The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Human Biodiversity and Science
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Presidio

In the mid-1990s in the wake of the huge brouhaha over the The Bell Curve (such as the rebellion of the staff of The New Republic against its editor Andrew Sullivan for daring to publish an excerpt), it finally dawned on me what was actually going on.

The rage by intellectuals against scientific discussion of black-white IQ differences was largely an “outpost defense” of what intellectuals really cared about, which was preventing discussion of gentile-Jewish IQ differences.

It’s like how the U.S. military in 19th Century California installed big coastal defense cannons in the Presidio at the Golden Gate, but not because these rocky headlands were all that valuable unto themselves. Instead the strategy was that if the U.S. Army’s coastal guns could keep the Royal Navy, the French, the Russians, the Japanese or whomever from sailing past the chokepoint of the Golden Gate, the Americans wouldn’t ever have to fight over what was really valuable: the magnificent watershed of the San Francisco Bay.

This is the inverse of what SlateStarCodex calls the motte-and-bailey strategy: instead of withdrawing from the economically valuable land to a fortress in the middle and let your enemies ravage your farms, you put the forts out on the edge at strategic chokepoints. When it works, it works spectacularly well: after 168 years of unchallenged defense and, thus, peace, the San Francisco Bay Area may be the richest place on Earth.

Similarly, if nobody is ever allowed to consider that average IQ differences between blacks and whites explained quite a lot about modern America, then it is less likely that an ensuing discussion would ever occur about average IQ differences between gentiles and Jews.

This suggests that the Jewish intellectuals so enraged by public discussion of IQ differences were, deep down inside, less skeptics of IQ science than the truest of the true believers. They assumed that IQ is so overwhelmingly important that if the gentile masses ever were allowed to learn the truth — that Jews tend to be smarter — the moronic peasants would come for this endangered minority with their torches and pitchforks.

(S.J. Gould has been dead for a decade and a half now so we’re unlikely to find out for sure unless his private letters are ever published, but this theory makes him sound less braindead than does the conventional wisdom.)

This view is actually eye-rollingly dumb, as well as morally deplorable. Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.

In contrast to this old-fashioned peasants-with-pitchforks perspective on human differences, the human biodiversity perspective appreciates human differences.

Naturalist Edward O. Wilson promoted the word “biodiversity” in the 1990s as part of the Save the Rainforests of Brazil campaign because he thinks having a lot of different kinds of bugs is a good thing. It makes the world more interesting.

I’m glad Dr. Wilson has lots of different kinds of bugs to ponder (as long as the bugs stay out of my house). Similarly, I like having lots of different kinds of human beings to notice.

If, say, Samoans are so heavily represented in the NFL despite their tiny numbers because they tend to be remarkably strong, that’s a good thing. Similarly, if Jews make up a high fraction of theoretical physicists because they tend to be smart, that’s also a good thing.

Thus, the human biodiversity approach offers the one moral perspective that’s not inherently anti-science.

 
Hide 208 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. “Transgender-whatever” is the defensive ring around “Islamophobia”, Islamophobia is the defensive ring around “homophobia”, homophobia is the defensive ring around “sexism”, sexism is the defensive ring around “racism”, “racism” is the defensive ring around HBD, and “HBD” is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why “antisemitism” is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I’m not actually convinced about the “Jews control the world” bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Josh
    Jews are unique in that nobody is asking if transsexual three way marriage is good for the Irish.
    , @Anon
    Actually, a lot of Jews are anti-Semitic. Just look at all the Jews who complain how Israel treats the Palestinians, despite the fact that the Palestinians would love to slaughter all the Jews. When your political opinions would result in the wiping out of your own homeland, and that homeland is Jewish, you're an anti-Semite.

    Likewise, if you're white and you're a liberal, you're anti-white.
    , @unpc downunder
    As Steve as pointed out numerous times, a lot of Jews are drama queens who like to be the centre of attention. They hate being ignored or laughed at. The best way to undermine the Jewish left is to treat Jews as a factor in political correctness but not a decisive one.
    , @RonaldB
    Well, I'm from a Jewish background, although I'm now atheist.

    I sometimes look at the websites of the representative Jewish organizations. It's my opinion you're giving Jews credit for too much deviousness and subtlety in opposing discussion of black-white IQ differences in order to prevent discussion of Jewish-gentile differences. In fact, what they say can be taken at face value. The major Jewish organizations today are hard-left, and enforce political correctness for its own sake. Part of the doctrine of political correctness is that any differences between people is due to their disadvantaged upbringing: Steve's "magic dirt" hypothesis.

    I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. The Jews in Malmo, Sweden and many parts of France are beginning to move elsewhere because the anti-Semitism of the Muslim immigrants is so pronounced and so physically dangerous, they no longer feel safe. Yet, Jewish organizations, almost to a one, favor immigration, amnesty, and the treatment of Islam as just any other religion. In other words, the Jews maintain political correctness in spite of the fact it specifically harms Jews.

    So, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that Jewish opposition to a rational treatment of IQ differences is rooted in a perceived self-interest. To the contrary, they are actually sacrificing their self-interest, which makes it even more scary.
    , @Erik Sieven
    I think this is not the case in the West anymore. Antisemitism is seen as less worse that Islamophobia by many and seen as less worse than Racism by the vast majority.
    , @Honorary Thief
    Jews are a big factor in the political correctness orthodoxy but they wouldn't have been able to get very far without their partners in crime: Post-Millennial Puritan type Northwest Europeans. Jewish "zionism for me but cosmopolitanism for thee" agitation wouldn't take them very far in, say, China or South Korea, let alone India or Iran. They require collaborators among the host population.
    , @Antonymous
    Sometimes I think it's just as simple as the oligarchic class, 1/3 of whom are jewish, recognizing they can actually effect the “never again” hopes of their ancestors. This takes the form of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – i.e., encouraging mass muslim immigration may hurt short-term but longer term will protect us from the european perpetrators of 109 pogroms (or some such). In which case, hinterlands-be-damned has only upside.
    , @Anonymous
    Gentile here...

    That's just dumb
  2. It is certainly possible such thoughts may have occurred to some, but the more immediate explanation would seem to be the progressives’ commitment to human universalism/egalitarianism, a core belief inherited from the religious tradition. Indeed, salvationist progressivism is a successor providentialism.

    • Agree: NickG
    • Disagree: Harold
    • Replies: @Das
    I actually think it's the opposite.

    Because meritocratic liberals *don't* have any religious reason to believe in universal human dignity, they believe that recognizing differences in ability between different groups will inevitably lead to eugenics and death camps.
    , @Harold
    Firstly the ‘progressives’ didn’t used to deny HBD.

    ‘Progressives’ used to be pro-eugenics now they are anti-eugenics. Why?

    The similarities between modern progressives’ morality and their ancestors religious morality is easily explained by them being the same people with the same genes and therefore the same sorts of things appeal to them. The way they interpreted and practiced Christianity had much to do with their genes and not necessarily with the words in the bible.

    There are many Jewish led cult-like movements that have many similarities to each other. Not because they are somehow outgrowths of Judaism but because they are expressions of Jewish ways of behaving.

    Western Europeans have universalist tendencies, but without the denial of HBD these would not be so dominant. Anti-racists must know this, on some level, otherwise they wouldn’t be so fanatical in protecting the lie.
  3. Assange indicated that the murdered DNC staffer was his source.

    Also, he hinted that he believes the staffer was killed in a targeted hit.

    It’d be interesting to see if they can bring evidence that Hillary and Wasserman-Schultz were behind the murder. That’d turn this race upside down quickly.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    The nod says it all.

    https://twitter.com/MisterMetokur/status/763215339584794624

    Logically, there's no other reason for Assange to take interest in this source.
  4. @JohnnyWalker123
    Assange indicated that the murdered DNC staffer was his source.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUbcJH2L1Mg

    Also, he hinted that he believes the staffer was killed in a targeted hit.

    It'd be interesting to see if they can bring evidence that Hillary and Wasserman-Schultz were behind the murder. That'd turn this race upside down quickly.

    The nod says it all.

    https://twitter.com/MisterMetokur/status/763215339584794624

    Logically, there’s no other reason for Assange to take interest in this source.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I think there's a more mundane explanation for that little nod, which is the little earpiece ("IFB") that interviewees wear has a second or so of latency, so the interviewees tend to give little body signals that they're actually hearing the interviewer because they know they are getting the feed after the audience does. You'll notice Assange's answers to most questions come after a delay, but the nod doesn't, because he hasn't completely heard the question yet.

    Adam Carolla did a funny bit a while back about the tribulations of IFB use in TV interviews.
  5. Assange: Next leaked e-mails will provide enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton.

    • Replies: @Wilbur Hassenfus
    According to Comey, the FBI had enough to indict her already.

    Who's going to indict her, exactly? DOJ?

    Be realistic.
  6. …was largely an “outpost defense” of what intellectuals really cared about,…

    It sounds as though you may have had occasion to read Israel Shamir.

  7. Assange: I have proof that Hillary is rigging elections

  8. It’s an interesting theory and, as you point out, would make those who should know better seem less stupid. On the other hand, the theory, while not completely implausible, doesn’t have much in the way of evidence to support it and it seems like you are, to quote John Derbyshire, over-egging the pudding. Barring the release of S.J. Gould’s letters (assuming they contain signs of intelligent life) or the inadvertent admission of the truth by someone on the left or neo-con “right,” I don’t know that the hypothesis is falsifiable. Might this not be the reverse of Occam’s Butter Knife? Perhaps the simplest explanation that fits the facts is actually true. Namely, the commitment of some to their profoundly felt ideology either leads them to misrepresent what they know to be true (i.e., lie) or to convince themselves of something which is unsupported by data or observation.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    One of the things that you need to know about Gould is that he was a red diaper baby - he came from a family of actual Communists, so that being a liberal Democrat was a move to the right for him (and many other liberal Jews). And one of the principles of Communism is that lying to protect/speed up the Revolution is not a sin.
  9. This reminds me of Theodore Dalrymple’s oft-quoted passage about Communism.

    Both of you basically say is that “we” are so obviously right and “they” are so obviously wrong that they can’t possibly believe what they profess to believe. Which means they are deliberately lying! So lets invent a complicated theory of why they do it.

    Meanwhile, your opponents are dead certain that in your heart of hearts you know the Truth – that there is no such thing as race. But you lie in order to preserve your White Privilege, or whatever.

    • Agree: Clyde
  10. @JohnnyWalker123
    The nod says it all.

    https://twitter.com/MisterMetokur/status/763215339584794624

    Logically, there's no other reason for Assange to take interest in this source.

    I think there’s a more mundane explanation for that little nod, which is the little earpiece (“IFB”) that interviewees wear has a second or so of latency, so the interviewees tend to give little body signals that they’re actually hearing the interviewer because they know they are getting the feed after the audience does. You’ll notice Assange’s answers to most questions come after a delay, but the nod doesn’t, because he hasn’t completely heard the question yet.

    Adam Carolla did a funny bit a while back about the tribulations of IFB use in TV interviews.

  11. How did the Jewish communities in the Pale, Persia and other areas in prior eras manifest the strategy, or variations thereon?

  12. Not sure I buy your thesis, Steve.

    The Bell Curve got a ton more heat than The Ten Thousand Year Explosion.

    Never underestimate the power of vanity to influence opinion. I think Jews rather like the idea that they’re on average smarter than other groups — who wouldn’t?

    This is one reason I think it would be a great thing for the first result locating a good number of genes for IQ that differentiate in favor of one group over another to be for Jews over others.

    The vanity factor would allow the result to be sneaked in under the tent. It would be especially welcomed because it would show that all those white European types that are so despised don’t do so well.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I suppose that's possible, but what about the rest of the interview? Why would Assange take so much interest in a murdered DNC staffer? Why would he talk about his sources taking "risks" in giving him information?

    Clearly, this was source. Given the improbable murder (the murderer didn't even rob the DNC staffer), it's likely that he was killed in a hit.

    Who arranged the hit?

    Well, who was in a position to benefit from silencing this man? Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz.
    , @candid_observer
    It's a kind of intellectual judo move.
    , @utu
    "I think Jews rather like the idea that they’re on average smarter than other groups — who wouldn’t?" - Exactly! And they prefer to talk about IQ than speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success. IQ advantage nicely weaves into the meritocracy narrative and at the same establishes the biological base to be the Chosen Tribe.
  13. @candid_observer
    Not sure I buy your thesis, Steve.

    The Bell Curve got a ton more heat than The Ten Thousand Year Explosion.

    Never underestimate the power of vanity to influence opinion. I think Jews rather like the idea that they're on average smarter than other groups -- who wouldn't?

    This is one reason I think it would be a great thing for the first result locating a good number of genes for IQ that differentiate in favor of one group over another to be for Jews over others.

    The vanity factor would allow the result to be sneaked in under the tent. It would be especially welcomed because it would show that all those white European types that are so despised don't do so well.

    I suppose that’s possible, but what about the rest of the interview? Why would Assange take so much interest in a murdered DNC staffer? Why would he talk about his sources taking “risks” in giving him information?

    Clearly, this was source. Given the improbable murder (the murderer didn’t even rob the DNC staffer), it’s likely that he was killed in a hit.

    Who arranged the hit?

    Well, who was in a position to benefit from silencing this man? Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz.

    • Replies: @Kyle
    Humans and Hyenas are the only animals known to kill just for the thrill of it.
  14. @candid_observer
    Not sure I buy your thesis, Steve.

    The Bell Curve got a ton more heat than The Ten Thousand Year Explosion.

    Never underestimate the power of vanity to influence opinion. I think Jews rather like the idea that they're on average smarter than other groups -- who wouldn't?

    This is one reason I think it would be a great thing for the first result locating a good number of genes for IQ that differentiate in favor of one group over another to be for Jews over others.

    The vanity factor would allow the result to be sneaked in under the tent. It would be especially welcomed because it would show that all those white European types that are so despised don't do so well.

    It’s a kind of intellectual judo move.

  15. The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it’s true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it’s not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka’s kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve’s thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam’s Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the “all men are created equal” thing a little too literally – they didn’t think it up. Now, that’s not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern “Jewish” thinking is not very “Jewish” – people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from “liberal” Jewish/Democrat positions.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Your post is so good it will get few replies. Lets see.
    , @Lot

    they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle
     
    Yes, probably both the lowest rate of both problem drinking and drinking period of any white ethnic group.

    I enjoy both light and binge drinking, but none of my Ashkenazi relatives do, most are complete teetotalers or very light beer and wine drinkers only. And while I enjoy it, there is no addictive potential there, and when I hit about 30 and the hangovers outweighed the enjoyment, I cut my heavy drinking to once or twice a year, typically at big 4th of July and New Years parties.

    The strongest cultural exchange Ashkenazi have had are with Germans, who also have low rates of problem drinking.

    However, we are not so disinclined away from problem use of marijuana. The legal and cultural shifts in favor of marijuana I do not think will be good for us.
    , @Big Bill
    It is not "coming to an end". The residual breeding pool of ultra-high fertility Jews is quite large. Ultraorthodox Jews breed like bunny rabbits.

    Even though a sizable percentage of them are "burned off" (so to speak) and go off the derech, they (and their kids) don't marry goyim.

    Instead, the ultraorthodox "burn off" goes to replenish the Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform breeding pools. As long as world Jewry includes a core high fertility breeding pool of ultras, the population of Jews will continue to grow, no matter how many Reform kids mongrelize with goyim.
    , @Dissident

    A lot of modern “Jewish” thinking is not very “Jewish” – people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from “liberal” Jewish/Democrat positions.
     
    I'm glad you pointed this out. It's actually much more than that, though. For the reality is that many, if not most, of the "liberal"/"Democrat" positions in-question and, certainly, the ideological principles they are based-upon, are fundamentally antithetical to (authentic) Judaism. This is a point that seems to be lost on at least many of the "Jews are the root and cause of all evil" types, whom I have long noticed make little or no distinction between Orthodox and secular/irreligious (and often anti-religious) Jews. You don't have to like (even authentic) Judaism but to suggest that it is somehow behind such societal cancers as the truly insidious "LGBTQ" agenda or the promotion of pornography, to take two salient examples, is nothing short of preposterous.

    A more difficult case of conflation of Judaism with an ideology that is actually antithetical to it is that presented by Zionism. For here, even many learned and otherwise devout and credible rabbis have been led astray by Zionism-- a heresy that from its inception was recognized and denounced as such by a near-unanimous consensus of rabbinic authorities.

    (According to the Torah, Jews were exiled from the Land of Israel by divine decree and until they are redeemed by the Messiah, are forbidden from establishing sovereignty over any part of the land. The specific prohibitions involved and the exact parameters and implications thereof are subject to differing interpretations of the relevant Biblical and Talmudic passages. There is no question, however, but that the establishment of the modern Zionist State of "Israel" constituted a grave transgression of Judaic law. And that the State is led by heretics and brazen transgressors who in no way represent Judaism and, their claims to do so notwithstanding, cannot and do not speak for world Jewry.)

    , @Deen
    What's wrong with Sephardi Jews? One of them was Prime Minister of the UK in the 19th century. Many others have won Nobel prizes.
    , @Kyle
    What Jefferson meant was "all men were created equal by god."
    Which isn't really what he meant either. What he really meant was, under the eyes of the law, all men should be treated as though they were created equal by god.
    , @Honorary Thief

    In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews.
     
    Who do the half-Jewish Americans tend to identify with? With which parent is their behavior most closely aligned?
  16. “If, say, Samoans are so heavily represented in the NFL despite their tiny numbers because they tend to be remarkably strong, that’s a good thing. Similarly, if Jews make up a high fraction of theoretical physicists because they tend to be smart, that’s also a good thing.”

    ….and if minorities can’t make it into college, the military, or police or firework without lowering the standards for them, that’s a good thing too.

  17. @NoWeltschmerz
    It's an interesting theory and, as you point out, would make those who should know better seem less stupid. On the other hand, the theory, while not completely implausible, doesn't have much in the way of evidence to support it and it seems like you are, to quote John Derbyshire, over-egging the pudding. Barring the release of S.J. Gould's letters (assuming they contain signs of intelligent life) or the inadvertent admission of the truth by someone on the left or neo-con "right," I don't know that the hypothesis is falsifiable. Might this not be the reverse of Occam's Butter Knife? Perhaps the simplest explanation that fits the facts is actually true. Namely, the commitment of some to their profoundly felt ideology either leads them to misrepresent what they know to be true (i.e., lie) or to convince themselves of something which is unsupported by data or observation.

    One of the things that you need to know about Gould is that he was a red diaper baby – he came from a family of actual Communists, so that being a liberal Democrat was a move to the right for him (and many other liberal Jews). And one of the principles of Communism is that lying to protect/speed up the Revolution is not a sin.

  18. @Thucydides
    It is certainly possible such thoughts may have occurred to some, but the more immediate explanation would seem to be the progressives' commitment to human universalism/egalitarianism, a core belief inherited from the religious tradition. Indeed, salvationist progressivism is a successor providentialism.

    I actually think it’s the opposite.

    Because meritocratic liberals *don’t* have any religious reason to believe in universal human dignity, they believe that recognizing differences in ability between different groups will inevitably lead to eugenics and death camps.

  19. @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    Jews are unique in that nobody is asking if transsexual three way marriage is good for the Irish.

  20. This post is awkwardly written-so much so, I frankly can’t follow your argument. Based on the comments thus far, I don’t think any of your readers quite get it, either.

    joeyjoejoe

  21. This seems a bit try-hard. Blacks are sacralized in American culture, you fought a bloody civil war to free them from slavery. The Black-White IQ difference is therefore a sufficiently powerful issue in its own right.

  22. “miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.”

    I was going to attempt a point about different times in history when the Jews got comfy somewhere and thought all the gentiles were cool with them but then it occurred to me:

    Have you ever read your own (((comments))) section?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I don't buy this. If you'll note, the (( )) crowd writes for the most part under pseudonyms - they are in deep hiding and in no danger even (or ESPECIALLY) in case of a Trump presidency, of actually having any power or influence in this society. Like the Confederate Flag thing, the goal among leftists is to stamp out the last dying embers of anti-Semitism in a victory dance, not because they think anti-Semitism is strong and poses an actual threat but because they know it is weak and they think that they can kill it off once and for all.

    A lot of American Jews do have Holocaust/victim fantasies, since the mantle of victimhood is a sought after status in our society. It's completely phony - not that they are intentionally faking their fear, but in that they let their imaginations run wild, so that Trump is Hitler, anyone who is not a liberal Democrat is Hitler, etc.

    If there is any real danger to Jews in American society it comes not from whites, but from blacks, who are known to be anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian, etc. and envious of any wealth successful group.
  23. “This view is actually eye-rollingly dumb, as well as morally deplorable. Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.”

    The important question when it comes to Jews isn’t about differences in intelligence – it’s the intellectual / behavioral differences other than just raw brainpower.

    As an analogy, if you ignored the 15 point IQ gap the remaining cognitive differences between black people and white people are still huge – and probably more important than the difference in IQ.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams

    The important question when it comes to Jews isn’t about differences in intelligence – it’s the intellectual / behavioral differences other than just raw brainpower.
     
    Yes. There are a lot of smart gentiles out there. But Northern Europeans might not skew toward high verbal intelligence as heavily as Jews do.

    The fact that Jews are concentrated in the most important cities (New York, Los Angeles) has a lot to do with it, as well. Ethnic networking is a lot more effective when a) you're all in the same place and b) that place is where the movers and shakers are.

    As Steve has mentioned in the past, there's an awful lot of untapped white gentile talent in the flyover states.
  24. ot

    >mccain’s “invade the world/invite the world” strategy <

    kelly ward candidate for us senate az this evening on the mark levin show

  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I think that you, Steve, are acting as a shill for the Jews.

    At issue is not nor has it ever been their intelligence; it has been their disloyalty and dishonesty. They have been condemned as lecherous swindlers, wreckers of civilization and back stabbers, not as over-intelligent homo sapiens squared, Spock-type Superman.

    But, good try.

  26. As Jack D says above, the people who actually have very high IQs, pure-bred Ashkenazi, are rapidly disappearing from the world outside of high fertility ultra-religious types who have little interaction with culture and politics, rarely going to college and often not speaking English as their first language.

    The particular motivation of Gould types for their awful views is a kind of interesting question in an academic sense, but has now been beaten to death. It also seems to me to be needlessly divisive issue when all of the native peoples of greater Europe are facing extreme and common threats.

    Should we next re-litigate the Dresden bombing, barbaric or prudent?

    I also don’t think Steve is right that Gentile-Ashkenazi IQ difference is an especially taboo topic. Rather, I think if you trend a bit carefully with your tone and wording, you can explore the asian and jew positive difference from the white mean all you want. It is the hispanic and black gaps that will get you Richwined or Watsoned.

    Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.

    Give your location and intellectual interests, you know and think about Jews a whole lot more than the average American. In most of the USA observant and obvious Jews make up less than 1% of the population, often less than 0.25%.

    • Replies: @fox
    akshenazi are not dissapearing.
  27. @Erik L
    "miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool."

    I was going to attempt a point about different times in history when the Jews got comfy somewhere and thought all the gentiles were cool with them but then it occurred to me:

    Have you ever read your own (((comments))) section?

    I don’t buy this. If you’ll note, the (( )) crowd writes for the most part under pseudonyms – they are in deep hiding and in no danger even (or ESPECIALLY) in case of a Trump presidency, of actually having any power or influence in this society. Like the Confederate Flag thing, the goal among leftists is to stamp out the last dying embers of anti-Semitism in a victory dance, not because they think anti-Semitism is strong and poses an actual threat but because they know it is weak and they think that they can kill it off once and for all.

    A lot of American Jews do have Holocaust/victim fantasies, since the mantle of victimhood is a sought after status in our society. It’s completely phony – not that they are intentionally faking their fear, but in that they let their imaginations run wild, so that Trump is Hitler, anyone who is not a liberal Democrat is Hitler, etc.

    If there is any real danger to Jews in American society it comes not from whites, but from blacks, who are known to be anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian, etc. and envious of any wealth successful group.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Erik L
    I certainly can't disagree with that. It's just those Jews who study history get the impression their ancestors thought the same thing a few decades before things change. I agree it's a pretty small minority view. I disagree it's a mere victim fantasy.
  28. If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and ‘alt-‘right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn’t need to be so worried. It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It’s only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Ask around LA or other cities with sizable Jewish communities and you will find many families that keep a Go Bag by the Door, or at least talk about it.
    , @Joe Walker
    But Jews were one of the groups who wanted Muslims to move to Europe. The Jewish-owned New York Times was very positive about Merkel inviting in all those Syrians.
    , @Harold
    ‘It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.’ I’m sure the anti-Semites would agree.
    , @SFG
    The goyim largely *have* stopped with that, at least if you count Christians. Trump raises a white nationalist rebellion and all we get are nasty comments on Twitter. Marine LePen's actually courting Jewish votes. Putin is more interested in going after non-Orthodox Christians than Jews. Sure, there's the )))alt-right(((, but they don't seem all that powerful.

    I think this all made sense in 1945 but now it has become ridiculous. Cruz is antisemitic for alleging Trump has 'New York values', and Trump's not even Jewish?

    I have to say I do not entirely buy Steve's triple-bankshot theory. The goyim probably figured out the IQ differential somewhere around Nobel Prize #38. I am not in Steven Jay Gould's head but I have poked and prodded the odd evolutionary biology grad student, and they all knew about this stuff but were keeping it quiet for fear of (a) getting themselves in trouble and (b) encouraging white-black racism.
    , @anon
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders

    That's a little like saying "If only the electric lightbulb and automobile would become popular!", isn't it?
    , @anon
    It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    There are about 300 million goyim and 5 million Jews in the United States. If "they" were really out to get you, wouldn't you have gotten got a long time ago?
    , @Boomstick
    It's more accurate to say that Christians in the US want to marry Jews, not gas them, based on the intermarriage rates.
  29. @candid_observer
    Not sure I buy your thesis, Steve.

    The Bell Curve got a ton more heat than The Ten Thousand Year Explosion.

    Never underestimate the power of vanity to influence opinion. I think Jews rather like the idea that they're on average smarter than other groups -- who wouldn't?

    This is one reason I think it would be a great thing for the first result locating a good number of genes for IQ that differentiate in favor of one group over another to be for Jews over others.

    The vanity factor would allow the result to be sneaked in under the tent. It would be especially welcomed because it would show that all those white European types that are so despised don't do so well.

    “I think Jews rather like the idea that they’re on average smarter than other groups — who wouldn’t?” – Exactly! And they prefer to talk about IQ than speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success. IQ advantage nicely weaves into the meritocracy narrative and at the same establishes the biological base to be the Chosen Tribe.

    • Replies: @Deen
    "speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success"

    If you think "ethnic nepotism" can explain the wild success of Jews in so many fields, you must be mentally ill. No other term covers it.

    I'm aware that the average non-Jew has much higher moral and ethnical codes than a Jew - just look at any or all of recent presidential candidates - but if it was so easy to be so successful, everyone would do it (duh).

    It's odd that white supremacists say that whites are more successful than blacks because whites are smarter, but then they say that Jews are more successful than other whites because they're crooked. Interesting double standard.

    Kind of a win-win for non-Jewish, white supremacist, whites there.
    , @Anonymous
    But actually, just as they dodge ethnic nepotism, they also dodge biology: with hoary stories about their culturally ingrained love of education.

    If this routine seems very well-rehearsed it probably is, because plenty of them can't stop themselves from bragging about Jewish overachievement. Nobel prizes.
  30. @(((Owen)))
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and 'alt-'right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn't need to be so worried. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It's only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    Ask around LA or other cities with sizable Jewish communities and you will find many families that keep a Go Bag by the Door, or at least talk about it.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I don't know of any Jews in America who have "go bags". Zero, nada, none in my circle of friends and relatives. That whole prepper thing seems very strange and Mormonish to me.
    , @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "you will find many families that keep a Go Bag by the Door".
    Los Angeles jews are worried about another shoah? Words fail.
  31. @JohnnyWalker123
    Assange: Next leaked e-mails will provide enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB9u9dSQVkc

    According to Comey, the FBI had enough to indict her already.

    Who’s going to indict her, exactly? DOJ?

    Be realistic.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Public opinion.

    If Assange puts Trump in the Whitehouse, then pardon both Assange and Snowden.
  32. @Jack D
    The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it's true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it's not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka's kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve's thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam's Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the "all men are created equal" thing a little too literally - they didn't think it up. Now, that's not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern "Jewish" thinking is not very "Jewish" - people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from "liberal" Jewish/Democrat positions.

    Your post is so good it will get few replies. Lets see.

  33. @Wilbur Hassenfus
    According to Comey, the FBI had enough to indict her already.

    Who's going to indict her, exactly? DOJ?

    Be realistic.

    Public opinion.

    If Assange puts Trump in the Whitehouse, then pardon both Assange and Snowden.

    • Replies: @utu
    "If Assange puts Trump in the Whitehouse..." - Swedish lawyers will be interviewing Assange in Ecuadorean embassy. Is Assange going to get a deal to shut up? Is Assange bluffing in order to get the deal?
  34. Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.

    Are you insane? Do you really think it is “cool” that both of our major political parties are controlled by the Jews? Do you also think it is “cool” that most of the enemies of Israel are also our enemies even though their ability to harm us is relatively limited? Do you also find it “cool” that most Jews apparently want to use Hispanic immigrants to turn the United States into Northern Mexico? You and I must have very different understandings of the word “cool.”

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    This!
    , @IHTG
    Not strong on reading comprehension are we
    , @SFG
    He was making a general statement about Americans, which is correct (IMHO)--most Americans are not particularly antisemitic. Your statement about Israel-lobby manipulation is also correct, IMHO (and is one of the reasons I don't give money to Jewish groups). Surveys of the general Jewish public are lukewarm on mass Mexican migration, it's the elite who are in behind it 100%.

    So basically you're both right.

  35. If, say, Samoans are so heavily represented in the NFL despite their tiny numbers because they tend to be remarkably strong, that’s a good thing. Similarly, if Jews make up a high fraction of theoretical physicists because they tend to be smart, that’s also a good thing.

    I think we are less likely to end up fighting the enemies of Samoa than we are to end up fighting the enemies of Israel.

  36. Steve, the thing you have failed to consider is that Jews have used their superior intelligence to convince many American gentiles that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of the United States in spite of the fact that most of those enemies are puny and far away from North America.

  37. @Jack D
    The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it's true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it's not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka's kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve's thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam's Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the "all men are created equal" thing a little too literally - they didn't think it up. Now, that's not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern "Jewish" thinking is not very "Jewish" - people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from "liberal" Jewish/Democrat positions.

    they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle

    Yes, probably both the lowest rate of both problem drinking and drinking period of any white ethnic group.

    I enjoy both light and binge drinking, but none of my Ashkenazi relatives do, most are complete teetotalers or very light beer and wine drinkers only. And while I enjoy it, there is no addictive potential there, and when I hit about 30 and the hangovers outweighed the enjoyment, I cut my heavy drinking to once or twice a year, typically at big 4th of July and New Years parties.

    The strongest cultural exchange Ashkenazi have had are with Germans, who also have low rates of problem drinking.

    However, we are not so disinclined away from problem use of marijuana. The legal and cultural shifts in favor of marijuana I do not think will be good for us.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "Yes, probably both the lowest rate of both problem drinking and drinking period of any white ethnic group."

    Because they make the crappiest wine on the planet.
    , @Alden
    Lot,
    I lived in Germany for 5 years. They are both daily and binge drinkers. Because of labor laws, they can and do drink on the job and can come back from lunch totally wasted.
  38. @(((Owen)))
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and 'alt-'right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn't need to be so worried. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It's only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    But Jews were one of the groups who wanted Muslims to move to Europe. The Jewish-owned New York Times was very positive about Merkel inviting in all those Syrians.

    • Replies: @Erik L
    I asked my uncle (in his late seventies) about this and he ultimately straight up admitted this was because the muslims were oppressed by the same group (white Europeans I infer) who had oppressed Jews. Anecdotal but I suspect this self destructive stupidity is. So that super intelligence has limits. Either that or Gary Gygax was right and intelligence and wisdom are distinct
    , @Anonymous
    Not my family. We don't want them in the U.S. or in Europe. It's the secular liberal elite Jews who favored mass immigration from the third world. Now the non-elite Jews in Europe are suffering for the error of their "betters."
  39. @Lot

    they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle
     
    Yes, probably both the lowest rate of both problem drinking and drinking period of any white ethnic group.

    I enjoy both light and binge drinking, but none of my Ashkenazi relatives do, most are complete teetotalers or very light beer and wine drinkers only. And while I enjoy it, there is no addictive potential there, and when I hit about 30 and the hangovers outweighed the enjoyment, I cut my heavy drinking to once or twice a year, typically at big 4th of July and New Years parties.

    The strongest cultural exchange Ashkenazi have had are with Germans, who also have low rates of problem drinking.

    However, we are not so disinclined away from problem use of marijuana. The legal and cultural shifts in favor of marijuana I do not think will be good for us.

    “Yes, probably both the lowest rate of both problem drinking and drinking period of any white ethnic group.”

    Because they make the crappiest wine on the planet.

  40. Why is human biodiversity important? Simone Biles won the gold irrespective of what the typical black women is like. Why are average s so important?

    • Replies: @Grumpy
    Why are averages so important?

    The average German determines what Germany is like, and the average Brazilian determines what Brazil is like, to a much greater degree than anything else.
  41. @Thucydides
    It is certainly possible such thoughts may have occurred to some, but the more immediate explanation would seem to be the progressives' commitment to human universalism/egalitarianism, a core belief inherited from the religious tradition. Indeed, salvationist progressivism is a successor providentialism.

    Firstly the ‘progressives’ didn’t used to deny HBD.

    ‘Progressives’ used to be pro-eugenics now they are anti-eugenics. Why?

    The similarities between modern progressives’ morality and their ancestors religious morality is easily explained by them being the same people with the same genes and therefore the same sorts of things appeal to them. The way they interpreted and practiced Christianity had much to do with their genes and not necessarily with the words in the bible.

    There are many Jewish led cult-like movements that have many similarities to each other. Not because they are somehow outgrowths of Judaism but because they are expressions of Jewish ways of behaving.

    Western Europeans have universalist tendencies, but without the denial of HBD these would not be so dominant. Anti-racists must know this, on some level, otherwise they wouldn’t be so fanatical in protecting the lie.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Huh?

    The fact that early progressives had the exact opposite position of modern progressives is explained by the fact they share the same genes?

    I'm afraid you'll have to give me some more logic for that one.

    I also think the concept that different Jewish groups are similar to each other, regardless of their differences, is also a bit fuzzy without some additional details. Besides which, different groups of Jews, like Sephardi and Ashkenazi, also have different genetic makeups.
  42. @Ivy
    Ask around LA or other cities with sizable Jewish communities and you will find many families that keep a Go Bag by the Door, or at least talk about it.

    I don’t know of any Jews in America who have “go bags”. Zero, nada, none in my circle of friends and relatives. That whole prepper thing seems very strange and Mormonish to me.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend's cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.
  43. It is certainly possible such thoughts may have occurred to some, but the more immediate explanation would seem to be the progressives’ commitment to human universalism/egalitarianism, a core belief inherited from the religious tradition. Indeed, salvationist progressivism is a successor providentialism.

    Except for the fact that progs don’t give a shit about universalism and egalitarianism (other than as a pose to use as a club), that’s spot on.

    They so obviously don’t give a shit about universalism or egalitarianism. They care about their Narrative, period.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    If progressives are so cold, calculating and logical, then why are so many emotion-driven actors and musicians left-wing? And why are so many Scandinavians (who are known for their honesty and humility) left-wing on many issues. Ditto for single young women.

    Most leftists are left-wing because they are emotional and irrational, and most logic-driven people are either right-wing or libertarian.
  44. @(((Owen)))
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and 'alt-'right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn't need to be so worried. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It's only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    ‘It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.’ I’m sure the anti-Semites would agree.

  45. @Lot

    they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle
     
    Yes, probably both the lowest rate of both problem drinking and drinking period of any white ethnic group.

    I enjoy both light and binge drinking, but none of my Ashkenazi relatives do, most are complete teetotalers or very light beer and wine drinkers only. And while I enjoy it, there is no addictive potential there, and when I hit about 30 and the hangovers outweighed the enjoyment, I cut my heavy drinking to once or twice a year, typically at big 4th of July and New Years parties.

    The strongest cultural exchange Ashkenazi have had are with Germans, who also have low rates of problem drinking.

    However, we are not so disinclined away from problem use of marijuana. The legal and cultural shifts in favor of marijuana I do not think will be good for us.

    Lot,
    I lived in Germany for 5 years. They are both daily and binge drinkers. Because of labor laws, they can and do drink on the job and can come back from lunch totally wasted.

  46. Assuming Mr. Sailer’s theory is correct, then our country -and many others in the West- are being subjected (among other atrocities) to irreparable damage by a deluge of largely low-IQ Third Worlders because a cadre of “Jewish intellectuals” suffer from some unfounded paranoia about Gentiles with “torches and pitchforks” coming for them in the night. Have these “intellectuals” ever contemplated what kind of backlash might potentially develop if/when irrefutable DNA evidence showing the reality of biologically-based group differences in IQ is revealed, and as an outgrowth, the Gentile masses then realize the disproportionate role Jews played in suppressing this reality to the immense detriment of the West?

    • Agree: Harold
    • Replies: @Kyle
    That would never happen. White people are too pussy. Look at the polling numbers. In agregate white people would rather vote for a neoconservative than vote for a populist racist. They're so altruistic that they'd scarface themselves before they offended a pitiful substandard person.
  47. @(((Owen)))
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and 'alt-'right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn't need to be so worried. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It's only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    The goyim largely *have* stopped with that, at least if you count Christians. Trump raises a white nationalist rebellion and all we get are nasty comments on Twitter. Marine LePen’s actually courting Jewish votes. Putin is more interested in going after non-Orthodox Christians than Jews. Sure, there’s the )))alt-right(((, but they don’t seem all that powerful.

    I think this all made sense in 1945 but now it has become ridiculous. Cruz is antisemitic for alleging Trump has ‘New York values’, and Trump’s not even Jewish?

    I have to say I do not entirely buy Steve’s triple-bankshot theory. The goyim probably figured out the IQ differential somewhere around Nobel Prize #38. I am not in Steven Jay Gould’s head but I have poked and prodded the odd evolutionary biology grad student, and they all knew about this stuff but were keeping it quiet for fear of (a) getting themselves in trouble and (b) encouraging white-black racism.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    Just went to West Hunter tonight and there is a audio interview with Greg Cochran by James Miller, who I guess is an economics professor at Smith College. Anyway, during the last quarter or so of the interview Greg mentions that Pinker told him that if he tried to test the Ashkenazi Jewish theory at Harvard he would loss his job and Greg guesses that that is true throughout academia, even in Israel since Ashkenazi Jews are no longer a majority there.
    , @RonaldB
    I will put forward a hypothesis.

    Steve and others have been stretching logic to find the self-interest motivation of Jewish groups promoting immigration and blind acceptance of Muslims.

    The fact is, the Jewish groups are not acting out of self-interest, but out of altruism. In other words, they act on an idealistic principle which is most decidedly against their self-interest. I think this is far more dangerous than acting selfishly, as long as you act selfishly in an intelligent manner.
  48. “Both of you basically say is that “we” are so obviously right and “they” are so obviously wrong that they can’t possibly believe what they profess to believe. Which means they are deliberately lying!”

    I actually heard an exemplar of this back when WLS-AM hosted Roe Conn. He was talking about Black people problems when a white (apparently) female teacher called in and started talking about their low IQs in school. Conn said: “Don’t go there.” In other words, the man who jestfully talks about having a “Black card” knew the Truth(tm) but moved immediately to shut down the conversation.

  49. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    Actually, a lot of Jews are anti-Semitic. Just look at all the Jews who complain how Israel treats the Palestinians, despite the fact that the Palestinians would love to slaughter all the Jews. When your political opinions would result in the wiping out of your own homeland, and that homeland is Jewish, you’re an anti-Semite.

    Likewise, if you’re white and you’re a liberal, you’re anti-white.

    • Replies: @SFG
    That's overstating the case--at the most you could call them anti-Zionist, but lots of Jews (and non-Jews) would like Israel to continue to exist but treat the Palestinians better or maybe give them their own state.

    Whether that's practical or not is another story.

    Similarly, lots of white liberals just think white people should treat minorities better (and conveniently ignore the Ferguson effect, the knockout game, the decay of Detroit, etc.). Then there's Tim Wise.
  50. @Anon
    Actually, a lot of Jews are anti-Semitic. Just look at all the Jews who complain how Israel treats the Palestinians, despite the fact that the Palestinians would love to slaughter all the Jews. When your political opinions would result in the wiping out of your own homeland, and that homeland is Jewish, you're an anti-Semite.

    Likewise, if you're white and you're a liberal, you're anti-white.

    That’s overstating the case–at the most you could call them anti-Zionist, but lots of Jews (and non-Jews) would like Israel to continue to exist but treat the Palestinians better or maybe give them their own state.

    Whether that’s practical or not is another story.

    Similarly, lots of white liberals just think white people should treat minorities better (and conveniently ignore the Ferguson effect, the knockout game, the decay of Detroit, etc.). Then there’s Tim Wise.

  51. @Jack D
    The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it's true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it's not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka's kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve's thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam's Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the "all men are created equal" thing a little too literally - they didn't think it up. Now, that's not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern "Jewish" thinking is not very "Jewish" - people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from "liberal" Jewish/Democrat positions.

    It is not “coming to an end”. The residual breeding pool of ultra-high fertility Jews is quite large. Ultraorthodox Jews breed like bunny rabbits.

    Even though a sizable percentage of them are “burned off” (so to speak) and go off the derech, they (and their kids) don’t marry goyim.

    Instead, the ultraorthodox “burn off” goes to replenish the Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform breeding pools. As long as world Jewry includes a core high fertility breeding pool of ultras, the population of Jews will continue to grow, no matter how many Reform kids mongrelize with goyim.

    • Replies: @Mark Caplan
    Since religious credulity is a marker for stupidity, the ultra-high fertility of Ultra-Orthodox Jews is extremely dysgenic.
    , @Anonymous
    I'm not so sure that a large percentage of ultra-Orthodox young are "burned off" and go secular/Reform/Conservative anymore. That was what happened when young Jews left Poland and the Pale of Settlement for America 100 years ago, but there was an ocean and most of the European continent between them and their elders. Moreover, most of the young immigrant Jews of that era weren't ultra-Orthodox (haredi or hasidic) but ordinary Orthodox. Now that the ultra-Orthodox have established large, insular communities in America, I think it far less likely that mass defection from ultra-Orthodoxy will occur.
  52. @Lot
    As Jack D says above, the people who actually have very high IQs, pure-bred Ashkenazi, are rapidly disappearing from the world outside of high fertility ultra-religious types who have little interaction with culture and politics, rarely going to college and often not speaking English as their first language.

    The particular motivation of Gould types for their awful views is a kind of interesting question in an academic sense, but has now been beaten to death. It also seems to me to be needlessly divisive issue when all of the native peoples of greater Europe are facing extreme and common threats.

    Should we next re-litigate the Dresden bombing, barbaric or prudent?

    I also don't think Steve is right that Gentile-Ashkenazi IQ difference is an especially taboo topic. Rather, I think if you trend a bit carefully with your tone and wording, you can explore the asian and jew positive difference from the white mean all you want. It is the hispanic and black gaps that will get you Richwined or Watsoned.


    Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.
     
    Give your location and intellectual interests, you know and think about Jews a whole lot more than the average American. In most of the USA observant and obvious Jews make up less than 1% of the population, often less than 0.25%.

    akshenazi are not dissapearing.

  53. Because Jewish guys hate to be thought of as smart??

    As individuals and as a group, NO ONE works harder to project the image of intelligence than Jews.

    I think there is something else behind their denial of science.

  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This is one of the weakest speculations Steve Sailer has made since I began reading his blog 3 years ago.

    My Jewish friends always felt the Jews achieved greater success and wealth in life because of their culture, and they attributed their success to hard work and the Jewish culture which put an emphasis on education, and in the past the requirement to become literate and study the Torah.

    My best friend in college was Jewish, but raised an atheist and was proud of the fact that he was never circumcised. We discussed the Bell Curve when it came out, we were still in college and both of us were Liberals at the time. We were both science majors, thus accepted the data in the book, and felt that there could be cultural reasons for the differences. Charles Murray had the same conclusions “The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved.” People forget that back in the early 90s we knew a lot less about genetics than we do today. I suspect the Jews wanted to credit their hard work and devotion to education as the reason for their high achievements, as many of them still believe this to be true.

    • Agree: Travis
  55. @JohnnyWalker123
    Public opinion.

    If Assange puts Trump in the Whitehouse, then pardon both Assange and Snowden.

    “If Assange puts Trump in the Whitehouse…” – Swedish lawyers will be interviewing Assange in Ecuadorean embassy. Is Assange going to get a deal to shut up? Is Assange bluffing in order to get the deal?

  56. Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.

    Steve, you’re a bit condescending, explaining to Jews that of course gentiles actually value intelligence (some may even be smart themselves!), therefore it is silly to be threatened by a spotlight on Ashkenazi intelligence.

    Jews are smarter than that.

    Let’s put this way. I (non-Jew) am not threatened by the mere fact that an individual or group may be smarter than me. Nor if they are richer that me. Being smart and having money are good things. The rub is when the “smart” ones use their intelligence in sociopathic ways which harm me or my people. Or when rich individuals use their money to try to infringe on my natural rights.

    What your cited ‘enraged’ Jews are actually concerned about is non-Jews noticing that they are being harmed by policies/actions being pushed, disproportionately, by shrewd activist Jews.

    There are limits to chutzpah, though. Spergy types can get addicted like a gambler: “I told them what’s what, shamed them for being intolerant, and they folded! Hah! Next time I’ll be twice as insistent!” Of course, from time to time the constant chutzpah becomes unbearable to the goyish noticers and things may get holocausty.

    I think your blog does a good service spreading the word to reasonable, non-spergy Jews that hey, isn’t it better if we all get along? Please don’t push stuff that makes things “disruptive.”

    • Replies: @Moses

    What your cited ‘enraged’ Jews are actually concerned about is non-Jews noticing that they are being harmed by policies/actions being pushed, disproportionately, by shrewd activist Jews.
     
    Nailed it. Couldn't agree more.

    Jews don't want any talk of racial or ethnic differences. At all. If that is allowed then eventually people will get around to looking at Jews as a separate ethnicity who act in their own interests (which often run counter to WASP interests).

    Can't have that. Move along. Nothing to see here.
  57. Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    No it can't. For example, the IQ of adopted children is more closely correlated with their birth family than with the family that raises them.
    , @gcochran
    It would mean that 30% is not driven by genes, but that 30% wouldn't necessarily be driven by the schools experienced or the number of books in the house. Could be something essentially random, like somatic mutation.
    , @Das
    No. Nurture could potentially explain a few IQ points here and there, but 85 to 115 is two full standard deviations.

    Nothing parents do, short of profound abuse and neglect, would have such an enormous impact on IQ.
    , @AnotherDad

    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.
     
    Utu, i may be misinterpreting, but your numbers suggest you're thinking of these percentages as operating on absolute numbers, when they are percentages only of variation. With 70% of variation explained by genes you just can't "get there"--i.e. account for an 85 IQ mean--with the 30% "non-genetic" component. You need to postulate some both very severe and racially specific environmental factor that operates differently\independently from the normal non-genetic variation we see--whites holding all black babies heads underwater for three or four minutes, something like that.

    If you were trying to explain an 85 IQ mean--a one SD difference--in Africans, then you could probably cook up some plausible environment theory based on disease load, malnutrition, bad schooling, etc. (Note: actual black African IQs are much lower.) But this one SD difference is seen in black IQ *in this country*--in blacks with the advantage of living in a white organized nation, with working sewage systems, potable water, vaccinations, modern health care, plenty of protein, iodinized salt, vitamin D in milk, free public schools, etc. The difference is even notable between whites and blacks of the same social class in the *same school system*.

    This is simply a wave packet that has collapsed. The measurements have been done, we know what we know. The main cause of the black-white IQ difference is genes. People who do not accept that, do not accept it because they are either ignorant\innumerate, or out of ideology or emotion. But there's simply no serious debate about it by serious people.... unless you believe whites are really sneaking into black homes at night and holding black babies' heads underwater to give them brain damage.
    , @candid_observer
    If you work through the numbers, under your assumptions that heritability (h^2) is .7, that the differences between whites and blacks are entirely environmental, and the well known fact that the black-white IQ difference is 1 SD, it would require that the difference in average "environments" between whites and blacks be 1.89 SD. That is, blacks would, on average, have an environment equivalent to that of the lowest 3% of whites.

    And, as Gregory Cochran points out, that's not even taking into account something that is also well known: that the relevant "environmental" factors include many essentially random events, such as peculiarities in somatic development, and that the manipulable portion of the "environment" is almost certainly a small fraction of the so-called environmental factor. This would mean that differences in the manipulable portion would have to be far more extreme than even the 1.89 SD number would entail.

    To hold that the differences are entirely environmental requires a belief in an almost magical effect of some exceedingly powerful environmental X-factor that applies to essentially all blacks, and no whites.

    Nobody sophisticated believes in magic anymore, unless they're a liberal intellectual.

    , @Triumph104

    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies ...
     
    IQ differences between ethnic groups are driven by nuture/cultural differences, however you don't prove the point by discussing twins. Twins belong to the same ethnic group.

    Puerto Ricans on the island of Puerto Rico test worse than blacks on the math NAEP, but Puerto Ricans in the US test above blacks on the SAT. It was recently discussed here that the underperformance of all ethnic groups in Hawaii was due to island culture.
  58. @Joe Walker
    Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.

    Are you insane? Do you really think it is "cool" that both of our major political parties are controlled by the Jews? Do you also think it is "cool" that most of the enemies of Israel are also our enemies even though their ability to harm us is relatively limited? Do you also find it "cool" that most Jews apparently want to use Hispanic immigrants to turn the United States into Northern Mexico? You and I must have very different understandings of the word "cool."

    This!

  59. http://forward.com/news/national/347207/how-the-alt-right-manipulates-the-data-to-prove-the-existence-of-race/

    A group of blogs and Internet forums, led by blogger Steve Sailer, have come together to embrace a successor to the pseudoscientific racist movements of the 20th century. “Human biodiversity” (HBD) is the term they have used to give their particular theories a policy-wonk zing. (Read an in-depth explanation of the human biodiversity phenomenon here.) One of the hallmarks of HBD blogs is the use of data and charts from genetics studies to “prove” their theories. This evidence is culled from articles in the leading journals of population genetics and behavioral genetics, and published by some of genetics’ leading lights. But what does this evidence look like? And, if they’re using cutting-edge research to make their points, does that mean their theories hold some water?

    We’ll start with the “evidence” itself. Most often it takes the form of what’s called a principal component analysis. A PCA is able to boil down a data set comprising hundreds or even thousands of dimensions (think the largest spreadsheet you’ve ever seen) into a 2D plot. (Or, depending on the type of analysis you’re running, 3D, or 4D, and so on.) If you do a PCA of a bunch of distinct genomes from around the world, you’ll get something that looks like this:
    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    Springer

    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    This PCA chart is from an article called “The population genetics of the Jewish people,” by Dr. Harry Ostrer and Dr. Karl Skorecki. Each individual dot represents one genome — one person’s DNA. The chart is just one of several data analysis methods they use for showing the genetic “location” of Jews — somewhere between Middle Eastern and European, as it turns out. The chart also shows, quite clearly, that all three of those populations are rather far away from the cluster of sub-Saharan African genomes.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews. The chart is scaled so that differences between groups are enhanced: even though the two groups are far away from one another on the chart, the “distance” represents a very small amount of genetic variance. (And, if this chart included “New World” genomes, you would see much of the empty space taken up with a continuum of African American, Native American, Latino and Caribbean genomes.) Another kind of chart, called a neighbor-joining tree, (similar to a cladogram in evolutionary biology) also shows spatially the amount of variance between the genomes of certain populations, in order to discern the ancestry and descent of the different groups.

    Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA). Though a mutation on the scale of a single nucleotide might, for example, significantly increase your risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease, it doesn’t say much about your innate capabilities or faults as a member of a certain “race.”

    HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.

    • Replies: @Boomstick

    The chart is scaled so that differences between groups are enhanced: even though the two groups are far away from one another on the chart, the “distance” represents a very small amount of genetic variance.
     
    Apparently the difference--however exaggerated the scale--is significant enough to result in a 1 SD difference in IQ and interesting population differences in elite 100m sprint times.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Good job of slipping a hategraph into The Forward!

    http://forward.com/news/national/347207/how-the-alt-right-manipulates-the-data-to-prove-the-existence-of-race/

    , @AnotherDad
    I realize articles like this are just to keep the troops in line--no progressive Jews should read about this genetics stuff and lose belief in the narrative!

    But it's just weird\depressing how folks--certainly intelligent--can stare something in the face and then just spew out nonsense.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews.
     
    This, of course, is exactly what the graph shows--it shows genetic distance and clumping. The interesting thing is that the clumping between sub-Saharan Africans and Jews (or Europeans or Chinese) is *complete*. There is no overlap. If that isn't "race" ... then the word has no meaning. (It's essentially disproof of the "race is only skin deep" notion.)

    Then this:

    Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA).
     
    Well no. The chart is about massive numbers of genes, and hence ancestry and race. It in fact says almost nothing interesting about individuals genes. Something like say an allele to allow adult lactose tolerance could develop somewhere else and end up spreading completely through some other population that was engaged in herding with just some very minimal genetic contact and you'd still have these discrete genetic "clumps". (Maybe we can replace race with "clump" or "cluster".)

    Then:


    HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.
     
    Well sure. It's one chart. It says nothing about what traits these various "clusters" have--says nothing about IQ, personality traits, disease resistance ... anything. All that stuff one has to figure out with more data. But it does tell you that the clusters vary by large numbers of genes and are in fact "clusters" with different genetic profiles. In other words, it shows that there *could* be variation between these clusters in genes with real world impact. What those are and their effects and why they evolved are all topics of HBD discussion.
  60. @utu
    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    No it can’t. For example, the IQ of adopted children is more closely correlated with their birth family than with the family that raises them.

  61. Speaking of smart Jews, you blogged about Bernie Sanders’ financial situation last year:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/our-broke-presidential-candidates/

    …and linked to his financial disclosure report:

    http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00000528_2015_Pres.pdf

    So, should we be surprised that he just bought a $600,000 third house?

    http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/bernie-sanders-vermont-summer-home

  62. @George
    Why is human biodiversity important? Simone Biles won the gold irrespective of what the typical black women is like. Why are average s so important?

    Why are averages so important?

    The average German determines what Germany is like, and the average Brazilian determines what Brazil is like, to a much greater degree than anything else.

  63. @SFG
    The goyim largely *have* stopped with that, at least if you count Christians. Trump raises a white nationalist rebellion and all we get are nasty comments on Twitter. Marine LePen's actually courting Jewish votes. Putin is more interested in going after non-Orthodox Christians than Jews. Sure, there's the )))alt-right(((, but they don't seem all that powerful.

    I think this all made sense in 1945 but now it has become ridiculous. Cruz is antisemitic for alleging Trump has 'New York values', and Trump's not even Jewish?

    I have to say I do not entirely buy Steve's triple-bankshot theory. The goyim probably figured out the IQ differential somewhere around Nobel Prize #38. I am not in Steven Jay Gould's head but I have poked and prodded the odd evolutionary biology grad student, and they all knew about this stuff but were keeping it quiet for fear of (a) getting themselves in trouble and (b) encouraging white-black racism.

    Just went to West Hunter tonight and there is a audio interview with Greg Cochran by James Miller, who I guess is an economics professor at Smith College. Anyway, during the last quarter or so of the interview Greg mentions that Pinker told him that if he tried to test the Ashkenazi Jewish theory at Harvard he would loss his job and Greg guesses that that is true throughout academia, even in Israel since Ashkenazi Jews are no longer a majority there.

  64. @utu
    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    It would mean that 30% is not driven by genes, but that 30% wouldn’t necessarily be driven by the schools experienced or the number of books in the house. Could be something essentially random, like somatic mutation.

    • Replies: @utu
    "like somatic mutation" - You like exotic explanations, right? When the straightforward ones do not jive with your Weltanschauung, right? - The so-called Flynn effect also suggest strong culture and acculturation factor. IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing. It comes to the question what does an IQ test really measure? The elimination of the Flynn effect by renormalization of data is very questionable.

    Most IQ aficionados that I encounter here at Unz Review seem to be guilty of reification. You know, the map is not the territory, and more so when you have a very lousy map.
    , @Steve Sailer
    But the existence of the Flynn Effect suggests that changes in the environment over time seem to have some effect on the more technical types of IQ subtests.

    Mostly, the whole world has been getting better at IQ tests at about the same rate. But, we're finally starting to see some Gap Closing: for example, Lynn recently co-authored a paper showing Saudi Arabia isn't as far behind in IQ as they used to be.

    My guess is that the whole world is getting more information intensive due to Moore's Law.

  65. I don’t know, if that’s true then Jews must be very good actors, because most of them sound like true believers to me.

    Like you said, most people don’t resent anyone for being smarter or more talented. If the Jews are smarter, don’t you think they’d realize this as well?

    My pet theory is that Jews have a natural penchant for complaining about stuff. Combine that with high intelligence, and you get people who develop abstract theories to justify activism (i.e. organized whining). Egalitarianism and critical theory are those things precisely.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Well, since we're pulling diagnoses out of the air, how about attributing altruism, rather than a "natural penchant for complaining" to Jews. Altruism is defined as a systematic disregard for one's own well-being, in favor of the perceived well-being of someone else, preferably someone else with no connection to you.

    Altruism is far more lethal than a "penchant for complaining". An altruism trait would explain the very real tendency for Jewish groups to advocate for people that are malevolent for Jews, such as Muslims.
  66. Moynihan’s Canadian Border Law manifests itself again; median FICO score by state:

    Utah’s scores seem surprisingly low to me.

    • Replies: @Triumph104
    Utah's scores should be low. Mormons have larger families, are required to tithe 10%, and have to pay for their kids' missionary trips. State income tax is 5%. There is a lot of affinity fraud in Utah and the state is usually number four or five in bankruptcy filings. Salt Lake City has a lot of apartment complexes that are reserved as affordable housing.

    The Latter Day Saints have an extensive welfare system for both their members and nonmembers.

    https://youtu.be/eBZWeh31TIs
  67. @gcochran
    It would mean that 30% is not driven by genes, but that 30% wouldn't necessarily be driven by the schools experienced or the number of books in the house. Could be something essentially random, like somatic mutation.

    “like somatic mutation” – You like exotic explanations, right? When the straightforward ones do not jive with your Weltanschauung, right? – The so-called Flynn effect also suggest strong culture and acculturation factor. IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing. It comes to the question what does an IQ test really measure? The elimination of the Flynn effect by renormalization of data is very questionable.

    Most IQ aficionados that I encounter here at Unz Review seem to be guilty of reification. You know, the map is not the territory, and more so when you have a very lousy map.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews"

    Which ones?

    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing.

     

    Northwest Europeans score higher on IQ tests, therefore IQ is in invalid concept. Ok. The logic is sound. Now, if someone mada a test where all ethnics scored equally, then it would be a valid concept.
    , @Anonymous
    Jason Malloy commented on an old post at Marginal Revolution that a published review from 1930 of the full literature discussing Jewish IQ up to that point showed the same patterns as today, not low Jewish IQ.
  68. @gcochran
    It would mean that 30% is not driven by genes, but that 30% wouldn't necessarily be driven by the schools experienced or the number of books in the house. Could be something essentially random, like somatic mutation.

    But the existence of the Flynn Effect suggests that changes in the environment over time seem to have some effect on the more technical types of IQ subtests.

    Mostly, the whole world has been getting better at IQ tests at about the same rate. But, we’re finally starting to see some Gap Closing: for example, Lynn recently co-authored a paper showing Saudi Arabia isn’t as far behind in IQ as they used to be.

    My guess is that the whole world is getting more information intensive due to Moore’s Law.

  69. @HBD Guy
    http://forward.com/news/national/347207/how-the-alt-right-manipulates-the-data-to-prove-the-existence-of-race/

    A group of blogs and Internet forums, led by blogger Steve Sailer, have come together to embrace a successor to the pseudoscientific racist movements of the 20th century. “Human biodiversity” (HBD) is the term they have used to give their particular theories a policy-wonk zing. (Read an in-depth explanation of the human biodiversity phenomenon here.) One of the hallmarks of HBD blogs is the use of data and charts from genetics studies to “prove” their theories. This evidence is culled from articles in the leading journals of population genetics and behavioral genetics, and published by some of genetics’ leading lights. But what does this evidence look like? And, if they’re using cutting-edge research to make their points, does that mean their theories hold some water?

    We’ll start with the “evidence” itself. Most often it takes the form of what’s called a principal component analysis. A PCA is able to boil down a data set comprising hundreds or even thousands of dimensions (think the largest spreadsheet you’ve ever seen) into a 2D plot. (Or, depending on the type of analysis you’re running, 3D, or 4D, and so on.) If you do a PCA of a bunch of distinct genomes from around the world, you’ll get something that looks like this:
    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    Springer

    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    This PCA chart is from an article called “The population genetics of the Jewish people,” by Dr. Harry Ostrer and Dr. Karl Skorecki. Each individual dot represents one genome — one person’s DNA. The chart is just one of several data analysis methods they use for showing the genetic “location” of Jews — somewhere between Middle Eastern and European, as it turns out. The chart also shows, quite clearly, that all three of those populations are rather far away from the cluster of sub-Saharan African genomes.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews. The chart is scaled so that differences between groups are enhanced: even though the two groups are far away from one another on the chart, the “distance” represents a very small amount of genetic variance. (And, if this chart included “New World” genomes, you would see much of the empty space taken up with a continuum of African American, Native American, Latino and Caribbean genomes.) Another kind of chart, called a neighbor-joining tree, (similar to a cladogram in evolutionary biology) also shows spatially the amount of variance between the genomes of certain populations, in order to discern the ancestry and descent of the different groups.

    Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA). Though a mutation on the scale of a single nucleotide might, for example, significantly increase your risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease, it doesn’t say much about your innate capabilities or faults as a member of a certain “race.”

    HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.

    The chart is scaled so that differences between groups are enhanced: even though the two groups are far away from one another on the chart, the “distance” represents a very small amount of genetic variance.

    Apparently the difference–however exaggerated the scale–is significant enough to result in a 1 SD difference in IQ and interesting population differences in elite 100m sprint times.

  70. @Jack D
    I don't know of any Jews in America who have "go bags". Zero, nada, none in my circle of friends and relatives. That whole prepper thing seems very strange and Mormonish to me.

    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend’s cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend’s cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.
     
    Ready for what? ... A Trump presidency? He's going to round all the Jews up in the railroad stations for transport to the camps--including his grandchildren?

    I'll be near the head of the line, pointing out the damage to Western civilization from Jewish political ideologies, including the stuff that's so over the top it's shooting themselves in the foot--like pushing multiculturalism and "tolerance" all the way to "let's welcome muslims". But this just seems like flat out loony tunes territory.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    "Australia as their destination of necessity"

    i.e a country and social system created by British people which hasn't been destroyed - yet.

    , @Jack D
    Buncha drama queens. What is the triggering event for them to leave for the airport? Let me guess- Trump's election? They ain't going nowhere. If these people leave Westwood I'll eat my hat.
  71. @HBD Guy
    http://forward.com/news/national/347207/how-the-alt-right-manipulates-the-data-to-prove-the-existence-of-race/

    A group of blogs and Internet forums, led by blogger Steve Sailer, have come together to embrace a successor to the pseudoscientific racist movements of the 20th century. “Human biodiversity” (HBD) is the term they have used to give their particular theories a policy-wonk zing. (Read an in-depth explanation of the human biodiversity phenomenon here.) One of the hallmarks of HBD blogs is the use of data and charts from genetics studies to “prove” their theories. This evidence is culled from articles in the leading journals of population genetics and behavioral genetics, and published by some of genetics’ leading lights. But what does this evidence look like? And, if they’re using cutting-edge research to make their points, does that mean their theories hold some water?

    We’ll start with the “evidence” itself. Most often it takes the form of what’s called a principal component analysis. A PCA is able to boil down a data set comprising hundreds or even thousands of dimensions (think the largest spreadsheet you’ve ever seen) into a 2D plot. (Or, depending on the type of analysis you’re running, 3D, or 4D, and so on.) If you do a PCA of a bunch of distinct genomes from around the world, you’ll get something that looks like this:
    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    Springer

    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    This PCA chart is from an article called “The population genetics of the Jewish people,” by Dr. Harry Ostrer and Dr. Karl Skorecki. Each individual dot represents one genome — one person’s DNA. The chart is just one of several data analysis methods they use for showing the genetic “location” of Jews — somewhere between Middle Eastern and European, as it turns out. The chart also shows, quite clearly, that all three of those populations are rather far away from the cluster of sub-Saharan African genomes.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews. The chart is scaled so that differences between groups are enhanced: even though the two groups are far away from one another on the chart, the “distance” represents a very small amount of genetic variance. (And, if this chart included “New World” genomes, you would see much of the empty space taken up with a continuum of African American, Native American, Latino and Caribbean genomes.) Another kind of chart, called a neighbor-joining tree, (similar to a cladogram in evolutionary biology) also shows spatially the amount of variance between the genomes of certain populations, in order to discern the ancestry and descent of the different groups.

    Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA). Though a mutation on the scale of a single nucleotide might, for example, significantly increase your risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease, it doesn’t say much about your innate capabilities or faults as a member of a certain “race.”

    HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I wrote the following comment to that article:

    "she seems particularly consumed by the inbreeding habits of Ashkenazi Jews"

    I just checked hbdchick's site and she has 25 posts tagged "Ashkenazi Jews" out of the hundreds she has written.

    So I wouldn't really describe that being "consumed" - at least not any more so than this very publication: http://forward.com/culture/140894/may-you-live-until-120-dna-uncovers-secrets-to-je/
     
    It was removed. Sad!
  72. @utu
    "like somatic mutation" - You like exotic explanations, right? When the straightforward ones do not jive with your Weltanschauung, right? - The so-called Flynn effect also suggest strong culture and acculturation factor. IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing. It comes to the question what does an IQ test really measure? The elimination of the Flynn effect by renormalization of data is very questionable.

    Most IQ aficionados that I encounter here at Unz Review seem to be guilty of reification. You know, the map is not the territory, and more so when you have a very lousy map.

    “IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews”

    Which ones?

    • Replies: @utu
    Goddard at Ellis Island - Intelligence Classification of Immigrants of Different Nationalities (1917)

    Carl Brigham (1923) - "our figures ... would rather tend to disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent... "
    , @Triumph104

    Studies from the beginning of the 20th century have sometimes been cited as contradicting high IQ among Ashkenazi Jews. A 2006 paper stated that this is "a widely cited misrepresentation by Leon Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of IQ tests (Seligman, 1992)." Both Kamin and Gould are Jews. Also other Jews have considered the issue sensitive. Richard Herrnstein, one of the authors of the The Bell Curve, wanted to exclude the paragraphs on Jewish IQ.
     
    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jews_and_intelligence
  73. @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    As Steve as pointed out numerous times, a lot of Jews are drama queens who like to be the centre of attention. They hate being ignored or laughed at. The best way to undermine the Jewish left is to treat Jews as a factor in political correctness but not a decisive one.

  74. @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    Well, I’m from a Jewish background, although I’m now atheist.

    I sometimes look at the websites of the representative Jewish organizations. It’s my opinion you’re giving Jews credit for too much deviousness and subtlety in opposing discussion of black-white IQ differences in order to prevent discussion of Jewish-gentile differences. In fact, what they say can be taken at face value. The major Jewish organizations today are hard-left, and enforce political correctness for its own sake. Part of the doctrine of political correctness is that any differences between people is due to their disadvantaged upbringing: Steve’s “magic dirt” hypothesis.

    I’ll give you an example to illustrate my point. The Jews in Malmo, Sweden and many parts of France are beginning to move elsewhere because the anti-Semitism of the Muslim immigrants is so pronounced and so physically dangerous, they no longer feel safe. Yet, Jewish organizations, almost to a one, favor immigration, amnesty, and the treatment of Islam as just any other religion. In other words, the Jews maintain political correctness in spite of the fact it specifically harms Jews.

    So, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that Jewish opposition to a rational treatment of IQ differences is rooted in a perceived self-interest. To the contrary, they are actually sacrificing their self-interest, which makes it even more scary.

    • Agree: 415 reasons
    • Replies: @cwhatfuture
    Completely agree. I would say that while maybe 2/3 of Jews are liberal, almost every Jewish organization is 100% hard left on subjects like abortion and immigration. My sister had to give up on the National Council for Jewish Women because she said its agenda was nothing but the Democratic Party platform and it had nothing to do with Judaism or even being Jewish. From the looks of these organizations one would not say Jews are intelligent, one would say they are suicidal.

    I do wonder about the meaning of IQ.
    , @biz
    This is 100% correct.

    Steve, you're just wrong on this one. For American liberals, Jew and gentile alike, it is not always Europe in 1939.

    However it is always a Mississippi lunch counter in 1962.

    American liberals (and European liberals for that matter) believe that we are just one news incident or carelessly leaked fact away from white people putting down their PS4 controllers and going on an endless anti-black and anti-Muslim killing rampage. The reason they can't permit the slightest discussion of black-white IQ differences, or the actual religious martyrdom motivations behind terrorism, is no more complicated than that.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    You have to really hate the dominant society to risk your own safety in order to harm it. It's on par with blacks who support demographic change, as long as it harms whites, while completely ignoring the fact that they cutting their own noses off.
    , @Moses
    Yet isn't it odd that although Jewish groups are at the forefront of pushing mass third world immigration in Western countries, few (or none) push open borders for Israel.

    A stumper.

  75. @utu
    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    No. Nurture could potentially explain a few IQ points here and there, but 85 to 115 is two full standard deviations.

    Nothing parents do, short of profound abuse and neglect, would have such an enormous impact on IQ.

    • Replies: @utu
    "Nothing parents do, short of profound abuse and neglect, would have such an enormous impact on IQ."

    What if the effect t is multigenerational? Epigenetics? The expression of smart genes may take time? Few generations? Adopting a baby and moving it to different environment won't do.

    Nurture and nature are highly cross correlated. You have bad nurture and nature in ghetto or trailer park and good nature and good nurture in the Upper West Side but there are not many cases of good-bad or bad-good groupings.
  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not that, Steve.

    Basically the left are mealy-mouthed hypocrites and liars governed by dogma and impervious to reason.
    ‘Equality’ – whatever that means, is the new mantra of the left rather than ‘redistribution’.

    Therefore, Emperor’s new clothes style we see blatant, obvious, plain-as-paint falsehood ‘explained away’ in a faith-based sort of way. Such is the absurdity of ‘women firefighters’ or the downright damned dirty lies – and ‘intellectual’ pretzel twisting in which ‘economists’ prove that massive third world immigration ‘improves’ western economies.
    Now the IQ differences you mentioned are real and concrete. The lefty tactic is either to ignore with fingers in their ears or to denigrate the concept of IQ.

  77. @Harold
    Firstly the ‘progressives’ didn’t used to deny HBD.

    ‘Progressives’ used to be pro-eugenics now they are anti-eugenics. Why?

    The similarities between modern progressives’ morality and their ancestors religious morality is easily explained by them being the same people with the same genes and therefore the same sorts of things appeal to them. The way they interpreted and practiced Christianity had much to do with their genes and not necessarily with the words in the bible.

    There are many Jewish led cult-like movements that have many similarities to each other. Not because they are somehow outgrowths of Judaism but because they are expressions of Jewish ways of behaving.

    Western Europeans have universalist tendencies, but without the denial of HBD these would not be so dominant. Anti-racists must know this, on some level, otherwise they wouldn’t be so fanatical in protecting the lie.

    Huh?

    The fact that early progressives had the exact opposite position of modern progressives is explained by the fact they share the same genes?

    I’m afraid you’ll have to give me some more logic for that one.

    I also think the concept that different Jewish groups are similar to each other, regardless of their differences, is also a bit fuzzy without some additional details. Besides which, different groups of Jews, like Sephardi and Ashkenazi, also have different genetic makeups.

    • Replies: @Harold
    Sorry, that wasn’t very clear. Those two things weren’t meant to be logically connected. The point was that the modern progressive’s worldview is not a product of their sensibilities.

    Early progressives believed that we could create a society without a class of poor people that was exploited and suffered great hardship. They believed eugenics would help in that, and eugenics hadn’t been demonised. Modern progressives also want to create such a society. However, they believe eugenics is pseudoscience, hatred, a sinful impulse born of elitist disdain. These are not contradictory in terms of basic sensibilities.

    The different Jewish groups I was thinking of were Ashkenazi led intellectual movements like Freudianism and Boasian anthropology. There is a sort of similarity to a lot of these movements such that if you read about them without knowing they were Jewish you could predict they were. The charismatic leaders, the way they invent terminology, the way they nurture acolytes, the way they purge dissenters, the way they attack competing views as immoral (I haven’t thought about his for a while so I am struggling to be more precise). Similarly if we see Western European morality movements sharing characteristics we needn’t take this as evidence that one is an outgrowth of the other. I hope that makes sense.
  78. I’m having trouble trying to re-think teenaged, bar-mitzvahed Robert Zimmerman in Hibbing Minnesota as having conceived a lifepath of deep-cover pro-civil-rights disinformation to convince the wretched goyim they’re no better than the shvartza, quickly dumping shiksa Baez to marry Shirley Noznisky… Dylan was always a chameleon opportunist though, so maybe. Do Jews have a word for this game, walking a tightrope of false gentility, setting yourself up as an inspiring but secretly self-destructive role-model?

    • Replies: @SFG
    Does that include going Christian and never really renouncing it?

    Bob Dylan was known for musical ability (if not voice), not common sense. I think he just had the same wooly-headedness as lots of artists. They're generally not practical people.
  79. @utu
    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    Utu, i may be misinterpreting, but your numbers suggest you’re thinking of these percentages as operating on absolute numbers, when they are percentages only of variation. With 70% of variation explained by genes you just can’t “get there”–i.e. account for an 85 IQ mean–with the 30% “non-genetic” component. You need to postulate some both very severe and racially specific environmental factor that operates differently\independently from the normal non-genetic variation we see–whites holding all black babies heads underwater for three or four minutes, something like that.

    If you were trying to explain an 85 IQ mean–a one SD difference–in Africans, then you could probably cook up some plausible environment theory based on disease load, malnutrition, bad schooling, etc. (Note: actual black African IQs are much lower.) But this one SD difference is seen in black IQ *in this country*–in blacks with the advantage of living in a white organized nation, with working sewage systems, potable water, vaccinations, modern health care, plenty of protein, iodinized salt, vitamin D in milk, free public schools, etc. The difference is even notable between whites and blacks of the same social class in the *same school system*.

    This is simply a wave packet that has collapsed. The measurements have been done, we know what we know. The main cause of the black-white IQ difference is genes. People who do not accept that, do not accept it because they are either ignorant\innumerate, or out of ideology or emotion. But there’s simply no serious debate about it by serious people…. unless you believe whites are really sneaking into black homes at night and holding black babies’ heads underwater to give them brain damage.

    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    The gap is noticeably smaller when comparing married black couples' kids to married white couples' kids. I think Chanda Chisala's contributions are useful additions to the debate.
  80. @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    I think this is not the case in the West anymore. Antisemitism is seen as less worse that Islamophobia by many and seen as less worse than Racism by the vast majority.

  81. @Ivy
    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend's cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.

    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend’s cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.

    Ready for what? … A Trump presidency? He’s going to round all the Jews up in the railroad stations for transport to the camps–including his grandchildren?

    I’ll be near the head of the line, pointing out the damage to Western civilization from Jewish political ideologies, including the stuff that’s so over the top it’s shooting themselves in the foot–like pushing multiculturalism and “tolerance” all the way to “let’s welcome muslims”. But this just seems like flat out loony tunes territory.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    They do seem a little twitchy. A sheltered childhood might influence that.
    , @anon
    You have to wonder how much of it is genuine neurosis, and how much is just LARPing.

    It's like those hipsters that go through those zombie apocalypse training things. Sometimes it's fun to pretend that you're going to have to defend your family against all odds.

    Some people, it seems, also only feel truly important when they think that everyone's out to get them. If they thought that the whole world was just ignoring them, that might make them feel less "chosen".

    It's also possible that they think that coming to a country where they thrive better than anyone else, and still turning around and calling the people who made that possible a bunch of sadistic Nazi wannabes is just a great way to endear themselves to them. You never know, right?
    , @Brutusale
    For too many Jews, it's always 1938. That's what drives a lot of the hate.
  82. “This view is actually eye-rollingly dumb, as well as morally deplorable. Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.”

    Yes. East Asians by contrast don’t seem to care that whites know they’re smart – well I expect a few Berkleyite Asian-American SJWs do, but it’s hardly a mainstream view.

  83. @utu
    "like somatic mutation" - You like exotic explanations, right? When the straightforward ones do not jive with your Weltanschauung, right? - The so-called Flynn effect also suggest strong culture and acculturation factor. IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing. It comes to the question what does an IQ test really measure? The elimination of the Flynn effect by renormalization of data is very questionable.

    Most IQ aficionados that I encounter here at Unz Review seem to be guilty of reification. You know, the map is not the territory, and more so when you have a very lousy map.

    IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing.

    Northwest Europeans score higher on IQ tests, therefore IQ is in invalid concept. Ok. The logic is sound. Now, if someone mada a test where all ethnics scored equally, then it would be a valid concept.

    • Replies: @utu
    You misunderstood me. The issue is that Jews and some Europeans used to score low and they score high. Explain this.
    , @Kyle
    Yeah isn't that called common core or something?
  84. @Ivy
    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend's cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.

    “Australia as their destination of necessity”

    i.e a country and social system created by British people which hasn’t been destroyed – yet.

  85. @Svigor

    It is certainly possible such thoughts may have occurred to some, but the more immediate explanation would seem to be the progressives’ commitment to human universalism/egalitarianism, a core belief inherited from the religious tradition. Indeed, salvationist progressivism is a successor providentialism.
     
    Except for the fact that progs don't give a shit about universalism and egalitarianism (other than as a pose to use as a club), that's spot on.

    They so obviously don't give a shit about universalism or egalitarianism. They care about their Narrative, period.

    If progressives are so cold, calculating and logical, then why are so many emotion-driven actors and musicians left-wing? And why are so many Scandinavians (who are known for their honesty and humility) left-wing on many issues. Ditto for single young women.

    Most leftists are left-wing because they are emotional and irrational, and most logic-driven people are either right-wing or libertarian.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Ok, I'll volunteer an answer:
    -Artists and musicians are usually stupid
    -Scandinavians are pharisaic. Big self-righteous phonies if you prefer.
    -single young women are usually stupid, as are most young people and females in particular.

    Progressives are a mixed bunch of phonies, psychopaths and retards.
  86. @Ivy
    Ask around LA or other cities with sizable Jewish communities and you will find many families that keep a Go Bag by the Door, or at least talk about it.

    “you will find many families that keep a Go Bag by the Door”.
    Los Angeles jews are worried about another shoah? Words fail.

  87. @Joe Walker
    Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.

    Are you insane? Do you really think it is "cool" that both of our major political parties are controlled by the Jews? Do you also think it is "cool" that most of the enemies of Israel are also our enemies even though their ability to harm us is relatively limited? Do you also find it "cool" that most Jews apparently want to use Hispanic immigrants to turn the United States into Northern Mexico? You and I must have very different understandings of the word "cool."

    Not strong on reading comprehension are we

  88. Edward Wilson and ants and Samoans etc. (Biodiversity) – and IQ

    It depends

    If you meet someone
    Who is brighter or dumber than you –
    Don’t worry about it.
    The ants and the Gods
    Struggle, believe me, alike.

    (Beginning of a poem by Hans Magnus Enzensberger).

    Since I’m writing from Germany, I misread your last sentence:
    Thus, the human biodiversity approach offers the one moral perspective that’s not inherently anti-semitic – instead of anti-science as you wrote.

    But then, as I’ve learned reading your article, there exists a tradition even, rooted in the same phenomenon: Arouse confusion about science out of the fear of anti-semitism.

    Strange world it is – but interesting.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Steve -
    - this No. 84 comment seems to await moderation.
  89. @Joe Walker
    Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.

    Are you insane? Do you really think it is "cool" that both of our major political parties are controlled by the Jews? Do you also think it is "cool" that most of the enemies of Israel are also our enemies even though their ability to harm us is relatively limited? Do you also find it "cool" that most Jews apparently want to use Hispanic immigrants to turn the United States into Northern Mexico? You and I must have very different understandings of the word "cool."

    He was making a general statement about Americans, which is correct (IMHO)–most Americans are not particularly antisemitic. Your statement about Israel-lobby manipulation is also correct, IMHO (and is one of the reasons I don’t give money to Jewish groups). Surveys of the general Jewish public are lukewarm on mass Mexican migration, it’s the elite who are in behind it 100%.

    So basically you’re both right.

  90. @robot
    I'm having trouble trying to re-think teenaged, bar-mitzvahed Robert Zimmerman in Hibbing Minnesota as having conceived a lifepath of deep-cover pro-civil-rights disinformation to convince the wretched goyim they're no better than the shvartza, quickly dumping shiksa Baez to marry Shirley Noznisky... Dylan was always a chameleon opportunist though, so maybe. Do Jews have a word for this game, walking a tightrope of false gentility, setting yourself up as an inspiring but secretly self-destructive role-model?

    Does that include going Christian and never really renouncing it?

    Bob Dylan was known for musical ability (if not voice), not common sense. I think he just had the same wooly-headedness as lots of artists. They’re generally not practical people.

  91. @(((Owen)))
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and 'alt-'right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn't need to be so worried. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It's only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders

    That’s a little like saying “If only the electric lightbulb and automobile would become popular!”, isn’t it?

  92. @(((Owen)))
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and 'alt-'right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn't need to be so worried. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It's only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    There are about 300 million goyim and 5 million Jews in the United States. If “they” were really out to get you, wouldn’t you have gotten got a long time ago?

  93. @Hippopotamusdrome


    IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing.

     

    Northwest Europeans score higher on IQ tests, therefore IQ is in invalid concept. Ok. The logic is sound. Now, if someone mada a test where all ethnics scored equally, then it would be a valid concept.

    You misunderstood me. The issue is that Jews and some Europeans used to score low and they score high. Explain this.

    • Replies: @Realist
    Probably many did not speak English.
  94. @Ivy
    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend's cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.

    Buncha drama queens. What is the triggering event for them to leave for the airport? Let me guess- Trump’s election? They ain’t going nowhere. If these people leave Westwood I’ll eat my hat.

  95. @Steve Sailer
    "IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews"

    Which ones?

    Goddard at Ellis Island – Intelligence Classification of Immigrants of Different Nationalities (1917)

    Carl Brigham (1923) – “our figures … would rather tend to disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent… “

    • Replies: @utu
    Mr. Sailer I have answered you question in com #88. It's still awaiting moderation.
  96. @Das
    No. Nurture could potentially explain a few IQ points here and there, but 85 to 115 is two full standard deviations.

    Nothing parents do, short of profound abuse and neglect, would have such an enormous impact on IQ.

    “Nothing parents do, short of profound abuse and neglect, would have such an enormous impact on IQ.”

    What if the effect t is multigenerational? Epigenetics? The expression of smart genes may take time? Few generations? Adopting a baby and moving it to different environment won’t do.

    Nurture and nature are highly cross correlated. You have bad nurture and nature in ghetto or trailer park and good nature and good nurture in the Upper West Side but there are not many cases of good-bad or bad-good groupings.

  97. So despite the fact that the Left makes fun of “slippery slope” arguments of the non-Left, they actually believe in it wholeheartedly.

    “Oh please, don’t ask don’t tell won’t lead to ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay adoption.’”

    “Oh please, gay marriage won’t lead to transexual ‘rights’.”

    “Oh please, transexual rights won’t lead to ‘normalization of pedophilia.’”

    And, of course:

    “Oh, please, amnesty won’t lead to ‘replacing your race with another.’”

  98. @Jack D
    I don't buy this. If you'll note, the (( )) crowd writes for the most part under pseudonyms - they are in deep hiding and in no danger even (or ESPECIALLY) in case of a Trump presidency, of actually having any power or influence in this society. Like the Confederate Flag thing, the goal among leftists is to stamp out the last dying embers of anti-Semitism in a victory dance, not because they think anti-Semitism is strong and poses an actual threat but because they know it is weak and they think that they can kill it off once and for all.

    A lot of American Jews do have Holocaust/victim fantasies, since the mantle of victimhood is a sought after status in our society. It's completely phony - not that they are intentionally faking their fear, but in that they let their imaginations run wild, so that Trump is Hitler, anyone who is not a liberal Democrat is Hitler, etc.

    If there is any real danger to Jews in American society it comes not from whites, but from blacks, who are known to be anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian, etc. and envious of any wealth successful group.

    I certainly can’t disagree with that. It’s just those Jews who study history get the impression their ancestors thought the same thing a few decades before things change. I agree it’s a pretty small minority view. I disagree it’s a mere victim fantasy.

  99. @Joe Walker
    But Jews were one of the groups who wanted Muslims to move to Europe. The Jewish-owned New York Times was very positive about Merkel inviting in all those Syrians.

    I asked my uncle (in his late seventies) about this and he ultimately straight up admitted this was because the muslims were oppressed by the same group (white Europeans I infer) who had oppressed Jews. Anecdotal but I suspect this self destructive stupidity is. So that super intelligence has limits. Either that or Gary Gygax was right and intelligence and wisdom are distinct

  100. @SFG
    The goyim largely *have* stopped with that, at least if you count Christians. Trump raises a white nationalist rebellion and all we get are nasty comments on Twitter. Marine LePen's actually courting Jewish votes. Putin is more interested in going after non-Orthodox Christians than Jews. Sure, there's the )))alt-right(((, but they don't seem all that powerful.

    I think this all made sense in 1945 but now it has become ridiculous. Cruz is antisemitic for alleging Trump has 'New York values', and Trump's not even Jewish?

    I have to say I do not entirely buy Steve's triple-bankshot theory. The goyim probably figured out the IQ differential somewhere around Nobel Prize #38. I am not in Steven Jay Gould's head but I have poked and prodded the odd evolutionary biology grad student, and they all knew about this stuff but were keeping it quiet for fear of (a) getting themselves in trouble and (b) encouraging white-black racism.

    I will put forward a hypothesis.

    Steve and others have been stretching logic to find the self-interest motivation of Jewish groups promoting immigration and blind acceptance of Muslims.

    The fact is, the Jewish groups are not acting out of self-interest, but out of altruism. In other words, they act on an idealistic principle which is most decidedly against their self-interest. I think this is far more dangerous than acting selfishly, as long as you act selfishly in an intelligent manner.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Fine. Then they can altruistically feed, clothe and house their little brown subjects among themselves, not the hateful goyim. But they don't.

    But you kind of knew that already, didn't you?
    , @Anonymous
    But they've always done something that -- ultimately -- is against their self-interest. I mean, they've been expelled how many times? They're just overplaying their hand yet again. (A Jewish guy told me that tends to happen. He also said if things go wrong here he can always go to Israel.)
  101. Steve,
    I think you mean “aesthetic perspective”, not “moral perspective”.

  102. The argumentative style of certain Jewish intellectuals brings to mind Waugh’s Lord Brideshead:

    D’you know, Bridey. If ever I thought about becoming a Catholic, I’d only have to talk to you for five minutes to be cured. You manage to reduce what seem quite sensible propositions to stark nonsense.

    Just as Bridey’s convoluted apologetics on behalf of Catholicism made reasonable ideas seem idiotic, public intellectuals like Simon Schama and Cass Sunstein somehow manage to accidentally vindicate Kevin MacDonald in the course of their absurd apologias for liberal Jewish paranoia. Fortunately, I have enough Jewish friends to know that this awkward nonsense is confined to a tiny segment of the chattering classes, but if a man’s only exposure to the Jews was through such self-appointed defenders, it could almost make an Anti-Semite out of him.

  103. Don’t forget the simpler version of the theory – that if there are any real average differences between groups then there might be behavioural differences, in which case ” OMG It Means Hitler Was Right” – or at least some dumb whites might think that.

    So you get the BBC covering the Olympics, with all the short-distance track finalists being black and all the swimmers white or Asian, yet no one can ever remark on what’s in front of their eyes.

  104. @RonaldB
    Well, I'm from a Jewish background, although I'm now atheist.

    I sometimes look at the websites of the representative Jewish organizations. It's my opinion you're giving Jews credit for too much deviousness and subtlety in opposing discussion of black-white IQ differences in order to prevent discussion of Jewish-gentile differences. In fact, what they say can be taken at face value. The major Jewish organizations today are hard-left, and enforce political correctness for its own sake. Part of the doctrine of political correctness is that any differences between people is due to their disadvantaged upbringing: Steve's "magic dirt" hypothesis.

    I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. The Jews in Malmo, Sweden and many parts of France are beginning to move elsewhere because the anti-Semitism of the Muslim immigrants is so pronounced and so physically dangerous, they no longer feel safe. Yet, Jewish organizations, almost to a one, favor immigration, amnesty, and the treatment of Islam as just any other religion. In other words, the Jews maintain political correctness in spite of the fact it specifically harms Jews.

    So, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that Jewish opposition to a rational treatment of IQ differences is rooted in a perceived self-interest. To the contrary, they are actually sacrificing their self-interest, which makes it even more scary.

    Completely agree. I would say that while maybe 2/3 of Jews are liberal, almost every Jewish organization is 100% hard left on subjects like abortion and immigration. My sister had to give up on the National Council for Jewish Women because she said its agenda was nothing but the Democratic Party platform and it had nothing to do with Judaism or even being Jewish. From the looks of these organizations one would not say Jews are intelligent, one would say they are suicidal.

    I do wonder about the meaning of IQ.

  105. @RonaldB
    Well, I'm from a Jewish background, although I'm now atheist.

    I sometimes look at the websites of the representative Jewish organizations. It's my opinion you're giving Jews credit for too much deviousness and subtlety in opposing discussion of black-white IQ differences in order to prevent discussion of Jewish-gentile differences. In fact, what they say can be taken at face value. The major Jewish organizations today are hard-left, and enforce political correctness for its own sake. Part of the doctrine of political correctness is that any differences between people is due to their disadvantaged upbringing: Steve's "magic dirt" hypothesis.

    I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. The Jews in Malmo, Sweden and many parts of France are beginning to move elsewhere because the anti-Semitism of the Muslim immigrants is so pronounced and so physically dangerous, they no longer feel safe. Yet, Jewish organizations, almost to a one, favor immigration, amnesty, and the treatment of Islam as just any other religion. In other words, the Jews maintain political correctness in spite of the fact it specifically harms Jews.

    So, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that Jewish opposition to a rational treatment of IQ differences is rooted in a perceived self-interest. To the contrary, they are actually sacrificing their self-interest, which makes it even more scary.

    This is 100% correct.

    Steve, you’re just wrong on this one. For American liberals, Jew and gentile alike, it is not always Europe in 1939.

    However it is always a Mississippi lunch counter in 1962.

    American liberals (and European liberals for that matter) believe that we are just one news incident or carelessly leaked fact away from white people putting down their PS4 controllers and going on an endless anti-black and anti-Muslim killing rampage. The reason they can’t permit the slightest discussion of black-white IQ differences, or the actual religious martyrdom motivations behind terrorism, is no more complicated than that.

  106. Of course Steve Sailer is right here. Which group sets the Overton Window in America and around the West? Jews. Who determines what is acceptable to discuss publicly? Media and academic elites (dominantly Jewish).

    Do Jews have a rational reason to fear being seen as different, as aliens? Of course. Such noticing is thought by organized Jewry to be dangerous.

    You never find large numbers of Jews seeking to maximize the majority’s rights over minorities (except in Israel). You do find large numbers of Jews seeking to maximize minority rights over the majority’s rights. Jews are important members of the Coalition of the Fringe.

    The Jews in the diaspora are always strangers and nobody likes a stranger, not even the angels. (Mark Twain)

    The more acceptable it is to notice patterns, to note how people are different, the more gentiles will see Jews as different and that is likely dangerous for Jews. It’s always easier to fit in with the crowd. Who wants to be pointed out?

    Among Jews, of course, there’s no doubting that Jews tend to be smarter than goyim. There’s Yiddish Kup and Goyisha Kup. “That’s goyish” is never a compliment. I asked a friend who works for a billionaire if his boss is Jewish. “What do you think?” he replied.

    Unless you subscribe to faith, the world is composed of various forms of life struggling for survival and often having to fight each other to the death for scarce resources such as land, food and water. Anything that gives your group an edge is this struggle is likely to be used. If Jews are nationalistic (pro in-group) while discouraging nationalism among the goyim, Jews have an edge. If Jews see reality more clearly than the goyim about group differences (taken for granted by most Jews), they have an edge.

    • Replies: @Moses
    A very perceptive comment.
    , @RonaldB
    I'm afraid your logic has a contradiction.

    The Jews are supposed to be the smartest group on the average. And yet, you picture them as reacting to the old stereotype of advancing their own survival as a group by discouraging the group self-consciousness of other white groups.

    Part of discouraging the self-consciousness of other white groups is to promote the group benefits of Muslims, including the promotion of open immigration by Muslims. Islam has a built-in anti-Semitism. Muslim immigrants almost universally make it physically dangerous for Jews to be present. Jews have formal second-class citizenship and ritualized humiliation in even the most stable Muslim countries.

    So, the contradiction is, the "smart" Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests. You can use Steve's contention that Jews are simply reacting to their gut horror left over from World War II. But, if the Jews are reacting to an obsolete and obviously untrue assumption, then they're not so smart, are they?

    The fact is, at worst, Jews are completely, 100% safe in the US as presently constituted. The Jewish religion and Israel in particular is revered by fundamentalist Christians. So, for Jews to promote Black Lives Matter and open Muslim immigration and interfaith with Muslims is the most blatant form of altruism (denial of one's own legitimate self-interest).

    You simply cannot support the dual propositions that Jews are smarter than the average, and that they are acting out of self-interest. At present, these propositions are contradictory.
  107. Many Jews I know, particularly the smarter and more affluent ones, have back-up plans if America goes south. They have taken out citizenship in other countries and they’re ready to move (Israel etc).

    I never thought America would collapse until I converted to Judaism in 1993 and I started seeing the world differently. I started thinking about the Holocaust and could it happen here and Israel has to be strong and Jews have to be ready to go at any time and the world hates us and will kill us if we’re not smarter and fitter… I took on a tribal outlook.

    Jewish author Neil Strauss wrote this book:

    A Jewish friend made $5k in a business deal and decided to invest in ammunition for when the s*** hits the fan.

  108. @RonaldB
    Well, I'm from a Jewish background, although I'm now atheist.

    I sometimes look at the websites of the representative Jewish organizations. It's my opinion you're giving Jews credit for too much deviousness and subtlety in opposing discussion of black-white IQ differences in order to prevent discussion of Jewish-gentile differences. In fact, what they say can be taken at face value. The major Jewish organizations today are hard-left, and enforce political correctness for its own sake. Part of the doctrine of political correctness is that any differences between people is due to their disadvantaged upbringing: Steve's "magic dirt" hypothesis.

    I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. The Jews in Malmo, Sweden and many parts of France are beginning to move elsewhere because the anti-Semitism of the Muslim immigrants is so pronounced and so physically dangerous, they no longer feel safe. Yet, Jewish organizations, almost to a one, favor immigration, amnesty, and the treatment of Islam as just any other religion. In other words, the Jews maintain political correctness in spite of the fact it specifically harms Jews.

    So, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that Jewish opposition to a rational treatment of IQ differences is rooted in a perceived self-interest. To the contrary, they are actually sacrificing their self-interest, which makes it even more scary.

    You have to really hate the dominant society to risk your own safety in order to harm it. It’s on par with blacks who support demographic change, as long as it harms whites, while completely ignoring the fact that they cutting their own noses off.

    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    Hating the other is normal, natural and to some extent healthy. The world naturally divides into the friend/enemy distinction. Nature has color-coded people so that we can tell at a glance with reasonable accuracy who's a friend and who's an enemy.

    The stronger your in-group identity, such as Jewish or black or Muslim, the more likely you are to fear and hate outsiders. Social Identity Theory applies equally to Jews and to non-Jews. http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

    The more diverse a society, the weaker. It makes no sense why an Anglo country like America (85% Anglo at the time of the Revolution) would want to invite in outsiders. Every immigrant wave from then founding has made the country worse. WASPs make the best citizens. http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=69835
  109. @Jason Liu
    I don't know, if that's true then Jews must be very good actors, because most of them sound like true believers to me.

    Like you said, most people don't resent anyone for being smarter or more talented. If the Jews are smarter, don't you think they'd realize this as well?

    My pet theory is that Jews have a natural penchant for complaining about stuff. Combine that with high intelligence, and you get people who develop abstract theories to justify activism (i.e. organized whining). Egalitarianism and critical theory are those things precisely.

    Well, since we’re pulling diagnoses out of the air, how about attributing altruism, rather than a “natural penchant for complaining” to Jews. Altruism is defined as a systematic disregard for one’s own well-being, in favor of the perceived well-being of someone else, preferably someone else with no connection to you.

    Altruism is far more lethal than a “penchant for complaining”. An altruism trait would explain the very real tendency for Jewish groups to advocate for people that are malevolent for Jews, such as Muslims.

  110. @utu
    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    If you work through the numbers, under your assumptions that heritability (h^2) is .7, that the differences between whites and blacks are entirely environmental, and the well known fact that the black-white IQ difference is 1 SD, it would require that the difference in average “environments” between whites and blacks be 1.89 SD. That is, blacks would, on average, have an environment equivalent to that of the lowest 3% of whites.

    And, as Gregory Cochran points out, that’s not even taking into account something that is also well known: that the relevant “environmental” factors include many essentially random events, such as peculiarities in somatic development, and that the manipulable portion of the “environment” is almost certainly a small fraction of the so-called environmental factor. This would mean that differences in the manipulable portion would have to be far more extreme than even the 1.89 SD number would entail.

    To hold that the differences are entirely environmental requires a belief in an almost magical effect of some exceedingly powerful environmental X-factor that applies to essentially all blacks, and no whites.

    Nobody sophisticated believes in magic anymore, unless they’re a liberal intellectual.

    • Replies: @matt
    If Raven's scores in the Netherlands jumped 20 points or 1.33 SDs between 1952 and 1982, as it did, then if h^2 = .7, the environmental shift would have to be 2.43 SDs, under the assumptions you're using. Do the math.

    So by your argument, the Flynn Effect in holland couldn't be environmental. But it was.
    , @matt
    By the way, you miscalculated. If h^2 =.7, then the average environmental difference should be 1.83 SDs, not 1.89 SDs. 1/sqrt(.3) = 1.83.
  111. If progressives are so cold, calculating and logical, then why are so many emotion-driven actors and musicians left-wing? And why are so many Scandinavians (who are known for their honesty and humility) left-wing on many issues. Ditto for single young women.

    Most leftists are left-wing because they are emotional and irrational, and most logic-driven people are either right-wing or libertarian.

    I concur, but can’t quite tell if you think this contradicts my position, or agrees with it. 🙂

  112. @Dieter Kief
    Edward Wilson and ants and Samoans etc. (Biodiversity) - and IQ

    It depends

    If you meet someone
    Who is brighter or dumber than you -
    Don’t worry about it.
    The ants and the Gods
    Struggle, believe me, alike.

    (Beginning of a poem by Hans Magnus Enzensberger).

    Since I'm writing from Germany, I misread your last sentence:
    Thus, the human biodiversity approach offers the one moral perspective that’s not inherently anti-semitic - instead of anti-science as you wrote.

    But then, as I've learned reading your article, there exists a tradition even, rooted in the same phenomenon: Arouse confusion about science out of the fear of anti-semitism.

    Strange world it is - but interesting.

    Steve –
    – this No. 84 comment seems to await moderation.

  113. @unpc downunder
    If progressives are so cold, calculating and logical, then why are so many emotion-driven actors and musicians left-wing? And why are so many Scandinavians (who are known for their honesty and humility) left-wing on many issues. Ditto for single young women.

    Most leftists are left-wing because they are emotional and irrational, and most logic-driven people are either right-wing or libertarian.

    Ok, I’ll volunteer an answer:
    -Artists and musicians are usually stupid
    -Scandinavians are pharisaic. Big self-righteous phonies if you prefer.
    -single young women are usually stupid, as are most young people and females in particular.

    Progressives are a mixed bunch of phonies, psychopaths and retards.

    • Agree: Kyle
  114. @utu
    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.

    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies …

    IQ differences between ethnic groups are driven by nuture/cultural differences, however you don’t prove the point by discussing twins. Twins belong to the same ethnic group.

    Puerto Ricans on the island of Puerto Rico test worse than blacks on the math NAEP, but Puerto Ricans in the US test above blacks on the SAT. It was recently discussed here that the underperformance of all ethnic groups in Hawaii was due to island culture.

  115. @HBD Guy
    http://forward.com/news/national/347207/how-the-alt-right-manipulates-the-data-to-prove-the-existence-of-race/

    A group of blogs and Internet forums, led by blogger Steve Sailer, have come together to embrace a successor to the pseudoscientific racist movements of the 20th century. “Human biodiversity” (HBD) is the term they have used to give their particular theories a policy-wonk zing. (Read an in-depth explanation of the human biodiversity phenomenon here.) One of the hallmarks of HBD blogs is the use of data and charts from genetics studies to “prove” their theories. This evidence is culled from articles in the leading journals of population genetics and behavioral genetics, and published by some of genetics’ leading lights. But what does this evidence look like? And, if they’re using cutting-edge research to make their points, does that mean their theories hold some water?

    We’ll start with the “evidence” itself. Most often it takes the form of what’s called a principal component analysis. A PCA is able to boil down a data set comprising hundreds or even thousands of dimensions (think the largest spreadsheet you’ve ever seen) into a 2D plot. (Or, depending on the type of analysis you’re running, 3D, or 4D, and so on.) If you do a PCA of a bunch of distinct genomes from around the world, you’ll get something that looks like this:
    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    Springer

    A PCA chart from “The Population Genetics of the Jewish People,” from the journal Human Genetics.

    This PCA chart is from an article called “The population genetics of the Jewish people,” by Dr. Harry Ostrer and Dr. Karl Skorecki. Each individual dot represents one genome — one person’s DNA. The chart is just one of several data analysis methods they use for showing the genetic “location” of Jews — somewhere between Middle Eastern and European, as it turns out. The chart also shows, quite clearly, that all three of those populations are rather far away from the cluster of sub-Saharan African genomes.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews. The chart is scaled so that differences between groups are enhanced: even though the two groups are far away from one another on the chart, the “distance” represents a very small amount of genetic variance. (And, if this chart included “New World” genomes, you would see much of the empty space taken up with a continuum of African American, Native American, Latino and Caribbean genomes.) Another kind of chart, called a neighbor-joining tree, (similar to a cladogram in evolutionary biology) also shows spatially the amount of variance between the genomes of certain populations, in order to discern the ancestry and descent of the different groups.

    Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA). Though a mutation on the scale of a single nucleotide might, for example, significantly increase your risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease, it doesn’t say much about your innate capabilities or faults as a member of a certain “race.”

    HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.

    I realize articles like this are just to keep the troops in line–no progressive Jews should read about this genetics stuff and lose belief in the narrative!

    But it’s just weird\depressing how folks–certainly intelligent–can stare something in the face and then just spew out nonsense.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews.

    This, of course, is exactly what the graph shows–it shows genetic distance and clumping. The interesting thing is that the clumping between sub-Saharan Africans and Jews (or Europeans or Chinese) is *complete*. There is no overlap. If that isn’t “race” … then the word has no meaning. (It’s essentially disproof of the “race is only skin deep” notion.)

    Then this:

    Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA).

    Well no. The chart is about massive numbers of genes, and hence ancestry and race. It in fact says almost nothing interesting about individuals genes. Something like say an allele to allow adult lactose tolerance could develop somewhere else and end up spreading completely through some other population that was engaged in herding with just some very minimal genetic contact and you’d still have these discrete genetic “clumps”. (Maybe we can replace race with “clump” or “cluster”.)

    Then:

    HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.

    Well sure. It’s one chart. It says nothing about what traits these various “clusters” have–says nothing about IQ, personality traits, disease resistance … anything. All that stuff one has to figure out with more data. But it does tell you that the clusters vary by large numbers of genes and are in fact “clusters” with different genetic profiles. In other words, it shows that there *could* be variation between these clusters in genes with real world impact. What those are and their effects and why they evolved are all topics of HBD discussion.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews.
     
    Notice the scarequotes around "race" - us sophisticated fellows know that nothing as laughable as "race" even exists in the first place. Shaquille O'Neal and Woody Allen are EXACTLY THE SAME. You can take your pseudoscience Nazi hatefacts graphs and shove them. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
  116. @Boomstick
    Moynihan's Canadian Border Law manifests itself again; median FICO score by state:

    http://www.scoreinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ficostatemedian3.jpg

    Utah's scores seem surprisingly low to me.

    Utah’s scores should be low. Mormons have larger families, are required to tithe 10%, and have to pay for their kids’ missionary trips. State income tax is 5%. There is a lot of affinity fraud in Utah and the state is usually number four or five in bankruptcy filings. Salt Lake City has a lot of apartment complexes that are reserved as affordable housing.

    The Latter Day Saints have an extensive welfare system for both their members and nonmembers.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Their polygamous sects also have a history of welfare fraud.

    https://news.vice.com/article/food-stamp-fraud-could-bring-down-a-polygamous-sect-of-the-mormon-church-flds

    Jon Krakauer wrote about this back in 2003 in Under the Banner of Heaven.
  117. “In contrast to this old-fashioned peasants-with-pitchforks perspective on human differences, the human biodiversity perspective appreciates human differences.”

    Well, if you don’t consider 1960s New York City crimes rates to be “old fashioned” to talk about today’s American crime policies, I would add that 1939-1945 German crime/war crime rates are relevant to the “peasants with pitchforks” discussion, too.

    By the way, as often, you’re attacking the result of an assumption upon another assumption.

    “I am guessing that Jews hid this information” + “I am guessing that the reason Jews it is because” = anything you’d like.

    • Replies: @Deen
    *"I am guessing that the reason Jews did it is because"
  118. @Deen
    "In contrast to this old-fashioned peasants-with-pitchforks perspective on human differences, the human biodiversity perspective appreciates human differences."

    Well, if you don't consider 1960s New York City crimes rates to be "old fashioned" to talk about today's American crime policies, I would add that 1939-1945 German crime/war crime rates are relevant to the "peasants with pitchforks" discussion, too.

    By the way, as often, you're attacking the result of an assumption upon another assumption.

    "I am guessing that Jews hid this information" + "I am guessing that the reason Jews it is because" = anything you'd like.

    *”I am guessing that the reason Jews did it is because”

  119. matt says:
    @candid_observer
    If you work through the numbers, under your assumptions that heritability (h^2) is .7, that the differences between whites and blacks are entirely environmental, and the well known fact that the black-white IQ difference is 1 SD, it would require that the difference in average "environments" between whites and blacks be 1.89 SD. That is, blacks would, on average, have an environment equivalent to that of the lowest 3% of whites.

    And, as Gregory Cochran points out, that's not even taking into account something that is also well known: that the relevant "environmental" factors include many essentially random events, such as peculiarities in somatic development, and that the manipulable portion of the "environment" is almost certainly a small fraction of the so-called environmental factor. This would mean that differences in the manipulable portion would have to be far more extreme than even the 1.89 SD number would entail.

    To hold that the differences are entirely environmental requires a belief in an almost magical effect of some exceedingly powerful environmental X-factor that applies to essentially all blacks, and no whites.

    Nobody sophisticated believes in magic anymore, unless they're a liberal intellectual.

    If Raven’s scores in the Netherlands jumped 20 points or 1.33 SDs between 1952 and 1982, as it did, then if h^2 = .7, the environmental shift would have to be 2.43 SDs, under the assumptions you’re using. Do the math.

    So by your argument, the Flynn Effect in holland couldn’t be environmental. But it was.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    So you're going to bring up the Flynn Effect argument here?

    If you're going to do that, then just shift my point from being about IQ to being, more precisely, about g. You'd have to show that the change in scores on the Raven reflect changes in g, and there's no reason to believe that. On the more stable items of IQ testing, virtually nothing has shifted in performance over the decades.

    And the obvious point remains: no matter how the performance on any measure of IQ is conducted, African-Americans score 1 SD lower than whites. They may increase their scores along with whites through Flynn effects, but they are always lagging almost exactly 1 SD behind. It's quite a miracle if they are actually having their scores depressed relative to whites by some environmental factor akin to the Flynn effect itself. The Flynn Effect has clearly topped out in many western countries. Why haven't AAs caught up?

    And, again, the Flynn Effect shows up only in certain measures of IQ. On the more stable measures, AAs are exactly where they have always been. For example, on the SAT, blacks are going nowhere with their scores, and haven't been for decades -- perhaps a small decline if anything. This is true despite massive improvements in the attitudes toward AAs in the US over the decades, the existence of aggressive Affirmative Action, etc.

    Why should this be so? Why are those differences so intractable that apparently huge improvements in social environment have zero impact on the SAT?

    Well, I've got an explanation that works perfectly -- it's the genes that make it so.

    What would be your explanation? I think it reduces to a belief in magic.

  120. @Jack D
    The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it's true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it's not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka's kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve's thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam's Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the "all men are created equal" thing a little too literally - they didn't think it up. Now, that's not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern "Jewish" thinking is not very "Jewish" - people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from "liberal" Jewish/Democrat positions.

    A lot of modern “Jewish” thinking is not very “Jewish” – people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from “liberal” Jewish/Democrat positions.

    I’m glad you pointed this out. It’s actually much more than that, though. For the reality is that many, if not most, of the “liberal”/”Democrat” positions in-question and, certainly, the ideological principles they are based-upon, are fundamentally antithetical to (authentic) Judaism. This is a point that seems to be lost on at least many of the “Jews are the root and cause of all evil” types, whom I have long noticed make little or no distinction between Orthodox and secular/irreligious (and often anti-religious) Jews. You don’t have to like (even authentic) Judaism but to suggest that it is somehow behind such societal cancers as the truly insidious “LGBTQ” agenda or the promotion of pornography, to take two salient examples, is nothing short of preposterous.

    A more difficult case of conflation of Judaism with an ideology that is actually antithetical to it is that presented by Zionism. For here, even many learned and otherwise devout and credible rabbis have been led astray by Zionism– a heresy that from its inception was recognized and denounced as such by a near-unanimous consensus of rabbinic authorities.

    (According to the Torah, Jews were exiled from the Land of Israel by divine decree and until they are redeemed by the Messiah, are forbidden from establishing sovereignty over any part of the land. The specific prohibitions involved and the exact parameters and implications thereof are subject to differing interpretations of the relevant Biblical and Talmudic passages. There is no question, however, but that the establishment of the modern Zionist State of “Israel” constituted a grave transgression of Judaic law. And that the State is led by heretics and brazen transgressors who in no way represent Judaism and, their claims to do so notwithstanding, cannot and do not speak for world Jewry.)

  121. @JohnnyWalker123
    I suppose that's possible, but what about the rest of the interview? Why would Assange take so much interest in a murdered DNC staffer? Why would he talk about his sources taking "risks" in giving him information?

    Clearly, this was source. Given the improbable murder (the murderer didn't even rob the DNC staffer), it's likely that he was killed in a hit.

    Who arranged the hit?

    Well, who was in a position to benefit from silencing this man? Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz.

    Humans and Hyenas are the only animals known to kill just for the thrill of it.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Dogs and cats kill for fun too, as do countless other predators.
  122. @Jack D
    The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it's true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it's not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka's kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve's thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam's Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the "all men are created equal" thing a little too literally - they didn't think it up. Now, that's not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern "Jewish" thinking is not very "Jewish" - people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from "liberal" Jewish/Democrat positions.

    What’s wrong with Sephardi Jews? One of them was Prime Minister of the UK in the 19th century. Many others have won Nobel prizes.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Nothing, but when people refer to Jews being of above average IQ they mean Ashkenazi Jews. There are no statistics showing Sephardim to be above average. There is no Sephardi Einstein. However, "Sephardi" is a very broad category. It is used to refer not only to the Ladino speaking Jews who left Spain (from those that I know, they are a pretty bright group) but also all the other non-Ashkenazi Jews who ended up in Israel and who never lived in Spain. Some of these groups (e.g. the Yemenite Jews) were pretty backward fellows, reflecting the backward place that they ended up in and are perhaps not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
  123. @candid_observer
    If you work through the numbers, under your assumptions that heritability (h^2) is .7, that the differences between whites and blacks are entirely environmental, and the well known fact that the black-white IQ difference is 1 SD, it would require that the difference in average "environments" between whites and blacks be 1.89 SD. That is, blacks would, on average, have an environment equivalent to that of the lowest 3% of whites.

    And, as Gregory Cochran points out, that's not even taking into account something that is also well known: that the relevant "environmental" factors include many essentially random events, such as peculiarities in somatic development, and that the manipulable portion of the "environment" is almost certainly a small fraction of the so-called environmental factor. This would mean that differences in the manipulable portion would have to be far more extreme than even the 1.89 SD number would entail.

    To hold that the differences are entirely environmental requires a belief in an almost magical effect of some exceedingly powerful environmental X-factor that applies to essentially all blacks, and no whites.

    Nobody sophisticated believes in magic anymore, unless they're a liberal intellectual.

    By the way, you miscalculated. If h^2 =.7, then the average environmental difference should be 1.83 SDs, not 1.89 SDs. 1/sqrt(.3) = 1.83.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I mistranscribed. Not even sure how I would get 1.89 by calculation.

    The difference of course affects none of my argument. After rounding, even the 3% figure remains correct.

  124. @Steve Sailer
    "IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews"

    Which ones?

    Studies from the beginning of the 20th century have sometimes been cited as contradicting high IQ among Ashkenazi Jews. A 2006 paper stated that this is “a widely cited misrepresentation by Leon Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of IQ tests (Seligman, 1992).” Both Kamin and Gould are Jews. Also other Jews have considered the issue sensitive. Richard Herrnstein, one of the authors of the The Bell Curve, wanted to exclude the paragraphs on Jewish IQ.

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jews_and_intelligence

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Regardless of how Kamin mischaracterized Goddard's work (and I can totally believe that he did, just as Gould mischaracterized Morton's work), I can also believe that there was an increase in IQ in American Jews, just as there was a considerable increase in height in their American born offspring (and just as the height of Japanese rose in the post-WWII era). Many Jews in E. Europe (the ones most likely to immigrate) lived in unimaginable (by American standards) abject poverty and would have suffered from malnutrition that would have affected their IQ (as well as their stature) and were also completely without (secular) education. They were like seedlings who flourished when transplanted from a desert to a tropical paradise.
    , @Lot
    The studies were probably performed on Yiddish and German speaking immigrants barely off the boat. My oldest Jewish ancestors were two brothers who came in the 1840's and by the 1850's were prosperous businessmen with many children and owners of a hoop skirt factory in upstate New York which failed after about a decade.

    My distant grandfather settled in the rural Midwest running a store, and went to the nearest city many weekends to interact with fellow Jews and find mates for his kids. They were the only Jewish family in town, and the small town newspaper seemed to be pretty pleased they were there and ran some admiring articles some distant cousin of mine helpfully dug up.

    His brother stayed in the midwest for just a few years but then moved to rural Eastern Washington with his wife and 10+ children in the 1860's. He and his wife lived to be extremely old, and his children seem to have all married local Christians, resulting in all sorts of random people in Eastern Washington having a very Jewish last name but minimal Jewish ancestry.

  125. @Jack D
    The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it's true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it's not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka's kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve's thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam's Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the "all men are created equal" thing a little too literally - they didn't think it up. Now, that's not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern "Jewish" thinking is not very "Jewish" - people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from "liberal" Jewish/Democrat positions.

    What Jefferson meant was “all men were created equal by god.”
    Which isn’t really what he meant either. What he really meant was, under the eyes of the law, all men should be treated as though they were created equal by god.

  126. @utu
    "I think Jews rather like the idea that they’re on average smarter than other groups — who wouldn’t?" - Exactly! And they prefer to talk about IQ than speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success. IQ advantage nicely weaves into the meritocracy narrative and at the same establishes the biological base to be the Chosen Tribe.

    “speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success”

    If you think “ethnic nepotism” can explain the wild success of Jews in so many fields, you must be mentally ill. No other term covers it.

    I’m aware that the average non-Jew has much higher moral and ethnical codes than a Jew – just look at any or all of recent presidential candidates – but if it was so easy to be so successful, everyone would do it (duh).

    It’s odd that white supremacists say that whites are more successful than blacks because whites are smarter, but then they say that Jews are more successful than other whites because they’re crooked. Interesting double standard.

    Kind of a win-win for non-Jewish, white supremacist, whites there.

    • Replies: @Kyle
    A presedential candidate is 1 out of 300 million people, That is less than statistically significant. White people are absolutely more ethical. Even it's because we're more pussy and more afraid of confrontation, we treat people fairly. I don't have any stats to back that up, only public school anecdotes. Every other ethnicity seems OK with standing on someone else's shoulders to reach a little higher, and when it comes down to it it isn't their problem. Look at white religion. Original sin, turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherent the earth, confession, self flagellation. We care about corruption and nepotism, those things are shameful. It's considered shameful to live in the family home and take up the family business, that is different than any other culture.
    , @Stan Adams
    The problem for white supremacists is that there are a lot of smart gentile whites in the United States, but they're spread out all over the place. They don't have any sense of tribal identity.

    If I wanted to get a bunch of smart gentile whites together to promote white gentile interests, what would I do? Start an anti-Semitic Mensa?

    (Theoretically, an organization devoted to white gentile interests need not be explicitly anti-Semitic. In practice, it would be labeled as such and denounced by the SPLCs of the world.)
  127. @AnotherDad
    I realize articles like this are just to keep the troops in line--no progressive Jews should read about this genetics stuff and lose belief in the narrative!

    But it's just weird\depressing how folks--certainly intelligent--can stare something in the face and then just spew out nonsense.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews.
     
    This, of course, is exactly what the graph shows--it shows genetic distance and clumping. The interesting thing is that the clumping between sub-Saharan Africans and Jews (or Europeans or Chinese) is *complete*. There is no overlap. If that isn't "race" ... then the word has no meaning. (It's essentially disproof of the "race is only skin deep" notion.)

    Then this:

    Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA).
     
    Well no. The chart is about massive numbers of genes, and hence ancestry and race. It in fact says almost nothing interesting about individuals genes. Something like say an allele to allow adult lactose tolerance could develop somewhere else and end up spreading completely through some other population that was engaged in herding with just some very minimal genetic contact and you'd still have these discrete genetic "clumps". (Maybe we can replace race with "clump" or "cluster".)

    Then:


    HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.
     
    Well sure. It's one chart. It says nothing about what traits these various "clusters" have--says nothing about IQ, personality traits, disease resistance ... anything. All that stuff one has to figure out with more data. But it does tell you that the clusters vary by large numbers of genes and are in fact "clusters" with different genetic profiles. In other words, it shows that there *could* be variation between these clusters in genes with real world impact. What those are and their effects and why they evolved are all topics of HBD discussion.

    This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews.

    Notice the scarequotes around “race” – us sophisticated fellows know that nothing as laughable as “race” even exists in the first place. Shaquille O’Neal and Woody Allen are EXACTLY THE SAME. You can take your pseudoscience Nazi hatefacts graphs and shove them. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

  128. @Triumph104

    Studies from the beginning of the 20th century have sometimes been cited as contradicting high IQ among Ashkenazi Jews. A 2006 paper stated that this is "a widely cited misrepresentation by Leon Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of IQ tests (Seligman, 1992)." Both Kamin and Gould are Jews. Also other Jews have considered the issue sensitive. Richard Herrnstein, one of the authors of the The Bell Curve, wanted to exclude the paragraphs on Jewish IQ.
     
    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jews_and_intelligence

    Regardless of how Kamin mischaracterized Goddard’s work (and I can totally believe that he did, just as Gould mischaracterized Morton’s work), I can also believe that there was an increase in IQ in American Jews, just as there was a considerable increase in height in their American born offspring (and just as the height of Japanese rose in the post-WWII era). Many Jews in E. Europe (the ones most likely to immigrate) lived in unimaginable (by American standards) abject poverty and would have suffered from malnutrition that would have affected their IQ (as well as their stature) and were also completely without (secular) education. They were like seedlings who flourished when transplanted from a desert to a tropical paradise.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    The Jewish quotas on college admissions got rolling in the very early 20th century, around 1900. So I think it was recognized early on that they were at the very least committed to education, and likely pretty smart.
  129. @Triumph104

    Studies from the beginning of the 20th century have sometimes been cited as contradicting high IQ among Ashkenazi Jews. A 2006 paper stated that this is "a widely cited misrepresentation by Leon Kamin (Kamin, 1974) of a paper by Henry Goddard (Goddard, 1917). Goddard gave IQ tests to people suspected of being retarded, and he found that the tests identified retarded Jews as well as retarded people of other groups. Kamin reported, instead, that Jews had low IQs, and this erroneous report was picked up by many authors including Stephen Jay Gould, who used it as evidence of the unreliability of IQ tests (Seligman, 1992)." Both Kamin and Gould are Jews. Also other Jews have considered the issue sensitive. Richard Herrnstein, one of the authors of the The Bell Curve, wanted to exclude the paragraphs on Jewish IQ.
     
    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jews_and_intelligence

    The studies were probably performed on Yiddish and German speaking immigrants barely off the boat. My oldest Jewish ancestors were two brothers who came in the 1840’s and by the 1850’s were prosperous businessmen with many children and owners of a hoop skirt factory in upstate New York which failed after about a decade.

    My distant grandfather settled in the rural Midwest running a store, and went to the nearest city many weekends to interact with fellow Jews and find mates for his kids. They were the only Jewish family in town, and the small town newspaper seemed to be pretty pleased they were there and ran some admiring articles some distant cousin of mine helpfully dug up.

    His brother stayed in the midwest for just a few years but then moved to rural Eastern Washington with his wife and 10+ children in the 1860’s. He and his wife lived to be extremely old, and his children seem to have all married local Christians, resulting in all sorts of random people in Eastern Washington having a very Jewish last name but minimal Jewish ancestry.

    • Replies: @FKA Max

    The studies were probably performed on Yiddish and German speaking immigrants barely off the boat.
     

    Audrey Shuey [16] administered the American Council Psychological Examination to freshman students entering Washington Square College, New York in 1935-37 to 2,985 students as follows: 2,250 as Jewish, 399 as Catholics, 336 as Protestants were positively identified.Overall the groups ranked in order: Protestant, Jewish and Catholic with the Protestant average superior to the Jewish on all tests except one and the Jewish average superior to the Catholic on all tests. When foreign-born students and students of foreign-born parents were eliminated from the tests, the results were substantially the same. White Protestants were generally of Northern European extraction, while Catholics of Southern European, Central European or Irish extractionand Jews of Eastern European extraction.
     

    p. 2 https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf

    16. A.M. Shuey, "Differences in Performance of Jewish and Non-Jewish Students on the American Council Psychological Examination," Journal of Social Psychology, vol.15, 1942, pp.221-243.

  130. @utu
    Goddard at Ellis Island - Intelligence Classification of Immigrants of Different Nationalities (1917)

    Carl Brigham (1923) - "our figures ... would rather tend to disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent... "

    Mr. Sailer I have answered you question in com #88. It’s still awaiting moderation.

  131. @Lot
    The studies were probably performed on Yiddish and German speaking immigrants barely off the boat. My oldest Jewish ancestors were two brothers who came in the 1840's and by the 1850's were prosperous businessmen with many children and owners of a hoop skirt factory in upstate New York which failed after about a decade.

    My distant grandfather settled in the rural Midwest running a store, and went to the nearest city many weekends to interact with fellow Jews and find mates for his kids. They were the only Jewish family in town, and the small town newspaper seemed to be pretty pleased they were there and ran some admiring articles some distant cousin of mine helpfully dug up.

    His brother stayed in the midwest for just a few years but then moved to rural Eastern Washington with his wife and 10+ children in the 1860's. He and his wife lived to be extremely old, and his children seem to have all married local Christians, resulting in all sorts of random people in Eastern Washington having a very Jewish last name but minimal Jewish ancestry.

    The studies were probably performed on Yiddish and German speaking immigrants barely off the boat.

    Audrey Shuey [16] administered the American Council Psychological Examination to freshman students entering Washington Square College, New York in 1935-37 to 2,985 students as follows: 2,250 as Jewish, 399 as Catholics, 336 as Protestants were positively identified.Overall the groups ranked in order: Protestant, Jewish and Catholic with the Protestant average superior to the Jewish on all tests except one and the Jewish average superior to the Catholic on all tests. When foreign-born students and students of foreign-born parents were eliminated from the tests, the results were substantially the same. White Protestants were generally of Northern European extraction, while Catholics of Southern European, Central European or Irish extractionand Jews of Eastern European extraction.

    p. 2 https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf

    16. A.M. Shuey, “Differences in Performance of Jewish and Non-Jewish Students on the American Council Psychological Examination,” Journal of Social Psychology, vol.15, 1942, pp.221-243.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Tests of college students tell us nothing about population averages unless you want to posit early NYU contained random samples of each group.

    p. 2 https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf
     
    Is there a reason why you're citing an angry bigot's online screed when there are plenty of detailed and scholarly reviews of Jewish intelligence questions? Including one by frequent commenter gcochran ?

    The best evidence for IQ for large population groups like race and ethnicity are mandatory standardized tests that (1) are given at a young enough age school drop-outs do not bias the results (2) include private school students or are in areas with few private schools (3) do not have a high rate of "n/a" and "refused" on the race and ethnicity questions.

    Few tests like this exist, but they are the best we have and they should be the primary source of anyone who wants to talk about the issue.

    The golden age of IQ testing and data of this sort was the 1950's, when the Cold War briefly made the USA get more serious and less wishy-washy about mass education.

  132. @Kyle
    Humans and Hyenas are the only animals known to kill just for the thrill of it.

    Dogs and cats kill for fun too, as do countless other predators.

  133. @Lucas McCrudy
    Assuming Mr. Sailer's theory is correct, then our country -and many others in the West- are being subjected (among other atrocities) to irreparable damage by a deluge of largely low-IQ Third Worlders because a cadre of "Jewish intellectuals" suffer from some unfounded paranoia about Gentiles with "torches and pitchforks" coming for them in the night. Have these "intellectuals" ever contemplated what kind of backlash might potentially develop if/when irrefutable DNA evidence showing the reality of biologically-based group differences in IQ is revealed, and as an outgrowth, the Gentile masses then realize the disproportionate role Jews played in suppressing this reality to the immense detriment of the West?

    That would never happen. White people are too pussy. Look at the polling numbers. In agregate white people would rather vote for a neoconservative than vote for a populist racist. They’re so altruistic that they’d scarface themselves before they offended a pitiful substandard person.

  134. @Deen
    What's wrong with Sephardi Jews? One of them was Prime Minister of the UK in the 19th century. Many others have won Nobel prizes.

    Nothing, but when people refer to Jews being of above average IQ they mean Ashkenazi Jews. There are no statistics showing Sephardim to be above average. There is no Sephardi Einstein. However, “Sephardi” is a very broad category. It is used to refer not only to the Ladino speaking Jews who left Spain (from those that I know, they are a pretty bright group) but also all the other non-Ashkenazi Jews who ended up in Israel and who never lived in Spain. Some of these groups (e.g. the Yemenite Jews) were pretty backward fellows, reflecting the backward place that they ended up in and are perhaps not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

  135. @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    Jews are a big factor in the political correctness orthodoxy but they wouldn’t have been able to get very far without their partners in crime: Post-Millennial Puritan type Northwest Europeans. Jewish “zionism for me but cosmopolitanism for thee” agitation wouldn’t take them very far in, say, China or South Korea, let alone India or Iran. They require collaborators among the host population.

    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    Everyone I know back home in Australia is a WASP and none would consider it moral to favor your own kind before others.

    It took me a long time into my conversion to Judaism to take seriously the constant question -- "But is it good for the Jews?"
  136. @Jack D
    The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it's true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it's not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka's kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

    Steve's thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam's Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the "all men are created equal" thing a little too literally - they didn't think it up. Now, that's not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern "Jewish" thinking is not very "Jewish" - people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from "liberal" Jewish/Democrat positions.

    In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews.

    Who do the half-Jewish Americans tend to identify with? With which parent is their behavior most closely aligned?

    • Replies: @Triumph104
    Based on well-known people that I have observed in the US, I would say that children with only one Jewish parent tend to either have no religion or are Christian. Being Jewish is a distant third option.

    Kids who practice Judaism and have a Jewish mother tend to have a father who will tag along to synagogue but not convert, like Michael J. Fox and Rod Carew. Practicing Jewish kids with only a Jewish father tend to have mothers who don't have anything to do religion at all. Alice Walker's daughter Rebecca is Jewish because Alice wasn't motherly and didn't care. Rebecca would rotate living with her parents every two years. Alice in San Francisco and her father in the North Bronx.
    Tiger Mom Amy Chua made a deal with her husband that the kids could be raised Jewish if he let her have total control over their education and activities.

    Rio Swimmers: Anthony Ervin (mother) does not practice Judaism. He has been on spiritual quest so probably New Age. Katie Ledecky (paternal grandmother/father) is a devout Catholic.
  137. @Deen
    "speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success"

    If you think "ethnic nepotism" can explain the wild success of Jews in so many fields, you must be mentally ill. No other term covers it.

    I'm aware that the average non-Jew has much higher moral and ethnical codes than a Jew - just look at any or all of recent presidential candidates - but if it was so easy to be so successful, everyone would do it (duh).

    It's odd that white supremacists say that whites are more successful than blacks because whites are smarter, but then they say that Jews are more successful than other whites because they're crooked. Interesting double standard.

    Kind of a win-win for non-Jewish, white supremacist, whites there.

    A presedential candidate is 1 out of 300 million people, That is less than statistically significant. White people are absolutely more ethical. Even it’s because we’re more pussy and more afraid of confrontation, we treat people fairly. I don’t have any stats to back that up, only public school anecdotes. Every other ethnicity seems OK with standing on someone else’s shoulders to reach a little higher, and when it comes down to it it isn’t their problem. Look at white religion. Original sin, turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherent the earth, confession, self flagellation. We care about corruption and nepotism, those things are shameful. It’s considered shameful to live in the family home and take up the family business, that is different than any other culture.

    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    To back up your assertion, please note that the high-trust countries are WASP creations. WASPs make the best countries.
    Also, see this analysis: https://inductivist.blogspot.com/2006/12/i-wrote-in-recent-post-that-i-was.html
  138. @RonaldB
    Huh?

    The fact that early progressives had the exact opposite position of modern progressives is explained by the fact they share the same genes?

    I'm afraid you'll have to give me some more logic for that one.

    I also think the concept that different Jewish groups are similar to each other, regardless of their differences, is also a bit fuzzy without some additional details. Besides which, different groups of Jews, like Sephardi and Ashkenazi, also have different genetic makeups.

    Sorry, that wasn’t very clear. Those two things weren’t meant to be logically connected. The point was that the modern progressive’s worldview is not a product of their sensibilities.

    Early progressives believed that we could create a society without a class of poor people that was exploited and suffered great hardship. They believed eugenics would help in that, and eugenics hadn’t been demonised. Modern progressives also want to create such a society. However, they believe eugenics is pseudoscience, hatred, a sinful impulse born of elitist disdain. These are not contradictory in terms of basic sensibilities.

    The different Jewish groups I was thinking of were Ashkenazi led intellectual movements like Freudianism and Boasian anthropology. There is a sort of similarity to a lot of these movements such that if you read about them without knowing they were Jewish you could predict they were. The charismatic leaders, the way they invent terminology, the way they nurture acolytes, the way they purge dissenters, the way they attack competing views as immoral (I haven’t thought about his for a while so I am struggling to be more precise). Similarly if we see Western European morality movements sharing characteristics we needn’t take this as evidence that one is an outgrowth of the other. I hope that makes sense.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Thanks for your explanation, Harold. I appreciate your effort in clarifying your hypothesis.
  139. @matt
    If Raven's scores in the Netherlands jumped 20 points or 1.33 SDs between 1952 and 1982, as it did, then if h^2 = .7, the environmental shift would have to be 2.43 SDs, under the assumptions you're using. Do the math.

    So by your argument, the Flynn Effect in holland couldn't be environmental. But it was.

    So you’re going to bring up the Flynn Effect argument here?

    If you’re going to do that, then just shift my point from being about IQ to being, more precisely, about g. You’d have to show that the change in scores on the Raven reflect changes in g, and there’s no reason to believe that. On the more stable items of IQ testing, virtually nothing has shifted in performance over the decades.

    And the obvious point remains: no matter how the performance on any measure of IQ is conducted, African-Americans score 1 SD lower than whites. They may increase their scores along with whites through Flynn effects, but they are always lagging almost exactly 1 SD behind. It’s quite a miracle if they are actually having their scores depressed relative to whites by some environmental factor akin to the Flynn effect itself. The Flynn Effect has clearly topped out in many western countries. Why haven’t AAs caught up?

    And, again, the Flynn Effect shows up only in certain measures of IQ. On the more stable measures, AAs are exactly where they have always been. For example, on the SAT, blacks are going nowhere with their scores, and haven’t been for decades — perhaps a small decline if anything. This is true despite massive improvements in the attitudes toward AAs in the US over the decades, the existence of aggressive Affirmative Action, etc.

    Why should this be so? Why are those differences so intractable that apparently huge improvements in social environment have zero impact on the SAT?

    Well, I’ve got an explanation that works perfectly — it’s the genes that make it so.

    What would be your explanation? I think it reduces to a belief in magic.

    • Replies: @matt
    g has nothing to do with it. The way you got the 1.83 SDs figure is from the magnitude of the score difference and the heritability. It's got nothing to do with the profile of the difference. The same applies to the Flynn Effect. Given a difference between two consecutive generations of X SDs, and heritability of h^2, the required environmental difference between the two generations must be X/sqrt(1-h^2), using the equation you were using. The equation works the same way whether the Flynn Effect or the black-white difference is "on g" or not.

    With regard to your other point:
    (1) Whether the black and white IQ-relevant environments have actually become similar overall recently is not a question that can be answered a priori. Appeals to "improved attitudes" and "Affirmative Action" are irrelevant unless it can be shown that those sorts of things actually do make a difference with respect to IQ. You yourself said that the "environment" isn't necessarily what we think of as "environment", and no doubt includes a lot of random noise.

    (2) There is considerable debate about whether and how much black IQs have converged with white IQs.
  140. @matt
    By the way, you miscalculated. If h^2 =.7, then the average environmental difference should be 1.83 SDs, not 1.89 SDs. 1/sqrt(.3) = 1.83.

    I mistranscribed. Not even sure how I would get 1.89 by calculation.

    The difference of course affects none of my argument. After rounding, even the 3% figure remains correct.

  141. @Steve Sailer
    Good job of slipping a hategraph into The Forward!

    http://forward.com/news/national/347207/how-the-alt-right-manipulates-the-data-to-prove-the-existence-of-race/

    I wrote the following comment to that article:

    “she seems particularly consumed by the inbreeding habits of Ashkenazi Jews”

    I just checked hbdchick’s site and she has 25 posts tagged “Ashkenazi Jews” out of the hundreds she has written.

    So I wouldn’t really describe that being “consumed” – at least not any more so than this very publication: http://forward.com/culture/140894/may-you-live-until-120-dna-uncovers-secrets-to-je/

    It was removed. Sad!

  142. matt says:
    @candid_observer
    So you're going to bring up the Flynn Effect argument here?

    If you're going to do that, then just shift my point from being about IQ to being, more precisely, about g. You'd have to show that the change in scores on the Raven reflect changes in g, and there's no reason to believe that. On the more stable items of IQ testing, virtually nothing has shifted in performance over the decades.

    And the obvious point remains: no matter how the performance on any measure of IQ is conducted, African-Americans score 1 SD lower than whites. They may increase their scores along with whites through Flynn effects, but they are always lagging almost exactly 1 SD behind. It's quite a miracle if they are actually having their scores depressed relative to whites by some environmental factor akin to the Flynn effect itself. The Flynn Effect has clearly topped out in many western countries. Why haven't AAs caught up?

    And, again, the Flynn Effect shows up only in certain measures of IQ. On the more stable measures, AAs are exactly where they have always been. For example, on the SAT, blacks are going nowhere with their scores, and haven't been for decades -- perhaps a small decline if anything. This is true despite massive improvements in the attitudes toward AAs in the US over the decades, the existence of aggressive Affirmative Action, etc.

    Why should this be so? Why are those differences so intractable that apparently huge improvements in social environment have zero impact on the SAT?

    Well, I've got an explanation that works perfectly -- it's the genes that make it so.

    What would be your explanation? I think it reduces to a belief in magic.

    g has nothing to do with it. The way you got the 1.83 SDs figure is from the magnitude of the score difference and the heritability. It’s got nothing to do with the profile of the difference. The same applies to the Flynn Effect. Given a difference between two consecutive generations of X SDs, and heritability of h^2, the required environmental difference between the two generations must be X/sqrt(1-h^2), using the equation you were using. The equation works the same way whether the Flynn Effect or the black-white difference is “on g” or not.

    With regard to your other point:
    (1) Whether the black and white IQ-relevant environments have actually become similar overall recently is not a question that can be answered a priori. Appeals to “improved attitudes” and “Affirmative Action” are irrelevant unless it can be shown that those sorts of things actually do make a difference with respect to IQ. You yourself said that the “environment” isn’t necessarily what we think of as “environment”, and no doubt includes a lot of random noise.

    (2) There is considerable debate about whether and how much black IQs have converged with white IQs.

    • Replies: @anon
    (1) Whether the black and white IQ-relevant environments have actually become similar overall recently is not a question that can be answered a priori.

    Now you're just being ridiculous. Even when black kids and white kids go to the exact same schools, blacks tend to do worse.

    You don't think it's possible to say that, a priori, people living in the exact same neighborhoods have a more similar environment than they had back when black people were chronically malnourished and forced to live in completely separate areas?
    , @candid_observer
    Now your argument is just confused.

    If indeed g is a stable quantity in groups across generations, and is not affected by the changes in the environment that do affect certain measures of IQ, those facts of course have an impact on the environmental hypothesis.

    Insofar as one removes potential environmental explanations, which the stability of g across time would entail, the ability to explain the differences between blacks and whites becomes more constrained. Even if it becomes possible to explain differences on performance on the Raven's in the order of a SD or more in terms of environment, those same explanations do not apply to g -- or at least there's no reason to believe so. The assumed 1.83 SD difference in environment would have to come down to things that haven't broadly changed across time within cultures, even if those things might work for items on the Raven's.

    We are left with the initial conundrum.

    What might be the things so vastly different in the environment of blacks and whites? Certainly, the standard SES factors can't do the trick, because they just don't have that impact -- witness the fact that children of blacks who make 100K or above, and typically go to very good schools and live in upper middle class communities, do no better on the SAT than children of whites who live at the poverty level, with the typical schools and communities one would expect for such down-and-out people.

    And of course you can dismiss the fact that Affirmative Action and improved attitudes don't make a difference with regard to IQ or g, but what are you left with as a potential explanation? This removes still further potential environmental accounts.

    You've got nothing that holds up to scrutiny; you've only got a big bag of wishful thinking.

  143. @(((Owen)))
    If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and 'alt-'right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn't need to be so worried. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It's only natural to take basic precautions.

    Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

    It’s more accurate to say that Christians in the US want to marry Jews, not gas them, based on the intermarriage rates.

  144. @AnotherDad

    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend’s cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.
     
    Ready for what? ... A Trump presidency? He's going to round all the Jews up in the railroad stations for transport to the camps--including his grandchildren?

    I'll be near the head of the line, pointing out the damage to Western civilization from Jewish political ideologies, including the stuff that's so over the top it's shooting themselves in the foot--like pushing multiculturalism and "tolerance" all the way to "let's welcome muslims". But this just seems like flat out loony tunes territory.

    They do seem a little twitchy. A sheltered childhood might influence that.

  145. @Jack D
    Regardless of how Kamin mischaracterized Goddard's work (and I can totally believe that he did, just as Gould mischaracterized Morton's work), I can also believe that there was an increase in IQ in American Jews, just as there was a considerable increase in height in their American born offspring (and just as the height of Japanese rose in the post-WWII era). Many Jews in E. Europe (the ones most likely to immigrate) lived in unimaginable (by American standards) abject poverty and would have suffered from malnutrition that would have affected their IQ (as well as their stature) and were also completely without (secular) education. They were like seedlings who flourished when transplanted from a desert to a tropical paradise.

    The Jewish quotas on college admissions got rolling in the very early 20th century, around 1900. So I think it was recognized early on that they were at the very least committed to education, and likely pretty smart.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Harvard Jewish quota was imposed in 1922, not 1900. At that point, Jewish enrollment had tripled from 7% in 1900 to 22% in '21. Admission in those days was by test ranking only.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Quotas might have been about the prevalence anarchists and communists. That was also the motavation of the immigration restriction act.
  146. @Hippopotamusdrome


    IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing.

     

    Northwest Europeans score higher on IQ tests, therefore IQ is in invalid concept. Ok. The logic is sound. Now, if someone mada a test where all ethnics scored equally, then it would be a valid concept.

    Yeah isn’t that called common core or something?

  147. “This view is actually eye-rollingly dumb, as well as morally deplorable. Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.”

    Nothing wrong with individuals or genetic groups having high IQ’s. It’s what they do with it that can be a problem.

  148. The 1000 genomes project needs an Ashkenazi sample so we can finally know whether they are really among the most genetically intelligent populations on earth.

  149. @utu
    You misunderstood me. The issue is that Jews and some Europeans used to score low and they score high. Explain this.

    Probably many did not speak English.

  150. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend’s cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.
     
    Ready for what? ... A Trump presidency? He's going to round all the Jews up in the railroad stations for transport to the camps--including his grandchildren?

    I'll be near the head of the line, pointing out the damage to Western civilization from Jewish political ideologies, including the stuff that's so over the top it's shooting themselves in the foot--like pushing multiculturalism and "tolerance" all the way to "let's welcome muslims". But this just seems like flat out loony tunes territory.

    You have to wonder how much of it is genuine neurosis, and how much is just LARPing.

    It’s like those hipsters that go through those zombie apocalypse training things. Sometimes it’s fun to pretend that you’re going to have to defend your family against all odds.

    Some people, it seems, also only feel truly important when they think that everyone’s out to get them. If they thought that the whole world was just ignoring them, that might make them feel less “chosen”.

    It’s also possible that they think that coming to a country where they thrive better than anyone else, and still turning around and calling the people who made that possible a bunch of sadistic Nazi wannabes is just a great way to endear themselves to them. You never know, right?

  151. It’s probably worth pointing out that, even in places and times in which Jews were actively hated and stereotyped, nobody ever stereotyped them as being stupid, did they?

  152. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @matt
    g has nothing to do with it. The way you got the 1.83 SDs figure is from the magnitude of the score difference and the heritability. It's got nothing to do with the profile of the difference. The same applies to the Flynn Effect. Given a difference between two consecutive generations of X SDs, and heritability of h^2, the required environmental difference between the two generations must be X/sqrt(1-h^2), using the equation you were using. The equation works the same way whether the Flynn Effect or the black-white difference is "on g" or not.

    With regard to your other point:
    (1) Whether the black and white IQ-relevant environments have actually become similar overall recently is not a question that can be answered a priori. Appeals to "improved attitudes" and "Affirmative Action" are irrelevant unless it can be shown that those sorts of things actually do make a difference with respect to IQ. You yourself said that the "environment" isn't necessarily what we think of as "environment", and no doubt includes a lot of random noise.

    (2) There is considerable debate about whether and how much black IQs have converged with white IQs.

    (1) Whether the black and white IQ-relevant environments have actually become similar overall recently is not a question that can be answered a priori.

    Now you’re just being ridiculous. Even when black kids and white kids go to the exact same schools, blacks tend to do worse.

    You don’t think it’s possible to say that, a priori, people living in the exact same neighborhoods have a more similar environment than they had back when black people were chronically malnourished and forced to live in completely separate areas?

    • Replies: @matt
    Variables like where someone goes to school don't account for much of the IQ variance in the white population, so I don't know why they would have much of an impact on the difference between whites and blacks.

    I do think it's likely that the relatively severe deprivation some blacks in the Deep South faced early in the 20th century contributed to the race difference, and indeed the race difference narrowed somewhat as that deprivation was alleviated, iirc. But we're talking about the last 40 years or so. For what it's worth, Dickens and Flynn think the race gap has closed about 5 points over that period.
  153. @Steve Johnson
    "This view is actually eye-rollingly dumb, as well as morally deplorable. Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool."

    The important question when it comes to Jews isn't about differences in intelligence - it's the intellectual / behavioral differences other than just raw brainpower.

    As an analogy, if you ignored the 15 point IQ gap the remaining cognitive differences between black people and white people are still huge - and probably more important than the difference in IQ.

    The important question when it comes to Jews isn’t about differences in intelligence – it’s the intellectual / behavioral differences other than just raw brainpower.

    Yes. There are a lot of smart gentiles out there. But Northern Europeans might not skew toward high verbal intelligence as heavily as Jews do.

    The fact that Jews are concentrated in the most important cities (New York, Los Angeles) has a lot to do with it, as well. Ethnic networking is a lot more effective when a) you’re all in the same place and b) that place is where the movers and shakers are.

    As Steve has mentioned in the past, there’s an awful lot of untapped white gentile talent in the flyover states.

  154. @FKA Max

    The studies were probably performed on Yiddish and German speaking immigrants barely off the boat.
     

    Audrey Shuey [16] administered the American Council Psychological Examination to freshman students entering Washington Square College, New York in 1935-37 to 2,985 students as follows: 2,250 as Jewish, 399 as Catholics, 336 as Protestants were positively identified.Overall the groups ranked in order: Protestant, Jewish and Catholic with the Protestant average superior to the Jewish on all tests except one and the Jewish average superior to the Catholic on all tests. When foreign-born students and students of foreign-born parents were eliminated from the tests, the results were substantially the same. White Protestants were generally of Northern European extraction, while Catholics of Southern European, Central European or Irish extractionand Jews of Eastern European extraction.
     

    p. 2 https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf

    16. A.M. Shuey, "Differences in Performance of Jewish and Non-Jewish Students on the American Council Psychological Examination," Journal of Social Psychology, vol.15, 1942, pp.221-243.

    Tests of college students tell us nothing about population averages unless you want to posit early NYU contained random samples of each group.

    p. 2 https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf

    Is there a reason why you’re citing an angry bigot’s online screed when there are plenty of detailed and scholarly reviews of Jewish intelligence questions? Including one by frequent commenter gcochran ?

    The best evidence for IQ for large population groups like race and ethnicity are mandatory standardized tests that (1) are given at a young enough age school drop-outs do not bias the results (2) include private school students or are in areas with few private schools (3) do not have a high rate of “n/a” and “refused” on the race and ethnicity questions.

    Few tests like this exist, but they are the best we have and they should be the primary source of anyone who wants to talk about the issue.

    The golden age of IQ testing and data of this sort was the 1950’s, when the Cold War briefly made the USA get more serious and less wishy-washy about mass education.

  155. @Deen
    "speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success"

    If you think "ethnic nepotism" can explain the wild success of Jews in so many fields, you must be mentally ill. No other term covers it.

    I'm aware that the average non-Jew has much higher moral and ethnical codes than a Jew - just look at any or all of recent presidential candidates - but if it was so easy to be so successful, everyone would do it (duh).

    It's odd that white supremacists say that whites are more successful than blacks because whites are smarter, but then they say that Jews are more successful than other whites because they're crooked. Interesting double standard.

    Kind of a win-win for non-Jewish, white supremacist, whites there.

    The problem for white supremacists is that there are a lot of smart gentile whites in the United States, but they’re spread out all over the place. They don’t have any sense of tribal identity.

    If I wanted to get a bunch of smart gentile whites together to promote white gentile interests, what would I do? Start an anti-Semitic Mensa?

    (Theoretically, an organization devoted to white gentile interests need not be explicitly anti-Semitic. In practice, it would be labeled as such and denounced by the SPLCs of the world.)

  156. What does it mean that IQ is 0.7 hereditary? Say we had N pairs (A,B) of identical twins separated at birth. The IQ(A) and IQ(B) were obtained from tests. Then N differences ∆= IQ(A)-IQ(B) were calculated. ∆ is a new random variable that depends on environment. If order of A and B within pairs is randomized then the mean value of ∆ is zero. What is the value of standard deviation SD(∆)? How is it related to 0.3? Does it mean that environment cannot depress or enhance IQ by more then 30% (in 66% cases as we talking about 1-sigma)? No, I do not think so.

    But what if we had twins in extremal environments (in Minnesota they did not have it)? Say one twin lives in abject poverty with drug addict stupid parents and other with rich very intelligent mentally healthy ideal family? How big difference in IQ can we generate between such twins? How big is ∆?

    The quality of environment cannot be quantified. Minnesota guys could not quantify it either. All they had was the standard deviation SD(∆). For this reason I am very skeptical that they could deduce that 0.7 number. If their twins were from more extreme environments then they would conclude that heredity is smaller than 0.7. Or if all families that adopted the twins were pretty similar than SD(∆) would be small and they would conclude that heredity is say 0.9.

    Basically I doubt the validity of Minnesota study. I read in Science when it came out in 1990s but now I do not remember the details.

  157. @Boomstick
    The Jewish quotas on college admissions got rolling in the very early 20th century, around 1900. So I think it was recognized early on that they were at the very least committed to education, and likely pretty smart.

    The Harvard Jewish quota was imposed in 1922, not 1900. At that point, Jewish enrollment had tripled from 7% in 1900 to 22% in ’21. Admission in those days was by test ranking only.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    The pressure for quotas had been building for a while, and finally resulted in quotas as several elite schools in the early 20's.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-jewish-quotas-began/

    During the 1910’s there was increasing pressure in certain Eastern colleges to control the Jewish influx. The Jewish “takeover” of City College, whose student body was by then over 80 per cent Jewish, served as a warning.
    ...
    From the turn of the century there were colleges that limited their Jewish enrollment. However, beginning around 1920 some of the Eastern colleges that had previously been open to Jews adopted policies designed to reduce their Jewish enrollment.
     
    In any event the academic talent of Jews was readily apparent in the very early 20th century while the great wave of immigration was still cresting.
  158. matt says:
    @anon
    (1) Whether the black and white IQ-relevant environments have actually become similar overall recently is not a question that can be answered a priori.

    Now you're just being ridiculous. Even when black kids and white kids go to the exact same schools, blacks tend to do worse.

    You don't think it's possible to say that, a priori, people living in the exact same neighborhoods have a more similar environment than they had back when black people were chronically malnourished and forced to live in completely separate areas?

    Variables like where someone goes to school don’t account for much of the IQ variance in the white population, so I don’t know why they would have much of an impact on the difference between whites and blacks.

    I do think it’s likely that the relatively severe deprivation some blacks in the Deep South faced early in the 20th century contributed to the race difference, and indeed the race difference narrowed somewhat as that deprivation was alleviated, iirc. But we’re talking about the last 40 years or so. For what it’s worth, Dickens and Flynn think the race gap has closed about 5 points over that period.

    • Replies: @anon
    Variables like where someone goes to school don’t account for much of the IQ variance in the white population, so I don’t know why they would have much of an impact on the difference between whites and blacks.

    Of course not, because environment really doesn't have much to do with IQ. That's the whole point.

    But the obvious fact remains that the environments of blacks and whites HAVE gotten a lot more similar recently, which you said was a claim we couldn't make.
  159. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “The rage by intellectuals against scientific discussion of black-white IQ differences was largely an ‘outpost defense’ of what intellectuals really cared about, which was preventing discussion of gentile-Jewish IQ differences.”

    Partly true. I suspect Richwine was blacklisted not only for noticing lower IQ among Hispanics but higher IQ among Jews.

    Otoh, New Republic ran a Steven Pinker piece on how Ashkenazi Jews might have higher intelligence, and that didn’t set off a firestorm.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

    To be sure, there is the aspect of who/whom. Pinker is a Jewish Liberal. Murray is a white conservative. It is like blacks can write about black crime. Whites better not.

    Murray did write a piece about higher Jewish intelligence in Commentary, and that didn’t cause any trouble.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jewish-genius/

    So, why such sensitivity about black IQ?

    1. Blacks are very vocal, and TNR got scared.

    2. Jews rely on ‘white guilt’ to control white gentile politics, and it works best if ALL BLACK PROBLEMS are traced back to slavery and Jim Crow, not to biology. If bio-diversity becomes accepted, then ‘white guilt’ will diminish because whites can say black failure is due to genetics, not white ‘sins’.

    3. The cult of Martin L King and other black-philia make it bad form to speak of any black inferiority. Reverence is called for. So, Liberals act like Obama is the smartest person in the room. Conservatives act like Thomas Sowell is the smartest man that ever lived.

    4. Liberal condescension and affirmative action mentality call for make-believe about black genius. Mary Lefkowicz wrote in NOT OUT OF AFRICA that many of her peers know Afrocentrism is bunk but pretend otherwise because they feel blacks need anything(even myths) to boost their self-esteem.

    • Replies: @utu
    Murray did write a piece about higher Jewish intelligence in Commentary, and that didn’t cause any trouble.

    So, why such sensitivity about black IQ?
    ________
    Try to write an article the Jews have lower IQ and see what will happen.
  160. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @matt
    Variables like where someone goes to school don't account for much of the IQ variance in the white population, so I don't know why they would have much of an impact on the difference between whites and blacks.

    I do think it's likely that the relatively severe deprivation some blacks in the Deep South faced early in the 20th century contributed to the race difference, and indeed the race difference narrowed somewhat as that deprivation was alleviated, iirc. But we're talking about the last 40 years or so. For what it's worth, Dickens and Flynn think the race gap has closed about 5 points over that period.

    Variables like where someone goes to school don’t account for much of the IQ variance in the white population, so I don’t know why they would have much of an impact on the difference between whites and blacks.

    Of course not, because environment really doesn’t have much to do with IQ. That’s the whole point.

    But the obvious fact remains that the environments of blacks and whites HAVE gotten a lot more similar recently, which you said was a claim we couldn’t make.

    • Replies: @matt

    But the obvious fact remains that the environments of blacks and whites HAVE gotten a lot more similar recently, which you said was a claim we couldn’t make.
     
    I said we couldn't make that claim a priori. But if Dickens and Flynn are right, then we can make it a posteriori.
  161. @matt
    g has nothing to do with it. The way you got the 1.83 SDs figure is from the magnitude of the score difference and the heritability. It's got nothing to do with the profile of the difference. The same applies to the Flynn Effect. Given a difference between two consecutive generations of X SDs, and heritability of h^2, the required environmental difference between the two generations must be X/sqrt(1-h^2), using the equation you were using. The equation works the same way whether the Flynn Effect or the black-white difference is "on g" or not.

    With regard to your other point:
    (1) Whether the black and white IQ-relevant environments have actually become similar overall recently is not a question that can be answered a priori. Appeals to "improved attitudes" and "Affirmative Action" are irrelevant unless it can be shown that those sorts of things actually do make a difference with respect to IQ. You yourself said that the "environment" isn't necessarily what we think of as "environment", and no doubt includes a lot of random noise.

    (2) There is considerable debate about whether and how much black IQs have converged with white IQs.

    Now your argument is just confused.

    If indeed g is a stable quantity in groups across generations, and is not affected by the changes in the environment that do affect certain measures of IQ, those facts of course have an impact on the environmental hypothesis.

    Insofar as one removes potential environmental explanations, which the stability of g across time would entail, the ability to explain the differences between blacks and whites becomes more constrained. Even if it becomes possible to explain differences on performance on the Raven’s in the order of a SD or more in terms of environment, those same explanations do not apply to g — or at least there’s no reason to believe so. The assumed 1.83 SD difference in environment would have to come down to things that haven’t broadly changed across time within cultures, even if those things might work for items on the Raven’s.

    We are left with the initial conundrum.

    What might be the things so vastly different in the environment of blacks and whites? Certainly, the standard SES factors can’t do the trick, because they just don’t have that impact — witness the fact that children of blacks who make 100K or above, and typically go to very good schools and live in upper middle class communities, do no better on the SAT than children of whites who live at the poverty level, with the typical schools and communities one would expect for such down-and-out people.

    And of course you can dismiss the fact that Affirmative Action and improved attitudes don’t make a difference with regard to IQ or g, but what are you left with as a potential explanation? This removes still further potential environmental accounts.

    You’ve got nothing that holds up to scrutiny; you’ve only got a big bag of wishful thinking.

    • Replies: @matt
    see this comment. forgot to hit reply.
  162. matt says:

    I’m not arguing that the environment changed 2.43 SDs in a direction favorable to IQ in the Netherlands. I’m arguing that it’s absurd to think that it changed by that much, and yet your equation implies that it must have. Therefore your equation is garbage.

    Forget about the race issue for a second. Just focus on the Flynn Effect in Holland. Is it likely that the average Dutchman of 1982 would be in the top 1% of the environmental distribution of the Dutch of 1952, even in terms of environmental effects that don’t impact g? Is it likely that some mysterious quasi-uniform X-factor raised IQ during this period? Is it likely that the genes of the Dutch changed substantially in just 30 years? If you can’t answer “yes” to any of those questions, then something must be wrong with your math.

    By the way, if you say g has nothing to do with the Flynn Effect, that only makes the problem worse, at least if environment affects g at all (and Jensen certainly thought that things like nutrition, prenatal environment and other “biological environmental” variables do control g).

    Suppose heritability is 0.70 and just 5% of the variance is explained by environmental factors that impact g. That 5% is a part of the 30% of the variance explained by the environment overall. Now, if the Flynn Effect has nothing to do with g, then you have to remove that 5% environmental g variance from the equation that calculates the necessary environmental difference. Now instead of dividing the 1.33 SDs shift in IQ by sqrt(.30) and getting 2.43 SDs, you have to divide 1.33 SDs by sqrt(.25) and get 2.667 SDs of environmental difference between the Dutch of two consecutive generations. That’s even more absurd.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Look, while you claim that it is "absurd" that the environment changed by 2.43 SDs in the Netherlands over the decades in question with respect to the items that the Flynn Effect hit, that is of course not only not absurd, but obviously true. That's what the definitions, the facts, and the model show. I don't even know what the puzzle is here. One can easily have high heritability of a trait and great responsiveness of that trait to environments peculiar to certain eras. Height is a good example of such a trait -- in eras of poor nutrition, that nutrition had great impact on the average height of people despite the indisputable high heritability of height. Performance on the items affected by the Flynn Effect can best be understood as such a trait.

    But my point might best be understood by focusing on performance on those sorts of items that have proved impervious to secular changes, such as vocabulary, reading comprehension, analytic and logic skills, and math skills. In short, the sorts of items that constitute the SAT -- which is one reason it is very useful to focus on change -- or lack of change -- in group performance on the SAT over time. (The other reason is that it is taken at an age at which individuals have mostly matured intellectually, reducing developmental variability, and at which, unsurprisingly, heritability is toward its peak.)

    The SAT has the disadvantage that it does require some exposure and practice in the sorts of items on which it tests, and therefore is less "culture-free" than items on the Raven's. But I see that as inevitable for any test that is going to be stable across time.

    The fundamental mistake of the Raven's is likely its assumption that the supposedly "culture free" items it poses are not susceptible to improved performance by practice and/or exposure to similar, if general, concepts. The lesson to be drawn would seem to be that essentially every type of testing item is susceptible to improved performance by practice at or exposure to similar concepts. What makes vocabulary, reading comprehension, etc. stable is that the practice/exposure to those sorts of items for, say, students in high school, is already extensive, and has essentially reached a ceiling in its ability to improve performance. Those sorts of items can be expected to be good tests of basic ability to think across all eras, insofar, of course, as all students do receive the requisite exposure -- which is almost certainly true for virtually all students today in Western countries.

    And of course on these items both whites and blacks achieve very stable scores, with blacks being 1 SD behind whites.

  163. @Jack D
    The Harvard Jewish quota was imposed in 1922, not 1900. At that point, Jewish enrollment had tripled from 7% in 1900 to 22% in '21. Admission in those days was by test ranking only.

    The pressure for quotas had been building for a while, and finally resulted in quotas as several elite schools in the early 20’s.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-jewish-quotas-began/

    During the 1910’s there was increasing pressure in certain Eastern colleges to control the Jewish influx. The Jewish “takeover” of City College, whose student body was by then over 80 per cent Jewish, served as a warning.

    From the turn of the century there were colleges that limited their Jewish enrollment. However, beginning around 1920 some of the Eastern colleges that had previously been open to Jews adopted policies designed to reduce their Jewish enrollment.

    In any event the academic talent of Jews was readily apparent in the very early 20th century while the great wave of immigration was still cresting.

  164. matt says:
    @anon
    Variables like where someone goes to school don’t account for much of the IQ variance in the white population, so I don’t know why they would have much of an impact on the difference between whites and blacks.

    Of course not, because environment really doesn't have much to do with IQ. That's the whole point.

    But the obvious fact remains that the environments of blacks and whites HAVE gotten a lot more similar recently, which you said was a claim we couldn't make.

    But the obvious fact remains that the environments of blacks and whites HAVE gotten a lot more similar recently, which you said was a claim we couldn’t make.

    I said we couldn’t make that claim a priori. But if Dickens and Flynn are right, then we can make it a posteriori.

  165. @candid_observer
    Now your argument is just confused.

    If indeed g is a stable quantity in groups across generations, and is not affected by the changes in the environment that do affect certain measures of IQ, those facts of course have an impact on the environmental hypothesis.

    Insofar as one removes potential environmental explanations, which the stability of g across time would entail, the ability to explain the differences between blacks and whites becomes more constrained. Even if it becomes possible to explain differences on performance on the Raven's in the order of a SD or more in terms of environment, those same explanations do not apply to g -- or at least there's no reason to believe so. The assumed 1.83 SD difference in environment would have to come down to things that haven't broadly changed across time within cultures, even if those things might work for items on the Raven's.

    We are left with the initial conundrum.

    What might be the things so vastly different in the environment of blacks and whites? Certainly, the standard SES factors can't do the trick, because they just don't have that impact -- witness the fact that children of blacks who make 100K or above, and typically go to very good schools and live in upper middle class communities, do no better on the SAT than children of whites who live at the poverty level, with the typical schools and communities one would expect for such down-and-out people.

    And of course you can dismiss the fact that Affirmative Action and improved attitudes don't make a difference with regard to IQ or g, but what are you left with as a potential explanation? This removes still further potential environmental accounts.

    You've got nothing that holds up to scrutiny; you've only got a big bag of wishful thinking.

    see this comment. forgot to hit reply.

  166. @Anon
    "The rage by intellectuals against scientific discussion of black-white IQ differences was largely an 'outpost defense' of what intellectuals really cared about, which was preventing discussion of gentile-Jewish IQ differences."

    Partly true. I suspect Richwine was blacklisted not only for noticing lower IQ among Hispanics but higher IQ among Jews.

    Otoh, New Republic ran a Steven Pinker piece on how Ashkenazi Jews might have higher intelligence, and that didn't set off a firestorm.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

    To be sure, there is the aspect of who/whom. Pinker is a Jewish Liberal. Murray is a white conservative. It is like blacks can write about black crime. Whites better not.

    Murray did write a piece about higher Jewish intelligence in Commentary, and that didn't cause any trouble.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jewish-genius/

    So, why such sensitivity about black IQ?

    1. Blacks are very vocal, and TNR got scared.

    2. Jews rely on 'white guilt' to control white gentile politics, and it works best if ALL BLACK PROBLEMS are traced back to slavery and Jim Crow, not to biology. If bio-diversity becomes accepted, then 'white guilt' will diminish because whites can say black failure is due to genetics, not white 'sins'.

    3. The cult of Martin L King and other black-philia make it bad form to speak of any black inferiority. Reverence is called for. So, Liberals act like Obama is the smartest person in the room. Conservatives act like Thomas Sowell is the smartest man that ever lived.

    4. Liberal condescension and affirmative action mentality call for make-believe about black genius. Mary Lefkowicz wrote in NOT OUT OF AFRICA that many of her peers know Afrocentrism is bunk but pretend otherwise because they feel blacks need anything(even myths) to boost their self-esteem.

    Murray did write a piece about higher Jewish intelligence in Commentary, and that didn’t cause any trouble.

    So, why such sensitivity about black IQ?
    ________
    Try to write an article the Jews have lower IQ and see what will happen.

    • Replies: @anon
    Well, sure, but that would be a lie.
  167. @Honorary Thief

    In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews.
     
    Who do the half-Jewish Americans tend to identify with? With which parent is their behavior most closely aligned?

    Based on well-known people that I have observed in the US, I would say that children with only one Jewish parent tend to either have no religion or are Christian. Being Jewish is a distant third option.

    Kids who practice Judaism and have a Jewish mother tend to have a father who will tag along to synagogue but not convert, like Michael J. Fox and Rod Carew. Practicing Jewish kids with only a Jewish father tend to have mothers who don’t have anything to do religion at all. Alice Walker’s daughter Rebecca is Jewish because Alice wasn’t motherly and didn’t care. Rebecca would rotate living with her parents every two years. Alice in San Francisco and her father in the North Bronx.
    Tiger Mom Amy Chua made a deal with her husband that the kids could be raised Jewish if he let her have total control over their education and activities.

    Rio Swimmers: Anthony Ervin (mother) does not practice Judaism. He has been on spiritual quest so probably New Age. Katie Ledecky (paternal grandmother/father) is a devout Catholic.

  168. @utu
    Murray did write a piece about higher Jewish intelligence in Commentary, and that didn’t cause any trouble.

    So, why such sensitivity about black IQ?
    ________
    Try to write an article the Jews have lower IQ and see what will happen.

    Well, sure, but that would be a lie.

  169. @Boomstick
    The Jewish quotas on college admissions got rolling in the very early 20th century, around 1900. So I think it was recognized early on that they were at the very least committed to education, and likely pretty smart.

    Quotas might have been about the prevalence anarchists and communists. That was also the motavation of the immigration restriction act.

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    The arguments for college Jewish quotas at the time were explicit and straightforward: while excellent students, the Jews didn't socialize well, and were thought to be ill-mannered.
  170. @AnotherDad

    Would anybody consider a possibility that differences in IQ tests results between ethnic groups are largely driven by the nurture/cultural difference? Minnesota twin studies concluded that 70% of IQ is driven by genes. It means that 30% is driven by nurture/culture. 30% is a lot. It could easily explain differences in means from 85 to 115.
     
    Utu, i may be misinterpreting, but your numbers suggest you're thinking of these percentages as operating on absolute numbers, when they are percentages only of variation. With 70% of variation explained by genes you just can't "get there"--i.e. account for an 85 IQ mean--with the 30% "non-genetic" component. You need to postulate some both very severe and racially specific environmental factor that operates differently\independently from the normal non-genetic variation we see--whites holding all black babies heads underwater for three or four minutes, something like that.

    If you were trying to explain an 85 IQ mean--a one SD difference--in Africans, then you could probably cook up some plausible environment theory based on disease load, malnutrition, bad schooling, etc. (Note: actual black African IQs are much lower.) But this one SD difference is seen in black IQ *in this country*--in blacks with the advantage of living in a white organized nation, with working sewage systems, potable water, vaccinations, modern health care, plenty of protein, iodinized salt, vitamin D in milk, free public schools, etc. The difference is even notable between whites and blacks of the same social class in the *same school system*.

    This is simply a wave packet that has collapsed. The measurements have been done, we know what we know. The main cause of the black-white IQ difference is genes. People who do not accept that, do not accept it because they are either ignorant\innumerate, or out of ideology or emotion. But there's simply no serious debate about it by serious people.... unless you believe whites are really sneaking into black homes at night and holding black babies' heads underwater to give them brain damage.

    The gap is noticeably smaller when comparing married black couples’ kids to married white couples’ kids. I think Chanda Chisala’s contributions are useful additions to the debate.

  171. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Quotas might have been about the prevalence anarchists and communists. That was also the motavation of the immigration restriction act.

    The arguments for college Jewish quotas at the time were explicit and straightforward: while excellent students, the Jews didn’t socialize well, and were thought to be ill-mannered.

  172. The HBD hater’s problem was never Jewish intelligence as such. The real problem is one further inference step away.

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

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

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

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

  173. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Most of the evidence suggests that Americans who haven’t been wholly indoctrinated by the higher miseducation in crimestop are more or less aware of higher average Jewish intelligence. And they think it’s cool.
     
    Steve, you’re a bit condescending, explaining to Jews that of course gentiles actually value intelligence (some may even be smart themselves!), therefore it is silly to be threatened by a spotlight on Ashkenazi intelligence.

    Jews are smarter than that.

    Let’s put this way. I (non-Jew) am not threatened by the mere fact that an individual or group may be smarter than me. Nor if they are richer that me. Being smart and having money are good things. The rub is when the “smart” ones use their intelligence in sociopathic ways which harm me or my people. Or when rich individuals use their money to try to infringe on my natural rights.

    What your cited 'enraged' Jews are actually concerned about is non-Jews noticing that they are being harmed by policies/actions being pushed, disproportionately, by shrewd activist Jews.

    There are limits to chutzpah, though. Spergy types can get addicted like a gambler: “I told them what’s what, shamed them for being intolerant, and they folded! Hah! Next time I’ll be twice as insistent!” Of course, from time to time the constant chutzpah becomes unbearable to the goyish noticers and things may get holocausty.

    I think your blog does a good service spreading the word to reasonable, non-spergy Jews that hey, isn’t it better if we all get along? Please don’t push stuff that makes things “disruptive.”

    What your cited ‘enraged’ Jews are actually concerned about is non-Jews noticing that they are being harmed by policies/actions being pushed, disproportionately, by shrewd activist Jews.

    Nailed it. Couldn’t agree more.

    Jews don’t want any talk of racial or ethnic differences. At all. If that is allowed then eventually people will get around to looking at Jews as a separate ethnicity who act in their own interests (which often run counter to WASP interests).

    Can’t have that. Move along. Nothing to see here.

  174. @RonaldB
    Well, I'm from a Jewish background, although I'm now atheist.

    I sometimes look at the websites of the representative Jewish organizations. It's my opinion you're giving Jews credit for too much deviousness and subtlety in opposing discussion of black-white IQ differences in order to prevent discussion of Jewish-gentile differences. In fact, what they say can be taken at face value. The major Jewish organizations today are hard-left, and enforce political correctness for its own sake. Part of the doctrine of political correctness is that any differences between people is due to their disadvantaged upbringing: Steve's "magic dirt" hypothesis.

    I'll give you an example to illustrate my point. The Jews in Malmo, Sweden and many parts of France are beginning to move elsewhere because the anti-Semitism of the Muslim immigrants is so pronounced and so physically dangerous, they no longer feel safe. Yet, Jewish organizations, almost to a one, favor immigration, amnesty, and the treatment of Islam as just any other religion. In other words, the Jews maintain political correctness in spite of the fact it specifically harms Jews.

    So, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that Jewish opposition to a rational treatment of IQ differences is rooted in a perceived self-interest. To the contrary, they are actually sacrificing their self-interest, which makes it even more scary.

    Yet isn’t it odd that although Jewish groups are at the forefront of pushing mass third world immigration in Western countries, few (or none) push open borders for Israel.

    A stumper.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Well, they're fouling their own nests.

    Advocating open borders for Israel is so obviously an immediate recipe for the destruction of Israel, even the leftist Jewish groups refrain...for the time being. I personally think at some point in the future, the Jewish groups are going to throw Israel under the bridge, simply because Israel is so anathema to classic leftist dogma.

    But, I respect your logic, which makes sense and is not in the least irrational. I just think their prime motivation in advocating for the slow destruction of their own homes is primarily altruism. I think of altruism as presented in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged": a destructive denial of one's legitimate self-interest.
  175. @Luke Ford
    Of course Steve Sailer is right here. Which group sets the Overton Window in America and around the West? Jews. Who determines what is acceptable to discuss publicly? Media and academic elites (dominantly Jewish).

    Do Jews have a rational reason to fear being seen as different, as aliens? Of course. Such noticing is thought by organized Jewry to be dangerous.

    You never find large numbers of Jews seeking to maximize the majority's rights over minorities (except in Israel). You do find large numbers of Jews seeking to maximize minority rights over the majority's rights. Jews are important members of the Coalition of the Fringe.

    The Jews in the diaspora are always strangers and nobody likes a stranger, not even the angels. (Mark Twain)

    The more acceptable it is to notice patterns, to note how people are different, the more gentiles will see Jews as different and that is likely dangerous for Jews. It's always easier to fit in with the crowd. Who wants to be pointed out?

    Among Jews, of course, there's no doubting that Jews tend to be smarter than goyim. There's Yiddish Kup and Goyisha Kup. "That's goyish" is never a compliment. I asked a friend who works for a billionaire if his boss is Jewish. "What do you think?" he replied.

    Unless you subscribe to faith, the world is composed of various forms of life struggling for survival and often having to fight each other to the death for scarce resources such as land, food and water. Anything that gives your group an edge is this struggle is likely to be used. If Jews are nationalistic (pro in-group) while discouraging nationalism among the goyim, Jews have an edge. If Jews see reality more clearly than the goyim about group differences (taken for granted by most Jews), they have an edge.

    A very perceptive comment.

  176. @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    Sometimes I think it’s just as simple as the oligarchic class, 1/3 of whom are jewish, recognizing they can actually effect the “never again” hopes of their ancestors. This takes the form of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – i.e., encouraging mass muslim immigration may hurt short-term but longer term will protect us from the european perpetrators of 109 pogroms (or some such). In which case, hinterlands-be-damned has only upside.

  177. I can appreciate the notionalism here – it gives a sense of how you visualize the core vs periphery dynamics of the country. The metaphor of protecting elite interests, hinterlands-be-damned versus guarding the (golden) gates to ensure long-term regional prosperity. But it might work better as an immigration analogy rather than an explanation of HBD censoring/censuring.

  178. @utu
    "I think Jews rather like the idea that they’re on average smarter than other groups — who wouldn’t?" - Exactly! And they prefer to talk about IQ than speculations about ethnic nepotism as the explanation for their spectacular success. IQ advantage nicely weaves into the meritocracy narrative and at the same establishes the biological base to be the Chosen Tribe.

    But actually, just as they dodge ethnic nepotism, they also dodge biology: with hoary stories about their culturally ingrained love of education.

    If this routine seems very well-rehearsed it probably is, because plenty of them can’t stop themselves from bragging about Jewish overachievement. Nobel prizes.

  179. @AnotherDad

    I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend’s cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.
     
    Ready for what? ... A Trump presidency? He's going to round all the Jews up in the railroad stations for transport to the camps--including his grandchildren?

    I'll be near the head of the line, pointing out the damage to Western civilization from Jewish political ideologies, including the stuff that's so over the top it's shooting themselves in the foot--like pushing multiculturalism and "tolerance" all the way to "let's welcome muslims". But this just seems like flat out loony tunes territory.

    For too many Jews, it’s always 1938. That’s what drives a lot of the hate.

  180. @RonaldB
    I will put forward a hypothesis.

    Steve and others have been stretching logic to find the self-interest motivation of Jewish groups promoting immigration and blind acceptance of Muslims.

    The fact is, the Jewish groups are not acting out of self-interest, but out of altruism. In other words, they act on an idealistic principle which is most decidedly against their self-interest. I think this is far more dangerous than acting selfishly, as long as you act selfishly in an intelligent manner.

    Fine. Then they can altruistically feed, clothe and house their little brown subjects among themselves, not the hateful goyim. But they don’t.

    But you kind of knew that already, didn’t you?

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Haha.

    I didn't say I agreed with the altruism, just that the altruist concept fits the actions better than the labored self-interested hypothesis.

    Anyone who has read Ayn Rand will not associate the term "altruistic" with being desirable.
  181. @Triumph104
    Utah's scores should be low. Mormons have larger families, are required to tithe 10%, and have to pay for their kids' missionary trips. State income tax is 5%. There is a lot of affinity fraud in Utah and the state is usually number four or five in bankruptcy filings. Salt Lake City has a lot of apartment complexes that are reserved as affordable housing.

    The Latter Day Saints have an extensive welfare system for both their members and nonmembers.

    https://youtu.be/eBZWeh31TIs

    Their polygamous sects also have a history of welfare fraud.

    https://news.vice.com/article/food-stamp-fraud-could-bring-down-a-polygamous-sect-of-the-mormon-church-flds

    Jon Krakauer wrote about this back in 2003 in Under the Banner of Heaven.

  182. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @RonaldB
    I will put forward a hypothesis.

    Steve and others have been stretching logic to find the self-interest motivation of Jewish groups promoting immigration and blind acceptance of Muslims.

    The fact is, the Jewish groups are not acting out of self-interest, but out of altruism. In other words, they act on an idealistic principle which is most decidedly against their self-interest. I think this is far more dangerous than acting selfishly, as long as you act selfishly in an intelligent manner.

    But they’ve always done something that — ultimately — is against their self-interest. I mean, they’ve been expelled how many times? They’re just overplaying their hand yet again. (A Jewish guy told me that tends to happen. He also said if things go wrong here he can always go to Israel.)

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    I have 3 reactions.

    1) I don't know if the previous Jewish expulsions were for cause or for prejudice.

    2) If the guy owed his first loyalty to Israel, he should go there immediately. I'm opposed to dual citizenship. I think the US should tell its dual citizens to pick one country or another.

    3) Israel won't last long without the US. Israel can defend itself militarily, but the supra-national bodies like the UN and the EU will gang up on Israel, instituting formal boycotts and isolation, like they successfully did with the previous South Africa. The US serves the very useful function of running diplomatic interference for Israel. This is very positive for the US and costs nothing in money or lives.
  183. @Big Bill
    It is not "coming to an end". The residual breeding pool of ultra-high fertility Jews is quite large. Ultraorthodox Jews breed like bunny rabbits.

    Even though a sizable percentage of them are "burned off" (so to speak) and go off the derech, they (and their kids) don't marry goyim.

    Instead, the ultraorthodox "burn off" goes to replenish the Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform breeding pools. As long as world Jewry includes a core high fertility breeding pool of ultras, the population of Jews will continue to grow, no matter how many Reform kids mongrelize with goyim.

    Since religious credulity is a marker for stupidity, the ultra-high fertility of Ultra-Orthodox Jews is extremely dysgenic.

  184. @Harold
    Sorry, that wasn’t very clear. Those two things weren’t meant to be logically connected. The point was that the modern progressive’s worldview is not a product of their sensibilities.

    Early progressives believed that we could create a society without a class of poor people that was exploited and suffered great hardship. They believed eugenics would help in that, and eugenics hadn’t been demonised. Modern progressives also want to create such a society. However, they believe eugenics is pseudoscience, hatred, a sinful impulse born of elitist disdain. These are not contradictory in terms of basic sensibilities.

    The different Jewish groups I was thinking of were Ashkenazi led intellectual movements like Freudianism and Boasian anthropology. There is a sort of similarity to a lot of these movements such that if you read about them without knowing they were Jewish you could predict they were. The charismatic leaders, the way they invent terminology, the way they nurture acolytes, the way they purge dissenters, the way they attack competing views as immoral (I haven’t thought about his for a while so I am struggling to be more precise). Similarly if we see Western European morality movements sharing characteristics we needn’t take this as evidence that one is an outgrowth of the other. I hope that makes sense.

    Thanks for your explanation, Harold. I appreciate your effort in clarifying your hypothesis.

  185. @Brutusale
    Fine. Then they can altruistically feed, clothe and house their little brown subjects among themselves, not the hateful goyim. But they don't.

    But you kind of knew that already, didn't you?

    Haha.

    I didn’t say I agreed with the altruism, just that the altruist concept fits the actions better than the labored self-interested hypothesis.

    Anyone who has read Ayn Rand will not associate the term “altruistic” with being desirable.

  186. @matt
    I'm not arguing that the environment changed 2.43 SDs in a direction favorable to IQ in the Netherlands. I'm arguing that it's absurd to think that it changed by that much, and yet your equation implies that it must have. Therefore your equation is garbage.

    Forget about the race issue for a second. Just focus on the Flynn Effect in Holland. Is it likely that the average Dutchman of 1982 would be in the top 1% of the environmental distribution of the Dutch of 1952, even in terms of environmental effects that don't impact g? Is it likely that some mysterious quasi-uniform X-factor raised IQ during this period? Is it likely that the genes of the Dutch changed substantially in just 30 years? If you can't answer "yes" to any of those questions, then something must be wrong with your math.

    By the way, if you say g has nothing to do with the Flynn Effect, that only makes the problem worse, at least if environment affects g at all (and Jensen certainly thought that things like nutrition, prenatal environment and other "biological environmental" variables do control g).

    Suppose heritability is 0.70 and just 5% of the variance is explained by environmental factors that impact g. That 5% is a part of the 30% of the variance explained by the environment overall. Now, if the Flynn Effect has nothing to do with g, then you have to remove that 5% environmental g variance from the equation that calculates the necessary environmental difference. Now instead of dividing the 1.33 SDs shift in IQ by sqrt(.30) and getting 2.43 SDs, you have to divide 1.33 SDs by sqrt(.25) and get 2.667 SDs of environmental difference between the Dutch of two consecutive generations. That's even more absurd.

    Look, while you claim that it is “absurd” that the environment changed by 2.43 SDs in the Netherlands over the decades in question with respect to the items that the Flynn Effect hit, that is of course not only not absurd, but obviously true. That’s what the definitions, the facts, and the model show. I don’t even know what the puzzle is here. One can easily have high heritability of a trait and great responsiveness of that trait to environments peculiar to certain eras. Height is a good example of such a trait — in eras of poor nutrition, that nutrition had great impact on the average height of people despite the indisputable high heritability of height. Performance on the items affected by the Flynn Effect can best be understood as such a trait.

    But my point might best be understood by focusing on performance on those sorts of items that have proved impervious to secular changes, such as vocabulary, reading comprehension, analytic and logic skills, and math skills. In short, the sorts of items that constitute the SAT — which is one reason it is very useful to focus on change — or lack of change — in group performance on the SAT over time. (The other reason is that it is taken at an age at which individuals have mostly matured intellectually, reducing developmental variability, and at which, unsurprisingly, heritability is toward its peak.)

    The SAT has the disadvantage that it does require some exposure and practice in the sorts of items on which it tests, and therefore is less “culture-free” than items on the Raven’s. But I see that as inevitable for any test that is going to be stable across time.

    The fundamental mistake of the Raven’s is likely its assumption that the supposedly “culture free” items it poses are not susceptible to improved performance by practice and/or exposure to similar, if general, concepts. The lesson to be drawn would seem to be that essentially every type of testing item is susceptible to improved performance by practice at or exposure to similar concepts. What makes vocabulary, reading comprehension, etc. stable is that the practice/exposure to those sorts of items for, say, students in high school, is already extensive, and has essentially reached a ceiling in its ability to improve performance. Those sorts of items can be expected to be good tests of basic ability to think across all eras, insofar, of course, as all students do receive the requisite exposure — which is almost certainly true for virtually all students today in Western countries.

    And of course on these items both whites and blacks achieve very stable scores, with blacks being 1 SD behind whites.

    • Replies: @matt

    Look, while you claim that it is “absurd” that the environment changed by 2.43 SDs in the Netherlands over the decades in question with respect to the items that the Flynn Effect hit
     
    2.667 SDs or so, if you think it didn't happen "on g".

    that is of course not only not absurd, but obviously true. That’s what the definitions, the facts, and the model show. I don’t even know what the puzzle is here.
     
    If the model "shows" something that is obviously false, then the model is wrong. Jensen's model for calculating the required environmental difference in the absence of genetic differences and X-factors makes empirical predictions, like any other model, and if those predictions are too implausible then the model has to be scrapped. It's not a matter of definition. Fortunately, it isn't the only model available.

    Height is a good example of such a trait — in eras of poor nutrition, that nutrition had great impact on the average height of people despite the indisputable high heritability of height.
     
    That's exactly why many people think that nutrition and other environmental factors couldn't have caused the secular increase in height by themselves, and there had to be genetic change, like heterosis or sexual selection. In fact, Mingroni argues that the Flynn Effect might be due to heterosis as well, and one advantage of his model is that it explains not only the Flynn Effect but the height increase as well. However, among other problems with this hypothesis, the Flynn Effect isn't perfectly synchronous with the height trends: the height increase tapered off in the US in the middle of the 20th century while the Flynn Effect continued, and in Norway the Flynn Effect occurred mostly in the bottom half of the distribution while height growth happened mostly in the upper half.

    (The other reason is that it is taken at an age at which individuals have mostly matured intellectually, reducing developmental variability, and at which, unsurprisingly, heritability is toward its peak.)
     
    The Flynn Effect data for the Raven's in the Netherlands and other European countries comes from military draft data in countries with universal military service. The populations are representative samples of 18-19 year old men.

    The fundamental mistake of the Raven’s is likely its assumption that the supposedly “culture free” items it poses are not susceptible to improved performance by practice and/or exposure to similar, if general, concepts. The lesson to be drawn would seem to be that essentially every type of testing item is susceptible to improved performance by practice at or exposure to similar concepts.
     
    Increased practice/test sophistication is no doubt responsible for a small part of the increase, but not more than a small part. Practice and increased test exposure would run into diminishing marginal returns over time, and yet only recently are we beginning to see the Flynn Effect slowing down or reversing in some countries. Throughout the 20th century it continued at a fairly constant rate. In the Netherlands it even accelerated (and in Israel as well; see p. 7, Fig. 1).

    As far as increased exposure to Raven's-like concepts in everyday life, that's essentially Flynn's explanation. But even here, it's implausible to think that the Dutch of 1982 were in the top 1% of the distribution of their parents' generation in terms of exposure to these things. That's why Flynn needs the Dickens-Flynn model in order to make his explanation plausible.
  187. matt says:
    @candid_observer
    Look, while you claim that it is "absurd" that the environment changed by 2.43 SDs in the Netherlands over the decades in question with respect to the items that the Flynn Effect hit, that is of course not only not absurd, but obviously true. That's what the definitions, the facts, and the model show. I don't even know what the puzzle is here. One can easily have high heritability of a trait and great responsiveness of that trait to environments peculiar to certain eras. Height is a good example of such a trait -- in eras of poor nutrition, that nutrition had great impact on the average height of people despite the indisputable high heritability of height. Performance on the items affected by the Flynn Effect can best be understood as such a trait.

    But my point might best be understood by focusing on performance on those sorts of items that have proved impervious to secular changes, such as vocabulary, reading comprehension, analytic and logic skills, and math skills. In short, the sorts of items that constitute the SAT -- which is one reason it is very useful to focus on change -- or lack of change -- in group performance on the SAT over time. (The other reason is that it is taken at an age at which individuals have mostly matured intellectually, reducing developmental variability, and at which, unsurprisingly, heritability is toward its peak.)

    The SAT has the disadvantage that it does require some exposure and practice in the sorts of items on which it tests, and therefore is less "culture-free" than items on the Raven's. But I see that as inevitable for any test that is going to be stable across time.

    The fundamental mistake of the Raven's is likely its assumption that the supposedly "culture free" items it poses are not susceptible to improved performance by practice and/or exposure to similar, if general, concepts. The lesson to be drawn would seem to be that essentially every type of testing item is susceptible to improved performance by practice at or exposure to similar concepts. What makes vocabulary, reading comprehension, etc. stable is that the practice/exposure to those sorts of items for, say, students in high school, is already extensive, and has essentially reached a ceiling in its ability to improve performance. Those sorts of items can be expected to be good tests of basic ability to think across all eras, insofar, of course, as all students do receive the requisite exposure -- which is almost certainly true for virtually all students today in Western countries.

    And of course on these items both whites and blacks achieve very stable scores, with blacks being 1 SD behind whites.

    Look, while you claim that it is “absurd” that the environment changed by 2.43 SDs in the Netherlands over the decades in question with respect to the items that the Flynn Effect hit

    2.667 SDs or so, if you think it didn’t happen “on g”.

    that is of course not only not absurd, but obviously true. That’s what the definitions, the facts, and the model show. I don’t even know what the puzzle is here.

    If the model “shows” something that is obviously false, then the model is wrong. Jensen’s model for calculating the required environmental difference in the absence of genetic differences and X-factors makes empirical predictions, like any other model, and if those predictions are too implausible then the model has to be scrapped. It’s not a matter of definition. Fortunately, it isn’t the only model available.

    Height is a good example of such a trait — in eras of poor nutrition, that nutrition had great impact on the average height of people despite the indisputable high heritability of height.

    That’s exactly why many people think that nutrition and other environmental factors couldn’t have caused the secular increase in height by themselves, and there had to be genetic change, like heterosis or sexual selection. In fact, Mingroni argues that the Flynn Effect might be due to heterosis as well, and one advantage of his model is that it explains not only the Flynn Effect but the height increase as well. However, among other problems with this hypothesis, the Flynn Effect isn’t perfectly synchronous with the height trends: the height increase tapered off in the US in the middle of the 20th century while the Flynn Effect continued, and in Norway the Flynn Effect occurred mostly in the bottom half of the distribution while height growth happened mostly in the upper half.

    (The other reason is that it is taken at an age at which individuals have mostly matured intellectually, reducing developmental variability, and at which, unsurprisingly, heritability is toward its peak.)

    The Flynn Effect data for the Raven’s in the Netherlands and other European countries comes from military draft data in countries with universal military service. The populations are representative samples of 18-19 year old men.

    The fundamental mistake of the Raven’s is likely its assumption that the supposedly “culture free” items it poses are not susceptible to improved performance by practice and/or exposure to similar, if general, concepts. The lesson to be drawn would seem to be that essentially every type of testing item is susceptible to improved performance by practice at or exposure to similar concepts.

    Increased practice/test sophistication is no doubt responsible for a small part of the increase, but not more than a small part. Practice and increased test exposure would run into diminishing marginal returns over time, and yet only recently are we beginning to see the Flynn Effect slowing down or reversing in some countries. Throughout the 20th century it continued at a fairly constant rate. In the Netherlands it even accelerated (and in Israel as well; see p. 7, Fig. 1).

    As far as increased exposure to Raven’s-like concepts in everyday life, that’s essentially Flynn’s explanation. But even here, it’s implausible to think that the Dutch of 1982 were in the top 1% of the distribution of their parents’ generation in terms of exposure to these things. That’s why Flynn needs the Dickens-Flynn model in order to make his explanation plausible.

  188. @Moses
    Yet isn't it odd that although Jewish groups are at the forefront of pushing mass third world immigration in Western countries, few (or none) push open borders for Israel.

    A stumper.

    Well, they’re fouling their own nests.

    Advocating open borders for Israel is so obviously an immediate recipe for the destruction of Israel, even the leftist Jewish groups refrain…for the time being. I personally think at some point in the future, the Jewish groups are going to throw Israel under the bridge, simply because Israel is so anathema to classic leftist dogma.

    But, I respect your logic, which makes sense and is not in the least irrational. I just think their prime motivation in advocating for the slow destruction of their own homes is primarily altruism. I think of altruism as presented in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”: a destructive denial of one’s legitimate self-interest.

    • Replies: @Moses

    Advocating open borders for Israel is so obviously an immediate recipe for the destruction of Israel...
     
    How can this be?

    We're told that opening America's borders just makes us stronger. We're told there is no "race." We're told that all people are equal and really the same. We're told that mass immigration from peoples of alien cultures with alien values will not change our culture or political system one iota. For example, importing thousands of Somalis into Minnesota won't change a thing about those communities, except improve them.

    Hence, there is no reason mass non-Jewish immigration would change anything in Israel. To say otherwise is to reveal oneself as a bigot.

    [end sarcasm]

    This is why I dislike Jewish actions. They advocate tirelessly in to import third worlders into white nations, yet when it comes to their own nation suddenly race/ethnicity *does* matter.

    The conclusion is inescapable to me: Jews pursue a strategy of ethnocentrism for themselves whilst undermining ethnocentrism for other nations/groups. All while denying they are ethnocentric in their host nations. A brilliant strategy, for them.

  189. @Anonymous
    But they've always done something that -- ultimately -- is against their self-interest. I mean, they've been expelled how many times? They're just overplaying their hand yet again. (A Jewish guy told me that tends to happen. He also said if things go wrong here he can always go to Israel.)

    I have 3 reactions.

    1) I don’t know if the previous Jewish expulsions were for cause or for prejudice.

    2) If the guy owed his first loyalty to Israel, he should go there immediately. I’m opposed to dual citizenship. I think the US should tell its dual citizens to pick one country or another.

    3) Israel won’t last long without the US. Israel can defend itself militarily, but the supra-national bodies like the UN and the EU will gang up on Israel, instituting formal boycotts and isolation, like they successfully did with the previous South Africa. The US serves the very useful function of running diplomatic interference for Israel. This is very positive for the US and costs nothing in money or lives.

  190. @Luke Ford
    Of course Steve Sailer is right here. Which group sets the Overton Window in America and around the West? Jews. Who determines what is acceptable to discuss publicly? Media and academic elites (dominantly Jewish).

    Do Jews have a rational reason to fear being seen as different, as aliens? Of course. Such noticing is thought by organized Jewry to be dangerous.

    You never find large numbers of Jews seeking to maximize the majority's rights over minorities (except in Israel). You do find large numbers of Jews seeking to maximize minority rights over the majority's rights. Jews are important members of the Coalition of the Fringe.

    The Jews in the diaspora are always strangers and nobody likes a stranger, not even the angels. (Mark Twain)

    The more acceptable it is to notice patterns, to note how people are different, the more gentiles will see Jews as different and that is likely dangerous for Jews. It's always easier to fit in with the crowd. Who wants to be pointed out?

    Among Jews, of course, there's no doubting that Jews tend to be smarter than goyim. There's Yiddish Kup and Goyisha Kup. "That's goyish" is never a compliment. I asked a friend who works for a billionaire if his boss is Jewish. "What do you think?" he replied.

    Unless you subscribe to faith, the world is composed of various forms of life struggling for survival and often having to fight each other to the death for scarce resources such as land, food and water. Anything that gives your group an edge is this struggle is likely to be used. If Jews are nationalistic (pro in-group) while discouraging nationalism among the goyim, Jews have an edge. If Jews see reality more clearly than the goyim about group differences (taken for granted by most Jews), they have an edge.

    I’m afraid your logic has a contradiction.

    The Jews are supposed to be the smartest group on the average. And yet, you picture them as reacting to the old stereotype of advancing their own survival as a group by discouraging the group self-consciousness of other white groups.

    Part of discouraging the self-consciousness of other white groups is to promote the group benefits of Muslims, including the promotion of open immigration by Muslims. Islam has a built-in anti-Semitism. Muslim immigrants almost universally make it physically dangerous for Jews to be present. Jews have formal second-class citizenship and ritualized humiliation in even the most stable Muslim countries.

    So, the contradiction is, the “smart” Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests. You can use Steve’s contention that Jews are simply reacting to their gut horror left over from World War II. But, if the Jews are reacting to an obsolete and obviously untrue assumption, then they’re not so smart, are they?

    The fact is, at worst, Jews are completely, 100% safe in the US as presently constituted. The Jewish religion and Israel in particular is revered by fundamentalist Christians. So, for Jews to promote Black Lives Matter and open Muslim immigration and interfaith with Muslims is the most blatant form of altruism (denial of one’s own legitimate self-interest).

    You simply cannot support the dual propositions that Jews are smarter than the average, and that they are acting out of self-interest. At present, these propositions are contradictory.

    • Replies: @Moses

    So, the contradiction is, the “smart” Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests.

     

    Good point.

    Yes, on the one hand Muslim immigration is against Jewish interests. Muslims tend to be intensely anti-Jew. It would not be smart to import people who are likely to harm you.

    On the other hand, if you buy the premise that a primary motivation of Jews is not to be "othered" as an alien nation in their host countries (which I do) then the apparent contradiction can be reconciled as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

    A multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and divided society is far less likely unanimously to finger Jews as the "other" (see Germany 1930s). Hence, Jews are "safer" in such a society.

    It's hard to exclude one ethnicity without the logic being extended to other ethnicities/racial groups. Hence, gotta accept Muslim immigration as part of the multicult package that, in the big picture, "makes Jews safer."

    If the above is true, Jewish advocacy for Muslim immigration is quite smart indeed. A shrewd way to advance Jewish interests, even if there is a bit of collateral damage.

  191. @King George III
    In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

    Imagine a series of concentric circles. "Transgender-whatever" is the defensive ring around "Islamophobia", Islamophobia is the defensive ring around "homophobia", homophobia is the defensive ring around "sexism", sexism is the defensive ring around "racism", "racism" is the defensive ring around HBD, and "HBD" is the defensive ring around Jews.

    This is why "antisemitism" is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

    I'm not actually convinced about the "Jews control the world" bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

    Gentile here…

    That’s just dumb

  192. @RonaldB
    Well, they're fouling their own nests.

    Advocating open borders for Israel is so obviously an immediate recipe for the destruction of Israel, even the leftist Jewish groups refrain...for the time being. I personally think at some point in the future, the Jewish groups are going to throw Israel under the bridge, simply because Israel is so anathema to classic leftist dogma.

    But, I respect your logic, which makes sense and is not in the least irrational. I just think their prime motivation in advocating for the slow destruction of their own homes is primarily altruism. I think of altruism as presented in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged": a destructive denial of one's legitimate self-interest.

    Advocating open borders for Israel is so obviously an immediate recipe for the destruction of Israel…

    How can this be?

    We’re told that opening America’s borders just makes us stronger. We’re told there is no “race.” We’re told that all people are equal and really the same. We’re told that mass immigration from peoples of alien cultures with alien values will not change our culture or political system one iota. For example, importing thousands of Somalis into Minnesota won’t change a thing about those communities, except improve them.

    Hence, there is no reason mass non-Jewish immigration would change anything in Israel. To say otherwise is to reveal oneself as a bigot.

    [end sarcasm]

    This is why I dislike Jewish actions. They advocate tirelessly in to import third worlders into white nations, yet when it comes to their own nation suddenly race/ethnicity *does* matter.

    The conclusion is inescapable to me: Jews pursue a strategy of ethnocentrism for themselves whilst undermining ethnocentrism for other nations/groups. All while denying they are ethnocentric in their host nations. A brilliant strategy, for them.

    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    This strategy is largely instinctual and unconscious. It's brilliant until it backfires and then Jews die. We need a movement like Jews for Consistency.

    http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=63983

    "Jews for Consistency" monitors the proclamations and actions of Jewish groups in the light of Jewish text and Jewish history.

    We point out when they seek the the opposite things for Jews that they seek for non-Jews. Too often organized Jewry pursues cohesion for Jews (in 2016 Israel's Sephardic Chief Rabbi, in line with the Torah tradition, said non-Jews were not permitted to live in the Jewish state) but multiculturalism for non-Jews (more non-white immigration into white countries, more rights for minorities such as blacks, latinos, gays, and the transgendered, more rights for atheists and less Christianity in the public square, etc). Rarely do these Jewish groups show the same concern for non-Jewish minorities in the Jewish state.

    If unity, strength and cohesion are good for Jews, then these qualities are equally good for gentiles.
     
  193. @RonaldB
    I'm afraid your logic has a contradiction.

    The Jews are supposed to be the smartest group on the average. And yet, you picture them as reacting to the old stereotype of advancing their own survival as a group by discouraging the group self-consciousness of other white groups.

    Part of discouraging the self-consciousness of other white groups is to promote the group benefits of Muslims, including the promotion of open immigration by Muslims. Islam has a built-in anti-Semitism. Muslim immigrants almost universally make it physically dangerous for Jews to be present. Jews have formal second-class citizenship and ritualized humiliation in even the most stable Muslim countries.

    So, the contradiction is, the "smart" Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests. You can use Steve's contention that Jews are simply reacting to their gut horror left over from World War II. But, if the Jews are reacting to an obsolete and obviously untrue assumption, then they're not so smart, are they?

    The fact is, at worst, Jews are completely, 100% safe in the US as presently constituted. The Jewish religion and Israel in particular is revered by fundamentalist Christians. So, for Jews to promote Black Lives Matter and open Muslim immigration and interfaith with Muslims is the most blatant form of altruism (denial of one's own legitimate self-interest).

    You simply cannot support the dual propositions that Jews are smarter than the average, and that they are acting out of self-interest. At present, these propositions are contradictory.

    So, the contradiction is, the “smart” Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests.

    Good point.

    Yes, on the one hand Muslim immigration is against Jewish interests. Muslims tend to be intensely anti-Jew. It would not be smart to import people who are likely to harm you.

    On the other hand, if you buy the premise that a primary motivation of Jews is not to be “othered” as an alien nation in their host countries (which I do) then the apparent contradiction can be reconciled as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

    A multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and divided society is far less likely unanimously to finger Jews as the “other” (see Germany 1930s). Hence, Jews are “safer” in such a society.

    It’s hard to exclude one ethnicity without the logic being extended to other ethnicities/racial groups. Hence, gotta accept Muslim immigration as part of the multicult package that, in the big picture, “makes Jews safer.”

    If the above is true, Jewish advocacy for Muslim immigration is quite smart indeed. A shrewd way to advance Jewish interests, even if there is a bit of collateral damage.

    • Replies: @RonaldB


    In the wake of the slaughter of four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket by an Islamic jihadist, a Parisian Jew said: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are finished in France.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/12/the-death-of-the-jews-of-france/

     

    , @Anonymous
    The danger posed by Muslim immigration to Jews is more immediate than the threat from White gentiles in any place where mass Muslim immigration has been allowed. See R0naldB's response to this comment for corroboration. Hence, there will be little beneift to Jews from multiculturalism when large numbers of Muslims are present.
  194. @Moses

    So, the contradiction is, the “smart” Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests.

     

    Good point.

    Yes, on the one hand Muslim immigration is against Jewish interests. Muslims tend to be intensely anti-Jew. It would not be smart to import people who are likely to harm you.

    On the other hand, if you buy the premise that a primary motivation of Jews is not to be "othered" as an alien nation in their host countries (which I do) then the apparent contradiction can be reconciled as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

    A multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and divided society is far less likely unanimously to finger Jews as the "other" (see Germany 1930s). Hence, Jews are "safer" in such a society.

    It's hard to exclude one ethnicity without the logic being extended to other ethnicities/racial groups. Hence, gotta accept Muslim immigration as part of the multicult package that, in the big picture, "makes Jews safer."

    If the above is true, Jewish advocacy for Muslim immigration is quite smart indeed. A shrewd way to advance Jewish interests, even if there is a bit of collateral damage.

    In the wake of the slaughter of four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket by an Islamic jihadist, a Parisian Jew said: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are finished in France.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/12/the-death-of-the-jews-of-france/

    • Replies: @Moses

    In the wake of the slaughter of four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket by an Islamic jihadist, a Parisian Jew said: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are finished in France.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/12/the-death-of-the-jews-of-france/
     

    Collateral damage.

    The larger objective of weakening the historically white, Christian French state by importing unassimilable peoples is achieved. Very unlikely the French will ever unify against the Jews when they themselves are a house divided.

    I'm willing to bet 98% of French Jews will remain in France. And if they don't they always have the option to return to their homogenous ethnic homeland. [A non-Jew Israeli citizen agitating for non-Jewish immigration to Israel would be run out on a rail.]

    What homeland shall the French Christian people return to? Oh, right.

    Whether Jewish actions are motivated by "altruism" or ethnic interest doesn't really matter, does it? The outcome is the same.

  195. @OilcanFloyd
    You have to really hate the dominant society to risk your own safety in order to harm it. It's on par with blacks who support demographic change, as long as it harms whites, while completely ignoring the fact that they cutting their own noses off.

    Hating the other is normal, natural and to some extent healthy. The world naturally divides into the friend/enemy distinction. Nature has color-coded people so that we can tell at a glance with reasonable accuracy who’s a friend and who’s an enemy.

    The stronger your in-group identity, such as Jewish or black or Muslim, the more likely you are to fear and hate outsiders. Social Identity Theory applies equally to Jews and to non-Jews. http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

    The more diverse a society, the weaker. It makes no sense why an Anglo country like America (85% Anglo at the time of the Revolution) would want to invite in outsiders. Every immigrant wave from then founding has made the country worse. WASPs make the best citizens. http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=69835

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not all of us Jews have a strong Jewish identity. I wonder how distorted your view of the American Jewish community is by the fact that you now spend your time among the most devoted and chauvinist (Orthodox) Jews.
  196. @Honorary Thief
    Jews are a big factor in the political correctness orthodoxy but they wouldn't have been able to get very far without their partners in crime: Post-Millennial Puritan type Northwest Europeans. Jewish "zionism for me but cosmopolitanism for thee" agitation wouldn't take them very far in, say, China or South Korea, let alone India or Iran. They require collaborators among the host population.

    Everyone I know back home in Australia is a WASP and none would consider it moral to favor your own kind before others.

    It took me a long time into my conversion to Judaism to take seriously the constant question — “But is it good for the Jews?”

  197. @Kyle
    A presedential candidate is 1 out of 300 million people, That is less than statistically significant. White people are absolutely more ethical. Even it's because we're more pussy and more afraid of confrontation, we treat people fairly. I don't have any stats to back that up, only public school anecdotes. Every other ethnicity seems OK with standing on someone else's shoulders to reach a little higher, and when it comes down to it it isn't their problem. Look at white religion. Original sin, turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherent the earth, confession, self flagellation. We care about corruption and nepotism, those things are shameful. It's considered shameful to live in the family home and take up the family business, that is different than any other culture.

    To back up your assertion, please note that the high-trust countries are WASP creations. WASPs make the best countries.
    Also, see this analysis: https://inductivist.blogspot.com/2006/12/i-wrote-in-recent-post-that-i-was.html

  198. @Moses

    Advocating open borders for Israel is so obviously an immediate recipe for the destruction of Israel...
     
    How can this be?

    We're told that opening America's borders just makes us stronger. We're told there is no "race." We're told that all people are equal and really the same. We're told that mass immigration from peoples of alien cultures with alien values will not change our culture or political system one iota. For example, importing thousands of Somalis into Minnesota won't change a thing about those communities, except improve them.

    Hence, there is no reason mass non-Jewish immigration would change anything in Israel. To say otherwise is to reveal oneself as a bigot.

    [end sarcasm]

    This is why I dislike Jewish actions. They advocate tirelessly in to import third worlders into white nations, yet when it comes to their own nation suddenly race/ethnicity *does* matter.

    The conclusion is inescapable to me: Jews pursue a strategy of ethnocentrism for themselves whilst undermining ethnocentrism for other nations/groups. All while denying they are ethnocentric in their host nations. A brilliant strategy, for them.

    This strategy is largely instinctual and unconscious. It’s brilliant until it backfires and then Jews die. We need a movement like Jews for Consistency.

    http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=63983

    “Jews for Consistency” monitors the proclamations and actions of Jewish groups in the light of Jewish text and Jewish history.

    We point out when they seek the the opposite things for Jews that they seek for non-Jews. Too often organized Jewry pursues cohesion for Jews (in 2016 Israel’s Sephardic Chief Rabbi, in line with the Torah tradition, said non-Jews were not permitted to live in the Jewish state) but multiculturalism for non-Jews (more non-white immigration into white countries, more rights for minorities such as blacks, latinos, gays, and the transgendered, more rights for atheists and less Christianity in the public square, etc). Rarely do these Jewish groups show the same concern for non-Jewish minorities in the Jewish state.

    If unity, strength and cohesion are good for Jews, then these qualities are equally good for gentiles.

  199. @Joe Walker
    But Jews were one of the groups who wanted Muslims to move to Europe. The Jewish-owned New York Times was very positive about Merkel inviting in all those Syrians.

    Not my family. We don’t want them in the U.S. or in Europe. It’s the secular liberal elite Jews who favored mass immigration from the third world. Now the non-elite Jews in Europe are suffering for the error of their “betters.”

  200. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Big Bill
    It is not "coming to an end". The residual breeding pool of ultra-high fertility Jews is quite large. Ultraorthodox Jews breed like bunny rabbits.

    Even though a sizable percentage of them are "burned off" (so to speak) and go off the derech, they (and their kids) don't marry goyim.

    Instead, the ultraorthodox "burn off" goes to replenish the Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform breeding pools. As long as world Jewry includes a core high fertility breeding pool of ultras, the population of Jews will continue to grow, no matter how many Reform kids mongrelize with goyim.

    I’m not so sure that a large percentage of ultra-Orthodox young are “burned off” and go secular/Reform/Conservative anymore. That was what happened when young Jews left Poland and the Pale of Settlement for America 100 years ago, but there was an ocean and most of the European continent between them and their elders. Moreover, most of the young immigrant Jews of that era weren’t ultra-Orthodox (haredi or hasidic) but ordinary Orthodox. Now that the ultra-Orthodox have established large, insular communities in America, I think it far less likely that mass defection from ultra-Orthodoxy will occur.

  201. @utu
    "like somatic mutation" - You like exotic explanations, right? When the straightforward ones do not jive with your Weltanschauung, right? - The so-called Flynn effect also suggest strong culture and acculturation factor. IQ results from early 20 century showing very low scores for Jews and other Europeans makes me very doubtful about the business of IQ testing. It comes to the question what does an IQ test really measure? The elimination of the Flynn effect by renormalization of data is very questionable.

    Most IQ aficionados that I encounter here at Unz Review seem to be guilty of reification. You know, the map is not the territory, and more so when you have a very lousy map.

    Jason Malloy commented on an old post at Marginal Revolution that a published review from 1930 of the full literature discussing Jewish IQ up to that point showed the same patterns as today, not low Jewish IQ.

  202. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Moses

    So, the contradiction is, the “smart” Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests.

     

    Good point.

    Yes, on the one hand Muslim immigration is against Jewish interests. Muslims tend to be intensely anti-Jew. It would not be smart to import people who are likely to harm you.

    On the other hand, if you buy the premise that a primary motivation of Jews is not to be "othered" as an alien nation in their host countries (which I do) then the apparent contradiction can be reconciled as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

    A multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and divided society is far less likely unanimously to finger Jews as the "other" (see Germany 1930s). Hence, Jews are "safer" in such a society.

    It's hard to exclude one ethnicity without the logic being extended to other ethnicities/racial groups. Hence, gotta accept Muslim immigration as part of the multicult package that, in the big picture, "makes Jews safer."

    If the above is true, Jewish advocacy for Muslim immigration is quite smart indeed. A shrewd way to advance Jewish interests, even if there is a bit of collateral damage.

    The danger posed by Muslim immigration to Jews is more immediate than the threat from White gentiles in any place where mass Muslim immigration has been allowed. See R0naldB’s response to this comment for corroboration. Hence, there will be little beneift to Jews from multiculturalism when large numbers of Muslims are present.

    • Replies: @Moses
    Fair enough.

    So in other words, the Jewish push for mass immigration makes their behavior a danger not only to others (ask the Euros), but to themselves. Great.
  203. @Luke Ford
    Hating the other is normal, natural and to some extent healthy. The world naturally divides into the friend/enemy distinction. Nature has color-coded people so that we can tell at a glance with reasonable accuracy who's a friend and who's an enemy.

    The stronger your in-group identity, such as Jewish or black or Muslim, the more likely you are to fear and hate outsiders. Social Identity Theory applies equally to Jews and to non-Jews. http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

    The more diverse a society, the weaker. It makes no sense why an Anglo country like America (85% Anglo at the time of the Revolution) would want to invite in outsiders. Every immigrant wave from then founding has made the country worse. WASPs make the best citizens. http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=69835

    Not all of us Jews have a strong Jewish identity. I wonder how distorted your view of the American Jewish community is by the fact that you now spend your time among the most devoted and chauvinist (Orthodox) Jews.

  204. @RonaldB


    In the wake of the slaughter of four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket by an Islamic jihadist, a Parisian Jew said: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are finished in France.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/12/the-death-of-the-jews-of-france/

     

    In the wake of the slaughter of four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket by an Islamic jihadist, a Parisian Jew said: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are finished in France.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/12/the-death-of-the-jews-of-france/

    Collateral damage.

    The larger objective of weakening the historically white, Christian French state by importing unassimilable peoples is achieved. Very unlikely the French will ever unify against the Jews when they themselves are a house divided.

    I’m willing to bet 98% of French Jews will remain in France. And if they don’t they always have the option to return to their homogenous ethnic homeland. [A non-Jew Israeli citizen agitating for non-Jewish immigration to Israel would be run out on a rail.]

    What homeland shall the French Christian people return to? Oh, right.

    Whether Jewish actions are motivated by “altruism” or ethnic interest doesn’t really matter, does it? The outcome is the same.

    • Replies: @Moses
    I would add that the Islamic invaders in Europe have slaughtered far more Christians than Jews during the last few years.

    Yet it's still all about how Europe isn't safe for the Jews, isn't it?
    , @RonaldB
    "Whether Jewish actions are motivated by “altruism” or ethnic interest doesn’t really matter, does it? The outcome is the same."

    Well, think of it logically. If their actions are based on altruism, then it's much harder to change their actions, as they're unconcerned with consequences. If they're based on self-interest, the actions can be changed by showing that their self-interests are not actually served best by destroying the society that protects them and allows them almost unlimited self-expression.

    "And if they don’t they always have the option to return to their homogenous[sic] ethnic homeland."

    I think this implies that it is a good idea to end dual citizenship. Someone can be a citizen of the US or Israel (or Iran, or Mexico) but not both. Anyone who accepts citizenship in another country automatically renounces his US citizenship. This ought to make someone pause before fouling his own nest.

    You may think that Israel has automatic citizenship for any Jew, so ending dual citizenship in the US will not change the behavior of the liberal Jews.

    I think that's not necessarily the case. Consider this: any Jew going to Israel would have to apply for citizenship at that point. He won't have it already in the bag.

    Also consider, liberal US Jews hate Netanyahu.
    https://www.urj.org/blog/2016/07/25/netanyahu-government-subverts-supreme-court-court-favor-haredi-parties
    No one ever accused Netanyahu of being a bad politician, so he's well aware of that. If mass Muslim migration to the US occurred, and millions of Jews tried to go to Israel, most of them would be liberal and vote Netanyahu out of office. So, my betting is he would find a way to deny them citizenship. I won't go into the specific mechanisms here, but it's very, very possible.

    So, the ending of dual citizenship is a good, solid way to realign the actions of US Jews with the interests of the (currently) predominant culture in the US.

  205. @Moses

    In the wake of the slaughter of four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket by an Islamic jihadist, a Parisian Jew said: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are finished in France.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/12/the-death-of-the-jews-of-france/
     

    Collateral damage.

    The larger objective of weakening the historically white, Christian French state by importing unassimilable peoples is achieved. Very unlikely the French will ever unify against the Jews when they themselves are a house divided.

    I'm willing to bet 98% of French Jews will remain in France. And if they don't they always have the option to return to their homogenous ethnic homeland. [A non-Jew Israeli citizen agitating for non-Jewish immigration to Israel would be run out on a rail.]

    What homeland shall the French Christian people return to? Oh, right.

    Whether Jewish actions are motivated by "altruism" or ethnic interest doesn't really matter, does it? The outcome is the same.

    I would add that the Islamic invaders in Europe have slaughtered far more Christians than Jews during the last few years.

    Yet it’s still all about how Europe isn’t safe for the Jews, isn’t it?

  206. @Anonymous
    The danger posed by Muslim immigration to Jews is more immediate than the threat from White gentiles in any place where mass Muslim immigration has been allowed. See R0naldB's response to this comment for corroboration. Hence, there will be little beneift to Jews from multiculturalism when large numbers of Muslims are present.

    Fair enough.

    So in other words, the Jewish push for mass immigration makes their behavior a danger not only to others (ask the Euros), but to themselves. Great.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Yeah. Exactly right.

    I never said I admired altruistic motivations. Between altruism and old-fashioned selfishness, I'd much rather have selfishness.

    By the way, have a gander at this article, which definitely addresses the issue of a Jewish desire to suppress any white nationalist feeling.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-donald-trump-5-would-trumps-defeat-be-blamed-on-jews
  207. @Moses
    Fair enough.

    So in other words, the Jewish push for mass immigration makes their behavior a danger not only to others (ask the Euros), but to themselves. Great.

    Yeah. Exactly right.

    I never said I admired altruistic motivations. Between altruism and old-fashioned selfishness, I’d much rather have selfishness.

    By the way, have a gander at this article, which definitely addresses the issue of a Jewish desire to suppress any white nationalist feeling.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-donald-trump-5-would-trumps-defeat-be-blamed-on-jews

  208. @Moses

    In the wake of the slaughter of four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket by an Islamic jihadist, a Parisian Jew said: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are finished in France.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/12/the-death-of-the-jews-of-france/
     

    Collateral damage.

    The larger objective of weakening the historically white, Christian French state by importing unassimilable peoples is achieved. Very unlikely the French will ever unify against the Jews when they themselves are a house divided.

    I'm willing to bet 98% of French Jews will remain in France. And if they don't they always have the option to return to their homogenous ethnic homeland. [A non-Jew Israeli citizen agitating for non-Jewish immigration to Israel would be run out on a rail.]

    What homeland shall the French Christian people return to? Oh, right.

    Whether Jewish actions are motivated by "altruism" or ethnic interest doesn't really matter, does it? The outcome is the same.

    “Whether Jewish actions are motivated by “altruism” or ethnic interest doesn’t really matter, does it? The outcome is the same.”

    Well, think of it logically. If their actions are based on altruism, then it’s much harder to change their actions, as they’re unconcerned with consequences. If they’re based on self-interest, the actions can be changed by showing that their self-interests are not actually served best by destroying the society that protects them and allows them almost unlimited self-expression.

    “And if they don’t they always have the option to return to their homogenous[sic] ethnic homeland.”

    I think this implies that it is a good idea to end dual citizenship. Someone can be a citizen of the US or Israel (or Iran, or Mexico) but not both. Anyone who accepts citizenship in another country automatically renounces his US citizenship. This ought to make someone pause before fouling his own nest.

    You may think that Israel has automatic citizenship for any Jew, so ending dual citizenship in the US will not change the behavior of the liberal Jews.

    I think that’s not necessarily the case. Consider this: any Jew going to Israel would have to apply for citizenship at that point. He won’t have it already in the bag.

    Also consider, liberal US Jews hate Netanyahu.
    https://www.urj.org/blog/2016/07/25/netanyahu-government-subverts-supreme-court-court-favor-haredi-parties
    No one ever accused Netanyahu of being a bad politician, so he’s well aware of that. If mass Muslim migration to the US occurred, and millions of Jews tried to go to Israel, most of them would be liberal and vote Netanyahu out of office. So, my betting is he would find a way to deny them citizenship. I won’t go into the specific mechanisms here, but it’s very, very possible.

    So, the ending of dual citizenship is a good, solid way to realign the actions of US Jews with the interests of the (currently) predominant culture in the US.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2