It’s comments like yours that make me a compulsive reader of the Unz comments section.

The author doesn’t know much about Taiwan or its people. Taiwan’s connection to mainland China is 250-300 years removed for the average Taiwanese. The CPC literally did not exist back then. Nobody in Taiwan thinks of themselves as citizens of the CPC. Relating Taiwanese to Texas secessionists is absurd.

I live in Taiwan. That shit ain’t happening. At best, it’s wishful thinking among neocons/left neocons (all liberals basically). Taiwan is way too rich to be fighting wars. Taiwan does enough to stay in the US’ good graces (having to pay the US protection money by buying useless arms) while not letting the CPC walk over them (Tsai: Taiwan is already independent). Taiwan unfortunately also funds anti-China propaganda such as giving money to ASPI.

The status quo lets the CPC save face. They can claim that Taiwan is theirs while exerting no control over it. By the way, historically speaking Taiwan has been a foreign land of no use to all the Chinese empires sans late Qing dynasty where they colonized parts of it as it became part of a lucrative trade route. Mao himself was pro Taiwanese independence against its then Japanese colonizers. And before anyone is going to try to debunk any of my claims. The KMT does NOT represent Taiwan. They are losers from their war in China. They only make up less than ONE FIFTH of the population of Taiwan. The KMT does not represent Taiwan just like the Netherlands don’t, nor does Japan, or the Ming Dynasty (the whole Koxinga thing).

2. Taiwan is not a staging operation to attack China. Its military is weak as hell and can’t power project at all.

3. There are more or less zero parallels to Ukraine. Stop trying to force the analogy. Taiwan has not been shelling its own people. It was not couped by the US. There hasn’t been a multi-decade propaganda campaign to demonize China like how the US supported Banderaism. China claims Taiwan for FACE reasons only (old beef with KMT). They did not petition the UN multiple times voicing security concerns like Russia with Ukraine and NATO encroachment. There was nothing like the Minsk agreements or their intentional violation.

LOL! Pointing at SPLC.

I know the answer!

It’s the Finnish Sauna!

I’m telling you, Nordic Countries…people like using the Sauna. And once you start using a Sauna…you never get the flu again.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Once You Have This Disease, You are Forever Weakened For LIFE and therefore more susceptible to other diseases?

No one is thinking this way.

I’ve had some problems since having H1N1 back in 2010 or 009. Things hit me harder then they did before.

I think this is a good question to ask, and may cause The Young to reevaluate whether they want Herd Immunity or To Stomp This Thing Out

That’s how I felt each time I went into a mall in SoCal. I also would enjoy standing on the train platform in Los Angeles and feeling like A Giant!

In both cases, I’m short and not particularly attractive…YET….compared to….

*shrugs* What can I say?

38 year old man in China

Prostitutes?

When I got H1N1, I got so sick, I couldn’t breathe…so I grabbed a large pot and boiled water, and sat on the kitchen floor inhaling for several hours.

That’s why I’m spending 30 minutes to an hour everyday in the Sauna in preparation to fight off Coronavirus

I have a trip to Milan planned, no joke, that I have been dreaming about for YEARS

And yeah, I’m going.

And white girls crave Gucci belts!

The fact that this MOTHER is wearing a Gucci belt, says all you need to know about how badly she wants to follow trends.

Tim Tebow’s wife…if you look at her dad, he’s definitely got something in him…

The children of non-Jewish white liberals don’t do well (or get murdered by vibrancy…seeing that more and more lately.) A poster above commented perfectly…

The kids who believe their parents lies have A LOT of problems.

Best example: Dave Merritt the father of Jack Merritt…Dave’s twitter page is a reminder to everyone on the planet…

If you die, no one will care about you, not even your father.

1) Why did they allow the flight to take off from John Wayne in the first place?

2) If everyone knows Fog and weather cause a lot of helicopter/plane crashes…why? Why does it still happen?

3) Be a Finn…go to the sauna daily if you can find one….the next time you get the flu you’ll be over it within 36 hours with lighter symptoms. And your welcome.

4) Impeachment…I’m so over it…I do not care. Stop Immigration Trump. Disown your daughter. Bye.

Media always report like a Defense Atty. for black folks! Trying never to say blacks are criminals or racists! Media is AntiAmerican Anti-Christian Anti-freedom and Anti-Constitution pieces of affirmative action fake reporters!!!

People said the same thing about the Hughes amendment…NFA owners are Way more law-abiding than anybody else in the US. What did that solve? Only murder with lawful NFA was commited by a dirty cop that murdered an informant.

Padock would have killed more without a bump stock.

If they come to steal my guns, I will kill them. Threeper through and through. Fuck the National Retreat Association. SAF won Heller and Nra tried to glom on and torpedo it.

SAF, GOA, JPFO. NRA approved the fooking Hughes amendment. My LEO trainer friends agree with me, not you surrenderers.

Orange is still better than red Hillary.

Trump should let them take Jessie to the cleaners…

But then pardon him of any crimes.

Then rub Kamala Harris’ face in said pardon at the Presidential Debates

Not until the 90s. Until 1968, when the Hays Code was done away with. Joseph Breen, who enforced the code, was Catholic.

Nice is different than good.

Big problem with people nowadays…they can’t distinguish between a nice person and a good person.

I watched Nanette the other day because she looked like a ‘decent’ lesbian and I was curious if she was a nice person

She’s a nice person, but there wasn’t anything especially insightful or comic about her

She’s no great comedian

We don't have a gun problem in our country, we have a blacks with guns problem however.

Actually I take that back….(previous comment)

The movie was REALLY against Supermodel White Women

The people who were truly evil in the movie were 6’0 Nordic Western European Girls with Gorgeous white skin

Porky Asian and Black Dude go to a Casino filled with Svelte Sexy Western European Supermodel Girls with Pure White Skin and destroy it

But even when your watching you go ‘Oh wow, they are so beautiful? Why would you want to destroy this? The only nice thing in the Galaxy?’

But black dude or plucky asian make it clear that those people are bad because they are the people who sell to BOTH sides…the Vaders and the resistance

But that was why I was on the side of teh Young Bad Vader…he wanted to kill everyone and end the sordid mess

Now the rebels survived and can continue fighting for the ‘diverse poor people’ and killing and destroying even more nice things

ugh

Saw the movie the other day. It wasn’t bad. Kept me entertained while we were forced to be away from the house for 3 hours.

Princess Leia…the dead one…she is just horrid…just an old drunk woman who used a lot of drugs who has a really bad Finnish nose

The Plucky Asian + Black Dude was amusing because it was just so PC…but the actors pulled it off

It was only depressing to see the Plucky Fat Asian because it’s like ‘Oh dear…she looks like my highschool friends…hmmm’

My husband and I said ‘Oh god’ outloud at several points…specifically

– Purple Haired Laura Dern woman
– Plucky Fat Asian giving friend kiss to Black Dude

It was a cute movie, I didn’t think it had much to do with White People but more to do with getting Plucky Porky Asians to be Nice to Black People

I was totally into the hardcore whiteness and organization of the Death Star group and frankly the bad guy in the movie…I was really hoping that his whole ‘LEts end the Jedi and the Death star people Both and then there won’t be two sides and we can go back to living a good life’ idea would win…

It was such a great idea! Kill the Rebels and Kill the Vaders and then it would all be over! Win win for everyone!!!!

But evidently that’s evil…

Ok I do admit that I too think Steve is sounding too much like Heartiste…(I read heartiste everyday so I don’t need two of them)

All people are a shade of egomaniac…including me and including you Steve.

Selma is an egomaniac, but at the same time she is telling her side of the story of what went on with Harvey Weinstein and it ads to the information about the guy.

On one side we’re getting a lot of false rape claims…but on the other side…we do need women to come out and say when Men Are Jerks

(Lewis C.K…I got into a fight with my husband over him this summer because I said that I don’t like his child rape jokes and my husband was like ‘No no he doesn’t mean it like that’…i think his jokes were a sign of his personality ‘i can be a jerk and get away with it! i’m on stage and people will let me say anything and justify it’)

One more thing…

You can’t expect to tell your daughters to become successful in life financially and then get mad at your daughter for keeping quiet or going along with sexual harassment from an exec to get ahead but then coming forward at time when she can keep her financial success.

The women aren’t perfect…but as long as you parents want your daughters to become all rich by their own work then well…You’ll have to deal with this seemingly hypocritical behavior.

I’ve been wondering if children from divorced families have lower curiosity all things controlled.

I think if your parents divorce it lops off your ability to judge and seek answers. You don’t want to seek answers anymore because what you may find is so personally hurtful.

Fascinating study!

Pictures of Meghan Markle’s mother from highschool/college makes you realize what Harry really married.

Meghan Markle is VERY black…from the gregariousness, the over-confidence, the high-sexuality/sexual unfaithfulness, the ability to write articles devoid of meaning but genuinely believe she said something of worth (I mean that’s the definition of a black thinker aka T-Coates), plus she’s very aggressive …not in a violent way…but physically she is very aggressive

Meghan Markle is a high-functioning black person…she’s high-functioning in that she can mingle with whites but she still has all of the black personality traits

The only thing Meghan Markle did not inherit is the Black Surliness (think Michelle Obama.) Her mom has tons of black surliness, but thankfully for Meghan she did not get that gene. Although her and Harry’s children may get it..

P.S.—This is not a racist post as I could write just as bad things about Prince Harry who is a major dimwitted twit of worthlessness. I just feel bad for the English people.

Steve, I think a lot of your commentators are missing the point.

Sure my facebook feed is littered with wannabe women claiming sexual harassment…

BUT…

Weinstein and Rattner and all these guys are really rats. Take Them Down. Men shouldn’t be acting like that. I read heartiste every night and men should not act like that.

We are Christian. Remember that. Men are noble and good.

This is such a great opportunity for us to not go after our prostitute feminist women and blame them..but to take down all of these Liberal Finnish Assholes in the hearts and minds of our women.

This is such a great opportunity. Don’t let Heartiste change it from Weinstein to Whores.

You (or you under Weinstein brainwashing) tell your daughters to go out into the world and make something of themselves, and they run into Finnish Gatekeepers for all the high-level female orientated jobs…don’t blame women guys.

I’m a waitress at a five star hotel with a high sat score

My parents are ashamed of me and barely talk to me

Of course I am about to marry a 6’5 investment banker so one can make the argument that maybe my parents are wrong

What is going on in Israel with the Sara Netanyahu thing?

Nordstrom.com

Read the quote from Hailey Gates

When making something in the world, defer to your humanity, not your intellect.

Well that just sums it up right there.

“Most of you agree with us…but SOME of you have expressed dissenting opinions”

MEETING CANCELLED!!!!

Googlers?

They want people with IQs of >120 to work for them and then they call them Googlers?

If Trump wants to put up a wall it needs to be built around cities like Baltimore.

My dna in real life would save myself…but in real life all of my cousins are asian (half but I don’t count that) and I have no siblings of any sort

So…if I had 100% white cousins who had white spouses….I may choose my cousins

I think it’s safe to say that no one would choose their half-siblings.

I have a whole theory about my husband’s half siblings and step-parents…I think his parents encouraged him to date bad women (aka raise the spawn of a single mom while not having his own children and almost letting her talk him into giving up because obviously he was sterile because she didn’t become pregnant even though he’s not sterile) because if he had gone extinct then the relationship of the biological mom and biological dad is nullified thus meaning the only relationship to have produced a lasting lineage would have been the adulterous (stepmother) one.

White Cousins. Definitely White Cousins.

The Hell with StepFamilies.

NEVER introduce foreign DNA anywhere near your kids. (Unless your an alpha male dad who wants to ruin his sons to maintain your alpha stance)

“Don’t forget your pole!!”

That was a metal pole. A metal pole designated for my Skinny Dirty Blonde ‘I have a tall boyfriend’ Skull.

Did you notice how every female was fat and every male was a total degenerate?

How did the ugly people become so crazy all of a sudden?

Do you think Instagram is driving them to madness?

Pernille’s great sin and thing that stops her from becoming a better woman (and straight) is her hatred of Blonde Women.

Every single time I read anything from her she slips in how much she hates blondes.

Jealousy is such a nasty trait.

She’s still stupid.

Never trump, fact checkers, I was just doing my job!

Ms. Stanger…Wake The F Up!

She is saying that if He Had Been a White Nationalist than it would have been ok.

Charles Murray is a White Nationalist and so is every single person here.

You’ll all find out the hard way.

There are rules–literally set in stone— to how this planet operates.

Trump’s grandchildren are the red flag and the breaking of the rules.

End. Of.

[I do agree though, he’s the best chance we have and I hope I’m wrong. But I’d rather keep pissing on Trump and keeping his feet to the fire and making him feel guilty about his grandkids so that he’ll feel shame enough to risk himself to help us.]

Remember something everyone….

Respect No One. There’s not a gosh darn person on this entire planet I have respect for. Not One. Not Trump. No one.

This is a good attitude to have because it makes people Do Stuff For You cuz they are constantly trying to Earn Your Respect but will Never Get It.

Of course.

I still think that the only person who can truly save us is someone who doesn’t have ‘Game’ but is 100% moral.

It all goes back to Ivanka marrying Kushner.

That was the red flag.

We’re looking for a Savior, a genuine bonafide Savior. And Saviors tend to be pretty stand up people who don’t hand their grandchildren to the enemy.

I’m also worried that we could see Ivanka as the first woman president. That would suck, because I’ve followed Ivanka my whole life and truly dislike her. Trump has pushed that girl into every business venture in an attempt to find something that fit her. He’s a great dad in that respect, but PLEASE don’t put that s— on the American people. Very Clintonesque to do that in my opinion. Nobody on the right wants to see any more family dynasties, thank you very much.

Steve, if you haven’t already, check out the gendercritical subreddit. Feminists ranting about how crazy transgender activists are…

The white women are running far far away from those men.

I left California for the sole sake of finding a man.

Which I did. End of.

Bring on the babies!

Nah.

Krull

It’s cool 🙂

Congrats everyone!

Let’s hope Trump can pound his ‘worldview’ into the heads of all the silly white people in this country.

Remember, people are not voting for Trump because they agree with us. They are voting for Trump because Hillary is so obviously ill and old.

If the polls don’t switch soon to Trump’s favor I think we’ll see him backtrack on EVERYTHING.

And honestly I wouldn’t blame him for turning into a Pro-Open Borders Globalist 2 weeks before the election…

He’s got a huge business and one Male Child who may Produce Non-Jewish Grandchildren Left. He has to protect his business for that child. (F… Ivanka and the others)

I think Romney’s campaign showed that it’s impossible for a white male to win an election in the U.S. ever again. Trump was going for a weak spot in Hillary, but I think he miscalculated how mentally deranged brown eyed people really are

As a woman…

I’m subscribed to Ivanka Trump’s fashion/lifestyle blog…Oh dear God it is the WORST newsletter I Receive.

Gwenyth Paltrow’s Goop is actually really good. Recipes, *ahem* sex advice (medical grade on a healthcare level)…stuff that may seem silly but at the end of the day is genuinely trying to help you

Ivanka’s is Completely Crazy…it’s like business advice for women …from a woman whose daddy put her in business…so the advice is like totally out of touch and makes no sense

I’ve never liked Ivanka…even as a teenager I remember Donald tried to push her as Miss Teen USA host or something which was cringe-worthy

I love Melania but her pictures on instagram are pretty cringe-worthy. She’s got that Russian love of gold and red and fur streak in her that I think many Western European types find off-putting.

I also can’t stand Ivanka’s Clothing Lines…This has been going on for a long time guys…I remember when she started off at QVC or HSN with really ugly jewelry. When Jessica Simpson’s line became famous then Ivanka jumped on that train.

I think Donald’s women are pretty to look at but I think they are not perfect.

Ivanka…based upon what is in my email…is extremely out of touch with reality.

Has it ever occurred to anyone else that Trump isn’t staffing up with the likes of Steve, Peter B, Ann, even RooshV because…

He doesn’t agree with us?

anyways…

I’m voting Trump, don’t worry. But I’m very worried.

I hate not being connected.

Hate it. There’s nothing great or special about Stephen Miller accept he can get away with shit I never could.

Trump isn’t on our side by the mere fact that this guy is the speechwriter.

Your inclusion of China into the Anglo-American capitalists club makes your article a trojan horse. I have to admit that the technique is very smart tough, hide one lie among ten truths and the lie becomes a truth. Fortunately it becomes harder and harder to make it stick.

international globalist bankers and the left have the same common enemey… the nation state

Israel would be an ideal destination.

I like your shirt.

the high school kids are doing it to the crowd- it’s supposed to be done to the other team..but it seems sugar coated. the chennen thing is Jungian.. primeval…

not so much hot… as… acting like women – wearing feminine dresses, long hair, feminine demeanor, you know, thing american women don’t do….

shouldn’t they be more inclusive? what bout LBGT folks?

His home had little or no modern or pop Art. Quite classical traditionalist and Victorian …. the joke was on us I guess

Gothic was pejorative, Scot, welsh as well

france bans rallies calling for the expulsion of islamists:
http://www.ibtimes.com/terror-france-court-backs-decision-ban-protests-against-radical-islamists-1786744

somehow, it’s sort of hard to find this non rally reported in MSM..

The purpose is not to benefit gays, it is to destroy the family – since 1789 radical egalitarians have thought that if they could completely abolish tradition, (eg ‘prejudiced’), religion, etc, they will have the perfect state of nature and thus apply some rules of reason and utopia will ensue. (never mind it has never worked out that way)

as peter hitchens said, the family has always been the enemy of authoritarian governments – that is why they seek so hard to destroy it.

During the 1950s, “authoritarian personality ‘ basically called a traditional father a facist – funny because the group that sponsored that ‘study’ encouraged a strong father and family for their own in-group…

A solid and growing majority now believes in marriage equality; among those 18 to 29, support is at nearly 80 percent.

democracy was not ok -because there were people who disagreeD with our views, but future democracy is ok, when people agree with our views.

” It has its own hymns – “Imagine.”
Richard Dawkins and some new atheists tried to establish a ‘bible camp’ for children of atheists – and they literally would sing this ‘hymn’ in their morning chapel.

I guess it’s gone down the memory hole, but remember when Iran, in response to the Mohammed cartoons, had a holocaust cartoon contest? It was roundly condemned in the west as a ‘hate speech, neonazi, holocaust denial conference ( there were even dissident jewish groups there, like the Torah true Jews who think Israel is literally a blaspheme)

in inferno, Dante has Muhammad in hell, not as an infidel, but as a heretic…. Medeviel Christians believed Islam was a heresy, not a separate religion, anyway, I wonder how long it will take for the divine comedy to become a source of anger

Oklahoma played Stanford in ’81 or ’82. Switzer said John Elway was the best college QB he’d ever seen.

@laguna
exactly as with elites gloating that they manipulate the system as with Obamacare, or simply ignoring mandate after mandate, they have broken down people’s trust in democracy. Not much options left at this point.
As Buchanan has pointed out, despite electing conservative gov we continue to drift left.
And as sailer says, it’s a wordocracy …even in swede demos did get elected, the elite would simply ignore them and keep doing what they are doing

Anyone remember 1986 “reform” of immigration?

I just donated $200 via PayPal+Visa. What shows up on your PayPal statement? My name? My phone? My email address?

OT. but here’s your flying car!
http://www.aeromobil.com/

Asperger Syndrome has not much, if anything at all, to do with IQ — i.e., talking about an “Asberger’s end of the IQ distribution” makes no sense. Saying that is akin to referring to the “large foot size end of the IQ distribution.”

Some people seem to think that having Asperger’s indicates intelligence, but that’s a myth. People with this disorder have IQs that are like everyone else’s, with some being very smart and others being dumber than a box of rocks.

Except the beheading story morphs into “Muslim community fears islamaphobia after incident”

Labour in the UK support buildling on greenbelts because the housing is needed for muslims – like feminism, environmentalism everything goes out the window when the ultimate goal is electing a new people.

Ultimately international banks and leftists are teamed up on global warming (in the same way that bankers of a certain ethnic persuasion supported “communist” russia) because it means literally hundreds of billions of dollars in profits for banks like Goldman Sachs.

It wont’ do a thing to help the envirment though – only further wreck and bring down the american middle class – which is the real goal.

World War T is over. Unfortunately you lost

The low heritability of intelligence in poor families is most likely due to their higher levels of non-paternity

Bring back the Tsar!!!

shut..da..Front…Door….

stuffblackpeopledontlike"" is Where its All AT !

longtime follower – few comments – Love You All !

thisblog """is where the future of the european races path of flourishing or extinction will somehow be hammered out – anyhow i bet if we had cheap lazerz pistols it wud all be over now ! Mucho Love 4 ALL SBPDL ! CARRY ON- <3

Anonymous: If that were true, then why haven't the powers that be done anything to curb muslim immigration?

Me: For invasion/nation-building to happen today, the people have to believe that muslims are like us and just happen to live in a backward region

Is the same logic with immigration, "when they come herethey will be like us", immigration won't stop because will be like admitting that these people are hopeless.

Socionics is like Lamarckism: bunk. Jung was not even scientific in Psychology and like Freud his contributions are now known to be largely ancedotal and unscientific.

Your estimates are way off. China is considerably smaller in economic scale than even France or Germany. There is a lot of propaganda that they spread that misrepresents the facts. Likewise, as for investment in the USA, Canada has many times more dollars invested than China. China is a threat, and we should not be trading with them, but at no time in the near future will they be a super power. They cannot even adequately feed and clothe and shelter their growing population and they know this is a problem. Most of their military is for internal deployment, in the event of famine: yes, they’re prepared to kill their surplus population to avoid collapse.

awesome links from Razib and Jason. thanks a lot guys, this is interesting stuff.

Policemen are para-military. Firemen are not.

Again i dont know where your getting your info ,but its crap i dont know were this lack of technology crap came from we very much beyond the 21 st century we have nurses doctors teachers and a choice in all things. All my sisters and there friends have a 12th grade diploma. and who are you talking about there was no one married at 13 or 14 or 15 its always been the legal age so dont tell me what is going on in my own house use your head for a change. my wife and i were married when i was 25 and she was 19 and we BOTH chose to do it we have been married for five years and we have one child i could never imagine making her have a baby when she was not ready to and as far as them cutting their hair is that not a personal choice for everyone if your wife wanted to keep her hair long for any reason other than what society says would u make her cut it we chose to do the things we do because we have a purpose for all things really open your mind and ask yourself what sounds right to u take all judgment out and u will see the truth all we want is to be happy and bless others

Here in Az, the FLDS up in Colorado City practice polygamy and have multiple marriages amongst the same few families. (We know of granddaughters being married to their grandfathers, among other convoluted and forced relationships.) The state’s public health system covers the results. Here’s a piece of local investigative reporting on the matter: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit
I have lived there all my life. And the phoenix times is full of Crap!! And you are for listening to them. there is a web site with the truth http://www.fldstruth.org You should do your research before you make such an immoral accusation against people you have never met. we have been very clear about the way we live and believe and you people have no right to state these sick actions as fact.

No, Megan, the mother is called Monica. Marisa is the youngest daughter — sweet girl, but utterly and completely delusional, as her comment about being poor shows. And she’s 31 and never in her entire life has she held a job.

some autobiography checking:

http://www.analyzethis.net/blog/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/

Toto writes: 
 
“In short: Science (the idea that experiment and careful reasoning are the sole judges of truth) does not fundamentally imply materialism (the assumption that nature emerges entirely out of the blind interactions of brute matter). It just turned out to be the experimentally derived position.” 
 
I think Toto is confusing science, which is a discpline/method/practice for investigating the material universe, with scientism/materialism, the philosophical contention that there is only the material/natural universe and that metaphyscial considerations are either illusory or mental correspondents to physical reality. 
 
Because it relies upon experiment, falsifiability, and replication, the scientific method is necessarily a discipline of material inquiry. Science, in and of itself, therefore can reach a point where it may have nothing more to say on an issue because all the possible material investigative avenues have been exhausted. Science can address metaphysical/non-material questions only at the periphery, that is to say any material phenomena or outcomes connected to the metaphysical question. In other words, in science, as a matter of practice, the assumption of the material only exists in so much as that is what the scientific method is designed to investigate. 
 
Scientism or materialism however assumes that there will only be material answers to the many questions that science itself struggles to get at (the existence of God, the existence of universal abstract concepts – such as mathematics, certain questions of mind, and many others). This is a philosophical assertion, not a practice of science in and of itself.  
 
Science in and of itself cannot assume material answers to all the many gaps in knowledge that exists. Rather, science investigates those gaps from a material perspective, which is what it is designed to do. In science, there can be no assumption that the gaps will be filled with a materialistic answers (or that they will be filled at all, for that matter). The only assumption is that if science can fill the gaps, it will do so with material answers. 
 
Thus arguing that science necessarily leads to phiolsophical materialism* because it verifies material explanations is a tautology of sorts and one that the practice of science itself does not require (demonstrated by the fact that a number of scientists are religious in a non-materialist sense). Using science when one means “scientism” or “materialism” (and I realize some have qualms with this particular use of both terms, for various reasons) confuses the matter. 
 
Science has not experimentally or observationally** “proven” materialism. Toto would be ill-advised to hold their breath waiting for that momentous occurrance.  
 
*Notwithstanding the theory that metaphysical/non-material exist in “material” ways that we are not yet or cannot investigate using the scientific method…for example, the idea that God is “material” in some sense, but in a form or dimension that is currently theoretical. 
 
**I leave careful reasoning out because that is not the solely the province of science.

“this is fair enough. i am curious about this question but unfortunately scientific examination of this issue (as opposed to introspective speculations) are in a deficit….”  
 
Agreed, though I would distinguish the objective application of philosophical reason and logic from introspective speculation, though the two do overlap sometimes. 😉 
 
Cheers.

“The main, consistent, and most important point made by all of them is that the core religious claims are unjustified, and that the promotion of the use of faith to overcome the limitations of reason in matters of fact is unreliable and even dangerous for a society, which has led to all sorts of bad things.” 
 
Obviously many of us on the religious side would disagree about the “core claims” comment, in so much as our specific faith is concerned. However, the dilemma occurs where religion is treated as a single phenomenon, rather than a collection of very different ideas and beliefs, with different claims as to the nature of reality. 
 
In such a case, we are discussing competing ideas, some of which many “religionists” would agree have less value as consistent explanations of truth/fact than others. It should also be notd that scientism is among these, relying on the faith that material/natural explanations are in most, if not all cases superior to all others. 
 
The jury’s still out on that one. 
 
“Razib, you know perfectly well that religion is just tribalism with supernatural value-added.  
We are hardwired for it. 
And Marxism, Communism, Naziism, etc, are just “atheist religions” == tribalism without supernaturalism.  
Exactly the same biological basis for behavior.” 
 
But scientism or materialism are arrived at completely by reason? There is of course an inconsistency in the idea that all other forms of systems relying on some kind of faith are hardwired “tribalism,” but one’s own faith is the product of pure reason (mor or less).  
 
I am speaking of materialism, naturalism, scientism – the various ideas that all metaphysical explanations or even concepts are unreliable, if not false. I am not speaking of the scientific method itself, which is a demonstrably reliable method for interrogating nature, in and of itself. 
 
If people are biologically wired to accept metaphysical ideas as truths does it not stand to reason that some people are hardwired not to? And if that is the case, what then makes that competing “faith” superior? Arguing that material investigation is more reliable than metaphysical inquiry is simply base-stealing, since there is a difference between a determined natural inquiry in the scientific method and the assertion that the universe is limited to the natural world in so much as we understand it. 
 
I should add that questions of what constitutes the material or other complexities of theoretical physics don’t offer an out here for the dedicated anti-metaphysicist. Rather, they complicate the situation and limit the value of reductive thinking.

Razib, 
 
I should add (after all that) that I think we’re not all that far apart in recognizing that human motivation and action are far more complex than more serious reductionalists would hold, and that human psychology is a key influence, regarding religious action.  
 
Considering that religions with claims to excluvisity, such as my own faith Christianity, necessarily hold that other religions lack consistent truth, not to mention the Thomist concepts of the natural world as related to the spiritual, I think our basic disagreement is where the influence of ideas, faith, etc. begins and how pervasive it is. 
 
Although I would add that in recognizing the influence of human psychological tendencies on religious action, and that such tendencies and action can be found in secular action as well, as you note in your post, understanding the relationship between human action and belief seems a necessary element to derive any predictive value. It would seem arguable then that understanding the nature of different belief systems, at least generally and as far as underlying rationale are concerned is an important piece of any such analyses.

Razib, 
 
“btw, ME, i kind of feel like i’m a cosmologist talking about the parameters which define the cosmos, and you’re heidegger elucidating the nature of being. i don’t think that one necessarily has much to say to the other despite their fundamentally similar subject matter.” 
 
After much thought, I’d have to argue that you are speaking of the cosmos from a state of being. Indeed, being and experience and cognition are all parts of this discussion. Understanding being then is part of understanding the forces that shape it. 
 
That is one reason why I think reductionalism is unhelpful in this case. Even though I agree it is possible to generally chart social trends in groups to a limited extent, to do so without an understanding of the intrinsic motivators that the ideology generates, limits the predictablity of several key aspects of religious or ideological action, such as the capacity for revolutionary or transformational action, both individual and social, of which there are numerous historical examples. 
 
Sticking to the cosmology then leaves one in the position of a weather forecaster, aware of general possibilities (violent action, honesty or self-deceit, etc.) and able to recognize trends, but far less able to spot the minute variations which may transform the greater reality. 
 
Moreso, such reductionism, while in your case clearly respectful of the immense complexity of human psychology and social organization, still tends to reduce human action to reaction, whether psychological, social, or both. Whether or not this boils down to the concept of free will (and it may) or we are simply talking past each other in regards to the line where such choices exist, to diminish the capacity for human choice, in my view, diminishes humans in general. I assume, from the tenor of the post and comments, that this is in no way meant disrespectfully, but I find that most analyses that point to a generalization of human behavior tend to conflate organization (based on commonalities – whether traditional/social or ideological) with causation. There then appears a seeming lack of respect for the power of human choice to shape events and human action. 
 
I am reminded that Christianity, seen now by many as a social phenomenon (or a collection of social phenomena) was the result of a small band of “common” individuals invested with the transformational belief that they had encountered God. The social and intellectual transformation that occurred as a result could hardly be said to be relatively predictable.  
 
That human psychology and fraility has had an impact on the history of this faith, as it has on every other, does not detract from the nature of the underlying ideas that drove such transformation. Indeed, contemporary Christian movements of a transformational nature have evidenced a determination to return to those central ideas and beliefs, stripping away the artifice, just as Christ challenged the artifice of Pharisee law upon the Mosiac foundations. 
 
Underestimating the individual sincerity of believers may then find confirmation from the inconsistency of human psychology, but it will always underestimate the power of sincere reflection *where* it occurs, and this is an important point because while human behavior may be relatively inconsistent with ideology, reflection need not necessarily be a consistent factor to evidence change that defiles the basic psychological assumptions, so long as that reflection is either transformational or claritive in the cognition of the individual. 
 
Understanding how this happens means understanding human psychology but also understanding the ideas that humans encounter and believe, and why they may accept these things, in part or whole, consistently or (more often than not in practice)inconsistently. 
 
I think you have a handle on how human psychology informs the inconsistency of human behavior where the religious (or ideological) is concerned, but I think that underestimating the power of the specifically ideological in and of itself to transform or clarify human action is an error that will seriously limit the predictive value of any analyses about behavior or the motivations thereof.

Razib, 
 
You also write: 
 
“this is just not true for most christians. the empirical data for this can be found in this book. ” 
 
Maybe. Let’s just say that I’m not optimistic that a book that conflates casual superstition with religious unorthodoxy/confusion in light of general human psychology (both cognitive and social) will be of much lasting value to anyone outside the group of those who are generally or “naturally” skeptical of religion. 
 
You are, I would argue, pardon the expression, taking some things on faith.  
 
You also might want to talk to more sincere, believing Christians before making a judgment on the self-reflexive quality of Christianity. While I should note, that I have in part been speaking of Christianity in terms of the values and tenets contained within it, the self-reflexive quality is something I have personally found in most sincere Christians, people who struggle daily with the gap between who they are as physical beings (their instinct, worldly desires, etc.) and who they recognize they should be, or be like: the image of Christ, a gap that is physically insurmouontable in this world. 
 
You may feel free to call this anecdotal evidence, but I have reams of it and personal experience as well. 
 
However, my central point has not been that Christians behave consistently in terms of tenets or reason, but that we are inconsistent because of the tension between the spiritual values and mental values of holiness and the worldly impulse of the physical world. 
 
The point is not that psychology doesn’t have a hold on people, but that by reducing religious cognition to a large extent (the numbers you gave anyway) you are limiting your capacity to distinguish it in any meaningful way from the general psychological impulses of the human heart – if I may mix my metaphors. 🙂 It does not matter if the bulk of people who call themselves Christians do not regularly participate in such self-reflection (though I have learned over the years that such presumptiousness is full of pitfalls, both spiritual and rational.) What matters is that many do and the kind of predicitablity you seek cannot be inclusive of them. 
 
I should add that the tenets of Christianity wonderfully recognize the tension of the world and the spirit (and I am not speaking of mind/body dualism here, per se), even that many people have a tendency towards unreflectiveness. Indeed, all do at certain times, but reflectiveness is not a constant in any human person, and this is an important detail worth noting.

Razib, 
 
You write: “i don’t think religious is mostly about truth arrived via reflection.”  
 
The same can be argued for the average layperson’s view of science, whether in accordance with the literature or not. Humans rely a great deal on the testimony of others, a phenomenon that is as rational as it is psychological. 
 
Reflection is also a personal phenomenon. I might level the simple charge at you that you have not reached a point of unbelief (or, more accurately IMHO, belief in a universe without God) 
through any rational cognition, but there is no way for me to verify that in you as an individual, save through generalization or condescension. 
 
The assumption that the general masses of people have viewpoints that do not hold in accordance with what they believe or the tenets they profess to believe is no more revelatory than finding someone who believes in a scientist worldview who utters the phrase “Thank God!” or a similar religiously inspired comment.  
 
Again, I am not disputing the power of psychology to mold human behavior in some regards. Indeed, as a Christian, I believe that human frailty has a powerful hold on us, thus the quote from Paul in Romans earlier. Rather, I believe that this hold is limited and that at some level we have the cognitive ability to reflect and choose our belief based on reason and reflection. If not, then this argument is meaningless – two infections battling for an advantage.  
 
Above all, the idea that normal people have to maintain a kind of discipline to maintain cognitive skepticism is to me a kind of rationalization. Quite frankly, that normal people behave as skeptics in a behavioral (and generally moral) sense is not news to any one of a theological bent. That people profess belief is out of the cognitive reality that skepticism is generally a negative viewpoint (we die and are wormfood versus some future hope.) Theism is seen as containing potentiality in that case. In other cases it’s seen as freedom from consequence, whether Hell or Purgatory (or Samsara, or even wormfood in a more general sense). So, there’s the psychological address of the tension of uncertainty that some people have, but there’s also the struggle with human weakness, between animal instinct and the spiritual. All normal people have at least some sense of guilt or shame (sociopaths aside) but categorizing these as psychologically intrinsic or external is finedishly difficult. 
 
I have little confidence in those who claim to have worked it all out and then dismiss religion as “those other people.” (Not that I find you particularly dismissive in general, from a personal perspective. We wouldn’t be having this conversation otherwise – for both of us, I suspect.)

Razib, 
 
You write: 
 
“also, i am interested in modeling religion precisely so as to have predictive power more than ‘understanding’ it. that’s a critical difference, since the former is a relatively modest and clear goal compared to the latter.” 
 
I think this is a reductionalist point of view. The predictive power involved will likely have no more power than modeling most associative groups based on worldview-shaping ideologies (Marxism and certain variants of the Green movement come to mind as ready examples). Indeed, I would expect to find correlations between certain types of psychological behavior among groups of this sort, but I would hold that this kind of predictablity is relatively useless as far as “religions” go for the same reasons: It’s likely possible to generalize these behaviors to any system founded on cognitions which lead to faith. Indeed, as been alluded here, certain aspects of this behavior can be ascribed to non-theists with a certain cosmological viewpoint. 
 
Understanding is harder, but it also admits something that is vital to this subject, the variance of beliefs and the possibility of truth in some revealed religion (either in part or in whole in a single faith). 
 
Without holding open this possibility, the question is limited by its own “religious” limitations.

Razib, 
 
“i do hold that most religious cognition (by most, more than 99%) can be explained through recourse to modal human psychology. neurotheology explores the other 1%.” 
 
I think you misunderstand me, but let me be clear about your quote – if you believe that of religious cognition but not of skeptical cognition I would argue that there is a distinct logical imbalance in your assertion, one that is perhaps uninformed by the experience of the believer. If on the other hand you do hold that other forms of cognition that lead to worldviews and concepts of truth (or the unavailabilty of it), such as non-theism, philosophy, etc. are similarly influenced, then this would lead us to necessarily question skepticism with the same assumptions as religion. 
 
In either case, your statement may be factual of what you hold (the word “believe” is more accurate) but beyond that, there are some great challenges. Mind you, I make the observation taking the perspective of uncertainty. 
 
As a Christian, I hold that there are universal, transcendent truths and I can accept on those grounds that there are necessarily certain social and psychological forces that draw some individuals to some religious experience and cognition. This is of no comfort to the non-theist though, for I would argue the same is necessarily true of any skeptical or other position that is not in line with whatever the truths there really are (and I hold as philosphically self-evident that there are necessarily truths, whether or not one believes that they are accessible). 
 
All in all though, the idea that 99% of religious cognition is explainable from human psychology, whether in individuals or as a percentage of individuals, strikes me as a bit condescending. It may not be meant that way, but the perspective underlying such a view seems clear enough. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by this. 
 
As for what I think is your misunderstanding, by psychological traits I am referring to the vast tapestry of behavior of human beings as human beings. Nothing troubles me so much as when someone comes along and lays the Crusades or some similar atrocity at the feet of “Christianity.” I would argue that the basis for the Crusades is nowhere to be found in Christ’s words nor in the specific tenets of Christianity. One can certainly point to violence and warfare in the Old Testament, but in a far different context. Other similar offences laid at the feet of Christianity (and to some extent other religions – not to mention the tendency to generalize religion as a whole based on the offences of a single religious body) confuse cause and effect.  
 
Human psychology is obviously capable of division, prejudice, murder, hatred, genocide, etc., regardless of the underlying creed espoused by those who commit such acts. The problem with laying such behavior at the feet of the creed espoused is drawing clear lines of cause and effect between the offender and the religious creed. While in some cases this is relatively easy to do, in others it is not. 
 
The assumption that some make is that because people of a certain time and religious creed committed some grievious offense is a method for treating religions as a social and psychological phenomenon and thus a way to not take the specific religion seriously in and of itself, on the basis of its precepts and philosophy. 
 
So, the Crusaders were either literally following their “faith” or were perhaps instead “hypocrites,” for those who prefer to challenge religious faith on the basis of the consistency of its leadership. 
 
Both approaches fail to recognize religious beliefs for what they are. In the case of Christianity, it is a belief system whose founding documents not only recognize the immense difficulty of living within the requirements of holy, ethical behavior, but the great likelihood of human beings resorting to instinct and turning to atrocity. 
 
The recognition of this in Christianity is not only an astute observation of human nature/psychology, but it severly complicates the work of those who wish to boil down religious cognition to the psychological (whether impulse, tendency, or a complex series of reactions). Christianity is a self-reflexive religious philosophy, wherein the believer is confronted with their own imperfection, the likelihood of their weakness, and the absolute necessity of the good. 
 
The conflict inherent in such a system and the cognition required to embrace it require a respect for the ideas and challenges that face every sincere and dedicated believer. Such respect is not to be found from generalizations of religious behavior derived from assumptions that all religions are myth and the product of human imagination. 
 
The non-believer gains no more from such assumptions than the believer does from the assumptions that the non-theist is simply a worldly person seeking freedom to act without the restraint of religious or organized precepts of morality outside the body politic.

I have always felt that the one serious problem generally found in the arguments and thinking of non-theists (whether anti-theists, moderates, or those sympathetic to theism as a social practice) is the tendency to see religions and religious belief as all part of one general phenomenon. 
 
Clearly, those of us who are religious (and we aren’t all lower class or dullards, despite the absurd claims of some) don’t hold the same perspective.  
 
I understand that such generalized thinking about religion becomes a logical necessity when religion is viewed from a primarily genetic or social standpoint (that is a general social phenomenon with many different strands) but it is as flawed and self-contradictory as suggesting that non-theism is only a similar phenomenon. 
 
No matter how thoughtful or gentle these criticisms or analyses are, the moment they fail to treat religion as something serious, a collection of ideas forming a worldview that is held be a group of people for various reasons both experiential and rational (as well as irrational and/or traditional), rather than a generalized phenomenon with various developed/evolved strands, they will fail to meaningfully penetrate the idea of why people are religious. 
 
Certainly there are people who fall into religion because it provides them comfort or makes them feel superior, just as there are people who view religion skeptically for the same reasons, despite their general lack of knowledge about specific religious beliefs (and we live in an age where this is quite common, particularly in Europe.) There are however, also many people who hold religious beliefs because the transcendent ideas, truths, if you will, for the believer (and this makes Razib’s comment regarding transcendent truths somewhat self-explanatory – given that faith in the existence of such truths is a necessary precursor to comprehension of and faith in a specific set of them) for logical, rational, reasons, regardless of the claims of Dawkins. There are many people who have rejected skepticism and disbelief because they found them wanting in view of the evidence. 
 
One can certainly claim that these are subjective experiences, but their rational basis, in so much as humans have a claim to rationality, cannot be dismissed. 
 
I’m not arguing that is what Razib is specifically doing, but what I do see strong signs of are the conflation of general human psychological traits with religion. 
 
One must recognize that, where transcendent belief systems are concerned, that humans are flawed and imperfect in their adaptation of them. Consequently, humans tend to behave like humans, even in the face of these transcendent truths. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans about doing things that he does not want to do and not doing the things he wants to do. This straightforward confession of weakness is far more revealing of the gap between human nature and divine, transcendent revelation than any biological or sociological analysis, mainly because it treats humans and the consequences of human encounters with the divine for what they are: a meeting of the finite and imperfect with the infinite and holy. 
 
All of human history, whether religious or secular, is the story of the finite and imperfect and the fresh hell we’ve created for ourselves. Where religion has contributed to that hell, is where humans have traded transcendent truth for their own schemes and prejudices. It is also the same place where secular ideas that diverge from truth have led.

Razib -a Jewish population took root in Persia during the Babylonian captivity. Persia has always had the largest Jewish population in the Middle East (until the formation of Israel)

Biblical accounts of Jewish history can be backed up with archaeology at the point of the return from the centuries long exile in Babylonia/Persia (told in Ezra/Nehemiah). It’s likely that the Jews had some mixing with Persians during that period which would have the result of clustering them more closely with Armenians. (armenia is right on top of Iran). same thing would explain why we cluster closer to Kurds, as well. Persia was the center of Jewish civilization even after Cyrus let the Jews return to Israel – most stayed in Persia. 
I wonder if anyone has compared Jewish genetics to Persians? that might be interesting….. I once read something related on an anti-semitic site which I was reading just because it was bizarre (I’m Jewish) – they said that you could tell Jews were “not really from Palestine” because of our noses – Palestinians have rounded blobbier noses, and Jews tend to have thinner, bonier, beakier noses “like Persians” the website said….. Obviously it was coming from racist nonsense, due to the source, but I thought it was an interesting observation. 
 
We Jews are such a huge mix – in my family we have Middle Eastern curly hair and big eyes, Eastern European coloring and height, Central Asian bone structure and slanting eyes, and some noses that look much more Italian or Persian than Arab – yet we’re supposedly 100% Ashkenazi – what a joke!

I remember that at least one of the Jewish genetic diseases is associated with higher IQs. maybe g cochran will write back and tell us which one it is. 
 
In a very unscientific observation of my own Ashkenazi family and others I know, I wonder if we Ashkenazim also ended up with a lot of psychiatric problems and learning disabilities as a by product of selecting for high intelligence. I know LOTS of very smart Ashkenazim who also have manic-depression or ADHD. Does any one know if Jews tend to have more of these types of disorders than average? It seems like we do! g cochran, any insight?

the NY times had a big series on class last year and it included a quiz that would tell you your class. from what I remember, any grad degree made you upper class by their definition, regardless of income, so your broke ph.d.’s would be upper class.

I think it’s funny that these people think that they are descended from Romans b/c they have blonde hair and green eyes! This is similar to the Kalash people in Pakistan who think they are descended from the Greeks b/c they have light hair and eyes. Southern Europeans like Romans and Greeks wouldn’t have left behind light hair and eyes as their genetic legacy.  
 
As Razib said, it’s likely that these traits are due to the presence of the Tocharians in western China. The Urumqui mummies have light hair and European features.