The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 JayMan ArchiveBlogview
The Donald Trump Phenomenon: Part 2: Binary Thinking
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

https://www.inverse.com/article/11909-how-chemistry-might-explain-donald-trump-s-weird-orange-skin

In the preceding part (The Donald Trump Phenomenon: Part 1: The American Nations), I talked about the geographic (and hence ethnic) variation in support for the various 2016 U.S. presidential candidates. In this part, I will focus on the turmoil in this particular election cycle, and what it means for our society and acceptance of the reality of HBD.

This election cycle exhibits a certain ferocity not seen in earlier elections. Much of that is hatred directed at Donald Trump. The rancor will likely intensify as the election progresses, especially if Trump is the Republican nominee, as he is likely to be.

Why this vitriol? Donald Trump was always a talked-about and sometimes controversial figure, but no more so than most celebrities. There were always people who didn’t like him, but few really hated him. But now it seems certain people definitely do hate Trump. Indeed, he has now become the Great Satan in many people’s eyes, and comparisons to Adolf Hitler are common. Why?

Much as been written about Trump’s appeal to his supporters. See:

Donald Trump is not an idiot – he could be the next US President
Note from a Trump Supporter: It’s the Immigration, Stupid! | educationrealist
I was wrong about Donald Trump: Camille Paglia on the GOP front-runner’s refreshing candor (and his impetuousness, too)

But why the hate? I will argue that the hatred directed towards Trump has little to do with Trump himself or his campaign. Rather, I suspect that this is more about what a Trump presidency represents: the end of our politically correct society.

Why do people like me have to write anonymous blogs and columns on the internet when talking about the obvious reality of human biological differences (especially biological group differences)? Why do researchers face the risk of falling into The Bermuda Triangle of Science, as behavioral geneticist Brian Boutwell recently put it?

The academy, in general, is a wonderful place to work, but not everyone plays nice. Veer too far from carefully charted courses and someone may slip quietly up behind you and slide a cold piece of steel in between the ribs of your budding research career.

They’ll do this believing that they are serving public interest by snuffing out dangerous research agendas, but that won’t make any difference to you. It’ll be your reputation that will suffer grievous injury. What in the world might elicit such harsh rebuke from a community of otherwise broadminded, free speech spouting scholars? What is so verboten that it constitutes academia’s Bermuda Triangle, a place where careers disappear more often than ships in the actual Bermuda Triangle? In one word, it’s race.

[R]ace represents academia’s true Bermuda Triangle. Perhaps never has the topic of genetic ancestry been so important, yet despite its relevance, bright scholars continue to stay away from it in droves … It will not matter how noble you think your motives are, if you factor in race as a variable, your actions are subject to impeachment, and your reputation may be sacrificed as a burnt offering to our new religion.

Linda Gottfredson is a brilliant, productive, and innovative scholar. Dr. Gottfredson, however, found herself in the Bermuda Triangle some years back

crossing the boundaries of the Triangle (even if only to defend a colleague) can be frightening. Angry invectives hurled in your direction will come so fast, and so fierce, it will likely leave your head spinning, as Gottfredson illustrates (p.276):

News coverage was often lurid. The UD African-American Coalition argued that my work was not just offensive, but dangerous. My ‘‘so-called research” and the social policies I ‘‘was likely to propose” were ‘‘liable to threaten the very survival of African-Americans” (Tarver, 1990, p. 6A).

Within the Bermuda Triangle, you see, it is a free for all when it comes to accusations and motive indictment. There is no suitable defense, trying to mount in fact one will only fan the flames.

Such facts are effectively embargoed in our society, and anyone who breaks this taboo can face serious social consequences.

As John McWhorter put it in his piece Antiracism, Our Flawed New Religion:

One hearkens to one’s preacher to keep telling the truth—and also to make sure we hear it often, since many of its tenets are easy to drift away from, which leads us to the next evidence that Antiracism is now a religion. It is inherent to a religion that one is to accept certain suspensions of disbelief. Certain questions are not to be asked, or if asked, only politely—and the answer one gets, despite being somewhat half-cocked, is to be accepted as doing the job.

“Why is the Bible so self-contradictory?” Well, God works in mysterious ways—what’s key is that you believe. “Why does God allows such terrible things to happen?” Well, because we have free will … and it’s complicated but really, just have faith.

It stops there: beyond this first round, one is to classify the issues as uniquely “complicated.” They are “deep,” one says, looking off into the air for a sec in a reflective mode, implying that thinking about this stuff just always leads to more questions, in an infinitely questing Talmudic exploration one cannot expect to yield an actual conclusion.

Antiracism requires much of the same standpoint. For example, one is not to ask “Why are black people so upset about one white cop killing a black man when black men are at much more danger of being killed by one another?” Or, one might ask this, very politely—upon which the answers are flabby but further questions are unwelcome. A common answer is that black communities do protest black-on-black violence —but anyone knows that the outrage against white cops is much, much vaster.

Why? Is the answer “deep,” perhaps? Charles Blow, at least deigning to take the issue by the horns, answers that the black men are killing one another within a racist “structure.” That doesn’t explain why black activists consider the white cop a more appalling threat to a black man than various black men in his own neighborhood. But to push the point means you just don’t “get” it (you haven’t opened your heart to Jesus, perhaps?)

The Antiracism religion, then, has clergy, creed, and also even a conception of Original Sin. Note the current idea that the enlightened white person is to, I assume regularly (ritually?), “acknowledge” that they possess White Privilege.

The call for people to soberly “acknowledge” their White Privilege as a self-standing, totemic act is based on the same justification as acknowledging one’s fundamental sinfulness is as a Christian. One is born marked by original sin; to be white is to be born with the stain of unearned privilege.

Antiracism parallels religion also in a proselytizing impulse. Key to being an Antiracist is a sense that there is always a flock of unconverted heathen “out there,” as it is often put about the whites who were so widely feared as possibly keeping Barack Obama from being elected (twice). One is blessed with, as it were, the Good News in being someone who “gets it,” complete with the Acknowledging.

Finally, Antiracism is all about a Judgment Day, in a sense equally mesmerizing and mythical. Antiracist scripture includes a ritual reference to, as it were, the Great Day when America “owns up to” or “comes to terms with” structural racism—note that “acknowledge” is a term just as appropriate—and finally, well, fixes it somehow.

Yet Antiracism as religion has its downsides. It encourages an idea that racism in its various guises must be behind anything bad for black people, which is massively oversimplified in 2015.

The fact is that Antiracism, as a religion, pollutes our race dialogue as much as any lack of understanding by white people of their Privilege. For example, the good Antiracist supports black claims that standardized tests are “racist” in that black people don’t do as well on them as other students. But Antiracism also encourages us to ask why, oh why black people are suspected of being less intelligent than others—despite this take on the tests, and aspiring firefighters and even teachers making news with similar claims that tough tests are “racist.” Now, to say that if black people can’t be expected to take tests then they must not be as smart is, under Antiracism, blasphemous—one is not to ask too many questions.

Here’s a video of McWhorter discussing this for those who prefer:

Of course, I’ll go a step further than McWhorter and say NW European-derived society isn’t today just antiracist; it’s anti-sexist/anti-misogynist, anti-homophboic, and anti-transphobic as well. In the blanket terms, today’s Western society is politically correct. Sinners against these doctrines face serious consequences, as James Watson, Larry Summers, Satoshi Kanazawa, Jason Richwine, and many others exemplify.

As I said, the fundamental thread is to deny biological group differences, particularly those that are inherited (the key exceptions being the doctrine that homosexuality is 100% genetic and inborn, despite the fact that it is neither of those things – and the Althouse rule for sex differences). There is a wall against biology in Northwestern European societies (that is also fervently embraced by many Ashkenazi Jews).

Hence, we see the hatred and derision directed towards Donald Trump. In the modern Western religion of antiracism/political correctness, Trump and his potential ascent to the White House represents the possible end of our politically correct society. Indeed, Trump isn’t just a divisive presidential candidate; to adherents of antiracism/political correctness, Trump is the Antichrist.

To merely speak openly about the possibility of any inherited biological group difference, no matter how limited, or small, can lead to discussion of other, possibly larger differences. This opens the door to a Pandora’s box of inherited biological group differences. Perhaps it will turn out that there are “winner” and “loser” groups in today’s modern world. Perhaps the reason the world looks like it does today…

transperancy_twitter_CPI_map_NEW

… is because of those differences.

Worse still, this would mean admitting failure in the great hope – the hope that one day humanity can be perfected and poverty, war, prejudice, etc. can be eliminated. Acknowledging inherited biological group differences – that is, human biodiversity, means that the idyllic world of the Star Trek franchise will never come to pass no matter how much social “progress” occurs.

Even among those who aren’t necessarily so Pollyanna about the reality of human group differences, many still wish to suppress knowledge of their existence for another reason: because they believe it is what is holding our multiracial society together. I have mentioned something similar before (see hbd fallout | hbd chick):

“Back when groups differences weren’t so taboo in Western society, and one could talk about them openly, society was *also* more racist (this was pre-Civil Rights here in America). It is possible that in order for society to be aware of the reality of HBD, it must be actually be *racist*.

“Think of all the simmering resentment in Whites that are the victims of these crimes (as a Black man, I wouldn’t talk to this soldier’s family about now). And on top of that, imagine all the Whites that are not necessarily so politically correct about race. How would they react? (Here’s an example: Far-right extremists in eastern Germany quietly building a town for neo-Nazis.)

Can you have a multiracial society in one that is honest about group differences? … Will people *really* run with the understanding that differences *on average* don’t apply to every last individual, or will group solidarity rule the day? How will intelligent and completely inoffensive Blacks, for example, be treated by Whites then? The example of Chechens challenges the notion of treating people as individuals, because arguably they are so tribal and violent on average that even a modest number of them can cause problems (there are only 200 in America). But if they pose a problem in that way, what about other groups?

I still don’t know the answer to these questions. I fully admit that a society that openly acknowledges group differences may in fact also be a racist one. The reason I think this is not so much because of the way I think most people will behave. I think most Westerners can take this knowledge in stride. However, there are elements that won’t. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists. There is no social policy or prescription that necessarily follows from knowledge of inherited group differences. But it is the very nature of people determines how they will react. Some groups want to deride/persecute/destroy other groups they feel are tainted or inferior. Nazism didn’t come out of a vacuum, and it too is a result of the nature of the people who embraced it. (Indeed persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany was most intense in areas that had a long history of killing Jews – see Persecution Perpetuated: The Medieval Origins of Anti-Semitic Violence in Nazi Germany, Voigtländer & Voth 2010.) The key thing here is that it was not facts about racial differences themselves that led to the behavior of the Nazis or Cavalier-descended White American Southerners. It was their own traits, particularly their attitudes towards other groups. In fact, if you spend enough time reading the stuff put out by White Nationalists (as I unfortunately can’t avoid all that much in my line of work) you will find that many of their beliefs about race and biology are factually inaccurate, and their beliefs are twisted from the reality to suit their agendas (see The Problem with HBD, the Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, Alt-Rightism, and All That Jazz and “Ethnic Genetic Interests” Do Not Exist (Neither Does Group Selection)). The reality however is that these people don’t need much justification to pursue their aims – they want to act against other groups anyway. It is their nature.

Quite likely racists, neo-Nazis and the like will be more vocal in the event of a Trump victory (or even a Trump defeat). There is nothing saying that they will rule the day, however. That is not a given, and I suspect, broadly, that it’s not likely. Nonetheless, the Antiracist/P.C. crowd view acknowledging inherited biological differences as opening a floodgate that could usher in practices such as coercive eugenics (i.e., forced sterilizations – see also Razib Khan: Eugenics: the problem is coercion) or Jim Crow policies, or worse. That is a big part of why reasonable policies such as limiting immigration or restricting entry from certain groups (like Muslims) are off the table. To the Antiracist crowd, the matter of group differences is binary: we either are acknowledging them at all or we’re not.

Restricting certain groups (or any immigration) moves us from being a universalist society – where all people (and peoples) are treated equally, to a particularist one, where people are treated differently according to their inherent qualities. That’s a line they don’t want us to cross, for the aforementioned reasons.

Yet I will argue that this rebuke of biology, despite whatever semi-rational basis it might have, is in reality just another group attribute. Just like the Nazis embraced biology and extreme particularism, certain NW Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews have an inherent discomfort with biology – supremely ironically, because of their biology.

Easy examples of this:

These individuals regard biological bases to behavior as being wrong, or if not wrong, then dangerous or evil and they hate and/or fear them. But they are perfectly happy with “environmental” sources to human differences, and changes brought about with such.

But this fear reveals a deep logical inconsistency. While it’s true that belief in a biological basis to human differences has been involved in many societal evils, such as Jim Crow, forced sterilizations, and Nazism, the belief that there are is no biological basis to human behavior – the belief that we are blank slates – has led to great many more atrocities. While the off chance that an HBD-aware society might lead to discrimination and Nazism may exist, runaway blank slatism isn’t much better. You don’t hear much discussion of this guy:

Runaway blank slatism has arguably killed many times more people that the Nazis ever did.

But those who rail against biology barely acknowledge this. Part of the reason is that many in the Western Left are sympathetic to communism and its ideals. Some even believe that communism can still work if “properly implemented”.

Even the softer authoritarianism sweeping the West (e.g, in Sweden, Germany, and Britain) is too uncomfortable for my taste. It’s never good when society goes too far towards either extreme.

At the end to the day however, there is a reality regardless of what elites want us to think. Suppressing science only works so well because truths about the world will keep getting rediscovered. Modern technology is pushing ahead, and the facts continue to pour in. There is however a backlash in the West. The ascent of Donald Trump is the American manifestation of this, as is the rise of many nationalist candidates and parties in NW European countries. This could potentially be a good thing, because one of the most pressing problems facing Northwestern European-derived societies is unrelenting migration into them.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-migrant-crisis-angry-refugees-protest-hungary-bars-them-main-train-station-1517979

Trump is the only candidate who is taking a position against continued mass immigration, which must be halted soon for the good of both Western societies and ultimately the migrants themselves.

(All that said, let me make clear that I think that Trump is a less-than-ideal candidate for president for several reasons. For one, he appears to support the increasing encroachment of government into our civil liberties and the burgeoning Security State. He appears to be weak on established science – a fantastic irony – exemplified by his amenity to anti-vaxxers – an almost unforgivable sin in a leader. He also doesn’t seem to have clear and realistic economic plans and instead copies the mainstream conservative doctrine on things like taxation and healthcare. Now, those considered, Trump doesn’t appear to be much of a deeply principled politician – in stark contrast to Bernie Sanders – and is probably not all that attached to many of these positions. This leaves hope that his views on these matters might be changed. Might.)

Interesting and important times lie ahead. Let’s hope it turns out well.

On the matter of hope, as you know, I recently had another child, a beautiful daughter to give JayMan Jr. a playmate.

Little Miss AlertJayMan Jr Shave KidsLittle Miss Sleeping

And, as many of you know, children are expensive. I request your generous support. You can donate via PayPal (accepting Visa and Mastercard) via the button below or to the right:

donate_paypal

I am also accepting Bitcoins for those who prefer to use this route. My Bitcoin address is: 1DjjhBGxoRVfdjYo2QgSteMYLuXNVg3DiJ

index

Also you can pledge a recurring donation per publication through Patreon:

tumblr_ntgbmfWOoH1qeu1kfo2_5001

I greatly appreciate your donations!

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. That “weak on established science” link is hilarious. Today I learned that by wanting to do something about Obamacare, Trump established himself as anti-science. LOL.

    On anti-anti-vaxxers, I admit I have never managed to look upon them with a serene lack of contempt. Their exaggerated fearfulness over the minuscule danger of some anti-vaxxer’s child infecting their precious vaccinated sprog with measles would be merely amusing, except that these people’s stupid little fears of course must override other parents’ freedom to care for their own children’s health as they see fit.

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children? Right, he worst case outcome would be for the anti-vaxxers to have been right and your kids now being somehow damaged in a way theirs aren’t. Of course, you can avoid that outcome by forcing everybody to vaccinate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?
     
    Let's see:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/710188995540606976

    https://twitter.com/diseasesymptom/status/656575803497566208

    https://twitter.com/Physns1stWatch/status/710182359144878080

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/699100889659875328

    Get it?
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    I do not believe you should be required to vaccinate your children (although I do think you should want to). But I was unable to register for a public school Kindergarten (during 1975, in the S.F. Bay Area), until my parents had proven I had been conventionally vaccinated. I think this was a good law, and should be universal across the USA, and indeed, all civilized jurisdictions.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jman/the-donald-trump-phenomenon-part-2-binary-thinking/#comment-1360142
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @U. Ranus
    That "weak on established science" link is hilarious. Today I learned that by wanting to do something about Obamacare, Trump established himself as anti-science. LOL.

    On anti-anti-vaxxers, I admit I have never managed to look upon them with a serene lack of contempt. Their exaggerated fearfulness over the minuscule danger of some anti-vaxxer's child infecting their precious vaccinated sprog with measles would be merely amusing, except that these people's stupid little fears of course must override other parents' freedom to care for their own children's health as they see fit.

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children? Right, he worst case outcome would be for the anti-vaxxers to have been right and your kids now being somehow damaged in a way theirs aren't. Of course, you can avoid that outcome by forcing everybody to vaccinate.

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?

    Let’s see:

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    Get it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    The measles argument is very compelling. This is because it has an exceptionally high R0:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
    which affects the vaccination rate required to achieve herd immunity:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Vaccination

    The argument you make is less compelling for other diseases with lower R0.

    My main issues with vaccines are:
    - Insufficient attention to formulation issues (e.g. presence of mercury for so long in vaccines).
    - Insufficient tracking of and attention to adverse reactions.
    - Manufacturer freedom from liability. I am skeptical of anything that requires prohibiting liability to make it financially viable (looking at you nuclear power).
    - The number of vaccinations required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule#United_States
    - Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)
    - Strong belief in personal autonomy for health decisions (while realizing there may be rare cases where this must be compromised in the interest of public health).

    I wish we could come up with two vaccine schedules: required and recommended. The categories might need to be adjusted (on a community level?) to maintain herd immunity for a given disease. Another alternative would be to offer incentives (e.g. financial) to be vaccinated. Potentially the required schedule could be waived with sufficient reason (the bar would need to be high, e.g. a compromised immune system).

    Unfortunately, the points above, which I consider to be quite reasonable (and discussable in rational fashion), cause me to be labelled an anti-vaxxer (and anti-science, which would sound ludicrous to anyone who knows me) and beyond the pale. That is my objection to the anti-anti-vaxxers.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Jayman, do you understand the difference between cell-mediated and humoral immunity?
    , @dc.sunsets
    I ask, because there seems to be the same kind of "we don't talk about that" associated with vaccines. For example, the annual influenza vaccine is all but useless most of the time (published in Archives of Internal Medicine, no less), and recent outbreaks of measles have been traced to "immigrants," while it seems that more cases of pertussis are showing up in vaccinated persons.

    Ant-vaxxer has become yet another Name to call someone who utters blasphemy in the Cathedral. Don't want polio vaccine or MMR? That's the same as not wanting the flu shot, the HPV vaccine or administering a vaccine against an STD to infants...right?

    When this sort of thing is being so thoroughly conflated, I conclude it's the cult doing so.
    , @Michelle
    And smallpox too!!!

    https://www.google.com/search?q=smallpox&client=tablet-android-google&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAot6678rLAhUY72MKHfbXCSMQ_AUIBygB&biw=960&bih=600#imgrc=TxqTxleeXavX6M
    , @dc.sunsets
    LindaRegber proved that the measles vaccine prevents measles.

    Fine.

    I'd have been more interested if she had instead teased out a comparison of deaths and serious sequelae from measles before, and deaths & serious sequelae from measles and/or the measles vaccine after the vaccine was introduced, but I strongly suspect that such data, as important as they are, have not been kept. Ditto for vaccines like that for HPV. The real metric is deaths and serious sequelae from the disease vs from the vaccine itself. I strongly suspect that an honest accounting of this would segregate current vaccines into two or three subsets, with some of them clearly in the negative column, others in the apparent benefit column. Until such studies are actually done, forgive me for being somewhat cynical. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry and it is not exclusively populated (or regulated) by angels, and physicians as a group are anything but omniscient and infallible.

    Since vaccines rarely confer the same level of lifetime immunity to infectious disease as does actually contracting the disease, there are serious questions about things like Chicken Pox (varicella) as we head into an unknown future. Will those who never got the CP but did get the vaccine be at risk of a full-blown adult case in decades to come? We might expect such an event to be life-threatening, given varicella's history.

    Do immunologists know the long-term effects of preventing normal childhood diseases? There are well-informed people who suggest that our immune system is still developing during childhood, and that the historically normal challenges of usually benign childhood infections was part of its normal maturation, a process now stopped before completion. When future pathogens circulate, will this turn out to be a fertile field for pandemic?

    These are matters of legitimate discussion, are they not? Or is the "science settled" here like it is about race, and about human contributions to climate change?

    That the term settled science even exists informs us how far down the theocratic cult's rabbit hole we've dropped.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Hey Jay, good content on measles (if you deem the CDC an unimpeachable and accurate data source.) Tynan DeBold and Dov Friedman's data on pertussis is not consistent with rather authoritative reviews:

    Results. —We estimated that 13557 pertussis hospitalizations (95% confidence interval [CI], 12953 to 14162) and 98 pertussis deaths had occurred during the 4-year study period (an average of more than 3300 hospitalizations and 25 deaths per year). The completeness of reporting hospitalizations to the CDC was 32% and to the CPHA-PAS, 23%, while the completeness of reporting pertussis deaths to the CDC was 33% and to NCHS, 23%. Patients who were hospitalized with pertussis and reported to CDC were at a higher risk for developing pneumonia (31.0% vs 20.0%, relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.7), seizures (3.7% vs 2.1%; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5) and encephalitis (1.2% vs 0.2%; RR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.4 to 11.6) compared with patients recorded in the CPHA-PAS system.

    Conclusions. —Our study suggests that there is substantial underreporting of pertussis, that severe complications of pertussis (including hospitalizations) are reported preferentially to the CDC, and that the national health impact of pertussis based on these indicators is considerably higher than previously published reports have suggested.(JAMA. 1992;267:386-391)
     
    How about pertussis?

    http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/References/pertussis-vaccine-ref.pdf

    I clicked through some of these sources (I'm quite familiar with some of the journals) and verified Mercola's interpretation of enough of them that I'm content to let the others stand.

    Whether you approve this late comment or not, I just wanted to point out that your blanket position on this subject has legitimate opposition.
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/12/pertussis-vaccine.aspx

    Before you call Mercola a crank/quack, note that your positions are similarly outside the consensus on a fair number of subjects. Glass houses and all that....

    http://search.mercola.com/results.aspx?q=measles%20vaccine

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/24/dissolving-illusions-measles-vaccine.aspx

    I followed back your reference to the above; the numbers are based on CDC reports. I strongly suspect that this is akin to basing ones entire premise about AGW on data supplied by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK.

    Dr. Debold was curious about the one measles-related child death recorded in 2005 and the fact that the CDC did not acknowledge it when replying to Dr. Nass. Dr. Debold wondered if, perhaps, the 2005 child death was MMR vaccine related.

    She searched VAERS reports using the MedAlerts9 database, where she found five deaths associated with measles containing vaccines that occurred in 2005 in the U.S. in males aged one to four years.

    One of those 2005 MMR vaccine related death reports in VAERS listed "mild fever" and "non-infectious encephalitis and encephalopathy" as symptoms after a one year old boy received MMR, varicella and flu vaccines and died five days later (VAERS ID# 250504).

    The autopsy report listed "sudden unexpected death in childhood" as the cause of death; however, there was no mention of a rash or other measles-related symptoms, which also can occur after MMR vaccination.

    Dr. Debold commented, "Six out of seven measles-associated deaths reported after 2003 in the National Vital Statistics reports occurred in adults between the ages of 25 and over 85 years old, who should either have had natural measles immunity or have gotten at least one MMR shot. It would be helpful for CDC to explain the discrepancy between National Vital Statistics data and the statement made to Dr. Nass."

    So, between zero and seven measles-related deaths have occurred in the U.S. since 2003, but how many measles vaccine reaction death reports have been recorded by the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the past 12 years?

    Searching the MedAlerts database, we see that there were 98 deaths following MMR or MMRV vaccinations reported to VAERS that occurred between 2003 and 2015. Plus, there have been 694 reports of MMR or MMRV vaccinations causing disability in that time frame.

    It has been estimated that less than 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.10,11

    Considering the fact that there were 98 measles vaccine-related deaths and 694 measles vaccine-related disabilities reported to VAERS in the past 12 years, if only 10 percent of vaccine-related deaths and disabilities are being reported to the government, then the actual number of measles vaccine-related deaths and disabilities that have occurred since 2003 could have been as many as 980 deaths and 6,940 disabilities.
     
  3. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists.

    Significantly more so than in the general population? I’d like to see some documentation on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Significantly more so than in the general population? I’d like to see some documentation on that.
     
    Significantly more than the general white population anyway. This is obvious.
  4. People hate Trump because the political class and the corporate media tell them to. The political class and the corporate media tell the people to hate Trump because their owners, the donor class, tells them too. The donor class does not hate Trump. They just find him unacceptable because they don’t own him.

    Similarly, the SJW’s hold the stupid political beliefs they hold because the donor class owns academia. HBD is just collateral damage.

    Read More
  5. @JayMan

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?
     
    Let's see:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/710188995540606976

    https://twitter.com/diseasesymptom/status/656575803497566208

    https://twitter.com/Physns1stWatch/status/710182359144878080

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/699100889659875328

    Get it?

    The measles argument is very compelling. This is because it has an exceptionally high R0:

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

    which affects the vaccination rate required to achieve herd immunity:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Vaccination

    The argument you make is less compelling for other diseases with lower R0.

    My main issues with vaccines are:
    - Insufficient attention to formulation issues (e.g. presence of mercury for so long in vaccines).
    - Insufficient tracking of and attention to adverse reactions.
    - Manufacturer freedom from liability. I am skeptical of anything that requires prohibiting liability to make it financially viable (looking at you nuclear power).
    - The number of vaccinations required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule#United_States
    - Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)
    - Strong belief in personal autonomy for health decisions (while realizing there may be rare cases where this must be compromised in the interest of public health).

    I wish we could come up with two vaccine schedules: required and recommended. The categories might need to be adjusted (on a community level?) to maintain herd immunity for a given disease. Another alternative would be to offer incentives (e.g. financial) to be vaccinated. Potentially the required schedule could be waived with sufficient reason (the bar would need to be high, e.g. a compromised immune system).

    Unfortunately, the points above, which I consider to be quite reasonable (and discussable in rational fashion), cause me to be labelled an anti-vaxxer (and anti-science, which would sound ludicrous to anyone who knows me) and beyond the pale. That is my objection to the anti-anti-vaxxers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    My main issues with vaccines are:
    - Insufficient attention to formulation issues (e.g. presence of mercury for so long in vaccines).
    - Insufficient tracking of and attention to adverse reactions.
     

    The number of vaccinations required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule#United_States
    - Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)
     
    Of course the list of required vaccines would be long. That's progress. Would you not like to see the common cold, herpes, HIV, and/or the norovirus added to that list? I would.

    Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)
     
    See above.

    Strong belief in personal autonomy for health decisions (while realizing there may be rare cases where this must be compromised in the interest of public health).
     
    As your very comment illustrates, this is one issue where the needs of the many outweight the personal autonomy of the one.

    Manufacturer freedom from liability. I am skeptical of anything that requires prohibiting liability to make it financially viable (looking at you nuclear power).
     
    There's your problem. Look up the actual number of deaths from different energy sources.

    I wish we could come up with two vaccine schedules: required and recommended. The categories might need to be adjusted (on a community level?) to maintain herd immunity for a given disease. Another alternative would be to offer incentives (e.g. financial) to be vaccinated. Potentially the required schedule could be waived with sufficient reason (the bar would need to be high, e.g. a compromised immune system).
     
    No, and no. There is no reason for it, debate only leads to silliness, and the potential for disaster looms in the background. There should be no non-medical exemptions for vaccines allowed anywhere.

    Unfortunately, the points above, which I consider to be quite reasonable (and discussable in rational fashion), cause me to be labelled an anti-vaxxer (and anti-science, which would sound ludicrous to anyone who knows me) and beyond the pale. That is my objection to the anti-anti-vaxxers.
     
    There is a good reason. Most people who claim to be "pro-science" don't know nearly as much science as they think or should.

    The rate of adverse reactions from vaccines is so low that this is the height non-conerns.

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/

  6. @JayMan

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?
     
    Let's see:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/710188995540606976

    https://twitter.com/diseasesymptom/status/656575803497566208

    https://twitter.com/Physns1stWatch/status/710182359144878080

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/699100889659875328

    Get it?

    Jayman, do you understand the difference between cell-mediated and humoral immunity?

    Read More
  7. @JayMan

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?
     
    Let's see:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/710188995540606976

    https://twitter.com/diseasesymptom/status/656575803497566208

    https://twitter.com/Physns1stWatch/status/710182359144878080

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/699100889659875328

    Get it?

    I ask, because there seems to be the same kind of “we don’t talk about that” associated with vaccines. For example, the annual influenza vaccine is all but useless most of the time (published in Archives of Internal Medicine, no less), and recent outbreaks of measles have been traced to “immigrants,” while it seems that more cases of pertussis are showing up in vaccinated persons.

    Ant-vaxxer has become yet another Name to call someone who utters blasphemy in the Cathedral. Don’t want polio vaccine or MMR? That’s the same as not wanting the flu shot, the HPV vaccine or administering a vaccine against an STD to infants…right?

    When this sort of thing is being so thoroughly conflated, I conclude it’s the cult doing so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    By the way, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Your apparent trust in the FDA & pharmaceutical companies is charmingly naive. Actually, skip the charming.
    , @JayMan

    Ant-vaxxer has become yet another Name to call someone who utters blasphemy in the Cathedral.
     
    No, it's a good name for people who are being foolish. See above.
  8. We live in a theocracy. No kidding. Surely you’ve heard of the Dark Enlightenment. Exactly how on Earth does the writing of Nick Land and others deviate from what you’ve published above?

    However, there are elements that won’t. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists. There is no social policy or prescription that necessarily follows from knowledge of inherited group differences. But it is the very nature of people determines how they will react. Some groups want to deride/persecute/destroy other groups they feel are tainted or inferior. Nazism didn’t come out of a vacuum, and it too is a result of the nature of the people who embraced it.

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?

    Our theocracy doesn’t have a god, but it has saints (MLK, FDR & Lincoln) and it has its Satan: Hitler and his National Socialists. Cultists inevitably wheel out their Satan whenever it’s time to hold a witch-hunt.

    The cult (this theocracy is a cult from every angle) treats thoughtcrime as blasphemy; anyone who holds racist views should be fired from his job and presumably hounded out of polite society, no?

    You seem to say that in the name of academic honesty and truth, issues of race should be able to be discussed, right? Where do you then draw the line? It’s okay to discuss them but if anyone draws a probability-based conclusion (e.g., being a little more nervous when there’s a group of black males behind you on a dark city street than if the group was a few Chinese males), is that racist? Should someone be fired for uttering such thoughtcrime?

    I suggest to you that the line is where political power directed at harming people begins. Given that we currently live in a polity where political power tilts radically in favor of Non Asian Minorities, at the expense of everyone not in that group, a whole lot of people would scream and riot and burn if the scales were simply balanced more evenly.

    That, today, is blasphemy. It is also why the level of conflict is going to rise dramatically, especially when this 50 year diversion into monetary, economic and financial Fairy Tales finally comes to an end.

    I don’t wish to destroy anyone. I do, however, wish to stop being harnessed to a cart in which others choose to ride. As things stand, those who want to ride are making it clear that the only way to stop them from harnessing me is to eliminate them. For now, my choice is to simply stop pulling. I can and have radically reduced my taxable activities, but my guess is that the next phase in this farce is cannibal democracy, where income AND property are taxed heavily. When that comes around, do you really think those harnessed to the cart will sit still?

    Should they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?
     
    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/565243482248605699

    How anti-Semitism in interwar Germany was influenced by the medieval mass murder of Jews | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

    You know, neither of those things was that long ago.

    Spend some time reading around this "Dark Enlightenment" space.

    , @DINDUNUFFINS
    “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

    Guess who.
  9. @dc.sunsets
    I ask, because there seems to be the same kind of "we don't talk about that" associated with vaccines. For example, the annual influenza vaccine is all but useless most of the time (published in Archives of Internal Medicine, no less), and recent outbreaks of measles have been traced to "immigrants," while it seems that more cases of pertussis are showing up in vaccinated persons.

    Ant-vaxxer has become yet another Name to call someone who utters blasphemy in the Cathedral. Don't want polio vaccine or MMR? That's the same as not wanting the flu shot, the HPV vaccine or administering a vaccine against an STD to infants...right?

    When this sort of thing is being so thoroughly conflated, I conclude it's the cult doing so.

    By the way, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Your apparent trust in the FDA & pharmaceutical companies is charmingly naive. Actually, skip the charming.

    Read More
  10. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Dear JayMan,

    The framework with which one views these things, indeed, is crucial. The data say that something is so, or probably so. As a Christian (Eastern Orthodox), I do not hate any “people group” as such, because to do that is to hate God. Nor can I challenge His apportioning different talents to different people, whether in between the groups, or individual variances within groups. For an atheist, “anything is possible!” as Dostoyevsky wrote. Since atheism and agnosticism is the framework of most Western intellectuals, Left and Right, I can understand their concern for the consequences of the truth being known. But the truth remains the truth, whether people want to admit it or not.

    Sincerely,

    Andrew

    Read More
  11. @JayMan

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?
     
    Let's see:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/710188995540606976

    https://twitter.com/diseasesymptom/status/656575803497566208

    https://twitter.com/Physns1stWatch/status/710182359144878080

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/699100889659875328

    Get it?
    Read More
  12. It is true that many of Trumps supporters hold ideas about race differences, and for this they are called racists. But, I would like to see an honest assessment of the race-based ideas of Clinton’s supporters. I think they are more racist, but in politically correct ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "It is true that many of Trumps supporters hold ideas about race differences, and for this they are called racists. But, I would like to see an honest assessment of the race-based ideas of Clinton’s supporters. I think they are more racist, but in politically correct ways."

    This is a valid point. People (often so-called "progressives") make all manner of unflattering generalizations about White people, but this activity does not get one characterized as "a racist" by the dominant forces in our society. In order to be so characterized by mainstream sources, one must do, well, precisely the same thing, while speaking about, um, pretty much anyone who isn't White.
  13. @JayMan

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?
     
    Let's see:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/710188995540606976

    https://twitter.com/diseasesymptom/status/656575803497566208

    https://twitter.com/Physns1stWatch/status/710182359144878080

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/699100889659875328

    Get it?

    LindaRegber proved that the measles vaccine prevents measles.

    Fine.

    I’d have been more interested if she had instead teased out a comparison of deaths and serious sequelae from measles before, and deaths & serious sequelae from measles and/or the measles vaccine after the vaccine was introduced, but I strongly suspect that such data, as important as they are, have not been kept. Ditto for vaccines like that for HPV. The real metric is deaths and serious sequelae from the disease vs from the vaccine itself. I strongly suspect that an honest accounting of this would segregate current vaccines into two or three subsets, with some of them clearly in the negative column, others in the apparent benefit column. Until such studies are actually done, forgive me for being somewhat cynical. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry and it is not exclusively populated (or regulated) by angels, and physicians as a group are anything but omniscient and infallible.

    Since vaccines rarely confer the same level of lifetime immunity to infectious disease as does actually contracting the disease, there are serious questions about things like Chicken Pox (varicella) as we head into an unknown future. Will those who never got the CP but did get the vaccine be at risk of a full-blown adult case in decades to come? We might expect such an event to be life-threatening, given varicella’s history.

    Do immunologists know the long-term effects of preventing normal childhood diseases? There are well-informed people who suggest that our immune system is still developing during childhood, and that the historically normal challenges of usually benign childhood infections was part of its normal maturation, a process now stopped before completion. When future pathogens circulate, will this turn out to be a fertile field for pandemic?

    These are matters of legitimate discussion, are they not? Or is the “science settled” here like it is about race, and about human contributions to climate change?

    That the term settled science even exists informs us how far down the theocratic cult’s rabbit hole we’ve dropped.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I’d have been more interested if she had instead teased out a comparison of deaths and serious sequelae from measles before, and deaths & serious sequelae from measles and/or the measles vaccine after the vaccine was introduced, but I strongly suspect that such data, as important as they are, have not been kept. Ditto for vaccines like that for HPV. The real metric is deaths and serious sequelae from the disease vs from the vaccine itself.
     
    Look, the there is no question of the role that vaccines have played in combating disease and (in concerned with improved sanitation and antibiotics) greatly improving human life.

    Since vaccines rarely confer the same level of lifetime immunity to infectious disease as does actually contracting the disease, there are serious questions about things like Chicken Pox (varicella) as we head into an unknown future. Will those who never got the CP but did get the vaccine be at risk of a full-blown adult case in decades to come? We might expect such an event to be life-threatening, given varicella’s history.
     
    Sure, if anti-vaxxers have their way and chicken box makes a comeback. They'll never have to look forward to shingles, anyway.

    That the term settled science even exists informs us how far down the theocratic cult’s rabbit hole we’ve dropped.
     
    At some point we have to accept that the world is in fact round.
  14. While some Trump supporters probably are genuine far-righters, it’s probably better for minorities that the US has a populist/nationalist revolt now, rather than later. The Anglosphere last had a big populist revolt in the period from about 1880-1920 which resulted in a shift away from mass immigration and poor financial regulation and the birth of a basic social welfare system. This outbreak of democratic nationalism allowed the Anglosphere to avoid the totalitarian extremes of fascism and communism later down the track. Many European countries weren’t so lucky, and Germany provides a stark example of how a right liberal country can lurch into extreme totalitarianism when it ignores rising economic inequality and ethnic resentment (I classify the US as right-liberal country with left-liberal progressives controlling certain fields such as education and media discourse on social issues).

    Read More
  15. @res
    The measles argument is very compelling. This is because it has an exceptionally high R0:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
    which affects the vaccination rate required to achieve herd immunity:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Vaccination

    The argument you make is less compelling for other diseases with lower R0.

    My main issues with vaccines are:
    - Insufficient attention to formulation issues (e.g. presence of mercury for so long in vaccines).
    - Insufficient tracking of and attention to adverse reactions.
    - Manufacturer freedom from liability. I am skeptical of anything that requires prohibiting liability to make it financially viable (looking at you nuclear power).
    - The number of vaccinations required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule#United_States
    - Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)
    - Strong belief in personal autonomy for health decisions (while realizing there may be rare cases where this must be compromised in the interest of public health).

    I wish we could come up with two vaccine schedules: required and recommended. The categories might need to be adjusted (on a community level?) to maintain herd immunity for a given disease. Another alternative would be to offer incentives (e.g. financial) to be vaccinated. Potentially the required schedule could be waived with sufficient reason (the bar would need to be high, e.g. a compromised immune system).

    Unfortunately, the points above, which I consider to be quite reasonable (and discussable in rational fashion), cause me to be labelled an anti-vaxxer (and anti-science, which would sound ludicrous to anyone who knows me) and beyond the pale. That is my objection to the anti-anti-vaxxers.

    My main issues with vaccines are:
    - Insufficient attention to formulation issues (e.g. presence of mercury for so long in vaccines).
    - Insufficient tracking of and attention to adverse reactions.

    The number of vaccinations required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule#United_States
    - Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)

    Of course the list of required vaccines would be long. That’s progress. Would you not like to see the common cold, herpes, HIV, and/or the norovirus added to that list? I would.

    Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)

    See above.

    Strong belief in personal autonomy for health decisions (while realizing there may be rare cases where this must be compromised in the interest of public health).

    As your very comment illustrates, this is one issue where the needs of the many outweight the personal autonomy of the one.

    Manufacturer freedom from liability. I am skeptical of anything that requires prohibiting liability to make it financially viable (looking at you nuclear power).

    There’s your problem. Look up the actual number of deaths from different energy sources.

    I wish we could come up with two vaccine schedules: required and recommended. The categories might need to be adjusted (on a community level?) to maintain herd immunity for a given disease. Another alternative would be to offer incentives (e.g. financial) to be vaccinated. Potentially the required schedule could be waived with sufficient reason (the bar would need to be high, e.g. a compromised immune system).

    No, and no. There is no reason for it, debate only leads to silliness, and the potential for disaster looms in the background. There should be no non-medical exemptions for vaccines allowed anywhere.

    Unfortunately, the points above, which I consider to be quite reasonable (and discussable in rational fashion), cause me to be labelled an anti-vaxxer (and anti-science, which would sound ludicrous to anyone who knows me) and beyond the pale. That is my objection to the anti-anti-vaxxers.

    There is a good reason. Most people who claim to be “pro-science” don’t know nearly as much science as they think or should.

    The rate of adverse reactions from vaccines is so low that this is the height non-conerns.

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    That’s progress.
     
    And that's one of the main contributors to making today's politics so ridiculous. A little is good so more must be better. (not a coincidence that the group most responsible for this calls itself progressive)

    Reducing taxes from the 90%+ level was good for the economy so more tax cuts must be better.
    Stopping slavery/Jim Crow was good so as much anti-racism as possible must be better.
    Measles is extremely contagious justifying compulsive vaccination so requiring all vaccines must be better.

    I suspect you can supply your own examples. Also see Steve Sailer's post on diminishing marginal returns.

    Regarding

    Would you not like to see the common cold, herpes, HIV, and/or the norovirus added to that list? I would.
     
    I would like to see those vaccines made available, but not required.

    I have never had the flu vaccine and cannot remember the last time I had the flu. I cannot understand how some people are attempting to mandate a vaccine which seems to be unnecessary for me and in many years is not even effective. Every winter I marvel at the number of people who had the flu vaccine talking about having the flu.

    As far as

    The rate of adverse reactions from vaccines is so low that this is the height non-conerns.

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/
     
    Did you actually look at all of those sheets? The Rubella data is interesting:

    Rubella
    Mild
    Injection site reactions 17-30 per 100
    Systemic reactions, Fever 2 per 100
    Acute arthralgia 25 per 100
    Serious
    Acute arthritis 10%

    A 10% chance of a serious side effect is "low"? I guess you use that word differently than I do.
  16. @dc.sunsets
    I ask, because there seems to be the same kind of "we don't talk about that" associated with vaccines. For example, the annual influenza vaccine is all but useless most of the time (published in Archives of Internal Medicine, no less), and recent outbreaks of measles have been traced to "immigrants," while it seems that more cases of pertussis are showing up in vaccinated persons.

    Ant-vaxxer has become yet another Name to call someone who utters blasphemy in the Cathedral. Don't want polio vaccine or MMR? That's the same as not wanting the flu shot, the HPV vaccine or administering a vaccine against an STD to infants...right?

    When this sort of thing is being so thoroughly conflated, I conclude it's the cult doing so.

    Ant-vaxxer has become yet another Name to call someone who utters blasphemy in the Cathedral.

    No, it’s a good name for people who are being foolish. See above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    No, it’s a good name for people who are being foolish. See above.
     
    Would you characterize my initial post above as being "anti-vaxxer"? What do you think of people who do?
  17. @Michelle
    And smallpox too!!!

    https://www.google.com/search?q=smallpox&client=tablet-android-google&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAot6678rLAhUY72MKHfbXCSMQ_AUIBygB&biw=960&bih=600#imgrc=TxqTxleeXavX6M

    Yup.

    Read More
  18. @dc.sunsets
    We live in a theocracy. No kidding. Surely you've heard of the Dark Enlightenment. Exactly how on Earth does the writing of Nick Land and others deviate from what you've published above?

    However, there are elements that won’t. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists. There is no social policy or prescription that necessarily follows from knowledge of inherited group differences. But it is the very nature of people determines how they will react. Some groups want to deride/persecute/destroy other groups they feel are tainted or inferior. Nazism didn’t come out of a vacuum, and it too is a result of the nature of the people who embraced it.
     
    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?

    Our theocracy doesn't have a god, but it has saints (MLK, FDR & Lincoln) and it has its Satan: Hitler and his National Socialists. Cultists inevitably wheel out their Satan whenever it's time to hold a witch-hunt.

    The cult (this theocracy is a cult from every angle) treats thoughtcrime as blasphemy; anyone who holds racist views should be fired from his job and presumably hounded out of polite society, no?

    You seem to say that in the name of academic honesty and truth, issues of race should be able to be discussed, right? Where do you then draw the line? It's okay to discuss them but if anyone draws a probability-based conclusion (e.g., being a little more nervous when there's a group of black males behind you on a dark city street than if the group was a few Chinese males), is that racist? Should someone be fired for uttering such thoughtcrime?

    I suggest to you that the line is where political power directed at harming people begins. Given that we currently live in a polity where political power tilts radically in favor of Non Asian Minorities, at the expense of everyone not in that group, a whole lot of people would scream and riot and burn if the scales were simply balanced more evenly.

    That, today, is blasphemy. It is also why the level of conflict is going to rise dramatically, especially when this 50 year diversion into monetary, economic and financial Fairy Tales finally comes to an end.

    I don't wish to destroy anyone. I do, however, wish to stop being harnessed to a cart in which others choose to ride. As things stand, those who want to ride are making it clear that the only way to stop them from harnessing me is to eliminate them. For now, my choice is to simply stop pulling. I can and have radically reduced my taxable activities, but my guess is that the next phase in this farce is cannibal democracy, where income AND property are taxed heavily. When that comes around, do you really think those harnessed to the cart will sit still?

    Should they?

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?

    How anti-Semitism in interwar Germany was influenced by the medieval mass murder of Jews | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

    You know, neither of those things was that long ago.

    Spend some time reading around this “Dark Enlightenment” space.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    You bet your lynchings, I raise you the Knoxville Horror, the recent 13 year old whose DNA was left on a 90 year old rape victim, and so many more each week that never are "newsworthy."

    Let us accept interracial crime statistics as they are, or agree to go our separate ways in peace. Ironically, anyone expressing the desire to separate is labeled a racist...but only if he's white.

    Your position on vaccines & invocation of the Great Satan is evidence of exactly the kind of collectivist intolerance of contrary belief that drives conflict. For the cultist there is Rightthought and there are (your term) fools. And fools (heretics) cannot be tolerated.

    See you on the other side.
    , @Pale Primate
    I think that the insane amount of PC/SJW nonsense that certain sectors of society (mostly gov't, media, education, but others too) have pushed the pendulum so far one way that now there is all this built-up energy to swing the pendulum the other way. When it swings the other way, I hope that things like HBD understanding will help to make better policies that would better help all Americans. I'm just afraid that many people are sick of PC culture, but don't have the knowledge basis to turn the reaction against it in a positive direction.

    I don't want to see any American hurt or have their rights taken away. I also don't want to see the USA turn into a colder version of Brazil. It seems that getting control of immigration has to be the top priority. If things continue the way they have been going, I think that many of the rights that I care about will find themselves under even greater attack. Ultimately, what the Constitution actually says is ignored by as much as those in power can get away with it. The more mixed up the demographics within the USA become, the less people will really care about 'rights' and it just becomes about getting into power to give out ethnic sectarian favors. I think we are already seeing that to a degree.

    I don't like Trump's views on the National Security State, and I disagree with him on a number of other things, but I think he *may* be the only one who is willing to do what it takes to get control of immigration. Once the wall built, with all the money spent on it, it will be hard for whomever follows Trump as President to justify taking it down. He also says he will protect the 2nd Amendment, so that is good, too. I don't even own a gun, but I understand why it is important for the people to be able to arm themselves. I think I should get one before this summer, though. It seems things may be getting even crazier.

    Keep up the good work, JayMan. I hope you and your family are doing well.
    , @Pale Primate
    Thoughts on this?

    http://thealternativeright.com/2016/01/08/the-lynching-myth/
    , @Ace
    A little perspective: There were some 4,000 lynchings in the US (some whites). Taking the Soviet death toll to be c. 30,000,000 over 70 years for the sake of argument, I figure them to have managed over that period a murder rate of 1,000 a day. (Greater if I were to use the period 1917-55.)

    Thus, the Soviets blew through the entire death toll in the US in four days.

    In the grand scheme of things, the fantastically low toll for America shows that our civilization did very well.

    This anti-racism/PC religion now threatens to fatally undermine that civilization and replace it with, not blank-slatism, but virulent, ignorant chaos.
    , @Epochehusserl
    More white people are killed in one year by black crime than were ever lynched. The civil rights leaders are more interested in banning iq tests than fighting racism. If an employer was only interested in your race then he would test your blood not your iq. Remember if you can't pass the test then pick up a book and throw it at your political opponents in order to prove that everybody is equal.
  19. @dc.sunsets
    LindaRegber proved that the measles vaccine prevents measles.

    Fine.

    I'd have been more interested if she had instead teased out a comparison of deaths and serious sequelae from measles before, and deaths & serious sequelae from measles and/or the measles vaccine after the vaccine was introduced, but I strongly suspect that such data, as important as they are, have not been kept. Ditto for vaccines like that for HPV. The real metric is deaths and serious sequelae from the disease vs from the vaccine itself. I strongly suspect that an honest accounting of this would segregate current vaccines into two or three subsets, with some of them clearly in the negative column, others in the apparent benefit column. Until such studies are actually done, forgive me for being somewhat cynical. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry and it is not exclusively populated (or regulated) by angels, and physicians as a group are anything but omniscient and infallible.

    Since vaccines rarely confer the same level of lifetime immunity to infectious disease as does actually contracting the disease, there are serious questions about things like Chicken Pox (varicella) as we head into an unknown future. Will those who never got the CP but did get the vaccine be at risk of a full-blown adult case in decades to come? We might expect such an event to be life-threatening, given varicella's history.

    Do immunologists know the long-term effects of preventing normal childhood diseases? There are well-informed people who suggest that our immune system is still developing during childhood, and that the historically normal challenges of usually benign childhood infections was part of its normal maturation, a process now stopped before completion. When future pathogens circulate, will this turn out to be a fertile field for pandemic?

    These are matters of legitimate discussion, are they not? Or is the "science settled" here like it is about race, and about human contributions to climate change?

    That the term settled science even exists informs us how far down the theocratic cult's rabbit hole we've dropped.

    I’d have been more interested if she had instead teased out a comparison of deaths and serious sequelae from measles before, and deaths & serious sequelae from measles and/or the measles vaccine after the vaccine was introduced, but I strongly suspect that such data, as important as they are, have not been kept. Ditto for vaccines like that for HPV. The real metric is deaths and serious sequelae from the disease vs from the vaccine itself.

    Look, the there is no question of the role that vaccines have played in combating disease and (in concerned with improved sanitation and antibiotics) greatly improving human life.

    Since vaccines rarely confer the same level of lifetime immunity to infectious disease as does actually contracting the disease, there are serious questions about things like Chicken Pox (varicella) as we head into an unknown future. Will those who never got the CP but did get the vaccine be at risk of a full-blown adult case in decades to come? We might expect such an event to be life-threatening, given varicella’s history.

    Sure, if anti-vaxxers have their way and chicken box makes a comeback. They’ll never have to look forward to shingles, anyway.

    That the term settled science even exists informs us how far down the theocratic cult’s rabbit hole we’ve dropped.

    At some point we have to accept that the world is in fact round.

    Read More
  20. Expect sanity by insane and/or stupid people is the true insanity that rational people commit all the time. Do yourself and do not expect that by miracle those telletubies on the left will change their doctrination, it’s a train without control.

    Hbd and white nationalists (or other outsider groups) STILL expect sanity and wisdom by politics.

    It’s serious.

    Read More
  21. One thing that I’ve found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews. You try to tell them that it isn’t the fault of the Jews that some Indian peasant took their job, but that the real fault lies with them, who were making a living doing such a low-skill job that any low-IQ Indian peasant can do just as well and at a much lower cost, and they end the discussion by calling you an ‘anti-white”.

    It is my experience talking with white nationalists that makes me think that the overall effects of HBD knowledge on society won’t be so bad, and won’t result in a recrudescence of a virulent and violent racism. People are vain, but HBD makes everyone look bad, though admittedly some more than others, so they, like the white nationalists I mentioned above, will refuse to accept it. And the people that HBD would seem to make the look the best (i.e. high-IQ people with elite educations and jobs), by and large, are a disproportionately Jewish but still fairly multi-racial set, and they have other priorities besides trying to stoke racism. The elimination of PC will likely lead to increased academic freedom and, possibly, smarter policy-making, but that’s pretty much it. A certain casual racism may make a come back too–for example, white people will probably feel more comfortable using the word ‘nigger’ again–but even this isn’t guaranteed in my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    One thing that I’ve found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews.
     
    Ummm hmmm. Good comment!
    , @Aaron Gross
    I've been pointing out the same thing for a long time: In the area where the evidence for genetic influence on group differences is perhaps the strongest—between different socio-economic classes of whites—self-described HBD types are silent. They're just not very interested in human biological diversity, I guess.

    Usually, if a certain blogger I follow, who has some HBD commenters, talks about the culture of poverty etc., I'm the only one to mention genes. The HBD commenters are silent until he brings up race.

    (Btw, the evidence for between-class genetic influence seems stronger than for between-race because you can do studies of correlations over time within families, in order to infer causality, which you obviously can't do for between-race comparisons.)
  22. @Irving
    One thing that I've found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews. You try to tell them that it isn't the fault of the Jews that some Indian peasant took their job, but that the real fault lies with them, who were making a living doing such a low-skill job that any low-IQ Indian peasant can do just as well and at a much lower cost, and they end the discussion by calling you an 'anti-white".

    It is my experience talking with white nationalists that makes me think that the overall effects of HBD knowledge on society won't be so bad, and won't result in a recrudescence of a virulent and violent racism. People are vain, but HBD makes everyone look bad, though admittedly some more than others, so they, like the white nationalists I mentioned above, will refuse to accept it. And the people that HBD would seem to make the look the best (i.e. high-IQ people with elite educations and jobs), by and large, are a disproportionately Jewish but still fairly multi-racial set, and they have other priorities besides trying to stoke racism. The elimination of PC will likely lead to increased academic freedom and, possibly, smarter policy-making, but that's pretty much it. A certain casual racism may make a come back too--for example, white people will probably feel more comfortable using the word 'nigger' again--but even this isn't guaranteed in my opinion.

    One thing that I’ve found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews.

    Ummm hmmm. Good comment!

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Lets take that a step further.

    We know how to increase the IQ of a population. We know how to decrease the violence that a population exhibits.

    It's called truncation selection applied over a relatively long period of time (large number of generations).

    We execute those who exhibit violent tendencies before they can reproduce and sterilize those of low intelligence before they can reproduce.

    Each population has a set of characteristics that can be modified, so lets not take cheap shots at those on the left size of the distribution among one population when it is the mean that is more interesting to discuss.

    Moreover, the person you were responding to seems willing to abandon (perhaps even execute) low-class whites. I am glad he has shown his true colors.
    , @Epochehusserl
    Is the doctrine of disparate impact not discriminatory against whites? Haven't violent student groups demanded to have the curriculum changed to accomodate nonpaying students? How is it possible to know the iq of poor whites since is testing is forbidden?
    , @Epochehusserl
    You ask how whites will treat intelligent and inoffensive black? You mean like the intelligent and inoffenisve blacks who threaten whites on college campuses or support Jesse Jackson for false rape accusations. Or the local daycare center owner who said the most vile and disgusting things against white men when she was going to lose government funding. Or inoffensive blacks who denounce iq testing and standardized tests as being racist but then to get low iq blacks ssi, using iq as a criteria for disability payments?
  23. @JayMan

    My main issues with vaccines are:
    - Insufficient attention to formulation issues (e.g. presence of mercury for so long in vaccines).
    - Insufficient tracking of and attention to adverse reactions.
     

    The number of vaccinations required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule#United_States
    - Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)
     
    Of course the list of required vaccines would be long. That's progress. Would you not like to see the common cold, herpes, HIV, and/or the norovirus added to that list? I would.

    Shotgun approach with particular vaccines (e.g. the MMR vaccine seems to be one of the more problematic, but is important because measles is so contagious, perhaps a measles specific vaccine would help)
     
    See above.

    Strong belief in personal autonomy for health decisions (while realizing there may be rare cases where this must be compromised in the interest of public health).
     
    As your very comment illustrates, this is one issue where the needs of the many outweight the personal autonomy of the one.

    Manufacturer freedom from liability. I am skeptical of anything that requires prohibiting liability to make it financially viable (looking at you nuclear power).
     
    There's your problem. Look up the actual number of deaths from different energy sources.

    I wish we could come up with two vaccine schedules: required and recommended. The categories might need to be adjusted (on a community level?) to maintain herd immunity for a given disease. Another alternative would be to offer incentives (e.g. financial) to be vaccinated. Potentially the required schedule could be waived with sufficient reason (the bar would need to be high, e.g. a compromised immune system).
     
    No, and no. There is no reason for it, debate only leads to silliness, and the potential for disaster looms in the background. There should be no non-medical exemptions for vaccines allowed anywhere.

    Unfortunately, the points above, which I consider to be quite reasonable (and discussable in rational fashion), cause me to be labelled an anti-vaxxer (and anti-science, which would sound ludicrous to anyone who knows me) and beyond the pale. That is my objection to the anti-anti-vaxxers.
     
    There is a good reason. Most people who claim to be "pro-science" don't know nearly as much science as they think or should.

    The rate of adverse reactions from vaccines is so low that this is the height non-conerns.

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/

    That’s progress.

    And that’s one of the main contributors to making today’s politics so ridiculous. A little is good so more must be better. (not a coincidence that the group most responsible for this calls itself progressive)

    Reducing taxes from the 90%+ level was good for the economy so more tax cuts must be better.
    Stopping slavery/Jim Crow was good so as much anti-racism as possible must be better.
    Measles is extremely contagious justifying compulsive vaccination so requiring all vaccines must be better.

    I suspect you can supply your own examples. Also see Steve Sailer’s post on diminishing marginal returns.

    Regarding

    Would you not like to see the common cold, herpes, HIV, and/or the norovirus added to that list? I would.

    I would like to see those vaccines made available, but not required.

    I have never had the flu vaccine and cannot remember the last time I had the flu. I cannot understand how some people are attempting to mandate a vaccine which seems to be unnecessary for me and in many years is not even effective. Every winter I marvel at the number of people who had the flu vaccine talking about having the flu.

    As far as

    The rate of adverse reactions from vaccines is so low that this is the height non-conerns.

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/

    Did you actually look at all of those sheets? The Rubella data is interesting:

    Rubella
    Mild
    Injection site reactions 17-30 per 100
    Systemic reactions, Fever 2 per 100
    Acute arthralgia 25 per 100
    Serious
    Acute arthritis 10%

    A 10% chance of a serious side effect is “low”? I guess you use that word differently than I do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I would like to see those vaccines made available, but not required.

    I have never had the flu vaccine and cannot remember the last time I had the flu. I cannot understand how some people are attempting to mandate a vaccine which seems to be unnecessary for me and in many years is not even effective. Every winter I marvel at the number of people who had the flu vaccine talking about having the flu.
     

    So the part that vaccination doesn't work as well unless application is near universal doesn't register with you?

    Did you actually look at all of those sheets? The Rubella data is interesting:

    Rubella
    Mild
    Injection site reactions 17-30 per 100
    Systemic reactions, Fever 2 per 100
    Acute arthralgia 25 per 100
    Serious
    Acute arthritis 10%

    A 10% chance of a serious side effect is “low”? I guess you use that word differently than I do.
     

    10% chance of a minor, temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.

    This is precisely why in this instance paternalism on vaccination is a good thing.

  24. @JayMan

    Ant-vaxxer has become yet another Name to call someone who utters blasphemy in the Cathedral.
     
    No, it's a good name for people who are being foolish. See above.

    No, it’s a good name for people who are being foolish. See above.

    Would you characterize my initial post above as being “anti-vaxxer”? What do you think of people who do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Would you characterize my initial post above as being “anti-vaxxer”? What do you think of people who do?
     
    Less than properly informed and not all that logical.
  25. There is a wall against biology in Northwestern European societies (that is also fervently embraced by many Ashkenazi Jews).

    I used to think this as well, but a few weeks ago I saw a study (possibly via Jayman himself) which showed that acceptance of biological and evopsych amongst Anglo-Saxon researchers is the highest in the world (though it is not very high in general).

    So I suspect the processes here are a bit more complex. Will try to have a post on this sometime soon.

    The reason I think this is not so much because of the way I think most people will behave. I think most Westerners can take this knowledge in stride. However, there are elements that won’t. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists. There is no social policy or prescription that necessarily follows from knowledge of inherited group differences.

    I think an important element here is that since to the “Cathedral” and SJWs there is nothing separating race realism from racism – in fact, if anything, race realists are the more despicable and cowardly for disingenuously trying to conceal their racism (according to the Narrative) – there are very few social costs to transitioning from race realism to bona fide racism. Since you’ll be hated anyway, while at least if you openly join the fascists you’ll have your own “tribe” at your back.

    I have noticed even in my own circle of acquaintances that many of them who have been accepting or at least open towards HBD realities – including Jews, liberals, and economic leftists – have been growing more overt in their sympathy for the Alt Right, chanculture, “verboten” concepts that poke fun at the power structure like White Student Unions, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I used to think this as well, but a few weeks ago I saw a study (possibly via Jayman himself) which showed that acceptance of biological and evopsych amongst Anglo-Saxon researchers is the highest in the world (though it is not very high in general).
     
    Well these are social scientists, who quite likely are going to be the most loony left of their respective populations. It's probably not the best metric.
  26. @JayMan

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?
     
    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/565243482248605699

    How anti-Semitism in interwar Germany was influenced by the medieval mass murder of Jews | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

    You know, neither of those things was that long ago.

    Spend some time reading around this "Dark Enlightenment" space.

    You bet your lynchings, I raise you the Knoxville Horror, the recent 13 year old whose DNA was left on a 90 year old rape victim, and so many more each week that never are “newsworthy.”

    Let us accept interracial crime statistics as they are, or agree to go our separate ways in peace. Ironically, anyone expressing the desire to separate is labeled a racist…but only if he’s white.

    Your position on vaccines & invocation of the Great Satan is evidence of exactly the kind of collectivist intolerance of contrary belief that drives conflict. For the cultist there is Rightthought and there are (your term) fools. And fools (heretics) cannot be tolerated.

    See you on the other side.

    Read More
  27. Actually, the problem in the discourse isn’t even about biology or genetics. It’s about acknowledging group differences in intelligence and other personality traits, period.

    It doesn’t really matter how much of those group differences is genetic (unless it were 100%, which no one’s claiming). What matters is that the differences exist, that they’re a major cause of social inequalities that people care about, and that, so far, the differences are intractable. And that you can’t say that without getting ostracized.

    Back in the 1970s, leftist, egalitarian social scientists used to be able to say that blacks underperformed compared to whites because blacks were less intelligent than whites due to racism. (They usually didn’t use the word “intelligence” when talking about the difference, but they used euphemisms like “learning ability.”) Nowadays if you say, “Blacks are less intelligent than whites due to slavery/redlining/racism/whatever”—forget about biology—you’ll be tarred and feathered.

    So the problem isn’t being forbidden to talk about biological differences. The problem is being forbidden to talk about group differences at all.

    A corollary is that “race realists” should lay off the biology talk in the context of social “problems.” That includes both the “race is biologically real” red herring and the “group differences are genetically influenced” one. Not only because those propositions are logically irrelevant to social questions, but because it’s rhetorically extremely stupid to raise them: It focusses attention on a premise that your audience doesn’t accept, when that premise is irrelevant anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    The major problem is not the nebulous and useless minority called social pseudo-scientists but the white silent majority and worst the own conservative "movement" (infiltrated by this vermin).

    Hbd, conservatives and any other anti-system still expect that the (zionist-communist) system itself will help them. Ok.
    , @panjoomby
    Aaron Gross: absolutely correct - it's all about overlapping normal curves for different groups! it's insane that discussing ability (even with all groups combined) as a normal curve that matters in almost all aspects of life is forbidden. Ability matters so much & affects so many things, yet it's ignored in education & the public discourse. To me, that's insane.
  28. @Luke Lea

    Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists.
     
    Significantly more so than in the general population? I'd like to see some documentation on that.

    Significantly more so than in the general population? I’d like to see some documentation on that.

    Significantly more than the general white population anyway. This is obvious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Significantly more than the general white population anyway. This is obvious.
     
    Yup.
  29. @res

    That’s progress.
     
    And that's one of the main contributors to making today's politics so ridiculous. A little is good so more must be better. (not a coincidence that the group most responsible for this calls itself progressive)

    Reducing taxes from the 90%+ level was good for the economy so more tax cuts must be better.
    Stopping slavery/Jim Crow was good so as much anti-racism as possible must be better.
    Measles is extremely contagious justifying compulsive vaccination so requiring all vaccines must be better.

    I suspect you can supply your own examples. Also see Steve Sailer's post on diminishing marginal returns.

    Regarding

    Would you not like to see the common cold, herpes, HIV, and/or the norovirus added to that list? I would.
     
    I would like to see those vaccines made available, but not required.

    I have never had the flu vaccine and cannot remember the last time I had the flu. I cannot understand how some people are attempting to mandate a vaccine which seems to be unnecessary for me and in many years is not even effective. Every winter I marvel at the number of people who had the flu vaccine talking about having the flu.

    As far as

    The rate of adverse reactions from vaccines is so low that this is the height non-conerns.

    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/
     
    Did you actually look at all of those sheets? The Rubella data is interesting:

    Rubella
    Mild
    Injection site reactions 17-30 per 100
    Systemic reactions, Fever 2 per 100
    Acute arthralgia 25 per 100
    Serious
    Acute arthritis 10%

    A 10% chance of a serious side effect is "low"? I guess you use that word differently than I do.

    I would like to see those vaccines made available, but not required.

    I have never had the flu vaccine and cannot remember the last time I had the flu. I cannot understand how some people are attempting to mandate a vaccine which seems to be unnecessary for me and in many years is not even effective. Every winter I marvel at the number of people who had the flu vaccine talking about having the flu.

    So the part that vaccination doesn’t work as well unless application is near universal doesn’t register with you?

    Did you actually look at all of those sheets? The Rubella data is interesting:

    Rubella
    Mild
    Injection site reactions 17-30 per 100
    Systemic reactions, Fever 2 per 100
    Acute arthralgia 25 per 100
    Serious
    Acute arthritis 10%

    A 10% chance of a serious side effect is “low”? I guess you use that word differently than I do.

    10% chance of a minor, temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.

    This is precisely why in this instance paternalism on vaccination is a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    So the part that vaccination doesn’t work as well unless application is near universal doesn’t register with you?
     
    See my R0 comments and link above (note that measles is an outlier). Improved individual immunity and herd immunity are separate but related effects. Please do us both a favor and spare the patronizing comments that assume I am an idiot (especially after I have already brought up the importance of R0 in this thread).

    10% chance of a minor, temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.
     
    The authors of the document called it a serious side effect (mild was a separate category as shown in my excerpt). Are you disputing their assessment?
  30. @res

    No, it’s a good name for people who are being foolish. See above.
     
    Would you characterize my initial post above as being "anti-vaxxer"? What do you think of people who do?

    Would you characterize my initial post above as being “anti-vaxxer”? What do you think of people who do?

    Less than properly informed and not all that logical.

    Read More
  31. @Anatoly Karlin

    There is a wall against biology in Northwestern European societies (that is also fervently embraced by many Ashkenazi Jews).
     
    I used to think this as well, but a few weeks ago I saw a study (possibly via Jayman himself) which showed that acceptance of biological and evopsych amongst Anglo-Saxon researchers is the highest in the world (though it is not very high in general).

    So I suspect the processes here are a bit more complex. Will try to have a post on this sometime soon.

    The reason I think this is not so much because of the way I think most people will behave. I think most Westerners can take this knowledge in stride. However, there are elements that won’t. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists. There is no social policy or prescription that necessarily follows from knowledge of inherited group differences.
     
    I think an important element here is that since to the "Cathedral" and SJWs there is nothing separating race realism from racism - in fact, if anything, race realists are the more despicable and cowardly for disingenuously trying to conceal their racism (according to the Narrative) - there are very few social costs to transitioning from race realism to bona fide racism. Since you'll be hated anyway, while at least if you openly join the fascists you'll have your own "tribe" at your back.

    I have noticed even in my own circle of acquaintances that many of them who have been accepting or at least open towards HBD realities - including Jews, liberals, and economic leftists - have been growing more overt in their sympathy for the Alt Right, chanculture, "verboten" concepts that poke fun at the power structure like White Student Unions, etc.

    I used to think this as well, but a few weeks ago I saw a study (possibly via Jayman himself) which showed that acceptance of biological and evopsych amongst Anglo-Saxon researchers is the highest in the world (though it is not very high in general).

    Well these are social scientists, who quite likely are going to be the most loony left of their respective populations. It’s probably not the best metric.

    Read More
  32. @This Is Our Home

    Significantly more so than in the general population? I’d like to see some documentation on that.
     
    Significantly more than the general white population anyway. This is obvious.

    Significantly more than the general white population anyway. This is obvious.

    Yup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    This was the original comment:

    Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists.
     
    What does the term racist even mean? Is it simply a cudgel to beat other people around the head

    If a person says:

    1. Black Africans, on average, have lower IQs than whites and tend to be more violent than whites.

    2. African Americans have only, on average 18% white admixture and also have IQs on average one SD lower than whites and tend to be more violent, on average, than whites.

    3. East Asians seem to have slightly higher IQs, on average, than whites (about 1/3SD) and are less violent, on average, than whites

    is that person racist?

    Are they only racist if they use words that blacks use that whites are not allowed to use?

    I would like to know.
  33. Restricting certain groups (or any immigration) moves us from being a universalist society – where all people (and peoples) are treated equally, to a particularist one, where people are treated differently according to their inherent qualities.

    I think, the main problem is that many people (on either side of the racialist divide) simply don’t understand that group differences are a statistical fact, but not much more than that. You still have to judge the individual by individual characteristics.

    It’s eg. quite nonsensical to block more than a billion people from entering the US, because there are perhaps 100,000 terrorists among them of which perhaps 500 might try to enter the country. Just as it would be nonsensical to not give a high-IQ job to a qualified black, just because on average blacks don’t have the necessary IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    I think, the main problem is that many people (on either side of the racialist divide) simply don’t understand that group differences are a statistical fact, but not much more than that.
     
    That's true but there is more than that:

    You still have to judge the individual by individual characteristics.
     
    Yes, but group membership is an individual characteristic:

    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/665216374650834945

    Stereotypes are relevant for judgments about individuals even when one has individualized information – Clear Language, Clear Mind


    It’s eg. quite nonsensical to block more than a billion people from entering the US, because there are perhaps 100,000 terrorists among them of which perhaps 500 might try to enter the country.
     
    It's certainly rational to block a billion people from anywhere in the world from entering your country because of the sheer number. But yes, it is rational to restrict Muslim immigration if you're concerned about terrorism, even though the actual fraction of Muslims who are terrorists is small:

    Terrorism Quotient

  34. @JayMan

    I would like to see those vaccines made available, but not required.

    I have never had the flu vaccine and cannot remember the last time I had the flu. I cannot understand how some people are attempting to mandate a vaccine which seems to be unnecessary for me and in many years is not even effective. Every winter I marvel at the number of people who had the flu vaccine talking about having the flu.
     

    So the part that vaccination doesn't work as well unless application is near universal doesn't register with you?

    Did you actually look at all of those sheets? The Rubella data is interesting:

    Rubella
    Mild
    Injection site reactions 17-30 per 100
    Systemic reactions, Fever 2 per 100
    Acute arthralgia 25 per 100
    Serious
    Acute arthritis 10%

    A 10% chance of a serious side effect is “low”? I guess you use that word differently than I do.
     

    10% chance of a minor, temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.

    This is precisely why in this instance paternalism on vaccination is a good thing.

    So the part that vaccination doesn’t work as well unless application is near universal doesn’t register with you?

    See my R0 comments and link above (note that measles is an outlier). Improved individual immunity and herd immunity are separate but related effects. Please do us both a favor and spare the patronizing comments that assume I am an idiot (especially after I have already brought up the importance of R0 in this thread).

    10% chance of a minor, temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.

    The authors of the document called it a serious side effect (mild was a separate category as shown in my excerpt). Are you disputing their assessment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.
     
    Get it?
  35. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    He appears to be weak on established science – a fantastic irony – exemplified by his amenity to anti-vaxxers – an almost unforgivable sin in a leader.

    It seems abundantly clear that the current vaccination schedule is designed simply to put money in the hands of Drug companies.

    You are aware, I take it, that the SC ruled that people cannot sue drug companies for the harm their vaccines cause?

    (Full disclosure: My children were vaccinated under a different country’s schedule and at later ages than what typically happens here in the US.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    It seems abundantly clear that the current vaccination schedule is designed simply to put money in the hands of Drug companies.
     
    No, that's nonsense.

    Wow this post really has the anti-vaxxers in a bunch.

  36. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    One thing that I’ve found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews.
     
    Ummm hmmm. Good comment!

    Lets take that a step further.

    We know how to increase the IQ of a population. We know how to decrease the violence that a population exhibits.

    It’s called truncation selection applied over a relatively long period of time (large number of generations).

    We execute those who exhibit violent tendencies before they can reproduce and sterilize those of low intelligence before they can reproduce.

    Each population has a set of characteristics that can be modified, so lets not take cheap shots at those on the left size of the distribution among one population when it is the mean that is more interesting to discuss.

    Moreover, the person you were responding to seems willing to abandon (perhaps even execute) low-class whites. I am glad he has shown his true colors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Irving

    Moreover, the person you were responding to seems willing to abandon (perhaps even execute) low-class whites. I am glad he has shown his true colors.
     
    Just to be clear, I'm not white. Moreover, I have little interest in low-class, low-IQ people, irrespective of their race. Civilization does not depend on the stupid and the undisciplined, but on the intelligent, the rational and those capable of practicing self-restraint, and, while intelligence, rationality and self-restraint are traits that are distributed unequally between the races, they are not restricted to any one race, and contributions of the member of one race who has these traits are just as important, just as indispensable, and should be just as welcome, as are the contributions of a member of any other race who has these traits.

    Also, all that I was doing was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of white nationalists. If you ask them to explain why low-IQ blacks are poor, they'll tell you that it is because they are niggers, and that niggers, being the lowest form of human life, cannot be anything but poor. However, if you ask them to explain why low-IQ whites are poor, they'll tell you that it is because of Jewish subversion or, alternatively, that it is because of the perfidious white elites who refuse to follow their 'ethnic genetic interests', whatever that means.

    In the end, though, low-IQ whites have been definitively priced out of the labor market by peasants from India and China (and, increasingly, Africa). I don't necessarily want these low-IQ whites to be abandoned, much less executed, but the hard truth is that the ultimate outcome of their economic displacement, which as far as I can tell is irreversible, will not be a good one. It'll likely culminate in more drug abuse, more broken families, more mental illness, more welfarism, etc., etc., and I don't know that there is anything that can be done to change this.

  37. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apolcalypse"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @JayMan

    Significantly more than the general white population anyway. This is obvious.
     
    Yup.

    This was the original comment:

    Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists.

    What does the term racist even mean? Is it simply a cudgel to beat other people around the head

    If a person says:

    1. Black Africans, on average, have lower IQs than whites and tend to be more violent than whites.

    2. African Americans have only, on average 18% white admixture and also have IQs on average one SD lower than whites and tend to be more violent, on average, than whites.

    3. East Asians seem to have slightly higher IQs, on average, than whites (about 1/3SD) and are less violent, on average, than whites

    is that person racist?

    Are they only racist if they use words that blacks use that whites are not allowed to use?

    I would like to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    What does the term racist even mean?
     
    A Father’s Desperate Bid To Stop His Daughter’s Mudsharking

    Before I get to the grist of this post, a reminder about my feelings on the subject of coal burning:

    On a case-by-case, practical basis, I don’t sweat it if the mudshark and her F YOU DAD boyfriend are only loosely affiliated to me. If the love is real and true (rare, but it happens), I’m not gonna rain on their charade. It’s the Equalist miscegenation propaganda, and the forced platitudes of shitlib miscegenators trying to justify their anti-Darwinian middle finger, that sticks in my craw. If the propaganda and the SJWistic glorification of dindu diving were to disappear tomorrow, I’d probably drop the subject because 1. there wouldn’t be a nonstop media assault of mixed race sproglet abominations to offend my aesthetic sensibility and 2. the risk of emotionally unstable White girls betraying their race’s heritage at the behest of subliminal media messages would be lower.
     

    Start at 8:45

    https://youtu.be/HYD3wocKqJ8?t=8m45s

    The whole video here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kI_rAFuKA

    This fine commenter:


    yes…have been there. Great beautiful country destroyed by INVADER niggers. Don’t believe the bullshit, the reality is that SA was EMPTY when the Dutch landed. They didn’t encounter niggers for 170 years, when the boertrekkers ran into the Xhosa fleeing Shaka Zulu.

    The niggers in RSA came for the white man’s stuff. They had a huge illegal immigration problem of niggers.

    ANY South African should know better…Charlize theron is a race traitor of the most grotesque kind as she has witnessed FIRSTHAND the destruction of her country and murder of her people yet she adopts the nigger as her pet.
     

    Some of the responses to this tweet:

    https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/684415698408468481

    Need I continue?


    If a person says:

    1. Black Africans, on average, have lower IQs than whites and tend to be more violent than whites.

    2. African Americans have only, on average 18% white admixture and also have IQs on average one SD lower than whites and tend to be more violent, on average, than whites.

    3. East Asians seem to have slightly higher IQs, on average, than whites (about 1/3SD) and are less violent, on average, than whites

    is that person racist?

    Are they only racist if they use words that blacks use that whites are not allowed to use?

    I would like to know.
     

    Yes, this point is part of the point I'm making in this piece. Yes, you're right in that PC-types do think that everything that acknowledges group differences is racist. That however doesn't mean that there aren't real racists out there, because there certainly are.
  38. @JayMan

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?
     
    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/565243482248605699

    How anti-Semitism in interwar Germany was influenced by the medieval mass murder of Jews | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

    You know, neither of those things was that long ago.

    Spend some time reading around this "Dark Enlightenment" space.

    I think that the insane amount of PC/SJW nonsense that certain sectors of society (mostly gov’t, media, education, but others too) have pushed the pendulum so far one way that now there is all this built-up energy to swing the pendulum the other way. When it swings the other way, I hope that things like HBD understanding will help to make better policies that would better help all Americans. I’m just afraid that many people are sick of PC culture, but don’t have the knowledge basis to turn the reaction against it in a positive direction.

    I don’t want to see any American hurt or have their rights taken away. I also don’t want to see the USA turn into a colder version of Brazil. It seems that getting control of immigration has to be the top priority. If things continue the way they have been going, I think that many of the rights that I care about will find themselves under even greater attack. Ultimately, what the Constitution actually says is ignored by as much as those in power can get away with it. The more mixed up the demographics within the USA become, the less people will really care about ‘rights’ and it just becomes about getting into power to give out ethnic sectarian favors. I think we are already seeing that to a degree.

    I don’t like Trump’s views on the National Security State, and I disagree with him on a number of other things, but I think he *may* be the only one who is willing to do what it takes to get control of immigration. Once the wall built, with all the money spent on it, it will be hard for whomever follows Trump as President to justify taking it down. He also says he will protect the 2nd Amendment, so that is good, too. I don’t even own a gun, but I understand why it is important for the people to be able to arm themselves. I think I should get one before this summer, though. It seems things may be getting even crazier.

    Keep up the good work, JayMan. I hope you and your family are doing well.

    Read More
  39. @The most deplorable one
    This was the original comment:

    Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists.
     
    What does the term racist even mean? Is it simply a cudgel to beat other people around the head

    If a person says:

    1. Black Africans, on average, have lower IQs than whites and tend to be more violent than whites.

    2. African Americans have only, on average 18% white admixture and also have IQs on average one SD lower than whites and tend to be more violent, on average, than whites.

    3. East Asians seem to have slightly higher IQs, on average, than whites (about 1/3SD) and are less violent, on average, than whites

    is that person racist?

    Are they only racist if they use words that blacks use that whites are not allowed to use?

    I would like to know.

    What does the term racist even mean?

    A Father’s Desperate Bid To Stop His Daughter’s Mudsharking

    Before I get to the grist of this post, a reminder about my feelings on the subject of coal burning:

    On a case-by-case, practical basis, I don’t sweat it if the mudshark and her F YOU DAD boyfriend are only loosely affiliated to me. If the love is real and true (rare, but it happens), I’m not gonna rain on their charade. It’s the Equalist miscegenation propaganda, and the forced platitudes of shitlib miscegenators trying to justify their anti-Darwinian middle finger, that sticks in my craw. If the propaganda and the SJWistic glorification of dindu diving were to disappear tomorrow, I’d probably drop the subject because 1. there wouldn’t be a nonstop media assault of mixed race sproglet abominations to offend my aesthetic sensibility and 2. the risk of emotionally unstable White girls betraying their race’s heritage at the behest of subliminal media messages would be lower.

    Start at 8:45

    The whole video here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9kI_rAFuKA

    This fine commenter:

    yes…have been there. Great beautiful country destroyed by INVADER niggers. Don’t believe the bullshit, the reality is that SA was EMPTY when the Dutch landed. They didn’t encounter niggers for 170 years, when the boertrekkers ran into the Xhosa fleeing Shaka Zulu.

    The niggers in RSA came for the white man’s stuff. They had a huge illegal immigration problem of niggers.

    ANY South African should know better…Charlize theron is a race traitor of the most grotesque kind as she has witnessed FIRSTHAND the destruction of her country and murder of her people yet she adopts the nigger as her pet.

    Some of the responses to this tweet:

    Need I continue?

    If a person says:

    1. Black Africans, on average, have lower IQs than whites and tend to be more violent than whites.

    2. African Americans have only, on average 18% white admixture and also have IQs on average one SD lower than whites and tend to be more violent, on average, than whites.

    3. East Asians seem to have slightly higher IQs, on average, than whites (about 1/3SD) and are less violent, on average, than whites

    is that person racist?

    Are they only racist if they use words that blacks use that whites are not allowed to use?

    I would like to know.

    Yes, this point is part of the point I’m making in this piece. Yes, you’re right in that PC-types do think that everything that acknowledges group differences is racist. That however doesn’t mean that there aren’t real racists out there, because there certainly are.

    Read More
  40. @The most deplorable one

    He appears to be weak on established science – a fantastic irony – exemplified by his amenity to anti-vaxxers – an almost unforgivable sin in a leader.
     
    It seems abundantly clear that the current vaccination schedule is designed simply to put money in the hands of Drug companies.

    You are aware, I take it, that the SC ruled that people cannot sue drug companies for the harm their vaccines cause?

    (Full disclosure: My children were vaccinated under a different country's schedule and at later ages than what typically happens here in the US.)

    It seems abundantly clear that the current vaccination schedule is designed simply to put money in the hands of Drug companies.

    No, that’s nonsense.

    Wow this post really has the anti-vaxxers in a bunch.

    Read More
  41. @res

    So the part that vaccination doesn’t work as well unless application is near universal doesn’t register with you?
     
    See my R0 comments and link above (note that measles is an outlier). Improved individual immunity and herd immunity are separate but related effects. Please do us both a favor and spare the patronizing comments that assume I am an idiot (especially after I have already brought up the importance of R0 in this thread).

    10% chance of a minor, temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.
     
    The authors of the document called it a serious side effect (mild was a separate category as shown in my excerpt). Are you disputing their assessment?

    temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.

    Get it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Get it?
     
    Agree to disagree. I'll make decisions for my body, you can do the same for yours.
  42. @bossel

    Restricting certain groups (or any immigration) moves us from being a universalist society – where all people (and peoples) are treated equally, to a particularist one, where people are treated differently according to their inherent qualities.
     
    I think, the main problem is that many people (on either side of the racialist divide) simply don't understand that group differences are a statistical fact, but not much more than that. You still have to judge the individual by individual characteristics.

    It's eg. quite nonsensical to block more than a billion people from entering the US, because there are perhaps 100,000 terrorists among them of which perhaps 500 might try to enter the country. Just as it would be nonsensical to not give a high-IQ job to a qualified black, just because on average blacks don't have the necessary IQ.

    I think, the main problem is that many people (on either side of the racialist divide) simply don’t understand that group differences are a statistical fact, but not much more than that.

    That’s true but there is more than that:

    You still have to judge the individual by individual characteristics.

    Yes, but group membership is an individual characteristic:

    Stereotypes are relevant for judgments about individuals even when one has individualized information – Clear Language, Clear Mind

    It’s eg. quite nonsensical to block more than a billion people from entering the US, because there are perhaps 100,000 terrorists among them of which perhaps 500 might try to enter the country.

    It’s certainly rational to block a billion people from anywhere in the world from entering your country because of the sheer number. But yes, it is rational to restrict Muslim immigration if you’re concerned about terrorism, even though the actual fraction of Muslims who are terrorists is small:

    Terrorism Quotient

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark F.
    Is it rational to restrict all male immigration? How about all male immigrants under 30? Many likely to be criminals. Where to draw the line?
  43. @JayMan

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?
     
    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/565243482248605699

    How anti-Semitism in interwar Germany was influenced by the medieval mass murder of Jews | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

    You know, neither of those things was that long ago.

    Spend some time reading around this "Dark Enlightenment" space.

    Read More
  44. @The most deplorable one
    Lets take that a step further.

    We know how to increase the IQ of a population. We know how to decrease the violence that a population exhibits.

    It's called truncation selection applied over a relatively long period of time (large number of generations).

    We execute those who exhibit violent tendencies before they can reproduce and sterilize those of low intelligence before they can reproduce.

    Each population has a set of characteristics that can be modified, so lets not take cheap shots at those on the left size of the distribution among one population when it is the mean that is more interesting to discuss.

    Moreover, the person you were responding to seems willing to abandon (perhaps even execute) low-class whites. I am glad he has shown his true colors.

    Moreover, the person you were responding to seems willing to abandon (perhaps even execute) low-class whites. I am glad he has shown his true colors.

    Just to be clear, I’m not white. Moreover, I have little interest in low-class, low-IQ people, irrespective of their race. Civilization does not depend on the stupid and the undisciplined, but on the intelligent, the rational and those capable of practicing self-restraint, and, while intelligence, rationality and self-restraint are traits that are distributed unequally between the races, they are not restricted to any one race, and contributions of the member of one race who has these traits are just as important, just as indispensable, and should be just as welcome, as are the contributions of a member of any other race who has these traits.

    Also, all that I was doing was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of white nationalists. If you ask them to explain why low-IQ blacks are poor, they’ll tell you that it is because they are niggers, and that niggers, being the lowest form of human life, cannot be anything but poor. However, if you ask them to explain why low-IQ whites are poor, they’ll tell you that it is because of Jewish subversion or, alternatively, that it is because of the perfidious white elites who refuse to follow their ‘ethnic genetic interests’, whatever that means.

    In the end, though, low-IQ whites have been definitively priced out of the labor market by peasants from India and China (and, increasingly, Africa). I don’t necessarily want these low-IQ whites to be abandoned, much less executed, but the hard truth is that the ultimate outcome of their economic displacement, which as far as I can tell is irreversible, will not be a good one. It’ll likely culminate in more drug abuse, more broken families, more mental illness, more welfarism, etc., etc., and I don’t know that there is anything that can be done to change this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    There was a Steve Sailer post recently with the most salient headline I've seen here: The average IQ of your country, is more important than your personal IQ.

    A country appears to need 100 or so IQ on the average, to be first world. Doesn't sound good, but that's really all that's necessary for first world development, to judge from how countries have been developing. However, it's a delicate balance that has already been tipped by immigration, or rather, by the kind of immigrants we're getting.
    Whites in predominantly white countries, already know how things play out among whites, and have a pretty good grasp of expected behavior and capacity along the IQ continuum. They just don't admit it these days. European schools have been channeling students into certain paths for centuries, according the abilities they manifest on tests and in the schoolroom. A similar sifting took place among artisans and craftsmen. Intelligence is at play in all aspects of life. One Italian teacher, a liberal person, claimed that it worked very well and most people were satisfied.
    About half of all whites are 90-100 or so; the cities of Europe and America always had their slum areas, but were not completely corroded simply by the existence of that element. It took smart people who built and designed weapons of mass destruction to lay waste to their cities.
    I hope a multi-racial cast of Very Smart People will save the day for the U.S., but that class is already here and formed, and the percentage does not appear high enough to offset the damage. All I have to do is look at what has become of a once decent looking public transportation system.
  45. @JayMan

    temporary side effect which in any case is a hell of a lot better than the disease itself. Yeah, hard choice.
     
    Get it?

    Get it?

    Agree to disagree. I’ll make decisions for my body, you can do the same for yours.

    Read More
  46. @U. Ranus
    That "weak on established science" link is hilarious. Today I learned that by wanting to do something about Obamacare, Trump established himself as anti-science. LOL.

    On anti-anti-vaxxers, I admit I have never managed to look upon them with a serene lack of contempt. Their exaggerated fearfulness over the minuscule danger of some anti-vaxxer's child infecting their precious vaccinated sprog with measles would be merely amusing, except that these people's stupid little fears of course must override other parents' freedom to care for their own children's health as they see fit.

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children? Right, he worst case outcome would be for the anti-vaxxers to have been right and your kids now being somehow damaged in a way theirs aren't. Of course, you can avoid that outcome by forcing everybody to vaccinate.

    I do not believe you should be required to vaccinate your children (although I do think you should want to). But I was unable to register for a public school Kindergarten (during 1975, in the S.F. Bay Area), until my parents had proven I had been conventionally vaccinated. I think this was a good law, and should be universal across the USA, and indeed, all civilized jurisdictions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    De facto requirements like school bans work too.
  47. @Metoo
    It is true that many of Trumps supporters hold ideas about race differences, and for this they are called racists. But, I would like to see an honest assessment of the race-based ideas of Clinton's supporters. I think they are more racist, but in politically correct ways.

    It is true that many of Trumps supporters hold ideas about race differences, and for this they are called racists. But, I would like to see an honest assessment of the race-based ideas of Clinton’s supporters. I think they are more racist, but in politically correct ways.

    This is a valid point. People (often so-called “progressives”) make all manner of unflattering generalizations about White people, but this activity does not get one characterized as “a racist” by the dominant forces in our society. In order to be so characterized by mainstream sources, one must do, well, precisely the same thing, while speaking about, um, pretty much anyone who isn’t White.

    Read More
  48. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    I do not believe you should be required to vaccinate your children (although I do think you should want to). But I was unable to register for a public school Kindergarten (during 1975, in the S.F. Bay Area), until my parents had proven I had been conventionally vaccinated. I think this was a good law, and should be universal across the USA, and indeed, all civilized jurisdictions.

    De facto requirements like school bans work too.

    Read More
  49. @Aaron Gross
    Actually, the problem in the discourse isn't even about biology or genetics. It's about acknowledging group differences in intelligence and other personality traits, period.

    It doesn't really matter how much of those group differences is genetic (unless it were 100%, which no one's claiming). What matters is that the differences exist, that they're a major cause of social inequalities that people care about, and that, so far, the differences are intractable. And that you can't say that without getting ostracized.

    Back in the 1970s, leftist, egalitarian social scientists used to be able to say that blacks underperformed compared to whites because blacks were less intelligent than whites due to racism. (They usually didn't use the word "intelligence" when talking about the difference, but they used euphemisms like "learning ability.") Nowadays if you say, "Blacks are less intelligent than whites due to slavery/redlining/racism/whatever"—forget about biology—you'll be tarred and feathered.

    So the problem isn't being forbidden to talk about biological differences. The problem is being forbidden to talk about group differences at all.

    A corollary is that "race realists" should lay off the biology talk in the context of social "problems." That includes both the "race is biologically real" red herring and the "group differences are genetically influenced" one. Not only because those propositions are logically irrelevant to social questions, but because it's rhetorically extremely stupid to raise them: It focusses attention on a premise that your audience doesn't accept, when that premise is irrelevant anyway.

    The major problem is not the nebulous and useless minority called social pseudo-scientists but the white silent majority and worst the own conservative “movement” (infiltrated by this vermin).

    Hbd, conservatives and any other anti-system still expect that the (zionist-communist) system itself will help them. Ok.

    Read More
  50. “Would you not like to see the common cold… added to that list?”

    Not much hope for that one, unfortunately, as many variants of it are around, how often they change. And how weak the effects are, compared to everything else out there.

    While I can sympathize with the anti-vaxxers, there are tons of vaccines that kids have to get (as I’m sure you’re discovering), and there is concern over some components in them, I feel it boils down to a simple “lesser evil” argument- a kid getting pertussis, or any of the other terrible viruses they’re being vaccinated against, greatly outweighs the concerns against vaccination by a mile.

    Read More
  51. @Irving

    Moreover, the person you were responding to seems willing to abandon (perhaps even execute) low-class whites. I am glad he has shown his true colors.
     
    Just to be clear, I'm not white. Moreover, I have little interest in low-class, low-IQ people, irrespective of their race. Civilization does not depend on the stupid and the undisciplined, but on the intelligent, the rational and those capable of practicing self-restraint, and, while intelligence, rationality and self-restraint are traits that are distributed unequally between the races, they are not restricted to any one race, and contributions of the member of one race who has these traits are just as important, just as indispensable, and should be just as welcome, as are the contributions of a member of any other race who has these traits.

    Also, all that I was doing was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of white nationalists. If you ask them to explain why low-IQ blacks are poor, they'll tell you that it is because they are niggers, and that niggers, being the lowest form of human life, cannot be anything but poor. However, if you ask them to explain why low-IQ whites are poor, they'll tell you that it is because of Jewish subversion or, alternatively, that it is because of the perfidious white elites who refuse to follow their 'ethnic genetic interests', whatever that means.

    In the end, though, low-IQ whites have been definitively priced out of the labor market by peasants from India and China (and, increasingly, Africa). I don't necessarily want these low-IQ whites to be abandoned, much less executed, but the hard truth is that the ultimate outcome of their economic displacement, which as far as I can tell is irreversible, will not be a good one. It'll likely culminate in more drug abuse, more broken families, more mental illness, more welfarism, etc., etc., and I don't know that there is anything that can be done to change this.

    There was a Steve Sailer post recently with the most salient headline I’ve seen here: The average IQ of your country, is more important than your personal IQ.

    A country appears to need 100 or so IQ on the average, to be first world. Doesn’t sound good, but that’s really all that’s necessary for first world development, to judge from how countries have been developing. However, it’s a delicate balance that has already been tipped by immigration, or rather, by the kind of immigrants we’re getting.
    Whites in predominantly white countries, already know how things play out among whites, and have a pretty good grasp of expected behavior and capacity along the IQ continuum. They just don’t admit it these days. European schools have been channeling students into certain paths for centuries, according the abilities they manifest on tests and in the schoolroom. A similar sifting took place among artisans and craftsmen. Intelligence is at play in all aspects of life. One Italian teacher, a liberal person, claimed that it worked very well and most people were satisfied.
    About half of all whites are 90-100 or so; the cities of Europe and America always had their slum areas, but were not completely corroded simply by the existence of that element. It took smart people who built and designed weapons of mass destruction to lay waste to their cities.
    I hope a multi-racial cast of Very Smart People will save the day for the U.S., but that class is already here and formed, and the percentage does not appear high enough to offset the damage. All I have to do is look at what has become of a once decent looking public transportation system.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    There was a Steve Sailer post recently with the most salient headline I’ve seen here: The average IQ of your country, is more important than your personal IQ.

    A country appears to need 100 or so IQ on the average, to be first world. Doesn’t sound good, but that’s really all that’s necessary for first world development, to judge from how countries have been developing.
     

    Not quite. See:

    Clannishness – the Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain

    , @Irving
    @general obsever

    I hope a multi-racial cast of Very Smart People will save the day for the U.S., but that class is already here and formed, and the percentage does not appear high enough to offset the damage. All I have to do is look at what has become of a once decent looking public transportation system.
     
    I don't like mass immigration and, if it were up to me, we'd deport the illegals and impose a permanent moratorium on all forms of immigration into the United States, with the exception of maybe a very small number of highly skilled professionals.

    That being said, I get the feeling that America's immigration problem is different than Europe's immigration problem. The legal immigrants that come into America seem to be, on average, fairly law abiding and competent. The illegal immigrants are mostly low-skill, and many of them will, in the future, assuming that they aren't deported, become an underclass in this country. But, I think that it is a problem that America can manage. The Europeans, however, if they keep up what they're doing, are screwed.
  52. @dcite
    There was a Steve Sailer post recently with the most salient headline I've seen here: The average IQ of your country, is more important than your personal IQ.

    A country appears to need 100 or so IQ on the average, to be first world. Doesn't sound good, but that's really all that's necessary for first world development, to judge from how countries have been developing. However, it's a delicate balance that has already been tipped by immigration, or rather, by the kind of immigrants we're getting.
    Whites in predominantly white countries, already know how things play out among whites, and have a pretty good grasp of expected behavior and capacity along the IQ continuum. They just don't admit it these days. European schools have been channeling students into certain paths for centuries, according the abilities they manifest on tests and in the schoolroom. A similar sifting took place among artisans and craftsmen. Intelligence is at play in all aspects of life. One Italian teacher, a liberal person, claimed that it worked very well and most people were satisfied.
    About half of all whites are 90-100 or so; the cities of Europe and America always had their slum areas, but were not completely corroded simply by the existence of that element. It took smart people who built and designed weapons of mass destruction to lay waste to their cities.
    I hope a multi-racial cast of Very Smart People will save the day for the U.S., but that class is already here and formed, and the percentage does not appear high enough to offset the damage. All I have to do is look at what has become of a once decent looking public transportation system.

    There was a Steve Sailer post recently with the most salient headline I’ve seen here: The average IQ of your country, is more important than your personal IQ.

    A country appears to need 100 or so IQ on the average, to be first world. Doesn’t sound good, but that’s really all that’s necessary for first world development, to judge from how countries have been developing.

    Not quite. See:

    Clannishness – the Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain

    Read More
  53. @dcite
    There was a Steve Sailer post recently with the most salient headline I've seen here: The average IQ of your country, is more important than your personal IQ.

    A country appears to need 100 or so IQ on the average, to be first world. Doesn't sound good, but that's really all that's necessary for first world development, to judge from how countries have been developing. However, it's a delicate balance that has already been tipped by immigration, or rather, by the kind of immigrants we're getting.
    Whites in predominantly white countries, already know how things play out among whites, and have a pretty good grasp of expected behavior and capacity along the IQ continuum. They just don't admit it these days. European schools have been channeling students into certain paths for centuries, according the abilities they manifest on tests and in the schoolroom. A similar sifting took place among artisans and craftsmen. Intelligence is at play in all aspects of life. One Italian teacher, a liberal person, claimed that it worked very well and most people were satisfied.
    About half of all whites are 90-100 or so; the cities of Europe and America always had their slum areas, but were not completely corroded simply by the existence of that element. It took smart people who built and designed weapons of mass destruction to lay waste to their cities.
    I hope a multi-racial cast of Very Smart People will save the day for the U.S., but that class is already here and formed, and the percentage does not appear high enough to offset the damage. All I have to do is look at what has become of a once decent looking public transportation system.

    @general obsever

    I hope a multi-racial cast of Very Smart People will save the day for the U.S., but that class is already here and formed, and the percentage does not appear high enough to offset the damage. All I have to do is look at what has become of a once decent looking public transportation system.

    I don’t like mass immigration and, if it were up to me, we’d deport the illegals and impose a permanent moratorium on all forms of immigration into the United States, with the exception of maybe a very small number of highly skilled professionals.

    That being said, I get the feeling that America’s immigration problem is different than Europe’s immigration problem. The legal immigrants that come into America seem to be, on average, fairly law abiding and competent. The illegal immigrants are mostly low-skill, and many of them will, in the future, assuming that they aren’t deported, become an underclass in this country. But, I think that it is a problem that America can manage. The Europeans, however, if they keep up what they’re doing, are screwed.

    Read More
  54. @JayMan

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?
     
    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/565243482248605699

    How anti-Semitism in interwar Germany was influenced by the medieval mass murder of Jews | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

    You know, neither of those things was that long ago.

    Spend some time reading around this "Dark Enlightenment" space.

    A little perspective: There were some 4,000 lynchings in the US (some whites). Taking the Soviet death toll to be c. 30,000,000 over 70 years for the sake of argument, I figure them to have managed over that period a murder rate of 1,000 a day. (Greater if I were to use the period 1917-55.)

    Thus, the Soviets blew through the entire death toll in the US in four days.

    In the grand scheme of things, the fantastically low toll for America shows that our civilization did very well.

    This anti-racism/PC religion now threatens to fatally undermine that civilization and replace it with, not blank-slatism, but virulent, ignorant chaos.

    Read More
  55. @Jayman

    Could you elaborate more on group genetic interests? I understand you had some informative postings on the matter in the past. Many scientists seem to believe that group genetic interests do exist. It does seem that if they did not than people would not organize around ethnic or tribal lines. Some populations seem to have less group genetic interests than others. Could this explain the paradox? Simply a matter of outbreeding or selective pressures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    Many scientists seem to believe that group genetic interests do exist. It does seem that if they did not than people would not organize around ethnic or tribal lines.
     
    Groupness exists. Humans are good at organizing into teams. The precise teams in question are fungible, but outwards signs of commonality (common customs, language, belief) facilitates that (not necessarily relatedness). If ethnic nepotism existed, we wouldn't see the intraethnic conflict we do and people would be presumably closer to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cousins than they actually are.
  56. @Magua
    @Jayman

    Could you elaborate more on group genetic interests? I understand you had some informative postings on the matter in the past. Many scientists seem to believe that group genetic interests do exist. It does seem that if they did not than people would not organize around ethnic or tribal lines. Some populations seem to have less group genetic interests than others. Could this explain the paradox? Simply a matter of outbreeding or selective pressures.

    Many scientists seem to believe that group genetic interests do exist. It does seem that if they did not than people would not organize around ethnic or tribal lines.

    Groupness exists. Humans are good at organizing into teams. The precise teams in question are fungible, but outwards signs of commonality (common customs, language, belief) facilitates that (not necessarily relatedness). If ethnic nepotism existed, we wouldn’t see the intraethnic conflict we do and people would be presumably closer to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cousins than they actually are.

    Read More
  57. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The anti-trump cult isn’t original, nor is their message, thats why they look like amateurs regurgitating the “teachings” of their geriatric gurus.

    While they exhibit most of the trademarks found in the “psychology of totalism”(thought terminating cliches), they remind me of that other political cult, the “Democratic Workers Party”.

    -
    The Democratic Workers Party was a United States Marxist-Leninist party based in California headed by former Professor Marlene Dixon, lasting from 1974-1986. It has been seen as an example of a political cult with Dixon serving as its charismatic leader.[1] http://www.thefullwiki.org/Democratic_Workers_Party
    -

    Not to mention they’re getting paid to be ham-fisted drama queens. How much do you get for disrupting a Trump rally, is it $2,500? Check your local craigs list.

    That balding, beer bellied, “professional activist”, Tom DiMassimo(that tried to jump on stage) is a failed actor(imdb), who now uses his community theater skills on twitter, where he’s become the celebrity(activist), he always wanted to be! $Cha-Ching$

    Strange though, his mom, Faye Dimassimo, works for the city of Atlanta and oversees a $1/4 Billion dollars for projects, and helps businesses share their love for community by digging deep into those pockets, for social justice of course. Move over MLK…Faye Dimassimo is in da house! Let freedom $Cha-Ching$

    His dad, Tom, teaches “government” for, well, the government. So we can assume little tommy learned a lot about government. Thats why he’s an expert on democracy, social engineering, marx, and hitler. Too bad his dad didn’t teach him about Liberty, but that would require a lifetime, government is easier. Just ask Faye.

    Man, must be tough being so oppressed by Donald Trump, huh? Especially when you consider how bad it is for black Americans right now, especially under a black president, even worse then under white ones.

    I know, because I learning this at my government school now, its teaches me race.

    If these social justice whiners really wanted to make a statement to get their message out to the world, as well as have us take them seriously, they would sacrifice themselves in self-immolation, like those guys in Tibet.

    Somebody tell Faye, to tell her kid he’s not doing enough to get his SAG-AFTRA card, he should eat some white phosphorous and buy himself a drink. That surely would make Faye and Tom proud…can you imagine the books, movies, and t-shirt sales…OMG…$CHA-CHING$

    SELF-IMMOLATION 4 SOCIAL JUSTICE!


    Eight Criteria for Thought Reform:

    Milieu Control.
    Mystical Manipulation.
    Demand for Purity.
    Confession.
    Sacred Science.
    Loading the Language.
    Doctrine over person.
    Dispensing of existence.

    http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

    Read More
  58. @Irving
    One thing that I've found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews. You try to tell them that it isn't the fault of the Jews that some Indian peasant took their job, but that the real fault lies with them, who were making a living doing such a low-skill job that any low-IQ Indian peasant can do just as well and at a much lower cost, and they end the discussion by calling you an 'anti-white".

    It is my experience talking with white nationalists that makes me think that the overall effects of HBD knowledge on society won't be so bad, and won't result in a recrudescence of a virulent and violent racism. People are vain, but HBD makes everyone look bad, though admittedly some more than others, so they, like the white nationalists I mentioned above, will refuse to accept it. And the people that HBD would seem to make the look the best (i.e. high-IQ people with elite educations and jobs), by and large, are a disproportionately Jewish but still fairly multi-racial set, and they have other priorities besides trying to stoke racism. The elimination of PC will likely lead to increased academic freedom and, possibly, smarter policy-making, but that's pretty much it. A certain casual racism may make a come back too--for example, white people will probably feel more comfortable using the word 'nigger' again--but even this isn't guaranteed in my opinion.

    I’ve been pointing out the same thing for a long time: In the area where the evidence for genetic influence on group differences is perhaps the strongest—between different socio-economic classes of whites—self-described HBD types are silent. They’re just not very interested in human biological diversity, I guess.

    Usually, if a certain blogger I follow, who has some HBD commenters, talks about the culture of poverty etc., I’m the only one to mention genes. The HBD commenters are silent until he brings up race.

    (Btw, the evidence for between-class genetic influence seems stronger than for between-race because you can do studies of correlations over time within families, in order to infer causality, which you obviously can’t do for between-race comparisons.)

    Read More
  59. Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS), it’s just the idea of not being able to force a public figure to grovel and apologize that infuriates the hysterical left; that’s also really his only value IMO, I don’t think he’s any kind of savior for us “far-right” types.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Irving
    @Marcus

    There's nothing contradictory about a 'race realist' being friends with someone Al Sharpton.
    , @JayMan

    Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS)
     
    Are those two things mutually exclusive?
  60. @Marcus
    Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS), it's just the idea of not being able to force a public figure to grovel and apologize that infuriates the hysterical left; that's also really his only value IMO, I don't think he's any kind of savior for us "far-right" types.

    There’s nothing contradictory about a ‘race realist’ being friends with someone Al Sharpton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS)
     
    There’s nothing contradictory about a ‘race realist’ being friends with someone Al Sharpton.

    Kind of makes me leery of describing myself as a race realist.

  61. @Marcus
    Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS), it's just the idea of not being able to force a public figure to grovel and apologize that infuriates the hysterical left; that's also really his only value IMO, I don't think he's any kind of savior for us "far-right" types.

    Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS)

    Are those two things mutually exclusive?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Clearly, unless my understanding of what "race-realism" entails is faulty.
  62. @Irving
    @Marcus

    There's nothing contradictory about a 'race realist' being friends with someone Al Sharpton.

    Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS)

    There’s nothing contradictory about a ‘race realist’ being friends with someone Al Sharpton.

    Kind of makes me leery of describing myself as a race realist.

    Read More
  63. @JayMan

    Trump is far from a race-realist of any sort (friends with Al Sharpton FFS)
     
    Are those two things mutually exclusive?

    Clearly, unless my understanding of what “race-realism” entails is faulty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MawBTS
    Why can't you be friends with someone you disagree with?
  64. @Marcus
    Clearly, unless my understanding of what "race-realism" entails is faulty.

    Why can’t you be friends with someone you disagree with?

    Read More
  65. @Aaron Gross
    Actually, the problem in the discourse isn't even about biology or genetics. It's about acknowledging group differences in intelligence and other personality traits, period.

    It doesn't really matter how much of those group differences is genetic (unless it were 100%, which no one's claiming). What matters is that the differences exist, that they're a major cause of social inequalities that people care about, and that, so far, the differences are intractable. And that you can't say that without getting ostracized.

    Back in the 1970s, leftist, egalitarian social scientists used to be able to say that blacks underperformed compared to whites because blacks were less intelligent than whites due to racism. (They usually didn't use the word "intelligence" when talking about the difference, but they used euphemisms like "learning ability.") Nowadays if you say, "Blacks are less intelligent than whites due to slavery/redlining/racism/whatever"—forget about biology—you'll be tarred and feathered.

    So the problem isn't being forbidden to talk about biological differences. The problem is being forbidden to talk about group differences at all.

    A corollary is that "race realists" should lay off the biology talk in the context of social "problems." That includes both the "race is biologically real" red herring and the "group differences are genetically influenced" one. Not only because those propositions are logically irrelevant to social questions, but because it's rhetorically extremely stupid to raise them: It focusses attention on a premise that your audience doesn't accept, when that premise is irrelevant anyway.

    Aaron Gross: absolutely correct – it’s all about overlapping normal curves for different groups! it’s insane that discussing ability (even with all groups combined) as a normal curve that matters in almost all aspects of life is forbidden. Ability matters so much & affects so many things, yet it’s ignored in education & the public discourse. To me, that’s insane.

    Read More
  66. […] The Donald Trump Phenomenon Part 2: Binary Thinking on Jayman’s Blog. […]

    Read More
  67. @JayMan

    Oh, but what would be the worst case outcome if anti-anti-vaxxers would just allow anti-vaxxer parents to not vaccinate their children?
     
    Let's see:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/710188995540606976

    https://twitter.com/diseasesymptom/status/656575803497566208

    https://twitter.com/Physns1stWatch/status/710182359144878080

    https://twitter.com/historyvaccines

    Rolling back this:

    https://twitter.com/LindaRegber/status/699100889659875328

    Get it?

    Hey Jay, good content on measles (if you deem the CDC an unimpeachable and accurate data source.) Tynan DeBold and Dov Friedman’s data on pertussis is not consistent with rather authoritative reviews:

    Results. —We estimated that 13557 pertussis hospitalizations (95% confidence interval [CI], 12953 to 14162) and 98 pertussis deaths had occurred during the 4-year study period (an average of more than 3300 hospitalizations and 25 deaths per year). The completeness of reporting hospitalizations to the CDC was 32% and to the CPHA-PAS, 23%, while the completeness of reporting pertussis deaths to the CDC was 33% and to NCHS, 23%. Patients who were hospitalized with pertussis and reported to CDC were at a higher risk for developing pneumonia (31.0% vs 20.0%, relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.7), seizures (3.7% vs 2.1%; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5) and encephalitis (1.2% vs 0.2%; RR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.4 to 11.6) compared with patients recorded in the CPHA-PAS system.

    Conclusions. —Our study suggests that there is substantial underreporting of pertussis, that severe complications of pertussis (including hospitalizations) are reported preferentially to the CDC, and that the national health impact of pertussis based on these indicators is considerably higher than previously published reports have suggested.(JAMA. 1992;267:386-391)

    How about pertussis?

    http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/References/pertussis-vaccine-ref.pdf

    I clicked through some of these sources (I’m quite familiar with some of the journals) and verified Mercola’s interpretation of enough of them that I’m content to let the others stand.

    Whether you approve this late comment or not, I just wanted to point out that your blanket position on this subject has legitimate opposition.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/12/pertussis-vaccine.aspx

    Before you call Mercola a crank/quack, note that your positions are similarly outside the consensus on a fair number of subjects. Glass houses and all that….

    http://search.mercola.com/results.aspx?q=measles%20vaccine

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/24/dissolving-illusions-measles-vaccine.aspx

    I followed back your reference to the above; the numbers are based on CDC reports. I strongly suspect that this is akin to basing ones entire premise about AGW on data supplied by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK.

    Dr. Debold was curious about the one measles-related child death recorded in 2005 and the fact that the CDC did not acknowledge it when replying to Dr. Nass. Dr. Debold wondered if, perhaps, the 2005 child death was MMR vaccine related.

    She searched VAERS reports using the MedAlerts9 database, where she found five deaths associated with measles containing vaccines that occurred in 2005 in the U.S. in males aged one to four years.

    One of those 2005 MMR vaccine related death reports in VAERS listed “mild fever” and “non-infectious encephalitis and encephalopathy” as symptoms after a one year old boy received MMR, varicella and flu vaccines and died five days later (VAERS ID# 250504).

    The autopsy report listed “sudden unexpected death in childhood” as the cause of death; however, there was no mention of a rash or other measles-related symptoms, which also can occur after MMR vaccination.

    Dr. Debold commented, “Six out of seven measles-associated deaths reported after 2003 in the National Vital Statistics reports occurred in adults between the ages of 25 and over 85 years old, who should either have had natural measles immunity or have gotten at least one MMR shot. It would be helpful for CDC to explain the discrepancy between National Vital Statistics data and the statement made to Dr. Nass.”

    So, between zero and seven measles-related deaths have occurred in the U.S. since 2003, but how many measles vaccine reaction death reports have been recorded by the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the past 12 years?

    Searching the MedAlerts database, we see that there were 98 deaths following MMR or MMRV vaccinations reported to VAERS that occurred between 2003 and 2015. Plus, there have been 694 reports of MMR or MMRV vaccinations causing disability in that time frame.

    It has been estimated that less than 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.10,11

    Considering the fact that there were 98 measles vaccine-related deaths and 694 measles vaccine-related disabilities reported to VAERS in the past 12 years, if only 10 percent of vaccine-related deaths and disabilities are being reported to the government, then the actual number of measles vaccine-related deaths and disabilities that have occurred since 2003 could have been as many as 980 deaths and 6,940 disabilities.

    Read More
  68. @JayMan

    I think, the main problem is that many people (on either side of the racialist divide) simply don’t understand that group differences are a statistical fact, but not much more than that.
     
    That's true but there is more than that:

    You still have to judge the individual by individual characteristics.
     
    Yes, but group membership is an individual characteristic:

    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/665216374650834945

    Stereotypes are relevant for judgments about individuals even when one has individualized information – Clear Language, Clear Mind


    It’s eg. quite nonsensical to block more than a billion people from entering the US, because there are perhaps 100,000 terrorists among them of which perhaps 500 might try to enter the country.
     
    It's certainly rational to block a billion people from anywhere in the world from entering your country because of the sheer number. But yes, it is rational to restrict Muslim immigration if you're concerned about terrorism, even though the actual fraction of Muslims who are terrorists is small:

    Terrorism Quotient

    Is it rational to restrict all male immigration? How about all male immigrants under 30? Many likely to be criminals. Where to draw the line?

    Read More
  69. @dc.sunsets
    We live in a theocracy. No kidding. Surely you've heard of the Dark Enlightenment. Exactly how on Earth does the writing of Nick Land and others deviate from what you've published above?

    However, there are elements that won’t. Many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bona fide racists. There is no social policy or prescription that necessarily follows from knowledge of inherited group differences. But it is the very nature of people determines how they will react. Some groups want to deride/persecute/destroy other groups they feel are tainted or inferior. Nazism didn’t come out of a vacuum, and it too is a result of the nature of the people who embraced it.
     
    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?

    Our theocracy doesn't have a god, but it has saints (MLK, FDR & Lincoln) and it has its Satan: Hitler and his National Socialists. Cultists inevitably wheel out their Satan whenever it's time to hold a witch-hunt.

    The cult (this theocracy is a cult from every angle) treats thoughtcrime as blasphemy; anyone who holds racist views should be fired from his job and presumably hounded out of polite society, no?

    You seem to say that in the name of academic honesty and truth, issues of race should be able to be discussed, right? Where do you then draw the line? It's okay to discuss them but if anyone draws a probability-based conclusion (e.g., being a little more nervous when there's a group of black males behind you on a dark city street than if the group was a few Chinese males), is that racist? Should someone be fired for uttering such thoughtcrime?

    I suggest to you that the line is where political power directed at harming people begins. Given that we currently live in a polity where political power tilts radically in favor of Non Asian Minorities, at the expense of everyone not in that group, a whole lot of people would scream and riot and burn if the scales were simply balanced more evenly.

    That, today, is blasphemy. It is also why the level of conflict is going to rise dramatically, especially when this 50 year diversion into monetary, economic and financial Fairy Tales finally comes to an end.

    I don't wish to destroy anyone. I do, however, wish to stop being harnessed to a cart in which others choose to ride. As things stand, those who want to ride are making it clear that the only way to stop them from harnessing me is to eliminate them. For now, my choice is to simply stop pulling. I can and have radically reduced my taxable activities, but my guess is that the next phase in this farce is cannibal democracy, where income AND property are taxed heavily. When that comes around, do you really think those harnessed to the cart will sit still?

    Should they?

    “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

    Guess who.

    Read More
  70. @JayMan

    Am I being sensitive, or is this not just a little Two Minutes Hate of your own?
     
    https://twitter.com/jayman471/status/565243482248605699

    How anti-Semitism in interwar Germany was influenced by the medieval mass murder of Jews | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

    You know, neither of those things was that long ago.

    Spend some time reading around this "Dark Enlightenment" space.

    More white people are killed in one year by black crime than were ever lynched. The civil rights leaders are more interested in banning iq tests than fighting racism. If an employer was only interested in your race then he would test your blood not your iq. Remember if you can’t pass the test then pick up a book and throw it at your political opponents in order to prove that everybody is equal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    More white people are killed in one year by black crime than were ever lynched.
     
    Whoa! Horseshit city! (I assume you mean number of Blacks ever lynched.)

    Number of Whites killed by Blacks in America in 2013 (FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6):

    409

    Number of Blacks lynched in the South 1882-1968 (Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968 ):

    3,446

    (See also here for another source with similar numbers)

    A near order of magnitude off from your claims, buddy.

    Before you spew rage, be sure to at least get your numbers straight, OK?

  71. @JayMan

    One thing that I’ve found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews.
     
    Ummm hmmm. Good comment!

    Is the doctrine of disparate impact not discriminatory against whites? Haven’t violent student groups demanded to have the curriculum changed to accomodate nonpaying students? How is it possible to know the iq of poor whites since is testing is forbidden?

    Read More
  72. @JayMan

    One thing that I’ve found with white nationalists is that they only like to talk about HBD as it applies to blacks or Arabs or whatever. It is when you apply HBD to white people themselves, to explain for example that the reason why the white working and lower middle class is faring so poorly in the new, globalized economy is not just due to f-ed up trade policies, but also and largely because of the relatively low (i.e. sub-110) IQs of these whites who have lost out, that they become unmitigated blank-slatists, and then proceed to blame everything on the Jews.
     
    Ummm hmmm. Good comment!

    You ask how whites will treat intelligent and inoffensive black? You mean like the intelligent and inoffenisve blacks who threaten whites on college campuses or support Jesse Jackson for false rape accusations. Or the local daycare center owner who said the most vile and disgusting things against white men when she was going to lose government funding. Or inoffensive blacks who denounce iq testing and standardized tests as being racist but then to get low iq blacks ssi, using iq as a criteria for disability payments?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    You ask how whites will treat intelligent and inoffensive black? You mean like the intelligent and inoffenisve blacks who threaten whites on college campuses or support Jesse Jackson for false rape accusations.
     
    I think you are part of the problem, pal.
  73. @Epochehusserl
    You ask how whites will treat intelligent and inoffensive black? You mean like the intelligent and inoffenisve blacks who threaten whites on college campuses or support Jesse Jackson for false rape accusations. Or the local daycare center owner who said the most vile and disgusting things against white men when she was going to lose government funding. Or inoffensive blacks who denounce iq testing and standardized tests as being racist but then to get low iq blacks ssi, using iq as a criteria for disability payments?

    You ask how whites will treat intelligent and inoffensive black? You mean like the intelligent and inoffenisve blacks who threaten whites on college campuses or support Jesse Jackson for false rape accusations.

    I think you are part of the problem, pal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    That's a real academic answer from an intelligent and inoffensive black. If you can't pass the test then pick up a book and throw it at the white man. It certainly is a diverse perspective, I certainly never would have come up with that. The universities used to be a place for study, vocation and reflection but now they are a war zone. But you won't address my concerns because it's not a problem to you. Would you be willing to come out and denounce such antics? No, because I am the problem. The definition of racism is purposely kept vague so it's never really possible to prove that you are not racist. Personal safety is very important. I am working on an app that allows white people to document their dealings with blacks. Plenty of times I have bad experiences with blacks and was accused of racism. Well not anymore. The tentative name of the app is I am not racist I just don't like you. It will allow the user to record and document bad dealings with different people so no one can be accused of racism. Everyone should be able to document their dealings and be safe because personal safety is very important. It would help stamp out racism because people could have document what actually happened instead of relying on heresay.
  74. @Epochehusserl
    More white people are killed in one year by black crime than were ever lynched. The civil rights leaders are more interested in banning iq tests than fighting racism. If an employer was only interested in your race then he would test your blood not your iq. Remember if you can't pass the test then pick up a book and throw it at your political opponents in order to prove that everybody is equal.

    More white people are killed in one year by black crime than were ever lynched.

    Whoa! Horseshit city! (I assume you mean number of Blacks ever lynched.)

    Number of Whites killed by Blacks in America in 2013 (FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6):

    409

    Number of Blacks lynched in the South 1882-1968 (Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968 ):

    3,446

    (See also here for another source with similar numbers)

    A near order of magnitude off from your claims, buddy.

    Before you spew rage, be sure to at least get your numbers straight, OK?

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    It's impossible to know how many whites are killed by blacks because the government keeps changing the criteria of who is white and who is not. George Zimmerman would have been considered white for the purposes of framing him as a racist cold blooded killer but if he has been killed by a black he would have been considered latino. George Zimmerman is Hispanic not white. If Obama had been around during Malcolm x then I am pretty sure the people who killed him would have been labelled white supremacists. So you got me it only takes 8 years for blacks to kill as many whites as happened during Jim crow if we are going to believe government statistics. Sir the point is that blacks are a greater threat to whites than vice versa and that is born out of the reality that blacks want to live near whites but the opposite is not true. Do you trust government statistics on unemployment?
    , @epochehusserl
    I deliberately made up the figure because I am never able to get a straight answer as to how many black men were lynched during the horrors of Jim crow when the government allowed large organizations to use intelligence testing. 3500 black men were lynched over 80 years in an entire country? 1400 white children were raped in a single city in the UK and the authorities refused to address the issue because of the threat of racism. Failure to recognize social patterns under the threat of being called racist destroys people's lives.
  75. @JayMan

    You ask how whites will treat intelligent and inoffensive black? You mean like the intelligent and inoffenisve blacks who threaten whites on college campuses or support Jesse Jackson for false rape accusations.
     
    I think you are part of the problem, pal.

    That’s a real academic answer from an intelligent and inoffensive black. If you can’t pass the test then pick up a book and throw it at the white man. It certainly is a diverse perspective, I certainly never would have come up with that. The universities used to be a place for study, vocation and reflection but now they are a war zone. But you won’t address my concerns because it’s not a problem to you. Would you be willing to come out and denounce such antics? No, because I am the problem. The definition of racism is purposely kept vague so it’s never really possible to prove that you are not racist. Personal safety is very important. I am working on an app that allows white people to document their dealings with blacks. Plenty of times I have bad experiences with blacks and was accused of racism. Well not anymore. The tentative name of the app is I am not racist I just don’t like you. It will allow the user to record and document bad dealings with different people so no one can be accused of racism. Everyone should be able to document their dealings and be safe because personal safety is very important. It would help stamp out racism because people could have document what actually happened instead of relying on heresay.

    Read More
  76. @JayMan

    More white people are killed in one year by black crime than were ever lynched.
     
    Whoa! Horseshit city! (I assume you mean number of Blacks ever lynched.)

    Number of Whites killed by Blacks in America in 2013 (FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6):

    409

    Number of Blacks lynched in the South 1882-1968 (Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968 ):

    3,446

    (See also here for another source with similar numbers)

    A near order of magnitude off from your claims, buddy.

    Before you spew rage, be sure to at least get your numbers straight, OK?

    It’s impossible to know how many whites are killed by blacks because the government keeps changing the criteria of who is white and who is not. George Zimmerman would have been considered white for the purposes of framing him as a racist cold blooded killer but if he has been killed by a black he would have been considered latino. George Zimmerman is Hispanic not white. If Obama had been around during Malcolm x then I am pretty sure the people who killed him would have been labelled white supremacists. So you got me it only takes 8 years for blacks to kill as many whites as happened during Jim crow if we are going to believe government statistics. Sir the point is that blacks are a greater threat to whites than vice versa and that is born out of the reality that blacks want to live near whites but the opposite is not true. Do you trust government statistics on unemployment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan

    It’s impossible to know how many whites are killed by blacks because the government keeps changing the criteria of who is white and who is not. George Zimmerman would have been considered white for the purposes of framing him as a racist cold blooded killer but if he has been killed by a black he would have been considered latino.
     
    Well think you dumbass: wouldn't that make the number of Whites killed by Blacks smaller, not larger?

    I deliberately made up the figure because I am never able to get a straight answer as to how many black men were lynched during the horrors of Jim crow when the government allowed large organizations to use intelligence testing.
     
    Holy fucking non-sequitur, Batman!

    How about I leave you with this fable:


    There was a fly buzzing around a barn one day when he happened on a pile of fresh cow manure. Due to the fact that it had been hours since his last meal, he flew down and began to eat. He ate and ate and ate.

    Finally, he decided he had eaten enough and tried to fly away. He had eaten too much though, and could not get off the ground. As he looked around wondering what to do now, he spotted a pitchfork leaning up against the wall.

    He climbed to the top of the handle and jumped off, thinking that once he got airborne, he would be able to take flight. Unfortunately he was wrong and dropped like a rock, splatting when he hit the floor. Dead.

    The moral to the story: Never fly off the handle when you're full of shit.
     

    People don't call you racist because you speak the truth or stick up for Whites. They call you racist because you're a racist asshole.

    No more stupid comments from you, please. If I get another dumb comment from you, you will be banned on the spot.

  77. @JayMan

    More white people are killed in one year by black crime than were ever lynched.
     
    Whoa! Horseshit city! (I assume you mean number of Blacks ever lynched.)

    Number of Whites killed by Blacks in America in 2013 (FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 6):

    409

    Number of Blacks lynched in the South 1882-1968 (Lynching Statistics for 1882-1968 ):

    3,446

    (See also here for another source with similar numbers)

    A near order of magnitude off from your claims, buddy.

    Before you spew rage, be sure to at least get your numbers straight, OK?

    I deliberately made up the figure because I am never able to get a straight answer as to how many black men were lynched during the horrors of Jim crow when the government allowed large organizations to use intelligence testing. 3500 black men were lynched over 80 years in an entire country? 1400 white children were raped in a single city in the UK and the authorities refused to address the issue because of the threat of racism. Failure to recognize social patterns under the threat of being called racist destroys people’s lives.

    Read More
  78. @epochehusserl
    It's impossible to know how many whites are killed by blacks because the government keeps changing the criteria of who is white and who is not. George Zimmerman would have been considered white for the purposes of framing him as a racist cold blooded killer but if he has been killed by a black he would have been considered latino. George Zimmerman is Hispanic not white. If Obama had been around during Malcolm x then I am pretty sure the people who killed him would have been labelled white supremacists. So you got me it only takes 8 years for blacks to kill as many whites as happened during Jim crow if we are going to believe government statistics. Sir the point is that blacks are a greater threat to whites than vice versa and that is born out of the reality that blacks want to live near whites but the opposite is not true. Do you trust government statistics on unemployment?

    It’s impossible to know how many whites are killed by blacks because the government keeps changing the criteria of who is white and who is not. George Zimmerman would have been considered white for the purposes of framing him as a racist cold blooded killer but if he has been killed by a black he would have been considered latino.

    Well think you dumbass: wouldn’t that make the number of Whites killed by Blacks smaller, not larger?

    I deliberately made up the figure because I am never able to get a straight answer as to how many black men were lynched during the horrors of Jim crow when the government allowed large organizations to use intelligence testing.

    Holy fucking non-sequitur, Batman!

    How about I leave you with this fable:

    There was a fly buzzing around a barn one day when he happened on a pile of fresh cow manure. Due to the fact that it had been hours since his last meal, he flew down and began to eat. He ate and ate and ate.

    Finally, he decided he had eaten enough and tried to fly away. He had eaten too much though, and could not get off the ground. As he looked around wondering what to do now, he spotted a pitchfork leaning up against the wall.

    He climbed to the top of the handle and jumped off, thinking that once he got airborne, he would be able to take flight. Unfortunately he was wrong and dropped like a rock, splatting when he hit the floor. Dead.

    The moral to the story: Never fly off the handle when you’re full of shit.

    People don’t call you racist because you speak the truth or stick up for Whites. They call you racist because you’re a racist asshole.

    No more stupid comments from you, please. If I get another dumb comment from you, you will be banned on the spot.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All JayMan Comments via RSS