraceful.

    They’re really the new social climbers, kind of. It’s sad. I was not religious for at least two decades. My husband and I decided to go back to church and we had a choice. If CS Lewis’ church was still around, we would have gone there I think. As it is, we’re Catholics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. AM says:
    @International Jew
    "Goy" is not a term of contempt. It just means "people" or "nation", and it can refer to Jews too. For example in Genesis 12:2, where God promises Abraham,

    "And I will make of thee a great nation"

    "nation" corresponds to "goy" in the original Hebrew.

    If "goy" is ever used pejoratively, that is only a reflection of the speaker's attitude. Same as "bagpipe player" is only pejorative if the speaker dislikes the sound of bagpipes.

    “Goy” is not a term of contempt….If “goy” is ever used pejoratively, that is only a reflection of the speaker’s attitude.

    You know, if y’all stopped assuming we’re stupid, it might work better. I think, though, it might be asking a pine tree to be oak.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    According to the Jewish dictionary shiksa, goy and goyim means " an unclean thing, a piece of filth, a 2 legged animal put on earth to be servants of Jews."

    Why do you think so many hasids and other ultra orthodox use prostitutes during the 2 weeks of the month when their wives are" a pitcher of filth filled with decayed blood"

    It's because non Jewish goy prostitutes are not really human but 2 legged animals.
    Therefor according to the Talmud, a married Jewish man can have sex with a goy female because she is not really a human. Sex with 4 and 2 legged animals is not adultery because they are not human.

    That's what they really think of us. Just look at what they did to the goyim of Russia, Eastern Europe and Palestine when they took over.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. AM says:
    @Jack D
    Goyim means "nations", not "heathens". Implicitly, it means "foreign nations" - nations other than the Jews. Judaism has no concept of "people of the book" where they give credit specifically to Muslims and Christians as being related religions.

    Judaism has no concept of “people of the book” where they give credit specifically to Muslims and Christians as being related religions.

    And this attitude mostly certainly increases the feelings of fellowship, particularly in Christian nations. ahem :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    It seems like every thread about Jews fits a pattern. Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.

    The cycle of stupidity.

    Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.

    Steve is a smart guy and an incorrigible mensch; he often pulls his punches in an attempt to “nudge” the recalcitrant by means of reason and good humor. Some of us commenters are a little more blunt. This moderated forum has been excellent for allowing everyone to engage without too much shouting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Olorin says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Yes, this is precisely what we're worried about. It's remarkable that you figured this out. I imagine you must be in one of the genius subpopulations that will clean our clocks in chess. We really worry about stuff like that.

    No, but we do constitute the vast majority of Nobel prize winners, as Jack D points out at 48. Though I was once called “anti Semitic” for suggesting that quite innocently.

    And we have much lower rates of certain types of crazy.

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/mental-illness-and-the-jews/

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.560128

    http://forward.com/news/350067/jews-must-take-mental-illness-out-of-the-shadows/

    Never much liked chess. Played it as a kid when Bobby Fischer was publishing his column in was it Boys’ Life and followed him up till Reykjavik and a few years after. Liked being outside more. Also electronics and music.

    Ya see, while we Europa-Americans are in fact more altruistic and less prone to recognizing ill-will till it really hurts us…we also react badly to having our altruism and kindness weaponized against us.

    When that turns into a global grievance industry that wants to turn us into the moral saponifying agent for the rest of humanity, our desire to rinse it all down the drain should come as no surprise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur
    The only thing I'll agree with you is that White Americans are suffering severe discrimination in the USA, which is especially harmful at the middle and lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. … anti IQ science denialism is largely driven by Jewish paranoia… : many Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.

    Or maybe because it would mean that the left has been wrong about almost everything for 200 years and that the conservatives were right all along.

    It means the conservatives were right about blacks during reconstruction and the civil rights era.

    It means the conservatives were right when they opposed immigration from non NW European countries.

    It means eugenics is real.

    It means that the Nazi racial hierarchy was accurate.

    It means that universal education can’t improve the masses.

    It means that anti-poverty programs can’t work.

    It means that an egalitarian society is impossible.

    Etc etc etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  184. Ben Kurtz says: • Website
    @Crawfurdmuir
    The use of the word "gentile" as a synonym for non-Jewish has an implication that may not be understood by all of its users.

    The word comes from the Latin gens, gentis which can mean a clan or group of kinsmen (e.g., the Julio-Claudian gens), or more generally a tribe or nation. Thus it is used in the phrase jus gentium, the law of nations.

    In the Vulgate Bible, the word is used, e.g., in Psalm 2:1 - Quare fremuerunt gentes et populi meditati sunt inania? - with the meaning of gentes in this context being "heathen." Thus, at least, the Authorized Version translates it: "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" Squire Jennens, in his lyric for Messiah has rendered it "nations," as set most magnificently by Handel:

    https://youtu.be/3lFJHGGErcQ

    Perhaps the Squire thought "nations" more genteel than "heathen." However, when a Jew calls someone who is not a Jew a "gentile," he is calling him a heathen. When a non-Jew identifies himself as a "gentile," he is describing himself as heathen. Of course, assuming he be a Christian, or a Mahommedan, he does not and should not regard himself as a heathen. Heathen seems to me to have a pejorative cast; perhaps someone here who knows Hebrew can say whether the corresponding Hebrew word in Psalm 2 also does.

    The Hebrew word in question at Psalm 2:1 is “goyim,” which is the plural of “goy.” “Goy,” in the first instance, simply means “nation,” and in Biblical usage is not pejorative. In fact, the Jewish nation itself is referred to using the term “goy” elsewhere in scripture, such as at Deuteronomy 26:5.

    Only later, basically in European Yiddish usage, did the term really pick up the strong connotation of “non-Jewish nation” or “non-Jewish individual,” along with an associated pejorative sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @International Jew

    for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration.
     
    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to "deconstruct the American people"? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

    Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you're likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

    What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”?

    There was no Jewish Charles Lindbergh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Old Jew says:
    @Jack D
    Goyim means "nations", not "heathens". Implicitly, it means "foreign nations" - nations other than the Jews. Judaism has no concept of "people of the book" where they give credit specifically to Muslims and Christians as being related religions.

    Jack,

    You are absolutely right.

    But at the time Psalm 2 was written (say 2800 years ago) there did not exist yet “people of the book”. Whoever was not one of the B’nay Israel (and 2800 year ago no Diaspora Jews are mentioned), was automatically a disbeliever in the God of Israel, thus a “heathen”.

    I lack the scholarship, to know who translated this Psalms into English for the first time ( way before the KJV), but the translation to “heathens” appears to identify correctly the intent of the Psalm author.

    I wonder whether the Koyne Greek language, into which the Psalms were translated (Septuagint, 200 B.C.) had a word for “Heathen” since the Greek were polytheists themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    First Englis translation of that collection of myths and fables plagiarized from the story of Gilgamesh was in the early 1500s by an English man named Tyndale.
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    The LXX has έθνη for heathen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Bunyip says:
    @AM

    ". Black anger and “we wuz kangs” comes from being unable to create functional societies, or–for many–even making use of copious opportunities to make a decent life in a white society."
     
    They can create functional societies for other blacks. Whites from a certain POV are quite strange creatures. A modest lifestyle and protecting your family well is no, not the height of European achievement or civilization, but there is nothing wrong with it as a way to spend a life.

    "And “anti-Semitism”–at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here–is about the negative behavior–political and cultural–of Jews. We want Jews to “shape up”–stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or “fellow Americans”–or go away."
     
    I am agreed. I don't hate Jews and I don't think they're even capable of conspiracies because on the balance they don't seem all that smart. ;) The issue is that modern, secularized Jews in particular are no way aligned with the interests of the country. In sense I feel like I want shake their shoulders and scream "Stop being your own stereotype!". It ends poorly if the US collapses and everyone is looking for someone to blame.

    Jews will be attacked no matter what they do so they need to ‘get their retaliation in first’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @mobi

    It seems like every thread about Jews fits a pattern. Steve Sailer shows that some Jews hold strange opinions out of fear and paranoia. And then many commenters prove that Jewish paranoia is justified.

    The cycle of stupidity.
     
    Yes, and similarly, endless stories here and elsewhere reporting on the daily havoc caused by blacks, triggering a flood of really hurtful comments about black dysfunction, thereby serving to justify the bad attitudes of blacks in the first place.

    Idiots!

    Sarcasm noted, Whites (including Jews) bear some guilt for the horrific treatment of blacks and the expected long-term resentment.

    However, to address your point, black dysfunction is easily quantifiable and exists whether or not whites are present. (an ethical person will treat people as individuals and only generalize when necessary). In contrast, most attacks on Jews rely on anecdotes, exaggerations, outright lies, and double standards. I would suggest these attacks are a huge negative sum game, but feel free to keep playing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Jack D says:
    @AM

    I can think of six million reasons why they look at this differently. There is no equivalent of the story of the MS St. Louis ( the “Voyage of the Damned”) forming a part of the Italian-American self-conception.
     
    Oh, good grief. Does this sense that others owe you things ever stop?

    The Holocaust is not a free pass to think you're entitled to citizenship in any nation. And as matter fact, the Jews were practically given a nation of their own because of it. The Ukrainians had to wait until well after to the Jews to get their nation back after Holodmor. And still...we "owe you" a safe place to be. Well, no.

    How about the Jews learn to take up arms and defend themselves? They do that in Israel. It can be done. The OT talks about some badasked Hebrew warriors. Where's that tradition? How about understanding the tense, guest/host nature of Judaism in any place but Israel? The best rabbis do understand that. It appears that most Jews do not. headshake

    This has nothing to do with others owing the Jews things. It has to do with sympathy for the underdog, the refugee, etc. Now this sympathy may be misplaced – Libyan “refugee” bombers are nothing like the passengers of the St. Louis and it’s stupid to analogize them. They are both floating on boats and that’s about it. But it’s better than having nothing but contempt for your co-religionists the way upper class WASPS have contempt for working class whites. The road to hell is paved with good intentions but bad intentions ARE hell in themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    But it’s better than having nothing but contempt for your co-religionists the way upper class WASPS have contempt for working class whites. The road to hell is paved with good intentions but bad intentions ARE hell in themselves.
     
    LOL! Nice way to refuse to address everything I said. Also to completely miss the point of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

    If somebody hates for reasons based in truth, God/Christ might be able to redeem them, because they care about truth. They care about justice.

    There is no colder individual on the planet than that wishes to look like they're sympathetic. That cares only for the perceived underdog because "nice".

    The Book of Job covers this topic quite neatly. Jesus warns everyone that looking like a Pharisee will keep people outside the walls of Heaven.

    No, so sympathy is not "better". It's easy, low cost "morality" that means you never have to think or concern yourself with what real justice looks like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Anon 2 says:
    @Jack D

    The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from–both materially and in terms of “stolen” genetic selection–European gentile societies.
     
    Only if you take the Marxist view that property is theft. As you say, Jews were a middle-man minority. Think of the middle-man functions in our society. Retailing, for example. Was Sam Walton a "looter" or a creator of value? When Wal-Mart buys a head of broccoli from a farmer for 25 cents and sells it to you for $1.38, are they "stealing" from the farmer? Only from the stupidest Marxist point of view.

    The Jews were invited to Poland by the Polish kings precisely in order to set up such middle-man businesses. The locals for whatever reason didn't want to/weren't capable of doing these jobs. The same process is still going on in other parts of the world. In every Egyptian village, there is a lingerie store run by a Chinese family. Egyptian women look like they are wearing flour sacks on the outside, but underneath they (and their husbands) like really kinky underwear. Are the Chinese "looting" the Egyptian peasants who buy this stuff or are they providing a service that the locals apparently want?

    BTW, if Jews are just parasites, how is it that Israel, starting from nothing, has achieved close to European levels of prosperity in a region where everyone else is poor (not counting oil wealth)?

    By 1550 90% of the world’s Jews lived in the
    Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Mostly they
    ended up in Poland not so much because they were
    invited by kings but because they were expelled, often
    repeatedly, from England, Spain, France, Italy, and the
    German states. Poland, because of its size and religious
    tolerance, became a magnet for many dissidents from all over
    Europe, not just Jews. Russia, while watching the expulsions
    of Jews from Western Europe, made sure they would not
    end up on their territory, and simply banned Jews from
    settling in Russian lands

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. It’s worth it to remember the technological advances of the Nazi regime, which was actively persecuting and driving out its Jewish intellectuals. One would assume that driving out the very brightest group would be utterly crippling, but they managed some extraordinary feats of ingenuity during the war, something the allies could only barely match with several orders of magnitude more resources at their disposal.

    Imagine if UCLA suddenly banned Asians from its student body, then cut their budget in half, and still managed to double the number of breakthrough discoveries they had. Such things shouldn’t happen according to the uber-Jew theory, but that’s basically what happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Like the Nazi nuclear bomb ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Beelzeboss
    It's worth it to remember the technological advances of the Nazi regime, which was actively persecuting and driving out its Jewish intellectuals. One would assume that driving out the very brightest group would be utterly crippling, but they managed some extraordinary feats of ingenuity during the war, something the allies could only barely match with several orders of magnitude more resources at their disposal.

    Imagine if UCLA suddenly banned Asians from its student body, then cut their budget in half, and still managed to double the number of breakthrough discoveries they had. Such things shouldn't happen according to the uber-Jew theory, but that's basically what happened.

    Like the Nazi nuclear bomb …

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    The so-called "Heisenberg Device" worked on Amazon's documentary series The Man in the High Castle.

    But seriously, the above poster did specify the allies' greater resources. I don't think Speer could've wrangled the Manhattan Project even if Heisenberg weren't doing it wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Olorin
    No, but we do constitute the vast majority of Nobel prize winners, as Jack D points out at 48. Though I was once called "anti Semitic" for suggesting that quite innocently.

    And we have much lower rates of certain types of crazy.

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/mental-illness-and-the-jews/

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.560128

    http://forward.com/news/350067/jews-must-take-mental-illness-out-of-the-shadows/

    Never much liked chess. Played it as a kid when Bobby Fischer was publishing his column in was it Boys' Life and followed him up till Reykjavik and a few years after. Liked being outside more. Also electronics and music.

    Ya see, while we Europa-Americans are in fact more altruistic and less prone to recognizing ill-will till it really hurts us...we also react badly to having our altruism and kindness weaponized against us.

    When that turns into a global grievance industry that wants to turn us into the moral saponifying agent for the rest of humanity, our desire to rinse it all down the drain should come as no surprise.

    The only thing I’ll agree with you is that White Americans are suffering severe discrimination in the USA, which is especially harmful at the middle and lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Sailer:

    It’s probably not a coincidence that the younger academic, Harden, takes a less extremist stance than the two older professors. Dr. Harden will likely be around a lot longer than Turkheimer and Nisbett, so she’s more concerned about what the rapid advance in genomic science will uncover over the rest of her lifetime than are the two older guys.
     
    Harden and others are already attempting a goodthink academic indoctrination workaround to the political awkwardness of scientifically acknowledging genetic differences regarding race and intelligence. They call themselves the Hereditarian Left and use a “Rawlsian framework” to argue for socialist redistribution of "goods in a society." Here's a short powerpoint by Harden and company:

    Fortune’s Favor: Implications of Behavioral Genetic Research for Distributive and Retributive Justice

    Her powerpoint unwittingly (or brazenly) echoes Steven Colbert’s satirical “I don’t see race!” idiotic blindness with the promotion of John Rawls’s “original position” and “veil of ignorance” social contract theory.

    Harden gives the choice of

    (superior) genes = inherent merit ~or~
    (superior) genes = undeserved luck

    The weasel word / straw man here is the melodramatic use of “merit.” Value or asset in a given context is what matters (e.g. height in the NBA or runway modeling). Basically her argument is “Yeah okay so your undeserved lucky genes make you smarter. So what? You didn’t build that!” The implication being that the fruits of your (and your ancestors) labor and intellect should be meted out to the unfortunate (stupid) Orcs.

    Disclaimer at powerpoint’s conclusion:

    Behavioral genetic research does not necessarily support any one political ideology.
     
    Strangely, though, Harden’s leftist/socialist sympathies are plainly stated. Shouldn’t she be neutral? The powerpoint begs the question that “Distributive Justice’’ is the desired social goal and doesn't provide a case for alternative viewpoints.

    Steve, are you up for a Twitter debate with HBD-aware Harden? I would love to see how far she doubles down on ‘social justice’ agnostic of broadly negative consequences for the nation. What does she think of l’affaire Richwine, etc.

    Rawls was pretty strongly in favor of immigration restriction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Yes, and I wonder how long his reputation among philosophers will last.

    He's still too massive a presence at this stage to be taken down entirely. But his views on immigration -- "Global Justice" -- have been subjected to withering criticism.

    No one's too big to escape the Social Justice movement, and its Warriors are legion in philosophy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. guest says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Like the Nazi nuclear bomb ...

    The so-called “Heisenberg Device” worked on Amazon’s documentary series The Man in the High Castle.

    But seriously, the above poster did specify the allies’ greater resources. I don’t think Speer could’ve wrangled the Manhattan Project even if Heisenberg weren’t doing it wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Nazis devoted a lot of resources where they wanted to - for example to the rocket program. It's easier when you have slave labor. In some alternate nightmare universe, I could see an underground uranium separation plant manned by concentration camp prisoners. For a while, my father worked on excavating a mountain where they were going to build parts for Me-262s.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KZ-Au%25C3%259Fenlager_Vaihingen&prev=search

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Vinay
    "Turkheimer’s example is a bit of a misdirection, since it would be more straightforward in this debate over IQ to discuss higher Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQs."

    No, it's the correct example because he wants to compare a negative trait associated with Jews (materialism), with IQ in African Americans. And his question is, would you really want to know this?

    It's a good question because no legitimate purpose seems to be served by comparing aggregate materialism between groups, and the potential for harm is obvious. So why are aggregate IQ differences a legitimate form of enquiry?

    One obvious answer to this is that anti-discrimination policies don't presume that all ethnic groups are equally materialistic. So IQ is different that way. But, then again, anti-discrimination policy doesn't have to necessarily make any assumption of IQ, either.

    It’s a good question because no legitimate purpose seems to be served by comparing aggregate materialism between groups, and the potential for harm is obvious. So why are aggregate IQ differences a legitimate form of enquiry?

    One obvious answer to this is that anti-discrimination policies don’t presume that all ethnic groups are equally materialistic. So IQ is different that way. But, then again, anti-discrimination policy doesn’t have to necessarily make any assumption of IQ, either.

    Vinay, valid point about the negative trait example.

    But on anti-discrimination and IQ:

    –> “Anti-discrimination” is propaganda in word choice as is “civil rights”. What’s going on is a whole anti-white, anti-male and anti-native/citizen ideology. There’s a whole lot to be gained by me, my kids, descendants by debunking it. (I think my girls even benefit from debunking the anti-male crap. What they’d most benefit by in the long run is good husbands with good jobs.)

    –> Directly on the IQ point “educational romanticism”–kudos to whomever coined that–is a tremendous misallocation of resources in our society.
    We do lots stupid stuff “closing the racial achievement gap” which in turn motivates a lot of the “all kids college ready” nonsense. (Both goals of my kids’ school district.) A good part of the college bubble could be deflated if we could get dump the bogus logic of Griggs, admit that IQ matters across the employment spectrum and just get back to occupational testing. (Like the military is allowed to use.) This is all pretty much blocked by the “racist testing!” canard.

    –> You’re right you can have anti-discrimination policy that doesn’t make assumptions about IQ. But we don’t have that. That’s the whole point!

    –> When you do “anti-discrimination” IQ knowledge changes–improves–the politics.
    Let’s say you’re in a multi-ethnic society and politics requires you to have some sort of “race” or “ethnic” fairness to compensate for big differences in group achievement. Example: India’s reservation system. It’s actually a heck of a lot better–ultimately less contentious–if the society has the IQ knowledge and admits what it is doing. “Yes the Brahmins are way smarter than these ST, SC and OBC folks, but they don’t deserve to get all the good jobs in our democratic nation.” As contentious as this is, it’s way better than a politics of conspiracy where the lower achieving groups are left are constantly blaming smart groups for “cheating” or “stealing all the good stuff” or “structural racism”.

    For instance an inflator/deflator limit of 4x sounds pretty “fair” to me. Your group couldn’t be over or under represented by 4 times. So say you’re doling out med school admissions in the US. Indians couldn’t be more 4%, Chinese 6%, Jews 8%, while blacks couldn’t be less than 3%, “Hispanics” 4%. And within each group you can select the very best folks. This is way better than “disparate impact” where say the low quality of the black applicants for Chicago PD jobs forces you to drop your testing standards to a “write your name” test in order to get proportional black candidates. Rather you figure out a quota and go–and hire the best blacks you can find.

    IQ knowledge reduces the damage because the “cheating” is in public. Everyone knows score and why its being done. You’ll still have contention, but not the lying. You’ll have more good faith efforts to understand the other guys and more acceptance and willingness to “take one for the team”.

    ~~~

    Finally what is the purpose of this research? Knowledge!

    You do academic research just to learn stuff about the world. To be smarter, to be more knowledgeable, to have a more accurate picture of reality.

    And the evolution of IQ group differences is about the most important piece of knowledge you can have. If you have any serious interest in understanding human history, why what happened happened and how we got here–IQ knowledge is critical. IQ knowledge is critical to any study of anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics. Those fields are basically jokes when they spin up theories about differences in human populations but ignore the genetic differences between those populations, especially in IQ and other mental traits.

    With due credit to Faber College, “Knowledge is good”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    As bad as our current AA system is, yours is nightmarish. "Too many" Indian med students - sorry, buddy, I know you scored really high on your MCATs but you're out of luck - how are you at cooking curry? What if you are 1/2 Indian? Maybe use the Vonnegut approach and hit those Chinese physics students with a hammer until you knock a few IQ points off of them.

    I think the better approach is to get rid of the whole "group rights" concept and treat everyone as a human. I seem to remember some guy who once said something about judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. That was a long time ago but I think it's still a valid goal, a hell of a lot better than enshrining group rights deeper and deeper into our society. We are suspicious of the French system where they refuse to collect racial statistics but it bugs me when I am asked racial questions - this is really no one's business, especially not the government's.

    , @Anonymous
    The reason so many Hindu immigrants are getting affirmative action jobs in America is that they are fleeing affirmative action discrimination against Brahmins in India. But intelligent White Americans have nowhere to flee anti White discrimination.
    , @MEH 0910

    With due credit to Faber College, “Knowledge is good”.
     
    RIP Flounder.

    Stephen Furst, who played hapless frat pledge Flounder in 'National Lampoon's Animal House,' has died

    Stephen Furst, best known for his role as the hapless Delta House fraternity pledge Kent “Flounder” Dorfman in the landmark comedy “National Lampoon’s Animal House,” has died.

    His sons Nathan and Griffin Furst posted a statement on Twitter that Furst died Friday due to complications from diabetes.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    It’s a good question because no legitimate purpose seems to be served by comparing aggregate materialism between groups, and the potential for harm is obvious. So why are aggregate IQ differences a legitimate form of enquiry?

    One obvious answer to this is that anti-discrimination policies don’t presume that all ethnic groups are equally materialistic. So IQ is different that way. But, then again, anti-discrimination policy doesn’t have to necessarily make any assumption of IQ, either.
     

    Vinay, valid point about the negative trait example.

    But on anti-discrimination and IQ:

    --> "Anti-discrimination" is propaganda in word choice as is "civil rights". What's going on is a whole anti-white, anti-male and anti-native/citizen ideology. There's a whole lot to be gained by me, my kids, descendants by debunking it. (I think my girls even benefit from debunking the anti-male crap. What they'd most benefit by in the long run is good husbands with good jobs.)

    --> Directly on the IQ point "educational romanticism"--kudos to whomever coined that--is a tremendous misallocation of resources in our society.
    We do lots stupid stuff "closing the racial achievement gap" which in turn motivates a lot of the "all kids college ready" nonsense. (Both goals of my kids' school district.) A good part of the college bubble could be deflated if we could get dump the bogus logic of Griggs, admit that IQ matters across the employment spectrum and just get back to occupational testing. (Like the military is allowed to use.) This is all pretty much blocked by the "racist testing!" canard.

    --> You're right you can have anti-discrimination policy that doesn't make assumptions about IQ. But we don't have that. That's the whole point!

    --> When you do "anti-discrimination" IQ knowledge changes--improves--the politics.
    Let's say you're in a multi-ethnic society and politics requires you to have some sort of "race" or "ethnic" fairness to compensate for big differences in group achievement. Example: India's reservation system. It's actually a heck of a lot better--ultimately less contentious--if the society has the IQ knowledge and admits what it is doing. "Yes the Brahmins are way smarter than these ST, SC and OBC folks, but they don't deserve to get all the good jobs in our democratic nation." As contentious as this is, it's way better than a politics of conspiracy where the lower achieving groups are left are constantly blaming smart groups for "cheating" or "stealing all the good stuff" or "structural racism".

    For instance an inflator/deflator limit of 4x sounds pretty "fair" to me. Your group couldn't be over or under represented by 4 times. So say you're doling out med school admissions in the US. Indians couldn't be more 4%, Chinese 6%, Jews 8%, while blacks couldn't be less than 3%, "Hispanics" 4%. And within each group you can select the very best folks. This is way better than "disparate impact" where say the low quality of the black applicants for Chicago PD jobs forces you to drop your testing standards to a "write your name" test in order to get proportional black candidates. Rather you figure out a quota and go--and hire the best blacks you can find.

    IQ knowledge reduces the damage because the "cheating" is in public. Everyone knows score and why its being done. You'll still have contention, but not the lying. You'll have more good faith efforts to understand the other guys and more acceptance and willingness to "take one for the team".

    ~~~

    Finally what is the purpose of this research? Knowledge!

    You do academic research just to learn stuff about the world. To be smarter, to be more knowledgeable, to have a more accurate picture of reality.

    And the evolution of IQ group differences is about the most important piece of knowledge you can have. If you have any serious interest in understanding human history, why what happened happened and how we got here--IQ knowledge is critical. IQ knowledge is critical to any study of anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics. Those fields are basically jokes when they spin up theories about differences in human populations but ignore the genetic differences between those populations, especially in IQ and other mental traits.

    With due credit to Faber College, "Knowledge is good".

    As bad as our current AA system is, yours is nightmarish. “Too many” Indian med students – sorry, buddy, I know you scored really high on your MCATs but you’re out of luck – how are you at cooking curry? What if you are 1/2 Indian? Maybe use the Vonnegut approach and hit those Chinese physics students with a hammer until you knock a few IQ points off of them.

    I think the better approach is to get rid of the whole “group rights” concept and treat everyone as a human. I seem to remember some guy who once said something about judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. That was a long time ago but I think it’s still a valid goal, a hell of a lot better than enshrining group rights deeper and deeper into our society. We are suspicious of the French system where they refuse to collect racial statistics but it bugs me when I am asked racial questions – this is really no one’s business, especially not the government’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Jack D says:
    @guest
    The so-called "Heisenberg Device" worked on Amazon's documentary series The Man in the High Castle.

    But seriously, the above poster did specify the allies' greater resources. I don't think Speer could've wrangled the Manhattan Project even if Heisenberg weren't doing it wrong.

    The Nazis devoted a lot of resources where they wanted to – for example to the rocket program. It’s easier when you have slave labor. In some alternate nightmare universe, I could see an underground uranium separation plant manned by concentration camp prisoners. For a while, my father worked on excavating a mountain where they were going to build parts for Me-262s.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KZ-Au%25C3%259Fenlager_Vaihingen&prev=search

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @David
    With respect, I think you're wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don't know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.

    Most Vermonters couldn't tell you why much of their food comes labeled with a K or U. So I don't think it ever occurred to them that our last governor was a Jew or that the mayor of Burlington, out largest town, is. If they were exposed to the fact, it wouldn't register or mean anything. Noticing that is not a thing here.

    And Shumlin was such a Jew! Poor Vermonters playing with uranium ore thinking all rocks are gneiss.

    Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.

    Oh, please. Bernie Sanders couldn’t be more Jewish if his name was Israel Rubin. It is so obvious that it isn’t worth mentioning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Oh, please. Bernie Sanders couldn’t be more Jewish if his name was Israel Rubin. It is so obvious that it isn’t worth mentioning.
     
    I'm a native Vermonter. I'm ashamed to say I voted for the indy socialist a couple of times, but I give youth as a excuse. :) I had no idea he was Jewish until I think some media type pointed out he'd be the first Jew to win New Hampshire Dem primary.

    It just doesn't come up as topic in Vermont. We don't talk about religion at all. It's rural place and most Jews live in cities.

    It's only obvious if you know a lot of Jews. In rural places, it's easier to see that lots of people are odd and I brushed it off as another variety of odd.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. AM says:
    @Jack D
    This has nothing to do with others owing the Jews things. It has to do with sympathy for the underdog, the refugee, etc. Now this sympathy may be misplaced - Libyan "refugee" bombers are nothing like the passengers of the St. Louis and it's stupid to analogize them. They are both floating on boats and that's about it. But it's better than having nothing but contempt for your co-religionists the way upper class WASPS have contempt for working class whites. The road to hell is paved with good intentions but bad intentions ARE hell in themselves.

    But it’s better than having nothing but contempt for your co-religionists the way upper class WASPS have contempt for working class whites. The road to hell is paved with good intentions but bad intentions ARE hell in themselves.

    LOL! Nice way to refuse to address everything I said. Also to completely miss the point of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”

    If somebody hates for reasons based in truth, God/Christ might be able to redeem them, because they care about truth. They care about justice.

    There is no colder individual on the planet than that wishes to look like they’re sympathetic. That cares only for the perceived underdog because “nice”.

    The Book of Job covers this topic quite neatly. Jesus warns everyone that looking like a Pharisee will keep people outside the walls of Heaven.

    No, so sympathy is not “better”. It’s easy, low cost “morality” that means you never have to think or concern yourself with what real justice looks like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. lavoisier says: • Website
    @jb
    You know, I am actually really happy with the two Vox articles! The thing is, I would certainly acknowledge that it has not been conclusively proven that there is a genetic component to the black/white IQ difference; if this is what Murray and Harris were claiming I would have to dissent. As far as I am concerned, there are two assertions I would like to see widely accepted:

    1) To the best of our ability to measure intelligence, American blacks are significantly less intelligent than American whites, and have been for some time. (This fact has all sorts of implications, regardless of the origin of the gap).

    2) The origin of the IQ gap is unclear, and it is possible for reasonable, well informed people to believe that it is partially genetic. (I.e., the cause of the gap is an open question).

    The thing is, although it is never stated quite so baldly, the two Vox articles are clearly in agreement with my point 1). Further, except for Turkheimer -- whose arguments are blatantly moral and political -- it seems to me that the articles are consistent with my point 2).

    The fact that even staunch defenders of the established wisdom are forced to concede that the IQ gap is real and that its origin is an open question is a huge big deal, and I would encourage everyone with a media platform to take those two points and run with them.

    If you take the genetic or biological component out as causal, to whatever degree, of the differences in group intelligence, you are left with environmental or social causes. This inevitably triggers the charge of racism as the cause, and gives the black population another reason to hate whitey.

    Biology has to be part of this discussion.

    And it should be a part of the discussion of other observed group differences as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AM

    BTW, if Jews are just parasites, how is it that Israel, starting from nothing, has achieved close to European levels of prosperity in a region where everyone else is poor (not counting oil wealth)?
     
    Israel is different. It is the Jewish homeland. They invest it. They fight for it.

    You're correct in the other part of your thoughts. There's nothing wrong with being in the middle man business, or the banking for that matter. It is a useful service as long it's honest.

    The issue is that long term it becomes unsustainable because Jews use their intelligence and ambition and tend to work their ways to positions of influence. Then consciously or not, tend to use that position to help their families rather than the host countries. A Jew in Poland is "renting" for lack of better way to say it.

    Joseph in the OT is the perfect example and wrote up a long post on my thoughts on this thread. And modernly, the endless moralizing from a highly secularized people who mostly are merchants and bankers, historically? Come on.

    In Israel, that country is their family for all practical purposes. They quite willingly enforce policies that appear unthinkable (and "immoral") if they lived in the US. Abortion has some interesting restrictions as does marriage within Israel. There's lovely border wall and they take no Africans..even the Ethiopian Jews are clearly a source of tension.

    The Jews quite often deserve the success they have. They are intelligent, ambitious, and I have no reason think they are more dishonest than the average bear. I've liked quite a few that I've met. But geesh, the mind blindness - holy smokes.

    Fron about 1850 to 1920 the Zionist project was supported by the wealthiest families in Europe, Rothschilds, Montefiores and other financial fraud Jewish billionaires
    From 1922 to 1948 Israel was supported financially by Britian and Jews living in America with a lot of help from the Soviet Union. Russia btw sponsored the UN resolution that Israel become a nation. The Russian, other Soviet and E European nations under the Soviet boot exerted great pressure on other UN delegations to vote to make Israel a nation.

    Since the 1950s, Israel has been supported by the American taxpayer financially, diplomatically and militarily.

    In fact, most years, the GNP of Israel is the same as the amount of American dollars given to Israel by our craven bought and enslaved politicians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    In fact, most years, the GNP of Israel is the same as the amount of American dollars given to Israel by our craven bought and enslaved politicians.

    No.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. I’m pretty new to the whole “Jewish Question” thing. Not long ago I always thought any talk about “the Jews” was just the ranting of lunatics. Then I somehow caught onto it from Unz and alt-right sites. I just read Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique last year.

    Now I’m just amazed at how much of the media narrative and conventional wisdom seems to be influenced by distinctly Jewish attitudes and motivations that I was just completely oblivious to (and most people still are). Hiding in plain sight the whole time.

    I had no idea just how much resentment many Jews are harboring toward white Gentiles. I had never even realized who was Jewish for that matter. Sometimes of course a name like Goldberg or something is obvious, but I still probably won’t have thought about it. But I had been familiar with “conservative” pundits like David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, etc. but see their views on foreign policy and immigration totally differently now. Any article that advocates mass immigration and I always take a glance at the surname of the author now.

    This phenomenon needs to be explained to people more.

    I’ve had Jewish close friends since growing up and it makes me sad that Jews feel this way and are doing this. I feel like Jews and white Gentiles should be on the same side and I wish influential Jews would cut it out. I think being considered immune from criticism is a big part of the problem – if they were called out more, as Jews, maybe they would tone it down.

    Read More
    • Agree: AM
    • Replies: @AM

    I think being considered immune from criticism is a big part of the problem – if they were called out more, as Jews, maybe they would tone it down.
     
    I think the alt-right as a whole as come to this conclusion. That it's critical that we start to call out the Jewish POV, name it, and yes get them to back off a bit. I don't hate them or even the POV, but it can't be a "universal" POV or the only "moral" one.

    Even on this thread, there's the attempt to use I call the Holocaust card, which has been successful in shutting down criticism for decades. One of the better counters I've seen and used on this thread is simply to point out that Jews are not the only victims of 20th century genocides. Holodomor, which was the deliberate starvation of Ukraine farmers under the Soviets is perfect example, in part because the high officials at the time, making the decisions, were at least 40% ethnic Jews. Orthodox Jews have both accepted that and apologized for it (I believe - I need to track down the video of it.)

    So no need to get into Holocaust denial. Shift the frame and it makes the "I'm a victim, so back off" seem small and petty, which is in 2017. Nobody on Twitter is a Holocaust survivor. The Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust and quite frankly Israel shows they can defend themselves when they organize. Time to get to shoulder shrug and get to the point where we can have a discussion without the guilt "free pass" for the Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AM

    Are the Vanderbilts and the Roosevelts, the Cabots and the Lowells, etc. no longer “us” with respect to other whites because they are a smart, high functioning subgroup?
     
    Yes, because they're starting to treat their position in society as a "rental". They've moved in attitude towards secular, diaspora Jews. The poor schmuck in the heartland or even across town are not their problem. They're "citizens of the world".

    Once upon a time, not that long ago, people in those positions went to church and kept their scandals to themselves because they felt the responsibility of those positions. They were in a leadership role for all the people who were of lower social classes.

    Now the Clintons can openly have sex scandals and just generally be corrupt and their fellow elites just eye roll for having them been so blatant about it.

    One of the reasons the elite are losing their lunch over Trump is that he represents who they used to be. That the wealth brought responsibility for their fellow countrymen. Jewish people historically have never felt that responsibility, or if it did, it manifests itself like it does in the US. "Fix yourself to be a secular Jew, then we'll talk".

    I don't necessarily blame the Jews for not wanting to invest in a foriegn culture, because it's situational. It's also why I blame the failure of the WASPs for our current situation. It's they who have failed. Whatever Jewish influence exists, it exists because the current generation cares nothing for their country or fellow countrymen.

    This is 2017, not 1917 or 1817 or 1717 The Vanderbilts, Roosevelts, Lowells and Cabots have no money, power or influence any more. The Vanderbilts still have some inherited money but no influence unless you consider Anderson Cooper influential.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    Yes, that's what I mean by collapse. There are no prominent WASP families in 2017. When the Trumps are it, as much as like their personalities, it's all gone very wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    As we all know, English Jews have pushed for mass immigration since the 1880s when they claimed Russian Jews were being unfairly persecuted and needed refuge in Britian.

    Since WW2 they have pushed for massive black and brown immigration. In fact, the very first black Jamacians brought to England on that ship of shame The Windermere were brought by the Jews that owned the ship.

    Since about 1970 English Jews have pushed for Muslims. They succeeded in flooding many English towns with aggressive Muslims including London. London is presently the Jewish seat of power in England, but not for long.

    Seeking to drive the native British out of their greatest city and Capitol the Jews flooded London with Muslims. Jews funded the endless Muslim separatist groups. The great British triumph was the election of Sidiq Khan as Mayor of London.

    Tomorrow, Sunday the Muslims of London along with numerous foreign groups such as Hamas, Hezoballah and even Isis will have an anti Israel pro Muslim match in London.

    All the hundreds of Jewish activist groups have tried to get the march canceled. But Khan and the Muslim politicians prevailed and the march will go on.

    As always, Jews go too far. Their great enemy is the Christian heritage Whites of Europe. In importing black and brown Muslims to destroy Europeans, the Jews will destroy themselves as they have done throughout their history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Hazard
    You and many others have made the same and accurate observation. Jews are smart in some ways, not so smart in others. Jewish people as a group do have a tendency to overreach, especially when they've attained positions of great power and influence, which is what they currently enjoy in the West.

    The immigration floodgates have been cranked wide open, and the rise here and there of "right wing" politicians and parties throughout the West, although slow and small at the moment, is a sign of the inevitable implosion of the immigration time bomb. Massive civil unrest and civil war are in store for the West, which I think is what will eventually end up saving the West. The problem for the Jews is that people will be looking to take it to those they feel were responsible for the creating the situation in the first place. And too many Jews have been at the forefront of third world immigration into the West, and increasingly loud and proud of their support of ruinous immigration. This is not a good thing. All of the purported smarts, money, or even threats of nuclear hellfire that can be mustered will prove to be moot if Jews don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Muslim invaders, Somalian Welfare Hunters, and Mexicans looking to expand "rapto" to include the gringas.

    There have been scores of gentile collaborators in the push to destroy the West, but there will be a tendency for the truly aggrieved to look for and go after those that got the ball rolling first. Things can still be fixed with the proper political will in place, but the fuse has been lit, and overconfidence reigns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @black sea
    The Adams family of Massachusetts and the Lowell family of same come to mind. Accomplished in many areas and through several generations.

    Several generations centuries ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AM

    “Goy” is not a term of contempt....If “goy” is ever used pejoratively, that is only a reflection of the speaker’s attitude.
     
    You know, if y'all stopped assuming we're stupid, it might work better. I think, though, it might be asking a pine tree to be oak.

    According to the Jewish dictionary shiksa, goy and goyim means ” an unclean thing, a piece of filth, a 2 legged animal put on earth to be servants of Jews.”

    Why do you think so many hasids and other ultra orthodox use prostitutes during the 2 weeks of the month when their wives are” a pitcher of filth filled with decayed blood”

    It’s because non Jewish goy prostitutes are not really human but 2 legged animals.
    Therefor according to the Talmud, a married Jewish man can have sex with a goy female because she is not really a human. Sex with 4 and 2 legged animals is not adultery because they are not human.

    That’s what they really think of us. Just look at what they did to the goyim of Russia, Eastern Europe and Palestine when they took over.

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @AM
    shrug The Jews are not a monolith, like every other group of people on the planet. There are some who hate society around them, some who are indifferent, some who true mensches.

    I'm sold on the pattern that Jews have in societies, especially for Jews who no longer hold up the Covenant. Orthodox Jews consider them to be problematic, too.

    I do not see how treating them all as one evil entity gets us very far in our thinking, however. They after all, humans and on many fronts, not very bright.

    Nor by the way, do I see how the Jew conspiracy theory is very complementary to the societies for which they supposedly took over. Obviously if a few unarmed (and quite often obvious and sometimes annoying) merchants and bankers can take those societies down, they were very weak to begin with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Yak-15
    I am Episcopalian. And some of the most rabid SJWs I know are my cousins (who also happened to have grown up very wealthy). Our church is burdened with a rapacious social justice sect that insists on homosexual priests conducting mass and being married in our church by other gay priests.

    Go throughout Chicago and you will see many Episcopalian churches with rainbow flags, BLM placards and "no hate here" posters.

    My church is largely hijacked by monstrous imbeciles who think these actions will make them more pious and increase our flock. Meanwhile, my home church withers in size as the kids aren't returning to the suburbs and aren't having kids. And they wonder why it's falling apart. It's disgraceful.

    You think that’s SJWs gone crazy?
    I don’t know about the Episcopal church in America, but in England the CofE has always been extremely gay.

    In the Brentwood, Beverly Hills neighborhoods of Los Angeles the most popular Rabbi for Bar Bat Mitzvahs and increasing rare weddings is an ethnic Chinese lesbian Rabbi married to a black American Muslim convert who attends the events as the Rebbitzen. Aiii yaiii.

    A favorite full in the blanks speech for the Bar Bat Mitzvah kids is a convuluted mess trying to prove that the biblical command to kill men “who lay with other men as a man lays with a woman” doesn’t really mean what it says.

    The liberal Rabbis are working on finding something in the Hebrew bible proving that G d approved transsexual operations and hormone treatment.

    As long as the liberals concentrate on trans gender they won’t concentrate for the next item on their agenda, decriminalizing pedophilia and reducing the age of consent to age 5.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    I don’t know about the Episcopal church in America, but in England the CofE has always been extremely gay.
     
    No, not at all. The weakness in the CofE appears on the scene in the 1960's or so, as it does it here. Thank God CS Lewis didn't live to see it, but he did predict it to a certain extent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @International Jew
    "Goy" is not a term of contempt. It just means "people" or "nation", and it can refer to Jews too. For example in Genesis 12:2, where God promises Abraham,

    "And I will make of thee a great nation"

    "nation" corresponds to "goy" in the original Hebrew.

    If "goy" is ever used pejoratively, that is only a reflection of the speaker's attitude. Same as "bagpipe player" is only pejorative if the speaker dislikes the sound of bagpipes.

    Stop lying. It means a 2 legged animal, unclean thing, a piece of filth

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Old Jew
    Jack,

    You are absolutely right.

    But at the time Psalm 2 was written (say 2800 years ago) there did not exist yet “people of the book”. Whoever was not one of the B'nay Israel (and 2800 year ago no Diaspora Jews are mentioned), was automatically a disbeliever in the God of Israel, thus a "heathen".

    I lack the scholarship, to know who translated this Psalms into English for the first time ( way before the KJV), but the translation to "heathens" appears to identify correctly the intent of the Psalm author.

    I wonder whether the Koyne Greek language, into which the Psalms were translated (Septuagint, 200 B.C.) had a word for "Heathen" since the Greek were polytheists themselves.

    First Englis translation of that collection of myths and fables plagiarized from the story of Gilgamesh was in the early 1500s by an English man named Tyndale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AnotherDad

    It’s a good question because no legitimate purpose seems to be served by comparing aggregate materialism between groups, and the potential for harm is obvious. So why are aggregate IQ differences a legitimate form of enquiry?

    One obvious answer to this is that anti-discrimination policies don’t presume that all ethnic groups are equally materialistic. So IQ is different that way. But, then again, anti-discrimination policy doesn’t have to necessarily make any assumption of IQ, either.
     

    Vinay, valid point about the negative trait example.

    But on anti-discrimination and IQ:

    --> "Anti-discrimination" is propaganda in word choice as is "civil rights". What's going on is a whole anti-white, anti-male and anti-native/citizen ideology. There's a whole lot to be gained by me, my kids, descendants by debunking it. (I think my girls even benefit from debunking the anti-male crap. What they'd most benefit by in the long run is good husbands with good jobs.)

    --> Directly on the IQ point "educational romanticism"--kudos to whomever coined that--is a tremendous misallocation of resources in our society.
    We do lots stupid stuff "closing the racial achievement gap" which in turn motivates a lot of the "all kids college ready" nonsense. (Both goals of my kids' school district.) A good part of the college bubble could be deflated if we could get dump the bogus logic of Griggs, admit that IQ matters across the employment spectrum and just get back to occupational testing. (Like the military is allowed to use.) This is all pretty much blocked by the "racist testing!" canard.

    --> You're right you can have anti-discrimination policy that doesn't make assumptions about IQ. But we don't have that. That's the whole point!

    --> When you do "anti-discrimination" IQ knowledge changes--improves--the politics.
    Let's say you're in a multi-ethnic society and politics requires you to have some sort of "race" or "ethnic" fairness to compensate for big differences in group achievement. Example: India's reservation system. It's actually a heck of a lot better--ultimately less contentious--if the society has the IQ knowledge and admits what it is doing. "Yes the Brahmins are way smarter than these ST, SC and OBC folks, but they don't deserve to get all the good jobs in our democratic nation." As contentious as this is, it's way better than a politics of conspiracy where the lower achieving groups are left are constantly blaming smart groups for "cheating" or "stealing all the good stuff" or "structural racism".

    For instance an inflator/deflator limit of 4x sounds pretty "fair" to me. Your group couldn't be over or under represented by 4 times. So say you're doling out med school admissions in the US. Indians couldn't be more 4%, Chinese 6%, Jews 8%, while blacks couldn't be less than 3%, "Hispanics" 4%. And within each group you can select the very best folks. This is way better than "disparate impact" where say the low quality of the black applicants for Chicago PD jobs forces you to drop your testing standards to a "write your name" test in order to get proportional black candidates. Rather you figure out a quota and go--and hire the best blacks you can find.

    IQ knowledge reduces the damage because the "cheating" is in public. Everyone knows score and why its being done. You'll still have contention, but not the lying. You'll have more good faith efforts to understand the other guys and more acceptance and willingness to "take one for the team".

    ~~~

    Finally what is the purpose of this research? Knowledge!

    You do academic research just to learn stuff about the world. To be smarter, to be more knowledgeable, to have a more accurate picture of reality.

    And the evolution of IQ group differences is about the most important piece of knowledge you can have. If you have any serious interest in understanding human history, why what happened happened and how we got here--IQ knowledge is critical. IQ knowledge is critical to any study of anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics. Those fields are basically jokes when they spin up theories about differences in human populations but ignore the genetic differences between those populations, especially in IQ and other mental traits.

    With due credit to Faber College, "Knowledge is good".

    The reason so many Hindu immigrants are getting affirmative action jobs in America is that they are fleeing affirmative action discrimination against Brahmins in India. But intelligent White Americans have nowhere to flee anti White discrimination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Steve Sailer
    Rawls was pretty strongly in favor of immigration restriction.

    Yes, and I wonder how long his reputation among philosophers will last.

    He’s still too massive a presence at this stage to be taken down entirely. But his views on immigration — “Global Justice” — have been subjected to withering criticism.

    No one’s too big to escape the Social Justice movement, and its Warriors are legion in philosophy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @Anonymous
    Fron about 1850 to 1920 the Zionist project was supported by the wealthiest families in Europe, Rothschilds, Montefiores and other financial fraud Jewish billionaires
    From 1922 to 1948 Israel was supported financially by Britian and Jews living in America with a lot of help from the Soviet Union. Russia btw sponsored the UN resolution that Israel become a nation. The Russian, other Soviet and E European nations under the Soviet boot exerted great pressure on other UN delegations to vote to make Israel a nation.

    Since the 1950s, Israel has been supported by the American taxpayer financially, diplomatically and militarily.

    In fact, most years, the GNP of Israel is the same as the amount of American dollars given to Israel by our craven bought and enslaved politicians.

    In fact, most years, the GNP of Israel is the same as the amount of American dollars given to Israel by our craven bought and enslaved politicians.

    No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. MEH 0910 says:
    @AnotherDad

    It’s a good question because no legitimate purpose seems to be served by comparing aggregate materialism between groups, and the potential for harm is obvious. So why are aggregate IQ differences a legitimate form of enquiry?

    One obvious answer to this is that anti-discrimination policies don’t presume that all ethnic groups are equally materialistic. So IQ is different that way. But, then again, anti-discrimination policy doesn’t have to necessarily make any assumption of IQ, either.
     

    Vinay, valid point about the negative trait example.

    But on anti-discrimination and IQ:

    --> "Anti-discrimination" is propaganda in word choice as is "civil rights". What's going on is a whole anti-white, anti-male and anti-native/citizen ideology. There's a whole lot to be gained by me, my kids, descendants by debunking it. (I think my girls even benefit from debunking the anti-male crap. What they'd most benefit by in the long run is good husbands with good jobs.)

    --> Directly on the IQ point "educational romanticism"--kudos to whomever coined that--is a tremendous misallocation of resources in our society.
    We do lots stupid stuff "closing the racial achievement gap" which in turn motivates a lot of the "all kids college ready" nonsense. (Both goals of my kids' school district.) A good part of the college bubble could be deflated if we could get dump the bogus logic of Griggs, admit that IQ matters across the employment spectrum and just get back to occupational testing. (Like the military is allowed to use.) This is all pretty much blocked by the "racist testing!" canard.

    --> You're right you can have anti-discrimination policy that doesn't make assumptions about IQ. But we don't have that. That's the whole point!

    --> When you do "anti-discrimination" IQ knowledge changes--improves--the politics.
    Let's say you're in a multi-ethnic society and politics requires you to have some sort of "race" or "ethnic" fairness to compensate for big differences in group achievement. Example: India's reservation system. It's actually a heck of a lot better--ultimately less contentious--if the society has the IQ knowledge and admits what it is doing. "Yes the Brahmins are way smarter than these ST, SC and OBC folks, but they don't deserve to get all the good jobs in our democratic nation." As contentious as this is, it's way better than a politics of conspiracy where the lower achieving groups are left are constantly blaming smart groups for "cheating" or "stealing all the good stuff" or "structural racism".

    For instance an inflator/deflator limit of 4x sounds pretty "fair" to me. Your group couldn't be over or under represented by 4 times. So say you're doling out med school admissions in the US. Indians couldn't be more 4%, Chinese 6%, Jews 8%, while blacks couldn't be less than 3%, "Hispanics" 4%. And within each group you can select the very best folks. This is way better than "disparate impact" where say the low quality of the black applicants for Chicago PD jobs forces you to drop your testing standards to a "write your name" test in order to get proportional black candidates. Rather you figure out a quota and go--and hire the best blacks you can find.

    IQ knowledge reduces the damage because the "cheating" is in public. Everyone knows score and why its being done. You'll still have contention, but not the lying. You'll have more good faith efforts to understand the other guys and more acceptance and willingness to "take one for the team".

    ~~~

    Finally what is the purpose of this research? Knowledge!

    You do academic research just to learn stuff about the world. To be smarter, to be more knowledgeable, to have a more accurate picture of reality.

    And the evolution of IQ group differences is about the most important piece of knowledge you can have. If you have any serious interest in understanding human history, why what happened happened and how we got here--IQ knowledge is critical. IQ knowledge is critical to any study of anthropology, psychology, sociology, politics, economics. Those fields are basically jokes when they spin up theories about differences in human populations but ignore the genetic differences between those populations, especially in IQ and other mental traits.

    With due credit to Faber College, "Knowledge is good".

    With due credit to Faber College, “Knowledge is good”.

    RIP Flounder.

    Stephen Furst, who played hapless frat pledge Flounder in ‘National Lampoon’s Animal House,’ has died

    Stephen Furst, best known for his role as the hapless Delta House fraternity pledge Kent “Flounder” Dorfman in the landmark comedy “National Lampoon’s Animal House,” has died.

    His sons Nathan and Griffin Furst posted a statement on Twitter that Furst died Friday due to complications from diabetes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Seems to me that Turkheimer is carefully navigating some treacherous waters. To state baldly that IQ is correlated with race could destroy his career.

    His Wiki bio suggests he is a man who made a tough ascent into academia.

    He took 10 yrs to get a Phd. 6 years to get a university contract. 10yrs to get tenure.

    A guy that like that is acutely aware of the political dangers of admitting the truth. I suspect he and his two co-authors privately know that race and IQ are correlated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  216. “Whites (including Jews) bear some guilt for the horrific treatment of blacks”

    If you’re referring to black slavery (and many former black slaves were interviewed in the 1930s saying they never had it better than during slavery), then the last of the guilty whites died roughly 80 years ago. Blaming slavery on me is not more than racial animus — hatred for white people as such.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  217. AM says:
    @Anonymous
    This is 2017, not 1917 or 1817 or 1717 The Vanderbilts, Roosevelts, Lowells and Cabots have no money, power or influence any more. The Vanderbilts still have some inherited money but no influence unless you consider Anderson Cooper influential.

    Yes, that’s what I mean by collapse. There are no prominent WASP families in 2017. When the Trumps are it, as much as like their personalities, it’s all gone very wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "When the Trumps are it"

    They're not really it. Pappa Trump is of course German and Scottish. The mothers of most of his children are Czech, Slovene, and I might assume English, given the name Maples. But she mothered the least known Trump kid.

    That's not very WASPy at all.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. AM says:
    @Anonymous
    According to the Jewish dictionary shiksa, goy and goyim means " an unclean thing, a piece of filth, a 2 legged animal put on earth to be servants of Jews."

    Why do you think so many hasids and other ultra orthodox use prostitutes during the 2 weeks of the month when their wives are" a pitcher of filth filled with decayed blood"

    It's because non Jewish goy prostitutes are not really human but 2 legged animals.
    Therefor according to the Talmud, a married Jewish man can have sex with a goy female because she is not really a human. Sex with 4 and 2 legged animals is not adultery because they are not human.

    That's what they really think of us. Just look at what they did to the goyim of Russia, Eastern Europe and Palestine when they took over.

    shrug The Jews are not a monolith, like every other group of people on the planet. There are some who hate society around them, some who are indifferent, some who true mensches.

    I’m sold on the pattern that Jews have in societies, especially for Jews who no longer hold up the Covenant. Orthodox Jews consider them to be problematic, too.

    I do not see how treating them all as one evil entity gets us very far in our thinking, however. They after all, humans and on many fronts, not very bright.

    Nor by the way, do I see how the Jew conspiracy theory is very complementary to the societies for which they supposedly took over. Obviously if a few unarmed (and quite often obvious and sometimes annoying) merchants and bankers can take those societies down, they were very weak to begin with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. AM says:
    @Anonymous
    You think that's SJWs gone crazy?
    I don't know about the Episcopal church in America, but in England the CofE has always been extremely gay.

    In the Brentwood, Beverly Hills neighborhoods of Los Angeles the most popular Rabbi for Bar Bat Mitzvahs and increasing rare weddings is an ethnic Chinese lesbian Rabbi married to a black American Muslim convert who attends the events as the Rebbitzen. Aiii yaiii.

    A favorite full in the blanks speech for the Bar Bat Mitzvah kids is a convuluted mess trying to prove that the biblical command to kill men "who lay with other men as a man lays with a woman" doesn't really mean what it says.

    The liberal Rabbis are working on finding something in the Hebrew bible proving that G d approved transsexual operations and hormone treatment.

    As long as the liberals concentrate on trans gender they won't concentrate for the next item on their agenda, decriminalizing pedophilia and reducing the age of consent to age 5.

    I don’t know about the Episcopal church in America, but in England the CofE has always been extremely gay.

    No, not at all. The weakness in the CofE appears on the scene in the 1960′s or so, as it does it here. Thank God CS Lewis didn’t live to see it, but he did predict it to a certain extent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AM says:
    @Loveofknowledge
    I'm pretty new to the whole "Jewish Question" thing. Not long ago I always thought any talk about "the Jews" was just the ranting of lunatics. Then I somehow caught onto it from Unz and alt-right sites. I just read Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique last year.

    Now I'm just amazed at how much of the media narrative and conventional wisdom seems to be influenced by distinctly Jewish attitudes and motivations that I was just completely oblivious to (and most people still are). Hiding in plain sight the whole time.

    I had no idea just how much resentment many Jews are harboring toward white Gentiles. I had never even realized who was Jewish for that matter. Sometimes of course a name like Goldberg or something is obvious, but I still probably won't have thought about it. But I had been familiar with "conservative" pundits like David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, etc. but see their views on foreign policy and immigration totally differently now. Any article that advocates mass immigration and I always take a glance at the surname of the author now.

    This phenomenon needs to be explained to people more.

    I've had Jewish close friends since growing up and it makes me sad that Jews feel this way and are doing this. I feel like Jews and white Gentiles should be on the same side and I wish influential Jews would cut it out. I think being considered immune from criticism is a big part of the problem - if they were called out more, as Jews, maybe they would tone it down.

    I think being considered immune from criticism is a big part of the problem – if they were called out more, as Jews, maybe they would tone it down.

    I think the alt-right as a whole as come to this conclusion. That it’s critical that we start to call out the Jewish POV, name it, and yes get them to back off a bit. I don’t hate them or even the POV, but it can’t be a “universal” POV or the only “moral” one.

    Even on this thread, there’s the attempt to use I call the Holocaust card, which has been successful in shutting down criticism for decades. One of the better counters I’ve seen and used on this thread is simply to point out that Jews are not the only victims of 20th century genocides. Holodomor, which was the deliberate starvation of Ukraine farmers under the Soviets is perfect example, in part because the high officials at the time, making the decisions, were at least 40% ethnic Jews. Orthodox Jews have both accepted that and apologized for it (I believe – I need to track down the video of it.)

    So no need to get into Holocaust denial. Shift the frame and it makes the “I’m a victim, so back off” seem small and petty, which is in 2017. Nobody on Twitter is a Holocaust survivor. The Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust and quite frankly Israel shows they can defend themselves when they organize. Time to get to shoulder shrug and get to the point where we can have a discussion without the guilt “free pass” for the Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. AM says:
    @ScarletNumber

    Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.
     
    Oh, please. Bernie Sanders couldn't be more Jewish if his name was Israel Rubin. It is so obvious that it isn't worth mentioning.

    Oh, please. Bernie Sanders couldn’t be more Jewish if his name was Israel Rubin. It is so obvious that it isn’t worth mentioning.

    I’m a native Vermonter. I’m ashamed to say I voted for the indy socialist a couple of times, but I give youth as a excuse. :) I had no idea he was Jewish until I think some media type pointed out he’d be the first Jew to win New Hampshire Dem primary.

    It just doesn’t come up as topic in Vermont. We don’t talk about religion at all. It’s rural place and most Jews live in cities.

    It’s only obvious if you know a lot of Jews. In rural places, it’s easier to see that lots of people are odd and I brushed it off as another variety of odd.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. guest says:
    @AM
    Yes, that's what I mean by collapse. There are no prominent WASP families in 2017. When the Trumps are it, as much as like their personalities, it's all gone very wrong.

    “When the Trumps are it”

    They’re not really it. Pappa Trump is of course German and Scottish. The mothers of most of his children are Czech, Slovene, and I might assume English, given the name Maples. But she mothered the least known Trump kid.

    That’s not very WASPy at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @Anonymous
    As we all know, English Jews have pushed for mass immigration since the 1880s when they claimed Russian Jews were being unfairly persecuted and needed refuge in Britian.

    Since WW2 they have pushed for massive black and brown immigration. In fact, the very first black Jamacians brought to England on that ship of shame The Windermere were brought by the Jews that owned the ship.

    Since about 1970 English Jews have pushed for Muslims. They succeeded in flooding many English towns with aggressive Muslims including London. London is presently the Jewish seat of power in England, but not for long.

    Seeking to drive the native British out of their greatest city and Capitol the Jews flooded London with Muslims. Jews funded the endless Muslim separatist groups. The great British triumph was the election of Sidiq Khan as Mayor of London.

    Tomorrow, Sunday the Muslims of London along with numerous foreign groups such as Hamas, Hezoballah and even Isis will have an anti Israel pro Muslim match in London.

    All the hundreds of Jewish activist groups have tried to get the march canceled. But Khan and the Muslim politicians prevailed and the march will go on.

    As always, Jews go too far. Their great enemy is the Christian heritage Whites of Europe. In importing black and brown Muslims to destroy Europeans, the Jews will destroy themselves as they have done throughout their history.

    You and many others have made the same and accurate observation. Jews are smart in some ways, not so smart in others. Jewish people as a group do have a tendency to overreach, especially when they’ve attained positions of great power and influence, which is what they currently enjoy in the West.

    The immigration floodgates have been cranked wide open, and the rise here and there of “right wing” politicians and parties throughout the West, although slow and small at the moment, is a sign of the inevitable implosion of the immigration time bomb. Massive civil unrest and civil war are in store for the West, which I think is what will eventually end up saving the West. The problem for the Jews is that people will be looking to take it to those they feel were responsible for the creating the situation in the first place. And too many Jews have been at the forefront of third world immigration into the West, and increasingly loud and proud of their support of ruinous immigration. This is not a good thing. All of the purported smarts, money, or even threats of nuclear hellfire that can be mustered will prove to be moot if Jews don’t realize they’re shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Muslim invaders, Somalian Welfare Hunters, and Mexicans looking to expand “rapto” to include the gringas.

    There have been scores of gentile collaborators in the push to destroy the West, but there will be a tendency for the truly aggrieved to look for and go after those that got the ball rolling first. Things can still be fixed with the proper political will in place, but the fuse has been lit, and overconfidence reigns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    You've said very well what I've been clumsily trying to express.

    In the coming strife Jews will be viewed as whites by the blacks and therefore deserving of the same horrorific treatment. They will be viewed as genocidal traitors by whites who will want to take revenge in a horrorific
    way as well.

    Stephen Miller and a very few others seem to understand this. It doesn't matter if the prominent Jews don't speak for all Jews. It's the perception that matters when the emotional take over and the blood starts running down the street.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Old Jew
    Jack,

    You are absolutely right.

    But at the time Psalm 2 was written (say 2800 years ago) there did not exist yet “people of the book”. Whoever was not one of the B'nay Israel (and 2800 year ago no Diaspora Jews are mentioned), was automatically a disbeliever in the God of Israel, thus a "heathen".

    I lack the scholarship, to know who translated this Psalms into English for the first time ( way before the KJV), but the translation to "heathens" appears to identify correctly the intent of the Psalm author.

    I wonder whether the Koyne Greek language, into which the Psalms were translated (Septuagint, 200 B.C.) had a word for "Heathen" since the Greek were polytheists themselves.

    The LXX has έθνη for heathen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Thea says:
    @Carlton Hazard
    You and many others have made the same and accurate observation. Jews are smart in some ways, not so smart in others. Jewish people as a group do have a tendency to overreach, especially when they've attained positions of great power and influence, which is what they currently enjoy in the West.

    The immigration floodgates have been cranked wide open, and the rise here and there of "right wing" politicians and parties throughout the West, although slow and small at the moment, is a sign of the inevitable implosion of the immigration time bomb. Massive civil unrest and civil war are in store for the West, which I think is what will eventually end up saving the West. The problem for the Jews is that people will be looking to take it to those they feel were responsible for the creating the situation in the first place. And too many Jews have been at the forefront of third world immigration into the West, and increasingly loud and proud of their support of ruinous immigration. This is not a good thing. All of the purported smarts, money, or even threats of nuclear hellfire that can be mustered will prove to be moot if Jews don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Muslim invaders, Somalian Welfare Hunters, and Mexicans looking to expand "rapto" to include the gringas.

    There have been scores of gentile collaborators in the push to destroy the West, but there will be a tendency for the truly aggrieved to look for and go after those that got the ball rolling first. Things can still be fixed with the proper political will in place, but the fuse has been lit, and overconfidence reigns.

    You’ve said very well what I’ve been clumsily trying to express.

    In the coming strife Jews will be viewed as whites by the blacks and therefore deserving of the same horrorific treatment. They will be viewed as genocidal traitors by whites who will want to take revenge in a horrorific
    way as well.

    Stephen Miller and a very few others seem to understand this. It doesn’t matter if the prominent Jews don’t speak for all Jews. It’s the perception that matters when the emotional take over and the blood starts running down the street.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. res says:

    Richard Haier has a response to the more recent Vox article at http://quillette.com/2017/06/21/vox-goes-junk-no-good-thats-bit-intelligent-progress/

    It seemed reasonable to me. I think it is telling that Vox refused to publish it (like any of us need the clue, but evidence is always good).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007