The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Julie Burchill's Jewish Ex-Husband Reviews Her "Unchosen: the Memoirs of a Philo-Semite"
🔊 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

From The Spectator:

What Julie Burchill’s ex-husband thinks of her new memoir

A review of Unchosen: The Memoirs of a Philo-Semite, by Julie Burchill. You can sum this memoir up in a sentence: Jews are smarter than the rest of the world, so suck it up gentile losers!

It’s a little hard to explain who newspaper columnist Julie Burchill is to a non-British audience. She was a teen record reviewer prodigy during the Sex Pistols era and managed to keep an audience either despite or because she has changed sides so frequently. And she’s a train wreck in the Hunter S. Thompson manner.

by Cosmo Landesman 8 November 2014

Unchosen: The Memoirs of a Philo-Semite Julie Burchill

Unbound, pp.229, £14.99, ISBN: 9781908717962

Unchosen is the journalist Julie Burchill’s account of how she — a bright and bratty working-class girl from Bristol — fell in love with the Jewish race. It’s an exhilarating and exasperating mix of the utterly brilliant and the totally bonkers.

Poor Julie — she thought that her teenage dream of marrying a Jewish man had come true when she married me back in the 1980s. Yes, she got her Jew, but the -ish bit was missing. My family and I earn a chapter in her book called ‘Meet the Perverts’ and all I can say is: Oy vey! You think you’re a smart and funny man to be married to — and then you read an ex-wife’s memoir and you wonder: was I that boring?

Today Julie describes her self as a philo-Semite — that is, an admirer or lover of the Jews. But as her book makes clear, there are plenty of Jews Julie doesn’t love: me, David Baddiel, the journalist Anne Karpf, the actress Miriam Margolyes, her local lesbian rabbi, Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah and millions of Jews around the world who have ever criticised Israel. Her love is blind, deaf and dumb to such an obvious contradiction.

When I was married to Julie she was not only a philo-Semite but a Stalinist who regarded the working-class as the chosen people. Nowadays she’s a Stalinist philo-Semite; anyone who doesn’t toe the party line of uncritical support for Israel is branded a ‘self-loathing Jew’.

Julie’s love affair with Judaism began as a teenager in Bristol when she discovered the horrors of the Holocaust. (Funny; the horrors of Stalinism never bothered her.) So why does she love Jews? She says it’s not for the usual cute reasons: the humour, the food, the feeling for family etc. No, Julie loves the hard stuff: religion, Israel and Zionism.

But most of all she loves those big Jewish brains. Time and time again, she argues that anti-Semitism, criticism of Israel, war in the Middle East, you name it, are all rooted in one simple fact: the Jews are so much smarter than everyone on the planet. And this produces Jew-envy on a global scale.

One of the admirable things about her book is that she comes out and says what so many other pro-Jewish historians — like Paul Johnson and Simon Schama — only hint at deep in the subtext of their works. They would never be so intellectually crass as actually to say that the Jews are superior to anyone else. Julie, on the other hand, is happy to shout it out from the synagogue rooftop: the Jews are smarter, more successful and better than the rest of you lot, so suck it up, gentile losers! …

But you can’t simply dismiss Julie as a Zionist nutjob — despite the fact that numerous times in her book she practically comes out and says: ‘I’m a Zionist nutjob, so sue me!’ She has some fair points about how white liberal leftists have turned a blind eye to the sexism, homophobia and violence of Islam in the name of multicultural tolerance. And let’s give her credit: Julie was making these points back in the 1980s, when it was a brave thing to do. …

I suspect this model of the columnist as star doesn’t work as well in the Clickbait era. For example, Nicholas Kristof is an old-fashioned star journalist, an intelligent fellow who works extremely hard, traveling all over the Third World. But lately even Kristof seems to be turning to the Clickbait model of denouncing white people to get visits from readers who want to see if the whole column is as stupid as the link makes it sound.

The columnist business seems to be turning itself into something much like music on the Internet: So, evidently you like Post-Dub Step? Well, here are 300 more Post-Dub Step songs.

And then there’s the bred-in earnestness of American columnists, while London columnists gleefully prided themselves on being hacks looking for the Next Big Thing to ride for awhile.

 
Hide 154 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’ve been saying this for a while: philosemitism is erzats nationalism for naturally nationalistic people who realize that European/white nationalism has become too disreputable. And with jews it can’t be, because holocaust.

    • Replies: @donut
    You're comment is incoherent
  2. Anyone click to the photograph and notice how big she is? Oy! You can keep her…

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    She's 55. It typically comes with the territory at that age. Just gotta live with it.
  3. Cosmo Landesman is the kind of “literary journalist” we in the States can only dream of having: a (sort-of) leftist who is completely unmoved by any PC idiocies, and who, without warning, with frankness but without boasting, often alludes to his personal hedonism in print, e.g. “I recently had sex with a woman who writes for the Guardian and…”

    My favorite line of his from the past few months:

    And right-wing women never think that leaving the toilet seat up is a passive-aggressive act of patriarchy.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9264391/my-secret-lust-for-right-wing-women/

    • Replies: @Voltaire's Spinning Corpse
    Could care less about Landesman's secret ironic lust, I'm just struck by the fact there's a human being walking somewhere out there named "Jemima Khan."
  4. “She says it’s not for the usual cute reasons … the food … ”

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "are there people who actually love Jews because of their food?"

    Sandwich culture -- it goes back to my Taki's article on white bread, but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Like when I moved to Chicago in late 1982 for a job, we'd go out to lunch at nearby Jewish delis and they were pretty good. Finally, when spring came in 1983, on a warm day I walked the mile over to Michigan Avenue and discovered an Italian deli. Italian sandwiches are better than Jewish sandwiches, but Italians usually can't be bothered with sandwiches when they could be cooking entrees.

    , @Clyde

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.
     
    Pastrami!! Potato knish..a real one made w chicken fat.
    Btw there are pastrami cultists all over America and less than half are Jewish
    , @Ed
    Jewish delis often serve good, Central European style comfort food. Its a legitimate reason for philosemitism.
    , @Jack D
    Personally I love the food (brisket, matzoh ball soup, noodle pudding, etc.) because it reminds me of my childhood, but to be honest, it is a pretty bland Central European type cuisine and if it wasn't my own, I wouldn't be that wild about it. People are not lining up around the block for German or Polish food either. Generally speaking Jews have always been influenced by the culture of the place where they live, especially when it came to food- you were going to eat whatever grew locally whether you liked it or not (but of course limited by their dietary laws - no pork no matter how much the locals love it) and in the German/Polish borderlands where it's cold and rainy 9 month/yr, they were going to eat lots of root vegetables, cabbage, etc. It can be good in a "comfort food" way now and then as long as you don't have to eat it every day. Compared to traditional English-influenced American food it's good (almost anything is good compared to English food) but now we have the whole world open to us and there are a lot more exciting cuisines out there.
    , @Jack D
    Personally I love the food (brisket, matzoh ball soup, noodle pudding, etc.) because it reminds me of my childhood, but to be honest, it is a pretty bland Central European type cuisine and if it wasn't my own, I wouldn't be that wild about it. People are not lining up around the block for German or Polish food either. Generally speaking Jews have always been influenced by the culture of the place where they live, especially when it came to food- you were going to eat whatever grew locally whether you liked it or not (but of course limited by their dietary laws - no pork no matter how much the locals love it) and in the German/Polish borderlands where it's cold and rainy 9 month/yr, they were going to eat lots of root vegetables, cabbage, etc. It can be good in a "comfort food" way now and then as long as you don't have to eat it every day. Compared to traditional English-influenced American food it's good (almost anything is good compared to English food) but now we have the whole world open to us and there are a lot more exciting cuisines out there.
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I used to like reading Julie Burchill. If I recall correctly she had a lesbian phase but usually liked to trash all sorts of opinions so you never felt she was inflexible and dogmatic. Yes, she would switch sides but she was generally entertaining. As for Cosmo, I used to read his stuff too but if he was let down in some way by Julie maybe his review is not entirely fair.

  6. @jon
    "She says it’s not for the usual cute reasons ... the food ... "

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.

    “are there people who actually love Jews because of their food?”

    Sandwich culture — it goes back to my Taki’s article on white bread, but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Like when I moved to Chicago in late 1982 for a job, we’d go out to lunch at nearby Jewish delis and they were pretty good. Finally, when spring came in 1983, on a warm day I walked the mile over to Michigan Avenue and discovered an Italian deli. Italian sandwiches are better than Jewish sandwiches, but Italians usually can’t be bothered with sandwiches when they could be cooking entrees.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Steve, the provincial suburban grocery where my mother shopped in 1968 +/- 10 years carried rye bread. So did the small-town supermarket where I spent 1/3 of my life.
    , @Anonymous
    Jewish food is just like Central European/German/Eastern European food i.e. pretty bland and not that great. It's good for hearty and filling simple stuff like sandwiches, knishes, latkes, motza ball soup, etc. But like German and C/E Euro food, the entrees aren't exactly spectacular. Not like Italian or French cuisine.
  7. Steve, I have a new politically incorrect race and politics theory for you: minority candidates badly underperform white candidates. This applies in both white and minority areas, and for both Republicans and Democrats.

    Let’s look at white-minority California (though we’re still about 60% of actual voters).

    Governor: White Dem v Asian Indian Republican D+17.6
    Lt Gov: White Dem v White Republican D+12
    SoS: Hispanic Dem v. White Republican D+5.2
    Controller: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+5.6
    Treasurer: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+15.6
    AG: Half-black Dem v. White Republican D+12.8
    Ins. Com. White Dem v White Republican D+12.8

    In summary, both Democrats and Republicans suffer when they nominate non-white candidates, even in extremely diverse California. The worst performing Republican in California this year was an Asian Indian, the worst performing Democrat was a Hispanic. The second worst performing democrat was an Asian.

    In 2010, the worst performing Democrat was half-black (Harris), wining by less than a point when the white Democrats won by 10 (Boxer) 13 (Brown) 11 (Newsome) 15 (Bowen) 20 (Lockyer) 13 (Jones).

    Here is the short list of Democrats who have done the impossible and lost a statewide California election, 1998 to 2014:

    Phil Angelides (Greek white guy, but with a hispanic sounding name, defeated by Arnold)
    Cruz Bustamante (lost by 11.5 points to Republican Steve Poizner)
    Michela Alioto (another white with a vaguely hispanic name, lost by 1.1 points to Bill Jones)
    Diane Martinez (lost by 6.1 points to Chuck Quackenbush)

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks, I'll try to steal that.

    It's funny how everybody knows there is kind of a natural ruling caste. In Presidential politics, it's people of British (or Dutch) descent.

    In California politics, the Catholic Browns will be governor for 40% of the time from 1959 to 2019. Everybody denounces Pete Wilson's big come-from-behind win over Jerry's sister Kathleen in 1994 for playing the immigration card, but the only other guy who beat a Brown in seven races for governor was Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon couldn't beat a Brown.

    , @IBC

    Steve, I have a new politically incorrect race and politics theory for you: minority candidates badly underperform white candidates. This applies in both white and minority areas, and for both Republicans and Democrats.
     
    What about Mia Love, Utah's new Representative to Congress? She's black and the child of Hatian immigrants. But she's also a Republican, and a Morman, and her husband is white. Even so, I'm surprised there isn't more media coverage of her victory. I would have expected them to hail this as a major breakthrough. Her seat was formerly held by a Democrat too, although he didn't stand for re-election.
    , @WhatEvvs
    A Martinez managed to lose to a Quackenbush?
  8. @Lot
    Steve, I have a new politically incorrect race and politics theory for you: minority candidates badly underperform white candidates. This applies in both white and minority areas, and for both Republicans and Democrats.

    Let's look at white-minority California (though we're still about 60% of actual voters).

    Governor: White Dem v Asian Indian Republican D+17.6
    Lt Gov: White Dem v White Republican D+12
    SoS: Hispanic Dem v. White Republican D+5.2
    Controller: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+5.6
    Treasurer: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+15.6
    AG: Half-black Dem v. White Republican D+12.8
    Ins. Com. White Dem v White Republican D+12.8

    In summary, both Democrats and Republicans suffer when they nominate non-white candidates, even in extremely diverse California. The worst performing Republican in California this year was an Asian Indian, the worst performing Democrat was a Hispanic. The second worst performing democrat was an Asian.

    In 2010, the worst performing Democrat was half-black (Harris), wining by less than a point when the white Democrats won by 10 (Boxer) 13 (Brown) 11 (Newsome) 15 (Bowen) 20 (Lockyer) 13 (Jones).


    Here is the short list of Democrats who have done the impossible and lost a statewide California election, 1998 to 2014:

    Phil Angelides (Greek white guy, but with a hispanic sounding name, defeated by Arnold)
    Cruz Bustamante (lost by 11.5 points to Republican Steve Poizner)
    Michela Alioto (another white with a vaguely hispanic name, lost by 1.1 points to Bill Jones)
    Diane Martinez (lost by 6.1 points to Chuck Quackenbush)

    Thanks, I’ll try to steal that.

    It’s funny how everybody knows there is kind of a natural ruling caste. In Presidential politics, it’s people of British (or Dutch) descent.

    In California politics, the Catholic Browns will be governor for 40% of the time from 1959 to 2019. Everybody denounces Pete Wilson’s big come-from-behind win over Jerry’s sister Kathleen in 1994 for playing the immigration card, but the only other guy who beat a Brown in seven races for governor was Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon couldn’t beat a Brown.

    • Replies: @Acilius
    So Richard Nixon couldn't beat a Brown, but Steve Poizner could beat a brown. Got it.
    , @Art Deco
    The Browns are scarcely more Catholic than Dianne Feinstein (who's been known to attend a Latin Mass now and again). There are almost no serious Catholics in the Democratic Party holding positions more consequential than state legislator.
    , @Art Deco
    Richard Nixon couldn’t beat a Brown.

    He was running for a job he did not really want which concerned itself with issues about which he did not much care.
  9. I know what a big part of the discussion intelligence is on this site. I am also aware of the relative standings of Jews and Asians are for that trait, compared to “Whites” (if we are splitting Jews off).

    I really would like to see a consistent figure for Jewish IQ. I’ve seen figures all over the place for them, ranging from 107 to even as high as 120. So what is it?

    I’d also like to see a figure for these Haridi Jews as regards IQ. Be interesting to see if they score as high as regular Ashkenazim.

    But ok, Jews (and Asians) are smarter. We’ve established that.

    My question now is “So What?” Seems to me that when you have a conflict of interests, it’s just another day, just another fight, just another walk in the hobbesian jungle.

    Intelligence is a useful tool, but as far as I know, no higher power has parted the heavens and looked down as a gigantic head and said “Thou shall always heel to the smarter, for I have given them dominion over the earth, and all that is in it.”

    Seems to me that you could take a page from the Oakland Raiders (amusingly I think Al Davis was Jewish) and say “Just win baby.”

    China… is another country, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about them. I mean there are obvious things like our trade imbalance and immigration, but at this point these are side issues in the story of China. If they are the country that is going to be the linchpin of the 21st century, then I don’t see any way anyone derails that. Well except the Chinese of course.

    But as far as this country? Seems to me it is more a matter of saying “Meet me at the fifty. I’m going to kick your ass, no I’m not being talked out of it, it’s the same as it ever was, my tribe against yours.”

    • Replies: @peterike
    If they [China] are the country that is going to be the linchpin of the 21st century, then I don’t see any way anyone derails that.

    We, meaning the West, could derail them easily simply by re-patriating our manufacturing. Start with the bigger stuff (technology, appliances) and run it right on down to socks and plastic cups. Bring it all back.

    It only took about ten years to send most of it away. We could get it back in equal time and the net income of China Inc. would evaporate.
    , @Keith Vaz
    Ashkenazi IQ is exceptional when you factor in the huge number of retards they produce. This means the median IQ is way higher than the mean IQ. IOW almost every Jew you meet will have a higher IQ than that quoted.
    , @ben tillman

    But ok, Jews (and Asians) are smarter. We’ve established that.

    My question now is “So What?” Seems to me that when you have a conflict of interests, it’s just another day, just another fight, just another walk in the hobbesian jungle.

    Intelligence is a useful tool, but as far as I know, no higher power has parted the heavens and looked down as a gigantic head and said “Thou shall always heel to the smarter, for I have given them dominion over the earth, and all that is in it.”

    Seems to me that you could take a page from the Oakland Raiders (amusingly I think Al Davis was Jewish) and say “Just win baby.”
     
    You sound like Goldwin Smith who helped put Cornell University on the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwin_Smith


    A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader, whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might, so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the filling Empire they were the great slave traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force?

    Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled.
    It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.
     
  10. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks, I'll try to steal that.

    It's funny how everybody knows there is kind of a natural ruling caste. In Presidential politics, it's people of British (or Dutch) descent.

    In California politics, the Catholic Browns will be governor for 40% of the time from 1959 to 2019. Everybody denounces Pete Wilson's big come-from-behind win over Jerry's sister Kathleen in 1994 for playing the immigration card, but the only other guy who beat a Brown in seven races for governor was Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon couldn't beat a Brown.

    So Richard Nixon couldn’t beat a Brown, but Steve Poizner could beat a brown. Got it.

  11. @SFG
    Anyone click to the photograph and notice how big she is? Oy! You can keep her...

    She’s 55. It typically comes with the territory at that age. Just gotta live with it.

    • Replies: @Torn and Frayed
    Google Image tells me that she has been overweight most of her adult life.
  12. @Steve Sailer
    "are there people who actually love Jews because of their food?"

    Sandwich culture -- it goes back to my Taki's article on white bread, but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Like when I moved to Chicago in late 1982 for a job, we'd go out to lunch at nearby Jewish delis and they were pretty good. Finally, when spring came in 1983, on a warm day I walked the mile over to Michigan Avenue and discovered an Italian deli. Italian sandwiches are better than Jewish sandwiches, but Italians usually can't be bothered with sandwiches when they could be cooking entrees.

    but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Steve, the provincial suburban grocery where my mother shopped in 1968 +/- 10 years carried rye bread. So did the small-town supermarket where I spent 1/3 of my life.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're from suburban New York state though. Jews from New York City and elsewhere in the Northeast had been vacationing in rural upstate New York since the 20s. The Catskills were called the Borscht Belt and the Jewish Alps.
    , @dcite
    No rye bread is better than rye bread from a German bakery, and there were plenty of them in the 50s and 60s. I remember one. I grew up in a very limited area foodwise, but rye and good bakeries were around. However, bagels were new to me when I got to college.
    I remember a Jewish writer saying that people romanticize the Lower East Side a lot. He was relieved not to have to go those dimly lit delis with smooshy piles of this and that, and instead, in modern times, shop for the same items in hygenic supermarkets, with everything looking so much better.
  13. Minority candidates seem to do well in the South. Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Harry Lee, BJ Pak and don’t forget the Jewish and Chinese mayors of the metropolitan area of Louise, Mississippi.

  14. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks, I'll try to steal that.

    It's funny how everybody knows there is kind of a natural ruling caste. In Presidential politics, it's people of British (or Dutch) descent.

    In California politics, the Catholic Browns will be governor for 40% of the time from 1959 to 2019. Everybody denounces Pete Wilson's big come-from-behind win over Jerry's sister Kathleen in 1994 for playing the immigration card, but the only other guy who beat a Brown in seven races for governor was Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon couldn't beat a Brown.

    The Browns are scarcely more Catholic than Dianne Feinstein (who’s been known to attend a Latin Mass now and again). There are almost no serious Catholics in the Democratic Party holding positions more consequential than state legislator.

  15. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks, I'll try to steal that.

    It's funny how everybody knows there is kind of a natural ruling caste. In Presidential politics, it's people of British (or Dutch) descent.

    In California politics, the Catholic Browns will be governor for 40% of the time from 1959 to 2019. Everybody denounces Pete Wilson's big come-from-behind win over Jerry's sister Kathleen in 1994 for playing the immigration card, but the only other guy who beat a Brown in seven races for governor was Ronald Reagan. Richard Nixon couldn't beat a Brown.

    Richard Nixon couldn’t beat a Brown.

    He was running for a job he did not really want which concerned itself with issues about which he did not much care.

  16. There’s a new kind of clickbait brewing:

    Drudgebait.

    It’s when Politico or The Hill title an article with some sort of sky is falling for Democrats implication, when the article really isn’t that bad for Democrats. It’s just that the title is designed to get Drudge to link to it.

  17. ‘Jews uber alles’ is just amusing?

    So, the Nazis were right about the master race but wrong about which one.

  18. “Julie’s love affair with Judaism began as a teenager in Bristol when she discovered the horrors of the Holocaust.”

    In American education, Anne Frank and Rosa Parks have at this point cuckolded Franklin and Edison (and pretty much everyone else, for that matter) nearly completely. One wonders how far afield the contagion will spread before it runs its course.

    • Replies: @Voltaire's Spinning Corpse
    I would bet the two books most widely read (or assigned, I should clarify) in US schools are The Diary of Anne Frank and The Autobiography of Frederick Douglas. I went through school from 1973 to 1986 (k-12) and I can count how many times I was forced to either read those books or watch a dramatization or documentary on them. Third place would have to be To Kill a Mockingbird, which is a good book for people too young or dumb to read Intruder in the Dust. At any rate, the brainwashing agenda is quite naked.
    , @Lurker

    One wonders how far afield the contagion will spread before it runs its course.
     
    Geographically too - here in the UK my daughter has just had to do some homework extolling the party line on Rosa Parks. I've done my best to inject some unhelpful facts into our discussion but the finished work reflects the Official Truth.
  19. I hope and believe that the collapse of the mass media machine brought about by the web will bring an end to this era of shameless and bullying Philo-Semitism. Let the wealthy publishers, editors and movie producers find their little goyboys to sing their praises; the rest of us will be off somewhere else doing our own things.

    In the meantime, poor old Martin Amis is still working the same side of the street as Julie Birchell. He’s got a brand new book on, you guessed it, the Holocaust:

    The Zone of Interest is the fourteenth novel by the English author Martin Amis, published in 2014. Set in Auschwitz, it tells the story of a Nazi officer who has become enamored with the camp commandant’s wife. The story is conveyed by three narrators: Angelus Thomsen, the officer; Paul Doll, the commandant; and Szmul Zacharias, a Jewish Sonderkommando.

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

    What a stagnant swamp mainstream arts & letters is now. The good news is we can bypass these old cultural choke-points so easily now. I think we hit Peak Jew during the Bush Jr years and things have been looking up since. I’m optimistic.

  20. When I lived in England in the early 90s, Julie Burchill was one of several consistently amusing columnists. I seldom cared what she thought; and to the degree that I did, I generally disagreed with her. But she was often very funny and a good writer.

    Another favorite from that time: Lynn Barber, interestingly–what’s with the funny English chicks? She once did a profile / interview with some famous urine-quaffing actress (a Redgrave, maybe?). Headline: “A Nice Cup of Pee.”

    The third and final favorite was the Scotsman(!) Armando Ianucci, who much later would go on to create the wonderful show “The Thick of It.” His stuff was really good.

    Why haven’t we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Are we too nice?" No, you are too earnest.
    , @Lurker

    She once did a profile / interview with some famous urine-quaffing actress (a Redgrave, maybe?). Headline: “A Nice Cup of Pee.”
     
    Pretty sure that was the batty Sarah Miles.
    , @D. K.
    . . . Sarah Miles (the widow of screenwriter Robert Bolt)?
    , @Simon in London
    "Why haven’t we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis."

    Too earnest. You have lots of truly vile columnists, but they're all Terribly Serious.
    You do still have PJ O'Rourke I believe.
  21. Interesting piece on Frank Silvera. He seems to have been a quasi-Cliff Curtis in terms of racial ambiguity:

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2014/10/which_black_actor_who_passed_for_white.html

    • Replies: @David In TN
    I remember Frank Silvera for Stanley Kubrick's "Killer's Kiss," in which he played the villain, who seemed to be an Italian.

    By the way, "Killer's Kiss" is running this month on the MGM movie channel.
  22. @Sunbeam
    I know what a big part of the discussion intelligence is on this site. I am also aware of the relative standings of Jews and Asians are for that trait, compared to "Whites" (if we are splitting Jews off).

    I really would like to see a consistent figure for Jewish IQ. I've seen figures all over the place for them, ranging from 107 to even as high as 120. So what is it?

    I'd also like to see a figure for these Haridi Jews as regards IQ. Be interesting to see if they score as high as regular Ashkenazim.

    But ok, Jews (and Asians) are smarter. We've established that.

    My question now is "So What?" Seems to me that when you have a conflict of interests, it's just another day, just another fight, just another walk in the hobbesian jungle.

    Intelligence is a useful tool, but as far as I know, no higher power has parted the heavens and looked down as a gigantic head and said "Thou shall always heel to the smarter, for I have given them dominion over the earth, and all that is in it."

    Seems to me that you could take a page from the Oakland Raiders (amusingly I think Al Davis was Jewish) and say "Just win baby."

    China... is another country, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about them. I mean there are obvious things like our trade imbalance and immigration, but at this point these are side issues in the story of China. If they are the country that is going to be the linchpin of the 21st century, then I don't see any way anyone derails that. Well except the Chinese of course.

    But as far as this country? Seems to me it is more a matter of saying "Meet me at the fifty. I'm going to kick your ass, no I'm not being talked out of it, it's the same as it ever was, my tribe against yours."

    If they [China] are the country that is going to be the linchpin of the 21st century, then I don’t see any way anyone derails that.

    We, meaning the West, could derail them easily simply by re-patriating our manufacturing. Start with the bigger stuff (technology, appliances) and run it right on down to socks and plastic cups. Bring it all back.

    It only took about ten years to send most of it away. We could get it back in equal time and the net income of China Inc. would evaporate.

  23. Julie Burchill’s career peaked when she was 17 years old, and then it has been all downhill ever since.
    Basically people confused precocity for talent.

  24. @slumber_j
    When I lived in England in the early 90s, Julie Burchill was one of several consistently amusing columnists. I seldom cared what she thought; and to the degree that I did, I generally disagreed with her. But she was often very funny and a good writer.

    Another favorite from that time: Lynn Barber, interestingly--what's with the funny English chicks? She once did a profile / interview with some famous urine-quaffing actress (a Redgrave, maybe?). Headline: "A Nice Cup of Pee."

    The third and final favorite was the Scotsman(!) Armando Ianucci, who much later would go on to create the wonderful show "The Thick of It." His stuff was really good.

    Why haven't we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis.

    “Are we too nice?” No, you are too earnest.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Are we too nice?” No, you are too earnest.
     
    That used to be important.....
  25. @The Man From K Street
    Cosmo Landesman is the kind of "literary journalist" we in the States can only dream of having: a (sort-of) leftist who is completely unmoved by any PC idiocies, and who, without warning, with frankness but without boasting, often alludes to his personal hedonism in print, e.g. "I recently had sex with a woman who writes for the Guardian and..."

    My favorite line of his from the past few months:

    And right-wing women never think that leaving the toilet seat up is a passive-aggressive act of patriarchy.
     
    - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9264391/my-secret-lust-for-right-wing-women/

    Could care less about Landesman’s secret ironic lust, I’m just struck by the fact there’s a human being walking somewhere out there named “Jemima Khan.”

  26. I am not earnest.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I am not earnest.
     
    No, but are you Lugash?
  27. @Desiderius
    "Julie’s love affair with Judaism began as a teenager in Bristol when she discovered the horrors of the Holocaust."

    In American education, Anne Frank and Rosa Parks have at this point cuckolded Franklin and Edison (and pretty much everyone else, for that matter) nearly completely. One wonders how far afield the contagion will spread before it runs its course.

    I would bet the two books most widely read (or assigned, I should clarify) in US schools are The Diary of Anne Frank and The Autobiography of Frederick Douglas. I went through school from 1973 to 1986 (k-12) and I can count how many times I was forced to either read those books or watch a dramatization or documentary on them. Third place would have to be To Kill a Mockingbird, which is a good book for people too young or dumb to read Intruder in the Dust. At any rate, the brainwashing agenda is quite naked.

  28. Jews are neither as interesting nor as intelligent as they (and their admirers and detractors) think they are.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No doubt your assessment is based on meticulous and dispassionate research rather than animus.
  29. most of all she loves those big Jewish brains. Time and time again, she argues that anti-Semitism, criticism of Israel, war in the Middle East, you name it, are all rooted in one simple fact: the Jews are so much smarter than everyone on the planet. And this produces Jew-envy on a global scale.

    This sort of attitude is a good deal more common in the US than in the UK. Hell, you can’t swing a cat around this blog without hitting numerous people who think the same way. The Evangelical Christians often get the blame for putting Jews up on a pedestal, but in my experience the pedestalizing of Jews is more likely to come from well-educated (not the same thing as highly intelligent) secular white gentiles. It’s a curious psychological phenomenon.
    .

  30. You are so right.

    Here in Indianapolis the major news/talk radio station is WIBC. It is owned by Jeff Smulyan of Emmis Communications

    Jeff Smulyan is a NeoCon’s NeoCon.

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

    WIBC is extremely philo-semitic. The morning talk radio host is the lawyer Greg Garrison, famous for the prosecution of the Mike Tyson rape trial. In the 1990’s was a legal analysis for CBS. Garrison is a Scofield study bible Christian Zionist.

    The other talk radio hosts are:
    Tony Katz(Jew) http://www.wibc.com/blogs/tony-katz
    Tom Rose(Jew) http://www.wibc.com/blogs/garrison/segments-interviews/tom-rose-sets-scene-live-jerusalem
    Dana Loesch(Jew) http://danaloeschradio.com/
    Chicks on the Right: Miriam Weaver(Part Jew) and Amy Jo Clark(Gentile) http://chicksontheright.com/aboutus/about-the-chicks

    I never knew there were so many Jews in Indy and I grew up here.

    WIBC is obsessed with Iran getting nuclear weapons and bombing them preemptively asap.

    Weekly Garrison guests are neocon stalwarts Michael Ledeen, David Horowitz, Victor David Hansen, Jed Babbin along with numerous Breitbart columnist.

    Israel’s borders and right to defend herself have never questioned.

    It is only in the last two years as local callers have demanded that this nation’s sovereignty be defended that WIBC has taken a stronger stance against Open Borders.

  31. Since I can’t edit my just-made comment, I know that the Douglas book’s actual title is something along the lines of The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas or something similar. Had to add that before some smart alec corrected me.

  32. I really would like to see a consistent figure for Jewish IQ. I’ve seen figures all over the place for them, ranging from 107 to even as high as 120. So what is it?

    For a variety of reasons, not least the lack of a good answer to the question “What exactly makes someone ‘Jewish’?”, it’s difficult to say exactly what the Jewish IQ is. But it’s certainly a lot closer to the 107 figure than to 120. In fact Lynn examined a large number of Jewish IQ studies and concluded that the American Jewish verbal IQ is about 107. So their overall average IQ after factoring in their math IQ is probably about 105.

    The worldwide Jewish average is lower than that. American Jews are higher IQ than the ones in Israel or Europe.

    • Replies: @Lot

    But it’s certainly a lot closer to the 107 figure than to 120. In fact Lynn examined a large number of Jewish IQ studies and concluded that the American Jewish verbal IQ is about 107. So their overall average IQ after factoring in their math IQ is probably about 105.
     
    Wrong wrong wrong. And as I've noted before, while I have a high opinion of Lynn generally, his he's really weak at the meta-analysis needed to make these estimates, especially in his earlier work.

    Here is Cochran’s survey from 2005:


    Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0·75 to 1·0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ of 112–115. This has been seen in many studies (Levinson, 1959; Backman, 1972; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less – only half a standard deviation (Lynn, 2004).
     
    Lynn, author of this low estimate from 2004, came out with a higher estimate in 2006:

    Three early studies are summarized that found that Jews in Britain have mean IQs in the range of 110–113. New data are presented for two nationally representative samples of 7–16 year olds in which Jews had mean IQs of 108.5 and 107.7. Taking all five studies into account, it is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in Britain is 110. It is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in the United States is 109.5.
     
    (Note that Britain’s Jews are more likely to be Sephardic than America’s)

    Here’s Charles Murray in 2007:


    But it is currently accepted that the mean is somewhere in the range of 107 to 115, with 110 being a plausible compromise.
     
    Lynn again, in 2011:

    Ashkenazi (European) Jews have high average earnings, educational attainment, socio-economic status, and intellectual achievements. It is proposed that these can be at least partially explained by their high average IQ, which is estimated at 110. The Mizrahim (Oriental) and the Ethiopian Jews have lower IQs, estimated 91 for the Mizrahim and 70 for the Ethiopian Jews
     
    In other words, all the anti-Semites have to grasp on to with their underestimates of Ashkenazi IQ's is a single outlier estimate of 107 by Lynn at a time when Lynn was publishing statistically sloppy work (ie with wildly different estimates for closely related European countries, weighting studies of 80 people the same as those of 5,000, etc). However they ignore Lynn's repeated and more recent higher estimates, not to mention these other sources I quoted above with solid realist credentials.

    BTW, if you want a group that probably has an overestimated IQ, I suggest the Chinese. We have tons of IQ tests of Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and non-representative US immigrants. We have zero samples of the IQ tests of the nearly 10% of the human race consisting of Chinese farmers or rural laborers. I'd expect the 105/106 numbers put out as Chinese IQ to be more like 102-103 if a representative sample is ever done. I do think 105/106 is accurate for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and urban mainland Chinese.

    , @Anonymous
    The discrepancy in IQ among Ashkenazi Jews is not between "math IQ" and verbal IQ but between verbal IQ and visual/spatial IQ. Mathematics ability is related to both of those domains.
  33. @syonredux
    Interesting piece on Frank Silvera. He seems to have been a quasi-Cliff Curtis in terms of racial ambiguity:

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2014/10/which_black_actor_who_passed_for_white.html

    I remember Frank Silvera for Stanley Kubrick’s “Killer’s Kiss,” in which he played the villain, who seemed to be an Italian.

    By the way, “Killer’s Kiss” is running this month on the MGM movie channel.

  34. @jon
    "She says it’s not for the usual cute reasons ... the food ... "

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.

    Pastrami!! Potato knish..a real one made w chicken fat.
    Btw there are pastrami cultists all over America and less than half are Jewish

  35. @slumber_j
    When I lived in England in the early 90s, Julie Burchill was one of several consistently amusing columnists. I seldom cared what she thought; and to the degree that I did, I generally disagreed with her. But she was often very funny and a good writer.

    Another favorite from that time: Lynn Barber, interestingly--what's with the funny English chicks? She once did a profile / interview with some famous urine-quaffing actress (a Redgrave, maybe?). Headline: "A Nice Cup of Pee."

    The third and final favorite was the Scotsman(!) Armando Ianucci, who much later would go on to create the wonderful show "The Thick of It." His stuff was really good.

    Why haven't we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis.

    She once did a profile / interview with some famous urine-quaffing actress (a Redgrave, maybe?). Headline: “A Nice Cup of Pee.”

    Pretty sure that was the batty Sarah Miles.

  36. @Desiderius
    "Julie’s love affair with Judaism began as a teenager in Bristol when she discovered the horrors of the Holocaust."

    In American education, Anne Frank and Rosa Parks have at this point cuckolded Franklin and Edison (and pretty much everyone else, for that matter) nearly completely. One wonders how far afield the contagion will spread before it runs its course.

    One wonders how far afield the contagion will spread before it runs its course.

    Geographically too – here in the UK my daughter has just had to do some homework extolling the party line on Rosa Parks. I’ve done my best to inject some unhelpful facts into our discussion but the finished work reflects the Official Truth.

  37. iSteveFan says:

    Time and time again, she argues that anti-Semitism, criticism of Israel, war in the Middle East, you name it, are all rooted in one simple fact: the Jews are so much smarter than everyone on the planet. And this produces Jew-envy on a global scale.

    Julie Burchill sounds awfully much like our favorite “Scots-Irish” commenter at iSteve. Maybe they are one and the same.

  38. @Art Deco
    She's 55. It typically comes with the territory at that age. Just gotta live with it.

    Google Image tells me that she has been overweight most of her adult life.

  39. Why haven’t we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime?

    As far as funny, acerbic women there was Florence King, who had a column in National Review. When they got got rid of her, or she left of her own choice (not sure which), I no longer had any reason to maintain my subscription to that magazine.

  40. @Lot
    Steve, I have a new politically incorrect race and politics theory for you: minority candidates badly underperform white candidates. This applies in both white and minority areas, and for both Republicans and Democrats.

    Let's look at white-minority California (though we're still about 60% of actual voters).

    Governor: White Dem v Asian Indian Republican D+17.6
    Lt Gov: White Dem v White Republican D+12
    SoS: Hispanic Dem v. White Republican D+5.2
    Controller: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+5.6
    Treasurer: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+15.6
    AG: Half-black Dem v. White Republican D+12.8
    Ins. Com. White Dem v White Republican D+12.8

    In summary, both Democrats and Republicans suffer when they nominate non-white candidates, even in extremely diverse California. The worst performing Republican in California this year was an Asian Indian, the worst performing Democrat was a Hispanic. The second worst performing democrat was an Asian.

    In 2010, the worst performing Democrat was half-black (Harris), wining by less than a point when the white Democrats won by 10 (Boxer) 13 (Brown) 11 (Newsome) 15 (Bowen) 20 (Lockyer) 13 (Jones).


    Here is the short list of Democrats who have done the impossible and lost a statewide California election, 1998 to 2014:

    Phil Angelides (Greek white guy, but with a hispanic sounding name, defeated by Arnold)
    Cruz Bustamante (lost by 11.5 points to Republican Steve Poizner)
    Michela Alioto (another white with a vaguely hispanic name, lost by 1.1 points to Bill Jones)
    Diane Martinez (lost by 6.1 points to Chuck Quackenbush)

    Steve, I have a new politically incorrect race and politics theory for you: minority candidates badly underperform white candidates. This applies in both white and minority areas, and for both Republicans and Democrats.

    What about Mia Love, Utah’s new Representative to Congress? She’s black and the child of Hatian immigrants. But she’s also a Republican, and a Morman, and her husband is white. Even so, I’m surprised there isn’t more media coverage of her victory. I would have expected them to hail this as a major breakthrough. Her seat was formerly held by a Democrat too, although he didn’t stand for re-election.

    • Replies: @Ed
    All my replies to comments on this thread are way off topic, but Love lost the congressional election in 2012 in a district gerrymandered just for her, and barely won during a Republican wave election in an open seat race in 2014 in the same district. There are simply better stories for the Republicans to trumpet. Plus its not good at the GOP to look too closely to why she struggled, which is either due to the word that starts with "r" with the overwhelmingly Republican, Mormon voters in the district, or some problem with Love herself such as her open borders advocacy.
  41. WhatEvvs [AKA "Cookies"] says:

    Julie and Cosmo are both amusing.

    I enjoyed Landesman’s takedown of The History Boys. He was the only reviewer who had the balls to point out that it was a ridiculous piece of gay fantasizing. I don’t think it’s online anymore, which is a pity.

    Physically Julie now reminds me of Christopher Hitchens. Weird.

    About bread – NYC’s new hotbed of artisinal breadmaking is (where else): Brooklyn.

  42. To my mind, that a family could control one of the high profile positions in American politics for that long and never even get close to gaining their party’s nomination for President says that maybe their political skills aren’t all that great. In fact I’d say Jerry Brown is at best average politician with a good pedigree. Pat beat two former senators so his politics chops are obvious, but Jerry has lost or bailed on almost as many elections as he’s won. In California Pete Wilson is by far the greatest political talent of his generation as his convincing victory over Brown in 1982 demonstrates.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "To my mind, that a family could control one of the high profile positions in American politics for that long and never even get close to gaining their party’s nomination for President says that maybe their political skills aren’t all that great."

    The problem with your observation is that Jerry Brown DID, in fact, come fairly close to getting the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination in 1976. This fact is seldom discussed, for whatever reason, but it still happened.
  43. In fairness to the British people, most of us regard Julie Burchill as a transvestite acting like a complete and utter fool.

  44. Burchill looks like she could be a seperated at birth Hitchens sister.

  45. I have never heard of this person, but the idea that smart people are generally hated for being smart ties in with John Derbyshire’s review of Jared Taylor’s new book on facing race, in VDARE.com. In the review, Derbyshire notes that smarter people generally view the dumber populations with disdain, noting the dismissive tone of Whites and Asians in the book writing about Black people they encountered. But not hatred which is reserved for the dumber populations against the smarter.

    I believe Derbyshire is accurate, and thus as say, dumber populations in Europe regarded the Jews with hatred over being smart, so too do Blacks regard the smarter Whites with hatred for being marginally smarter. This fits in with lower IQ SE Asian populations being filled with hatred for smarter IQ Chinese diaspora populations.

    This is particularly true when you regard the Holocaust — wholesale extermination of populations that had no military power, training, or aptitude and could have easily been coopted. There seems no point to it other than the hatred of the stupid for the smart.

    And THAT is the lesson of the Holocaust. All White people are potentially Jews. There are very many MORE non-Whites, with lower IQs, who will hate HATE HATE Whites for having higher IQs. And there is no appeasement, no groveling, not abasement, no penance, nothing that will dim the hate. It is innate, for Whites being smarter than Africans, Middle Easterners, and so on.

    The solution? Always, ALWAYS be armed. Personally and as a nation. Here is where I part company with Steve and the Paleos. The Pat Buchanon types argue that original sin of America is Empire, or something, and that America must atone and return to splendid isolation. I feel the lesson of the Holocaust and a globalized world with lots more wealth and power flowing to the Third World argues for being armed and ready at all times.

    This is critical for smart(er) White people as a whole compared to the Third World: the hate over Whites being marginally smarter will only increase as globalization particularly communications/entertainment brings us in closer contact. It’s not 1788 any more, literally we are in Africa and Indonesia and Egypt’s backyard. The Israelis are a role model — they don’t depend on love and kindness from their neighbors but being armed and feared.

    Fear is better than love, among nations. What works in families (love is the only thing that holds Western style families together) fails completely applied to nations vs. nations, and peoples vs. peoples.

    All that being said, there are many Jews who are/were not very bright, or filled with such religious fervor they could not see what was coming or is coming. The true proven path to power historically has been military prowess and Jews avoid the military like the plague — outside of Israel where Bibi and Ehud Barak are both military veterans and most political leaders have had extensive military service. [I admire Israelis for seeing the obvious and being armed. Americans should copy them. Especially as a nation.]

    High IQ people have an achilles heel — religious belief as in Derbyshire’s recounting of Bishop Usher’s theory that matter does not exist. Dr. Johnson kicked a rock and said he disproved the theory thus.

  46. @slumber_j
    When I lived in England in the early 90s, Julie Burchill was one of several consistently amusing columnists. I seldom cared what she thought; and to the degree that I did, I generally disagreed with her. But she was often very funny and a good writer.

    Another favorite from that time: Lynn Barber, interestingly--what's with the funny English chicks? She once did a profile / interview with some famous urine-quaffing actress (a Redgrave, maybe?). Headline: "A Nice Cup of Pee."

    The third and final favorite was the Scotsman(!) Armando Ianucci, who much later would go on to create the wonderful show "The Thick of It." His stuff was really good.

    Why haven't we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis.

    . . . Sarah Miles (the widow of screenwriter Robert Bolt)?

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "are there people who actually love Jews because of their food?"

    Sandwich culture -- it goes back to my Taki's article on white bread, but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Like when I moved to Chicago in late 1982 for a job, we'd go out to lunch at nearby Jewish delis and they were pretty good. Finally, when spring came in 1983, on a warm day I walked the mile over to Michigan Avenue and discovered an Italian deli. Italian sandwiches are better than Jewish sandwiches, but Italians usually can't be bothered with sandwiches when they could be cooking entrees.

    Jewish food is just like Central European/German/Eastern European food i.e. pretty bland and not that great. It’s good for hearty and filling simple stuff like sandwiches, knishes, latkes, motza ball soup, etc. But like German and C/E Euro food, the entrees aren’t exactly spectacular. Not like Italian or French cuisine.

    • Replies: @Karl
    try telling that to people in Afula, or Netivot.

    In another generation, Israel will more Ethiopian Jews in American Jews.

    In 5 more generations, the USA will have more Ethiopian Jews than white-Ashkenazi "American Jews".
  48. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Here’s a recent interview with the guy with the world’s second-highest IQ, a Jewish guy named Rick Rosner:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-rick-rosner-2014-11

    Rosner currently ranks second on the The World Genius Directory, a fluid list of the planet’s top minds compiled from certified IQ tests sent in by listees and created by Dr. Jason Betts.

    “There is nothing else like the World Genius Directory,” says Rosener, 54, and living in California with his wife. “Before it was created by Dr. Jason Betts, there was no comprehensive listing of people with the world’s highest IQs.”

    Rosner is writing his memoir “Dumbass Genius,” while “working on a theory of the universe.”

    Here’s what he had to say in a recent interview with Business Insider UK:

    Business Insider: Your Twitter bio says you have the world’s second-highest IQ. What is that based on?

    Rick Rosner: I’ve taken way, way too many IQ tests – more than 30 – and on more than 20 of them, I’ve gotten the highest score ever, making me kind of the pre-2009 Tiger Woods of IQ tests. According to rankings compiled by the World Genius Directory, only one other person has ever gotten a higher score on an adult, high-end IQ test.

  49. @Art Deco
    but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Steve, the provincial suburban grocery where my mother shopped in 1968 +/- 10 years carried rye bread. So did the small-town supermarket where I spent 1/3 of my life.

    You’re from suburban New York state though. Jews from New York City and elsewhere in the Northeast had been vacationing in rural upstate New York since the 20s. The Catskills were called the Borscht Belt and the Jewish Alps.

  50. @slumber_j
    When I lived in England in the early 90s, Julie Burchill was one of several consistently amusing columnists. I seldom cared what she thought; and to the degree that I did, I generally disagreed with her. But she was often very funny and a good writer.

    Another favorite from that time: Lynn Barber, interestingly--what's with the funny English chicks? She once did a profile / interview with some famous urine-quaffing actress (a Redgrave, maybe?). Headline: "A Nice Cup of Pee."

    The third and final favorite was the Scotsman(!) Armando Ianucci, who much later would go on to create the wonderful show "The Thick of It." His stuff was really good.

    Why haven't we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis.

    “Why haven’t we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis.”

    Too earnest. You have lots of truly vile columnists, but they’re all Terribly Serious.
    You do still have PJ O’Rourke I believe.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "You do still have PJ O’Rourke I believe."

    Yeah, but he's not funny anymore. In fariness, almost no one is able to remain funny for over a quarter of a century, as he would have had to have done, in order to still be humorous.
  51. Anyone click to the photograph and notice how big she is? Oy! You can keep her…

    And if that doesn’t put you off her voice will.

    She can be quite entertaining as a writer as she’s quite good at ridiculing others (a very English trait) but I could only ever take her in small doses. I enjoyed her columns against the bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the ones mocking the hypocrisy of certain anti-war and anti-American lefties like Sean Penn. I think her column moved from The Guardian for The Times because of the Iraq War and Israel. I’d barely heard of her since but now I see she turned up again briefly at The Guardian writing the occasional piece like this nonsense about “cold-blooded conservative” Mick Jagger and the supposedly overrated Rolling Stones.

    As for her love of Israel it is as creepy and weird as that of any American evangelical.

  52. Burchill was the highest paid journalist in Britain, almost entirely thanks to Stewart Steven, Hamburg born half Jewish editor of the Mail on Sunday

    Hobbs: ” To obey is to honour, because no man obeys them whom they think have no power to help or hurt them.”

  53. “Jews are smarter than the rest of the world, so suck it up gentile losers!”

    Not really.

    The thing is, Jews are very tribal(they look out for each other and have great networking skills) and have a bifurcated morality(one for the goy and another for their fellow Jew). This makes them a very cunning and ruthless competitor that is almost impossible to beat when you combined these attributes.

    Your average white doesn’t have these benefits. Whites are not tribal but the quite the inverse, they are very individualistic today, to such a degree and won’t hesitate to back stab one another for fun and profit. They also lack the predatory morality that views outsiders as enemies and a natural resource to be exploited for personal gain.

    Whites could do with a bit of cultural regression so to speak. Go old school, build ties based on ethnicity like the Jews or Asians, have group interests etc. Drop the Nietzsche/Ayn Rand super man junk thinking. That stuff is counterproductive and only serves to divide a people which makes them easier to conquer.

  54. She boasted that she could never be bothered with her day job writing film reviews for the Sunday Times in the nineties. So she got her boyfriend to write them for her.

    That’s chutzpah!

  55. Keith Vaz [AKA "Sir Charles Pipkins"] says:
    @Sunbeam
    I know what a big part of the discussion intelligence is on this site. I am also aware of the relative standings of Jews and Asians are for that trait, compared to "Whites" (if we are splitting Jews off).

    I really would like to see a consistent figure for Jewish IQ. I've seen figures all over the place for them, ranging from 107 to even as high as 120. So what is it?

    I'd also like to see a figure for these Haridi Jews as regards IQ. Be interesting to see if they score as high as regular Ashkenazim.

    But ok, Jews (and Asians) are smarter. We've established that.

    My question now is "So What?" Seems to me that when you have a conflict of interests, it's just another day, just another fight, just another walk in the hobbesian jungle.

    Intelligence is a useful tool, but as far as I know, no higher power has parted the heavens and looked down as a gigantic head and said "Thou shall always heel to the smarter, for I have given them dominion over the earth, and all that is in it."

    Seems to me that you could take a page from the Oakland Raiders (amusingly I think Al Davis was Jewish) and say "Just win baby."

    China... is another country, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about them. I mean there are obvious things like our trade imbalance and immigration, but at this point these are side issues in the story of China. If they are the country that is going to be the linchpin of the 21st century, then I don't see any way anyone derails that. Well except the Chinese of course.

    But as far as this country? Seems to me it is more a matter of saying "Meet me at the fifty. I'm going to kick your ass, no I'm not being talked out of it, it's the same as it ever was, my tribe against yours."

    Ashkenazi IQ is exceptional when you factor in the huge number of retards they produce. This means the median IQ is way higher than the mean IQ. IOW almost every Jew you meet will have a higher IQ than that quoted.

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Ashkenazi IQ is exceptional when you factor in the huge number of retards they produce. This means the median IQ is way higher than the mean IQ. "

    Is this a fact? About the high level of retardation? Maybe you are making a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me in a way.

    We read factoids on these sites about how interrelated Ashkenazmim are (what is it, like every Ashkenazim is like a 2nd or 3rd cousin, or at least as close genetically as non-Jewish 2nd or 3rd cousins would be), and it has to pass your mind that something like birth defects are possible.

    Thing is, I really don't know much about genetics, particularly the kind of math used to analyze it. You hear of a concept like genetic drift, hear such and such a number in a given breeding population to avoid inbreeding, but without sitting down and actually cracking a textbook and working a lot of problems you aren't really going to understand it.

    We know there are a number of uncommon genetic diseases in the Ashkenazim population, some I understand that may be related to intelligence, but have side effects.

    So when can you classify a given population as inbred? I think most people were pretty clear about the Hapsburg's and their "jaw," but why couldn't you say the same for a population like Jews, the Ashkenazim at least?
  56. The key to this, as Landesman hints in the first sentence, is that Julie Burchill is working class. I never knew a working class Englishman who did not think that Jews are amazingly intelligent and I never knew a middle class one who did, possibly because different standards of intelligence are in operation. To a clever pusher of allegedly lowly birth like the young Burchill, a Jewish marriage spells instant insiderdom, an alternative path to advancement, and a whole network of people with the same enemies as her own.

    • Replies: @dcite
    Interesting. Class is much more significant to an English person than to Americans. Factor that. As for Ms. Burchill's age, she was the same way many years ago so why blame that? Usually people become more "tribal", not less, with age. I can't even begin to entertain notions that came easily to me in my teens and twenties. That's why some of these interracial relationships I see young people going for, make me shudder. Even just ten years later, much less 20 or 30, they will wonder what on earth they were thinking. Not all, but most.
  57. I had a look at Julie’s archive in the link in Steve’s post, and I can see why his UK commenters like her so much. She’s further evidence that lesbians are funnier than straight women. Browsing the most recent few columns, this may be the best, reviewing Jackie O’s 1960’s privately recorded interviews:

    Churchill is “gaga”, Roosevelt a “show-off” and any woman generally who doesn’t spend half her life fussing over her appearance, as Mrs Kennedy herself did, probably lesbian. In a crowning piece of hypocrisy, MLK is reviled as a phoney and sex fiend – this from a woman whose husband committed adultery even on the night of his inauguration, and who had girls performing for him on more nights than Minsky’s. If Madame Nhu and Clare Booth Luce HAD been lesbians, we’d surely have known, because JFK would have asked them if he could watch.

    He was barely cold in his casket before the classy Mrs K was making eyes at a Greek billionaire far coarser even than her dead husband, a man who saw fit to have his super-yacht’s barstools made of the skin from whale’s testicles, and the footrests on the stools made from polished whale’s teeth. Yet even Onassis was appalled at the level of his new wife’s shopping addiction – she made Coleen Rooney look like a Poor Clare. Before long he was back with his mistress, the self-made, independently wealthy Maria Callas. Not only was JBKO the world’s most expensive kept woman, she was also its most flagrantly and consistently cuckolded.

    On lefties who side with gypsies (the local UK ones are called Travellers and are partly Celtic) and palestinians over whites:

    Talking of gay rights, how interesting to see that the walking, talking, ranting, canting beacon of all things bullshit, Vanessa Redgrave, has seen fit to throw her weight behind the “strong, wise, warm and gentle” Travellers who are fighting for the right to stay put in their settlement at Dale Farm in Essex.

    I find it fascinating that, as a woman who had a gay dad and a gay husband, Redgrave persists in backing cultures which find homosexuality an abomination – the Chechen nationalists, the Palestinian goons, those in favour of Irish unification and now the Travellers. Is this some unconscious hostility she is working out?

  58. O’Rourke hasn’t been funny in decades. He probably drank and pilled his brains out. He was also probably not that funny to begin with, just made quips that stroked Republicans.

    • Replies: @Lot

    O’Rourke hasn’t been funny in decades. He probably drank and pilled his brains out. He was also probably not that funny to begin with, just made quips that stroked Republicans.

     

    Udolpho: runs a website full of holocaust jokes

    PJ O'Rourke: has written 20 books, a million magazine articles, and is "the most quoted living man in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations."

    Now I agree his work was a lot better in the 80's. Now the jokes come with a heavy dose of didactic GOP establishment moralism. But Modern Manners and Republican Party Reptile had me laughing out loud to the point of having to stop reading for a minute and catch my breath.

    But a man has to make a living, and he does very well headlining gatherings of rich conservatives at $25,000+ a speech. I met him when I was working at such an event when I was 16. A charming guy, happy to see he had a young fan who had read his books, and nice enough to spend a couple minutes talking to a kid working the event.
  59. @Lot
    Steve, I have a new politically incorrect race and politics theory for you: minority candidates badly underperform white candidates. This applies in both white and minority areas, and for both Republicans and Democrats.

    Let's look at white-minority California (though we're still about 60% of actual voters).

    Governor: White Dem v Asian Indian Republican D+17.6
    Lt Gov: White Dem v White Republican D+12
    SoS: Hispanic Dem v. White Republican D+5.2
    Controller: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+5.6
    Treasurer: Asian Dem v. White Republican D+15.6
    AG: Half-black Dem v. White Republican D+12.8
    Ins. Com. White Dem v White Republican D+12.8

    In summary, both Democrats and Republicans suffer when they nominate non-white candidates, even in extremely diverse California. The worst performing Republican in California this year was an Asian Indian, the worst performing Democrat was a Hispanic. The second worst performing democrat was an Asian.

    In 2010, the worst performing Democrat was half-black (Harris), wining by less than a point when the white Democrats won by 10 (Boxer) 13 (Brown) 11 (Newsome) 15 (Bowen) 20 (Lockyer) 13 (Jones).


    Here is the short list of Democrats who have done the impossible and lost a statewide California election, 1998 to 2014:

    Phil Angelides (Greek white guy, but with a hispanic sounding name, defeated by Arnold)
    Cruz Bustamante (lost by 11.5 points to Republican Steve Poizner)
    Michela Alioto (another white with a vaguely hispanic name, lost by 1.1 points to Bill Jones)
    Diane Martinez (lost by 6.1 points to Chuck Quackenbush)

    A Martinez managed to lose to a Quackenbush?

  60. @kihowi
    I've been saying this for a while: philosemitism is erzats nationalism for naturally nationalistic people who realize that European/white nationalism has become too disreputable. And with jews it can't be, because holocaust.

    You’re comment is incoherent

  61. No one loves Israel more than Southern Baptists who’ve never met a Jew or traveled north of Richmond.

  62. @Keith Vaz
    Ashkenazi IQ is exceptional when you factor in the huge number of retards they produce. This means the median IQ is way higher than the mean IQ. IOW almost every Jew you meet will have a higher IQ than that quoted.

    “Ashkenazi IQ is exceptional when you factor in the huge number of retards they produce. This means the median IQ is way higher than the mean IQ. ”

    Is this a fact? About the high level of retardation? Maybe you are making a joke, but it wouldn’t surprise me in a way.

    We read factoids on these sites about how interrelated Ashkenazmim are (what is it, like every Ashkenazim is like a 2nd or 3rd cousin, or at least as close genetically as non-Jewish 2nd or 3rd cousins would be), and it has to pass your mind that something like birth defects are possible.

    Thing is, I really don’t know much about genetics, particularly the kind of math used to analyze it. You hear of a concept like genetic drift, hear such and such a number in a given breeding population to avoid inbreeding, but without sitting down and actually cracking a textbook and working a lot of problems you aren’t really going to understand it.

    We know there are a number of uncommon genetic diseases in the Ashkenazim population, some I understand that may be related to intelligence, but have side effects.

    So when can you classify a given population as inbred? I think most people were pretty clear about the Hapsburg’s and their “jaw,” but why couldn’t you say the same for a population like Jews, the Ashkenazim at least?

  63. Regarding Jewish intelligence – there are only a few million of them (15 mil?), so there are far, FAR, more intelligent whites in the world so I don’t see what the big deal about Jewish intelligence is. In America the vast majority of highly intelligent people are white not Jewish. And of course, statistically, there are FAR more highly intelligent Asians than Jews.

    Jewish intelligence is interesting only in statistical terms, not absolute terms, in that say 80% of Jews are doctors or whatever (lets say) while only 20% of whites or whatever. That’s a fun fact, sure – but the fact remains that Jews represent a tiny proportion of world intellect, and a small proportion of the American intellect.

    IF you admire intellect, then why not simply admire intelligent people, whoever they are. Admiring intellect isn’t a reason for admiring Jews its a reason for admiring intelligent people.

    The fact is, however, that Jews have been performing far above their intellect, because their traditional insecurity and social inferiority has given them a level of drive and ambition, and need to prove and validate themselves, far beyond top-dog whites, who have no need to prove anything, or millenia-old-civilization Asians. Asians recently began to feel the need to validate themselves, and Jews have recently shown a reduction in performance as documented by Ron Unz, so things may be changing. Whites have the kind of embarrassed indifference for extreme competitiveness typical of top-dogs, but as they become a minority and their power declines, we may see the return of driven, ambitious whites.

  64. managed to keep an audience either despite or because she has changed sides so frequently.

    Two altogether opposed political stances can each draw an audience’s attention. One is to be politically consistent, but nonetheless original in one’s insights; the other, an inchoate form of apostasy, is to bank on the shock value of an occasional, wildly inconsistent outburst. The former approach, which Chomsky exemplifies, requires hard work, whereas the latter is a lazy substitute for it. Thus Nat Hentoff, the hip (he loves jazz) left-liberal writer, would jazz up his Village Voice columns by suddenly coming out against abortion or endorsing Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination. The master at this pose of maverick unpredictability used to be Christopher Hitchens. Amidst a fairly typical leftist politics, he would suddenly ambush unsuspecting readers with his opposition to abortion, admiration of the misogynist and juvenile lyrics of Two Live Crew (“I think that’s very funny”), or support for Columbus’s extermination of Native Americans (“deserving to be celebrated with great vim and gusto”). Immediately the talk of the town became, “Did you read Hitchens this week?”

    Although a tacit assumption equates unpredictability with independence of mind, it might just as well signal lack of principle

  65. @dearieme
    "Are we too nice?" No, you are too earnest.

    “Are we too nice?” No, you are too earnest.

    That used to be important…..

  66. @Sam Haysom
    To my mind, that a family could control one of the high profile positions in American politics for that long and never even get close to gaining their party's nomination for President says that maybe their political skills aren't all that great. In fact I'd say Jerry Brown is at best average politician with a good pedigree. Pat beat two former senators so his politics chops are obvious, but Jerry has lost or bailed on almost as many elections as he's won. In California Pete Wilson is by far the greatest political talent of his generation as his convincing victory over Brown in 1982 demonstrates.

    “To my mind, that a family could control one of the high profile positions in American politics for that long and never even get close to gaining their party’s nomination for President says that maybe their political skills aren’t all that great.”

    The problem with your observation is that Jerry Brown DID, in fact, come fairly close to getting the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination in 1976. This fact is seldom discussed, for whatever reason, but it still happened.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jerry Brown won Presidential primaries in 1976, 1984, and 1992.
    , @Sam Haysom
    Jimmy Carter got three times his votes in that primary competiton and secured 70 percent of the delegates. In delegate counts Jerry Brown came in third he won only two states. That isn't close at all. I get that one upmanship is big at this site but line your facts up before you do it. Rick Santorum got closer to his party's nomination than Jerry Brown has.
  67. “Jews are smarter, more successful and better than the rest of you . . .”

    I get the smarter and more successful, but better? I despise the copula that unreflectively links “the best” and “the brightest” — no matter the ethnicity! Intelligence, like technology, can be used for good or ill. The smartest are no more immune from egotistical, callous, even sociopathic behavior than the physically strongest have been historically. (Indeed the smartest are the strongest in modern societies.) We need to rediscover what our forebears meant by character.

    • Replies: @Lot

    The smartest are no more immune from egotistical, callous, even sociopathic behavior than the physically strongest have been historically.
     
    Actually, in general, they are. Maybe not immune from evil, but statistics on intelligence and measures of morality (empathy, future time orientation, crime rate) shows that IQ is indeed correlated with morality. Also with good looks and good health. These aren't especially strong correlations though, but they do exist. Linda Gottfriedson is the person who has most extensively breached these taboo topics. I think Satoshi and Cochran have also done so.
    , @Harry

    Intelligence, like technology, can be used for good or ill.
     
    This reminds me of an old Warren Buffett quote:

    Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy

     

  68. @Simon in London
    "Why haven’t we had anybody that funny and good in American papers in my lifetime? Are we too nice? I guess that would be my hypothesis."

    Too earnest. You have lots of truly vile columnists, but they're all Terribly Serious.
    You do still have PJ O'Rourke I believe.

    “You do still have PJ O’Rourke I believe.”

    Yeah, but he’s not funny anymore. In fariness, almost no one is able to remain funny for over a quarter of a century, as he would have had to have done, in order to still be humorous.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The really major comic artists get their novel outlooks incorporated into the culture so after awhile their jokes aren't novel anymore. You'd have to be a cultural archaeologist to understand understand comedy in the first quarter of the 20th Century to understand why Bob Hope was such giant force for change in about 1930-1950.

    Or Dave Barry in the 1980s -- Barry, who was born in Armonk, NY, headquarters of IBM, and had worked for seven years as a consultant trying to teach corporate managers how to write better memos, suddenly emerged in the 1980s with this perfect ear for yuppie corporate jargon that made him a huge seller in airport bookstores to frequent fliers traveling on business. Today, it might seem nuts that nobody beat Barry to this niche and we all now intuitively understand male middle manager humor due to Barry and his countless imitators, but Barry was stunningly funny when I first bought a book by him (his career advice book "Claw Your Way to the Top") at O'Hare in 1987.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    “You do still have PJ O’Rourke I believe.”

    Yeah, but he’s not funny anymore.
     
    No, but he's still got a sharp eye. In his last book, he came as close as anyone to disproving my observation that no one has ever uttered an intelligent (or intelligible) sentence containing the words "baby boom(er)".

    Garrys Trudeau and Keillor have shown that you can carry on for years after losing your wit, if you've kept your eye.

    In fariness
     
    Is that Freudian, or what?
  69. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "To my mind, that a family could control one of the high profile positions in American politics for that long and never even get close to gaining their party’s nomination for President says that maybe their political skills aren’t all that great."

    The problem with your observation is that Jerry Brown DID, in fact, come fairly close to getting the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination in 1976. This fact is seldom discussed, for whatever reason, but it still happened.

    Jerry Brown won Presidential primaries in 1976, 1984, and 1992.

    • Replies: @Ed
    It was 1976, 1980, and 1992. But Jerry Brown has had am impressive political career. He arguably came second in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1976 and definitely did come second in 1992, despite a really late start in one and no money and hostile media coverage in the other.
  70. @jon
    "She says it’s not for the usual cute reasons ... the food ... "

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.

    Jewish delis often serve good, Central European style comfort food. Its a legitimate reason for philosemitism.

  71. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "You do still have PJ O’Rourke I believe."

    Yeah, but he's not funny anymore. In fariness, almost no one is able to remain funny for over a quarter of a century, as he would have had to have done, in order to still be humorous.

    The really major comic artists get their novel outlooks incorporated into the culture so after awhile their jokes aren’t novel anymore. You’d have to be a cultural archaeologist to understand understand comedy in the first quarter of the 20th Century to understand why Bob Hope was such giant force for change in about 1930-1950.

    Or Dave Barry in the 1980s — Barry, who was born in Armonk, NY, headquarters of IBM, and had worked for seven years as a consultant trying to teach corporate managers how to write better memos, suddenly emerged in the 1980s with this perfect ear for yuppie corporate jargon that made him a huge seller in airport bookstores to frequent fliers traveling on business. Today, it might seem nuts that nobody beat Barry to this niche and we all now intuitively understand male middle manager humor due to Barry and his countless imitators, but Barry was stunningly funny when I first bought a book by him (his career advice book “Claw Your Way to the Top”) at O’Hare in 1987.

  72. @Steve Sailer
    Jerry Brown won Presidential primaries in 1976, 1984, and 1992.

    It was 1976, 1980, and 1992. But Jerry Brown has had am impressive political career. He arguably came second in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1976 and definitely did come second in 1992, despite a really late start in one and no money and hostile media coverage in the other.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    Rick Santorum achieved a higher delegate count and percentage of the vote in one attempt than Jerry Brown achieved in three attempts. The eventual winner in both 76 and 92 both tripled Brown's vote total.
  73. @IBC

    Steve, I have a new politically incorrect race and politics theory for you: minority candidates badly underperform white candidates. This applies in both white and minority areas, and for both Republicans and Democrats.
     
    What about Mia Love, Utah's new Representative to Congress? She's black and the child of Hatian immigrants. But she's also a Republican, and a Morman, and her husband is white. Even so, I'm surprised there isn't more media coverage of her victory. I would have expected them to hail this as a major breakthrough. Her seat was formerly held by a Democrat too, although he didn't stand for re-election.

    All my replies to comments on this thread are way off topic, but Love lost the congressional election in 2012 in a district gerrymandered just for her, and barely won during a Republican wave election in an open seat race in 2014 in the same district. There are simply better stories for the Republicans to trumpet. Plus its not good at the GOP to look too closely to why she struggled, which is either due to the word that starts with “r” with the overwhelmingly Republican, Mormon voters in the district, or some problem with Love herself such as her open borders advocacy.

  74. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "To my mind, that a family could control one of the high profile positions in American politics for that long and never even get close to gaining their party’s nomination for President says that maybe their political skills aren’t all that great."

    The problem with your observation is that Jerry Brown DID, in fact, come fairly close to getting the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination in 1976. This fact is seldom discussed, for whatever reason, but it still happened.

    Jimmy Carter got three times his votes in that primary competiton and secured 70 percent of the delegates. In delegate counts Jerry Brown came in third he won only two states. That isn’t close at all. I get that one upmanship is big at this site but line your facts up before you do it. Rick Santorum got closer to his party’s nomination than Jerry Brown has.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jerry Brown was barely old enough to be President under the Constitution in 1976, he entered the campaign very, very late when Carter seemed to have it wrapped up, and still won some primaries. In 1992, Brown came close to seriously damaging Bill Clinton. I forget which primary it was, but Brown had seriously deflated Clinton's momentum at some point.

    All this despite being, in my impression (just from going to one speech and talking to Brown privately for five minutes) a terrible natural politician, the anti-Clinton. He's like an inarticulate Obama. And he's going to be the governor of the biggest state on and off over a 44 year period. That's just very odd.

  75. @Ed
    It was 1976, 1980, and 1992. But Jerry Brown has had am impressive political career. He arguably came second in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1976 and definitely did come second in 1992, despite a really late start in one and no money and hostile media coverage in the other.

    Rick Santorum achieved a higher delegate count and percentage of the vote in one attempt than Jerry Brown achieved in three attempts. The eventual winner in both 76 and 92 both tripled Brown’s vote total.

  76. I should add that Republican primaries are far more winner takes all than Democratic primaries so Santorums delegates were harder to win than Brown’s were.

  77. I have never heard of this person, but the idea that smart people are generally hated for being smart

    Is self-serving bullshit.

    See? It doesn’t take a wall of text.

    I believe Derbyshire is accurate, and thus as say, dumber populations in Europe regarded the Jews with hatred over being smart, so too do Blacks regard the smarter Whites with hatred for being marginally smarter. This fits in with lower IQ SE Asian populations being filled with hatred for smarter IQ Chinese diaspora populations.

    “Marginally,” lol. The gap is twice or more the European-Jewish gap. So, what does that make the latter? Marginally marginal?

    Blacks are below the threshold for advanced civilization. So, everyone living outside of black rule inspires envy in the blacks around them, given enough time. It also requires a substantial black population – a few upper crust blacks fresh from Africa won’t do it. No, it’s living in another group’s country that inspires envy and resentment. Sort of like how Jews have been living in other people’s countries for 2000 years, and diaspora Jews often have giant chips on their shoulders about it. It isn’t just ethnocentrism, it’s also an inferiority complex, an alienation complex, etc. Israelis have none of that, obviously. Just the ethnocentrism.

    So when can you classify a given population as inbred?

    When you’re Jewish and they’re European?

    ***

    Does anyone aware of Jews’ self-congratulatory impulses really have to think hard about why they’ve been kicked out of various places more than a hundred times, down through the years?

    “We’re so hated because we’re so wonderful,” LOL.

    • Replies: @dcite
    "“Marginally,” lol. The gap is twice or more the European-Jewish gap. So, what does that make the latter? Marginally marginal?"

    Who the hell is calling the gap "marginal"? That is one of the funniest things I've read. The gap between Asians and Europeans is "marginal." The gap between full blood American Indians and mestizos is perhaps "marginal." But a gap of 15 points (actually 18 but they usually round the black average up to 85) is very major indeed. Not only is the average major, but it is major that the black IQ bell curve has a more narrow range so that most IQ bunches up between about 80 and 90-95. Even those with IQs over 100 are only about 10% and those with IQs over 130 number no more than a few thousand out of many millions. The gap is drastic. What on earth would make anyone think it is marginal? Michael Levinson (I think that was the name) said one of the scariest and truest things ever, when he answered the question, "why would anyone think blacks and whites are not equal?" , with "why would anyone think they are equal."
    Does that mean there are no highly intelligent blacks? Of course not. But the gap on the average is very, very major. That is why there is so little hope concerning the degradation of our cities as long as they form majorities in them.

  78. She should shack up with the John Goodman character in BIG LEBOWSKI.

  79. Jews hate the Palestinians. I guess that makes them geniuses.

  80. @Sam Haysom
    Jimmy Carter got three times his votes in that primary competiton and secured 70 percent of the delegates. In delegate counts Jerry Brown came in third he won only two states. That isn't close at all. I get that one upmanship is big at this site but line your facts up before you do it. Rick Santorum got closer to his party's nomination than Jerry Brown has.

    Jerry Brown was barely old enough to be President under the Constitution in 1976, he entered the campaign very, very late when Carter seemed to have it wrapped up, and still won some primaries. In 1992, Brown came close to seriously damaging Bill Clinton. I forget which primary it was, but Brown had seriously deflated Clinton’s momentum at some point.

    All this despite being, in my impression (just from going to one speech and talking to Brown privately for five minutes) a terrible natural politician, the anti-Clinton. He’s like an inarticulate Obama. And he’s going to be the governor of the biggest state on and off over a 44 year period. That’s just very odd.

  81. If you replaced Jews with say, Dutch, is there any chance whatsoever that a book like this would be published?

    • Replies: @Chubby Ape
    If you replaced Jews with say, Dutch, is there any chance whatsoever that a book like this would be published?

    Well people should give it a try at least. People should try writing positive things about their own nationality or tribe and see if it gets anywhere. I myself don't feel a pressing need to read a book celebrating the Dutch but I'm sure many people would like such a thing. At the very least it'd make a nice change from hearing yet again about the superstars of the universe as described by suck-ups like Julie Burchill.
  82. @Marty
    I am not earnest.

    I am not earnest.

    No, but are you Lugash?

  83. iSteveFan says:

    Julie Burchill wrote:

    The Pat Buchanon types argue that original sin of America is Empire, or something, and that America must atone and return to splendid isolation.

    WTF? It is your side that thinks America’s original sin was racism, and thus we must import the whole world into America to atone for it. Your side is practically anti-white, and is more loyal to a certain foreign nation than it is to anything remotely connected to a certain little Revolution that kicked off in 1776.

    Pat Buchanan types are quite happy with the Republic we built by conquering the Natives and Mexicans to forge out a continental-sized nation with coasts on the two largest oceans of the world. Pat Buchanan types never apologize for the geographic landmass that is the USA, and actually promote defending ITS borders, not those of nations half way around the world.

    Julie Burchill continued:

    The Israelis are a role model — they don’t depend on love and kindness from their neighbors but being armed and feared.

    No, but they do depend upon 5th columnists like you and your side to continue to ensure that this nation is more concerned about their territorial integrity than it is about ours.

    Now that your side has essentially succeeded in helping China milk off the bulk of our factories, do you think you can get them to be our ‘sugar daddy’?

  84. As a follow-up to my previous post, wikipedia quotes Burchill as saying “I hate the Irish, I think they’re appalling” in a published interview. If you replaced Irish with Jew, the only place she could find employment as a journalist would be PressTV.

    . You’re right, the IQ gap doesn’t matter, not that much anyway. How do I know this? One only need look to Israel. Whatever the Ashkenazi IQ advantage, there’s no way the Haredi parasite-class that suckles at the teat of the Israeli taxpayer has a higher IQ than the Ashkenazi elite who pay a disproportionate chunk of the taxes that fund the religious wackos’ babymaking, while the former also have the advantage of an education. Or maybe in this case, that’s a disadvantage. The difference is discipline. The Haredim vote as one and vote for what will benefit the Haredim, not Israel. The problem is that when whites show discipline, it’s called racism. Politics is a team sport, but virtually the entire white race has been convinced that it’s every man for themselves.

  85. The gap is twice or more the European-Jewish gap.

    The US White/US Black gap is 1.0 to 1.1 SD. The US Ashkenazi/US White gap is .6 to 1.0 SD. The exact number depends on whether you include part-Jews and how much you weight spatial reasoning questions, e.g., mental rotation of 3D objects.

    High quality, extensive US/UK studies from the less PC 30’s to 70’s, before Jews had mixed as much with other whites, showed a full SD gap. Now the average gentile in the USA is about 2-3% Ashkenazi (varies by class and geography of course, the percentage in Christian-identified upper class whites in California is huge, but probably well under 1% in the South and Plains states). Meanwhile, by now 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 Jews outnumber full Ashkenazi everywhere except the NYC area, where there is critical mass and many ultra-Orthodox, and Florida, where the population is old and less mixed.

    If you only include full Ashkenazi, however, it is likely still around 1.0. For your statement to be true, it would have to be less than .55, which is absurdly low.

  86. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "You do still have PJ O’Rourke I believe."

    Yeah, but he's not funny anymore. In fariness, almost no one is able to remain funny for over a quarter of a century, as he would have had to have done, in order to still be humorous.

    “You do still have PJ O’Rourke I believe.”

    Yeah, but he’s not funny anymore.

    No, but he’s still got a sharp eye. In his last book, he came as close as anyone to disproving my observation that no one has ever uttered an intelligent (or intelligible) sentence containing the words “baby boom(er)”.

    Garrys Trudeau and Keillor have shown that you can carry on for years after losing your wit, if you’ve kept your eye.

    In fariness

    Is that Freudian, or what?

  87. WTF? It is your side that thinks America’s original sin was racism, and thus we must import the whole world into America to atone for it. Your side is practically anti-white, and is more loyal to a certain foreign nation than it is to anything remotely connected to a certain little Revolution that kicked off in 1776.

    You’re talking to the dumb fuck who claims to be Scots-Irish, yet after 10 years of being mocked for being unable to spell “Buchanan,” STILL can’t spell “Buchanan.”

    Just Sayin’.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I suspect he knows full well how the name is spelled, and that it's just a passive-aggressive way of expressing contempt and disrespect for the man. People do this in speech by deliberately pronouncing people's names incorrectly. It's probably something similar.
  88. I remember reading Julie Burchill’s columns in the early 2000s when I lived in London. Nostalgic memories… She was funny but her politics were all over the place. I wonder if she just chooses controversial positions to pick fights.

    I used to be philosemitic for a while too. Now I am more philoeuropean. I figure Jews can do pretty well without external support. Europeans, I’m not so sure anymore.

    I don’t think that Jews are much smarter than other groups, it’s just that they are formed mostly by relatively smart people. It’s difficult to find a really dumb Jew, though I figure they may exist. They are also very ethnocentric and they are good salesmen/commerce skills people.

    A similar group is that of Christian Syrian-Lebanese, they are a sort of elite in Latin America (think Carlos Slim).

  89. @LKM
    If you replaced Jews with say, Dutch, is there any chance whatsoever that a book like this would be published?

    If you replaced Jews with say, Dutch, is there any chance whatsoever that a book like this would be published?

    Well people should give it a try at least. People should try writing positive things about their own nationality or tribe and see if it gets anywhere. I myself don’t feel a pressing need to read a book celebrating the Dutch but I’m sure many people would like such a thing. At the very least it’d make a nice change from hearing yet again about the superstars of the universe as described by suck-ups like Julie Burchill.

  90. @Udolpho
    O'Rourke hasn't been funny in decades. He probably drank and pilled his brains out. He was also probably not that funny to begin with, just made quips that stroked Republicans.

    O’Rourke hasn’t been funny in decades. He probably drank and pilled his brains out. He was also probably not that funny to begin with, just made quips that stroked Republicans.

    Udolpho: runs a website full of holocaust jokes

    PJ O’Rourke: has written 20 books, a million magazine articles, and is “the most quoted living man in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations.”

    Now I agree his work was a lot better in the 80’s. Now the jokes come with a heavy dose of didactic GOP establishment moralism. But Modern Manners and Republican Party Reptile had me laughing out loud to the point of having to stop reading for a minute and catch my breath.

    But a man has to make a living, and he does very well headlining gatherings of rich conservatives at $25,000+ a speech. I met him when I was working at such an event when I was 16. A charming guy, happy to see he had a young fan who had read his books, and nice enough to spend a couple minutes talking to a kid working the event.

  91. Burchill has one thing in common with Churchill.

    Worship of Jews.

  92. @Svigor

    WTF? It is your side that thinks America’s original sin was racism, and thus we must import the whole world into America to atone for it. Your side is practically anti-white, and is more loyal to a certain foreign nation than it is to anything remotely connected to a certain little Revolution that kicked off in 1776.
     
    You're talking to the dumb fuck who claims to be Scots-Irish, yet after 10 years of being mocked for being unable to spell "Buchanan," STILL can't spell "Buchanan."

    Just Sayin'.

    I suspect he knows full well how the name is spelled, and that it’s just a passive-aggressive way of expressing contempt and disrespect for the man. People do this in speech by deliberately pronouncing people’s names incorrectly. It’s probably something similar.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    People who call me "Sailor" are more hostile toward me on average than people who call me "Sailer."

    I think it proves that to know me is to love me.

  93. @Anonymous
    I suspect he knows full well how the name is spelled, and that it's just a passive-aggressive way of expressing contempt and disrespect for the man. People do this in speech by deliberately pronouncing people's names incorrectly. It's probably something similar.

    People who call me “Sailor” are more hostile toward me on average than people who call me “Sailer.”

    I think it proves that to know me is to love me.

  94. I suspect he knows full well how the name is spelled, and that it’s just a passive-aggressive way of expressing contempt and disrespect for the man. People do this in speech by deliberately pronouncing people’s names incorrectly. It’s probably something similar.

    I agree. But that means I get to call him a dimwit. Everything’s got its down side.

    runs a website full of holocaust jokes

    That’s just quintessential irreverent, iconoclastic, ironic intellectual humor. Intellectuals love to deflate cherished, popular, uncritically-held values and icons. Speaking truth to power, etc.

    You conservative fuddy-duddies have no sense of humor.

  95. @Greenstalk
    I really would like to see a consistent figure for Jewish IQ. I’ve seen figures all over the place for them, ranging from 107 to even as high as 120. So what is it?


    For a variety of reasons, not least the lack of a good answer to the question "What exactly makes someone 'Jewish'?", it's difficult to say exactly what the Jewish IQ is. But it's certainly a lot closer to the 107 figure than to 120. In fact Lynn examined a large number of Jewish IQ studies and concluded that the American Jewish verbal IQ is about 107. So their overall average IQ after factoring in their math IQ is probably about 105.

    The worldwide Jewish average is lower than that. American Jews are higher IQ than the ones in Israel or Europe.

    But it’s certainly a lot closer to the 107 figure than to 120. In fact Lynn examined a large number of Jewish IQ studies and concluded that the American Jewish verbal IQ is about 107. So their overall average IQ after factoring in their math IQ is probably about 105.

    Wrong wrong wrong. And as I’ve noted before, while I have a high opinion of Lynn generally, his he’s really weak at the meta-analysis needed to make these estimates, especially in his earlier work.

    Here is Cochran’s survey from 2005:

    Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0·75 to 1·0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ of 112–115. This has been seen in many studies (Levinson, 1959; Backman, 1972; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less – only half a standard deviation (Lynn, 2004).

    Lynn, author of this low estimate from 2004, came out with a higher estimate in 2006:

    Three early studies are summarized that found that Jews in Britain have mean IQs in the range of 110–113. New data are presented for two nationally representative samples of 7–16 year olds in which Jews had mean IQs of 108.5 and 107.7. Taking all five studies into account, it is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in Britain is 110. It is proposed that the best reading of the IQ of Jews in the United States is 109.5.

    (Note that Britain’s Jews are more likely to be Sephardic than America’s)

    Here’s Charles Murray in 2007:

    But it is currently accepted that the mean is somewhere in the range of 107 to 115, with 110 being a plausible compromise.

    Lynn again, in 2011:

    Ashkenazi (European) Jews have high average earnings, educational attainment, socio-economic status, and intellectual achievements. It is proposed that these can be at least partially explained by their high average IQ, which is estimated at 110. The Mizrahim (Oriental) and the Ethiopian Jews have lower IQs, estimated 91 for the Mizrahim and 70 for the Ethiopian Jews

    In other words, all the anti-Semites have to grasp on to with their underestimates of Ashkenazi IQ’s is a single outlier estimate of 107 by Lynn at a time when Lynn was publishing statistically sloppy work (ie with wildly different estimates for closely related European countries, weighting studies of 80 people the same as those of 5,000, etc). However they ignore Lynn’s repeated and more recent higher estimates, not to mention these other sources I quoted above with solid realist credentials.

    BTW, if you want a group that probably has an overestimated IQ, I suggest the Chinese. We have tons of IQ tests of Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and non-representative US immigrants. We have zero samples of the IQ tests of the nearly 10% of the human race consisting of Chinese farmers or rural laborers. I’d expect the 105/106 numbers put out as Chinese IQ to be more like 102-103 if a representative sample is ever done. I do think 105/106 is accurate for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and urban mainland Chinese.

  96. BTW, if you want a group that probably has an overestimated IQ, I suggest the Chinese. We have tons of IQ tests of Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and non-representative US immigrants. We have zero samples of the IQ tests of the nearly 10% of the human race consisting of Chinese farmers or rural laborers. I’d expect the 105/106 numbers put out as Chinese IQ to be more like 102-103 if a representative sample is ever done. I do think 105/106 is accurate for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and urban mainland Chinese.

    What’s the Jewish mean in Israel? What’s the Jewish mean worldwide? Why are Ashkenazi Jews always broken out in these IQ studies, but never by Jewish braggarts, or by anti-anti-Semites?

    P.S., 110 is a lot closer to 107 than to 120. So he’s right right right.

  97. A general question that’s come up a few times in this thread is “Why don’t we in America have more opinionators like Julie Burchill and Cosmo Landesman?” Can I take a swing at, if not an answer, at least some reflections?

    Back in the early ’90s I wrote regularly for a magazine Julie and Cosmo were involved with, Toby Young’s Modern Review. I was one of a handful of American contributors. We had loads of fun, even if paychecks were minuscule. Lowbrow for highbrows was the magazine’s motto, I seem to remember, and it was one of the first British publications to deal with popular culture with humor, brains and offhand literary chops. It aimed to be a cross between The New York Review of Books and Spin and did a great job of it. It had a big impact too. A number of the magazine’s contributors went on to land featured gigs at the big daily newspapers, and many of those papers then altered their own cultural coverage (which had been awfully stuffy, as in stuck in the ’50s) to be funnier and to take more note of popular culture.

    I never got to know Julie (who was theoretically the magazine’s co-editor) or Cosmo but I became pretty friendly with Toby. I’d had a terrible time placing my stuff in American magazines but Toby dug my ideas and my writing, and once we’d connected he ran something by me nearly every issue, finally giving me a regular column shortly before the magazine imploded. If I remember right, Julie — nothing if not a bundle of talent and willfulness, a real loose cannon — was then moving into her lesbian phase, and was becoming a bit of an angry feminist. I heard third-hand that a couple of pieces I wrote on sexual topics for the magazine really offended her, something I’m still smiling about. She and her g.f. made some sort of power grab and in response Toby torched the magazine. End of a fun moment in magazine publishing.

    Anyhoo … And if I can be allowed to assume that my having written for The Modern Review demonstrates that I can do witty/educated literary journalism competently … My pieces at The Modern Review — despite the splash the magazine made — led to nothing whatsoever for me back here in the States. Before The Modern Review, I struggled to get American editors to take note of my ideas and my writing; and after The Modern Review I returned to being the same struggling, mostly-unsuccessful American magazine writer. I placed pieces about books and movies and digital culture here and there. But, despite the notice my writing had gotten in England and despite the fact that I was friendly with Pauline Kael, who put in a good word for me at many outlets, I could never, ever get any momentum going. Toby remained the one and only editor who ever got behind my stuff. Over the years I worked with some great American editors, and I learned a lot from them. But none of them wanted to feature me, or to give me a chance to be a regular.

    So my conclusion is that the main reason American has no British-style offhand/casual literary journalism is that American editors don’t want it and won’t permit it even when they’re offered it. We’re too earnest, and we’re too addicted to the idea of what’s important — we take ‘way too seriously what’s hot and what’s successful. If you have a sense of playfulness and perspective, if you like using irony and tone, if you like juggling conflicting ideas, if you’ve got some zip in your prose as well as a decent cultural background … Well, it’s not to your advantage. It should be, but it’s not. When we’re serious, we’re Really Serious. And when we’re pop, we’re nothing but pop. Plus: Americans just don’t have a culture of good-natured jousting and debate. For British readers, opinion journalism is a rowdy blood sport — disagreeing vigorously is considered good entertainment. They *want* you to take extreme positions; they want to be outraged and pissed off. (And then have a beer, laugh it off and move on.) Provocation is fun, right? And British readers don’t get personally hurt just because they disagree with you. Didn’t Robert Hughes once say that American don’t have much of a tradition of intellectual entertainment? He saw his own books and TV series as intellectual entertainment. We could use a lot more of that, IMHO.

    The American opinion journalism scene was a source of huge frustration for me. As far as I could tell, there was simply no place for someone who does his own version of irreverent British cultural journalism in the American scene. Arty guy though I was, I was also tuned into computers fairly early on, and I could have had a great ten years covering and discussing the implications for culture (books, movies, music, etc) of the transition to digital technology, had some editor been willing to give me a regular column to do so. But no one would. I’m a good movie critic, and I have an unusual (and informed) take on books and publishing. But I couldn’t swing more than the occasional assignment even to write about books and movies. I spent far more time pitching stories than writing them, which — take it from one who knows — is a situation that really makes a writer want to blow his brains out.

    So I was hyper-thrilled when blogging technology came along. I plunged in as soon as I could. Screw editors: why not try connecting directly with readers? It was great. I had an even better time than I’d had at The Modern Review. As a blogger I could what I wanted to, at whatever length and from whatever kooky point of view I wanted to. I could say what I had to say, and I could have fun doing it. My writing got looked at by tons of people; I learned a lot from a lot of smart visitors; and I made many new friends, both online and in real life.

    Which has left me with two main reflections. 1) American editors are mistaken — there really is a sizable American readership for rowdy, out-there cultural opinionatin’. And 2) the blogosphere is what Americans have as an equivalent of the freewheeling 17th and 18th century British coffeehouse scene. It lets us enjoy lots of Steve Sailer, after all, as well as numerous other smart, offbeat, and original voices — and not just the bloggers. Some of the most remarkable and reliable opinion writers of the last decade and a half have been blog-commenters, it seems to me.

    BTW — and self-promotion alert — if anyone wants to say hi, I’m now contributing a blogpost about once a week at http://uncouthreflections.com. Check it out. My co-bloggers there are a lot of brainy, freewheeling fun too.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here's P.R.'s 2007 movie review on Four Ways of Looking at "300":

    http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/300_2.html

  98. @Paleo Retiree
    A general question that's come up a few times in this thread is "Why don't we in America have more opinionators like Julie Burchill and Cosmo Landesman?" Can I take a swing at, if not an answer, at least some reflections?

    Back in the early '90s I wrote regularly for a magazine Julie and Cosmo were involved with, Toby Young's Modern Review. I was one of a handful of American contributors. We had loads of fun, even if paychecks were minuscule. Lowbrow for highbrows was the magazine's motto, I seem to remember, and it was one of the first British publications to deal with popular culture with humor, brains and offhand literary chops. It aimed to be a cross between The New York Review of Books and Spin and did a great job of it. It had a big impact too. A number of the magazine's contributors went on to land featured gigs at the big daily newspapers, and many of those papers then altered their own cultural coverage (which had been awfully stuffy, as in stuck in the '50s) to be funnier and to take more note of popular culture.

    I never got to know Julie (who was theoretically the magazine's co-editor) or Cosmo but I became pretty friendly with Toby. I'd had a terrible time placing my stuff in American magazines but Toby dug my ideas and my writing, and once we'd connected he ran something by me nearly every issue, finally giving me a regular column shortly before the magazine imploded. If I remember right, Julie -- nothing if not a bundle of talent and willfulness, a real loose cannon -- was then moving into her lesbian phase, and was becoming a bit of an angry feminist. I heard third-hand that a couple of pieces I wrote on sexual topics for the magazine really offended her, something I'm still smiling about. She and her g.f. made some sort of power grab and in response Toby torched the magazine. End of a fun moment in magazine publishing.

    Anyhoo ... And if I can be allowed to assume that my having written for The Modern Review demonstrates that I can do witty/educated literary journalism competently ... My pieces at The Modern Review -- despite the splash the magazine made -- led to nothing whatsoever for me back here in the States. Before The Modern Review, I struggled to get American editors to take note of my ideas and my writing; and after The Modern Review I returned to being the same struggling, mostly-unsuccessful American magazine writer. I placed pieces about books and movies and digital culture here and there. But, despite the notice my writing had gotten in England and despite the fact that I was friendly with Pauline Kael, who put in a good word for me at many outlets, I could never, ever get any momentum going. Toby remained the one and only editor who ever got behind my stuff. Over the years I worked with some great American editors, and I learned a lot from them. But none of them wanted to feature me, or to give me a chance to be a regular.

    So my conclusion is that the main reason American has no British-style offhand/casual literary journalism is that American editors don't want it and won't permit it even when they're offered it. We're too earnest, and we're too addicted to the idea of what's important -- we take 'way too seriously what's hot and what's successful. If you have a sense of playfulness and perspective, if you like using irony and tone, if you like juggling conflicting ideas, if you've got some zip in your prose as well as a decent cultural background ... Well, it's not to your advantage. It should be, but it's not. When we're serious, we're Really Serious. And when we're pop, we're nothing but pop. Plus: Americans just don't have a culture of good-natured jousting and debate. For British readers, opinion journalism is a rowdy blood sport -- disagreeing vigorously is considered good entertainment. They *want* you to take extreme positions; they want to be outraged and pissed off. (And then have a beer, laugh it off and move on.) Provocation is fun, right? And British readers don't get personally hurt just because they disagree with you. Didn't Robert Hughes once say that American don't have much of a tradition of intellectual entertainment? He saw his own books and TV series as intellectual entertainment. We could use a lot more of that, IMHO.

    The American opinion journalism scene was a source of huge frustration for me. As far as I could tell, there was simply no place for someone who does his own version of irreverent British cultural journalism in the American scene. Arty guy though I was, I was also tuned into computers fairly early on, and I could have had a great ten years covering and discussing the implications for culture (books, movies, music, etc) of the transition to digital technology, had some editor been willing to give me a regular column to do so. But no one would. I'm a good movie critic, and I have an unusual (and informed) take on books and publishing. But I couldn't swing more than the occasional assignment even to write about books and movies. I spent far more time pitching stories than writing them, which -- take it from one who knows -- is a situation that really makes a writer want to blow his brains out.

    So I was hyper-thrilled when blogging technology came along. I plunged in as soon as I could. Screw editors: why not try connecting directly with readers? It was great. I had an even better time than I'd had at The Modern Review. As a blogger I could what I wanted to, at whatever length and from whatever kooky point of view I wanted to. I could say what I had to say, and I could have fun doing it. My writing got looked at by tons of people; I learned a lot from a lot of smart visitors; and I made many new friends, both online and in real life.

    Which has left me with two main reflections. 1) American editors are mistaken -- there really is a sizable American readership for rowdy, out-there cultural opinionatin'. And 2) the blogosphere is what Americans have as an equivalent of the freewheeling 17th and 18th century British coffeehouse scene. It lets us enjoy lots of Steve Sailer, after all, as well as numerous other smart, offbeat, and original voices -- and not just the bloggers. Some of the most remarkable and reliable opinion writers of the last decade and a half have been blog-commenters, it seems to me.

    BTW -- and self-promotion alert -- if anyone wants to say hi, I'm now contributing a blogpost about once a week at http://uncouthreflections.com. Check it out. My co-bloggers there are a lot of brainy, freewheeling fun too.

    Here’s P.R.’s 2007 movie review on Four Ways of Looking at “300”:

    http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/300_2.html

    • Replies: @PatrickH
    The 2B's review of 300 remains a virtuoso tour-de-force highlight of that fascinating blog.
  99. What’s the Jewish mean in Israel?

    If you click on my name and scroll down, you’ll see my post with my estimates for MENA countries including the major Israeli subgroups.

    They are based on my own extensive reading on this subject and general knowledge of human statistics. The more backward a country is, however, the less likely good national IQ estimates can be made from actual local test data, because they require

    (1) A proper, careful translation by extremely smart people with native fluency in both languages. For example, is asking a 12 year old Mexican what “profético” means an equally hard question as asking an American or UK kid what “prophetic” means? Are the words used in roughly equal frequencies in both languages?

    Then, you have to do reliability and robustness checks with the initial examples and correct errors with the initial translation. E.g., if among Americans kids who get questions 1-5 right get #6 right 80% of the time, but Mexican kids who in the translated version get 1-5 right then get #6 right 30% of the time, there is a problem with the translation of #6. As you can imagine, the chance people putting the effort into making an IQ test properly normed to US/UK white standards, for, say Yemenis or Qataris is zero. Nobody with the money to do this cares enough to do so. There is not a large demand among people with money for ever more precise estimates of the low IQ of khat-chewing cousin-f**kers.

    (2) The properly translated test then has to be given to a representative sample of the population. Good luck trying to do that in a place where half of 12 year olds aren’t in school.

    In my opinion, the best estimates of national IQs for the large majority of the world where there has never been high quality IQ testing is based on (1) how the children of non-elite immigrants of the ethnic group to the USA and UK perform on standardized tests (2) the per capita GDP ex-resource-extraction in the homeland, assuming the homeland isn’t communist or recently so.

    What’s the Jewish mean worldwide? Why are Ashkenazi Jews always broken out in these IQ studies, but never by Jewish braggarts, or by anti-anti-Semites?

    Why don’t you ask Greg Cochran and Charles Murray, since they’ve both written extensively about Ashkenazi IQ, why they find the topic fascinating?

    I can only speak for myself, but I am proud of the achievements of my British, German, and Ashkenazi co-ethnics. If you want to accuse white British of having IQs 1/2 an SD lower than they really are, I’ll correct you there too.

    I have to go back to my great-grandparents to find an actual practicing Jew, and feel no real attachment to, say, Ethiopians or Persians who identify as jews, anymore than I feel kinship with Evangelical Lutherans in Namibia, another religion practiced by some of my great grandparents that their descendants have largely abandoned.

  100. Many thanks!

    And, lol, I notice that just this very minute my current blog has been suspended by WordPress.org for violations of Terms of Service. So we’ve been a little too freewheeling, I guess. We’re protesting and hope to be back online soon.

    • Replies: @Lot

    And, lol, I notice that just this very minute my current blog has been suspended by WordPress.org for violations of Terms of Service.
     
    Politely offer to fix anything and everything they say violates the ToS, then find yourself another blog provider. Sometimes this is just a matter of a comment linking to a malware site, so don't assume right away it is censorship.

    You might also consider getting your own URL and webhosting. Installing the freeware version of wordpress is now 1-click or already done with a lot of the big hosts, and your annual cost will be around $50.
  101. @Luke Lea
    "Jews are smarter, more successful and better than the rest of you . . ."

    I get the smarter and more successful, but better? I despise the copula that unreflectively links "the best" and "the brightest" -- no matter the ethnicity! Intelligence, like technology, can be used for good or ill. The smartest are no more immune from egotistical, callous, even sociopathic behavior than the physically strongest have been historically. (Indeed the smartest are the strongest in modern societies.) We need to rediscover what our forebears meant by character.

    The smartest are no more immune from egotistical, callous, even sociopathic behavior than the physically strongest have been historically.

    Actually, in general, they are. Maybe not immune from evil, but statistics on intelligence and measures of morality (empathy, future time orientation, crime rate) shows that IQ is indeed correlated with morality. Also with good looks and good health. These aren’t especially strong correlations though, but they do exist. Linda Gottfriedson is the person who has most extensively breached these taboo topics. I think Satoshi and Cochran have also done so.

    • Replies: @dcite
    Yes, that's true. Even if a highly intelligent person does not feel particularly kindly, they can usually muster enough objectivity, or possess a certain self-awareness of how they look to others. They have more self-control with less external force. The less intelligent need far more agressive incentives to encourage decent behavior. I read that rape (not the messy date-kind, but rape with hostile, possibly deadly intent) is the crime most associated with the lowest IQs.
  102. @Paleo Retiree
    Many thanks!

    And, lol, I notice that just this very minute my current blog has been suspended by WordPress.org for violations of Terms of Service. So we've been a little too freewheeling, I guess. We're protesting and hope to be back online soon.

    And, lol, I notice that just this very minute my current blog has been suspended by WordPress.org for violations of Terms of Service.

    Politely offer to fix anything and everything they say violates the ToS, then find yourself another blog provider. Sometimes this is just a matter of a comment linking to a malware site, so don’t assume right away it is censorship.

    You might also consider getting your own URL and webhosting. Installing the freeware version of wordpress is now 1-click or already done with a lot of the big hosts, and your annual cost will be around $50.

  103. Thanks for the tips.

  104. Improved title:

    Unrequited Love: The Memoirs of a Philo-Semite”

  105. @Sunbeam
    I know what a big part of the discussion intelligence is on this site. I am also aware of the relative standings of Jews and Asians are for that trait, compared to "Whites" (if we are splitting Jews off).

    I really would like to see a consistent figure for Jewish IQ. I've seen figures all over the place for them, ranging from 107 to even as high as 120. So what is it?

    I'd also like to see a figure for these Haridi Jews as regards IQ. Be interesting to see if they score as high as regular Ashkenazim.

    But ok, Jews (and Asians) are smarter. We've established that.

    My question now is "So What?" Seems to me that when you have a conflict of interests, it's just another day, just another fight, just another walk in the hobbesian jungle.

    Intelligence is a useful tool, but as far as I know, no higher power has parted the heavens and looked down as a gigantic head and said "Thou shall always heel to the smarter, for I have given them dominion over the earth, and all that is in it."

    Seems to me that you could take a page from the Oakland Raiders (amusingly I think Al Davis was Jewish) and say "Just win baby."

    China... is another country, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about them. I mean there are obvious things like our trade imbalance and immigration, but at this point these are side issues in the story of China. If they are the country that is going to be the linchpin of the 21st century, then I don't see any way anyone derails that. Well except the Chinese of course.

    But as far as this country? Seems to me it is more a matter of saying "Meet me at the fifty. I'm going to kick your ass, no I'm not being talked out of it, it's the same as it ever was, my tribe against yours."

    But ok, Jews (and Asians) are smarter. We’ve established that.

    My question now is “So What?” Seems to me that when you have a conflict of interests, it’s just another day, just another fight, just another walk in the hobbesian jungle.

    Intelligence is a useful tool, but as far as I know, no higher power has parted the heavens and looked down as a gigantic head and said “Thou shall always heel to the smarter, for I have given them dominion over the earth, and all that is in it.”

    Seems to me that you could take a page from the Oakland Raiders (amusingly I think Al Davis was Jewish) and say “Just win baby.”

    You sound like Goldwin Smith who helped put Cornell University on the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwin_Smith

    A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader, whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might, so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the filling Empire they were the great slave traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force?

    Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.
     
    Did he seriously think that the Carthaginians were smarter than the Romans? I've seen no evidence to suggest that. Based on the available evidence, the Greeks seem to have had the highest IQs in Classical Antiquity.
  106. @jon
    "She says it’s not for the usual cute reasons ... the food ... "

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.

    Personally I love the food (brisket, matzoh ball soup, noodle pudding, etc.) because it reminds me of my childhood, but to be honest, it is a pretty bland Central European type cuisine and if it wasn’t my own, I wouldn’t be that wild about it. People are not lining up around the block for German or Polish food either. Generally speaking Jews have always been influenced by the culture of the place where they live, especially when it came to food- you were going to eat whatever grew locally whether you liked it or not (but of course limited by their dietary laws – no pork no matter how much the locals love it) and in the German/Polish borderlands where it’s cold and rainy 9 month/yr, they were going to eat lots of root vegetables, cabbage, etc. It can be good in a “comfort food” way now and then as long as you don’t have to eat it every day. Compared to traditional English-influenced American food it’s good (almost anything is good compared to English food) but now we have the whole world open to us and there are a lot more exciting cuisines out there.

  107. @jon
    "She says it’s not for the usual cute reasons ... the food ... "

    A point so minor it veers toward the off-topic, but I have to ask, are there people who actually love Jews because of their food? Other than the bagel, I am pretty much at a loss here.

    Personally I love the food (brisket, matzoh ball soup, noodle pudding, etc.) because it reminds me of my childhood, but to be honest, it is a pretty bland Central European type cuisine and if it wasn’t my own, I wouldn’t be that wild about it. People are not lining up around the block for German or Polish food either. Generally speaking Jews have always been influenced by the culture of the place where they live, especially when it came to food- you were going to eat whatever grew locally whether you liked it or not (but of course limited by their dietary laws – no pork no matter how much the locals love it) and in the German/Polish borderlands where it’s cold and rainy 9 month/yr, they were going to eat lots of root vegetables, cabbage, etc. It can be good in a “comfort food” way now and then as long as you don’t have to eat it every day. Compared to traditional English-influenced American food it’s good (almost anything is good compared to English food) but now we have the whole world open to us and there are a lot more exciting cuisines out there.

  108. Here’s a recent interview with the guy with the world’s second-highest IQ….

    Uh, what? No one could possibly have any basis for making such a statement.

  109. And then, isn’t it possible that even the highest human intelligence is really too low… but I suppose we have to work with what we’ve got.

  110. The pro-Palestinian British MP George Galloway was recently attacked by a philo-semite who likes to dress up in IDF t-shirts: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/carer-admits-he-repeatedly-punched-mp-in-street-attack.25336894

    On the attacker’s Facebook page, he linked to a BBC story about the attack, and who is one of the people who ‘Liked’ it? His fiend Julie Burchill:
    https://www.facebook.com/neil.masterson.5/posts/10202938263042956?comment_id=10202946458647841&offset=0&total_comments=1&pnref=story

    • Replies: @Lot

    The pro-Palestinian British MP George Galloway
     
    More accurately, the pro-Islamification of UK, pro-massive redistribution of wealth from taxpaying whites to cousin-married and uncle-niece 10-kid Paki families, MP George Galloway...

    Galloway is such a communist that he found the explicitly socialist Labour Party, the most left-wing for the four major English parties, too conservative for him and formed a party called "Respect" that is about 75% Muslim, the rest blacks and random extreme lefties.

    He's supposedly a convert to Islam as well. His second to fourth wives are all Muslims and he married them in Muslim ceremonies, does not drink alcohol, and says things like ""We stand for justice and haqq" and "A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it's the only thing I fear."
  111. Anybody who thinks Jewish IQ scores are the key to figuring out Jews and Jewishness in the modern world really has no frigging clue whatsoever. When I see the letters “IQ” in a comment here I just skip down to the next one.

  112. I forget which primary it was, but Brown had seriously deflated Clinton’s momentum at some point.

    Connecticut. It was the last time I remember the state figuring prominently in an election campaign. Clinton, however, took it in the general election even though it was his opponent’s real home state.

    Personally I love the food (brisket, matzoh ball soup, noodle pudding, etc.) because it reminds me of my childhood, but to be honest, it is a pretty bland Central European type cuisine and if it wasn’t my own, I wouldn’t be that wild about it.

    Ever tried a Montreal smoked meat? It is not the best food to come out of La Belle Province, that would be poutine, but it is pretty good.

  113. @Art Deco
    but a fair number of people move to a big city when they get out of college and discover that rye bread tastes better than white or wheat.

    Steve, the provincial suburban grocery where my mother shopped in 1968 +/- 10 years carried rye bread. So did the small-town supermarket where I spent 1/3 of my life.

    No rye bread is better than rye bread from a German bakery, and there were plenty of them in the 50s and 60s. I remember one. I grew up in a very limited area foodwise, but rye and good bakeries were around. However, bagels were new to me when I got to college.
    I remember a Jewish writer saying that people romanticize the Lower East Side a lot. He was relieved not to have to go those dimly lit delis with smooshy piles of this and that, and instead, in modern times, shop for the same items in hygenic supermarkets, with everything looking so much better.

  114. “most of all she loves those big Jewish brains. Time and time again, she argues that anti-Semitism, criticism of Israel, war in the Middle East, you name it, are all rooted in one simple fact: the Jews are so much smarter than everyone on the planet. And this produces Jew-envy on a global scale.”

    Nothing new here . Blaming other , claiming self- righteousness and labeling other as sinner or evil have its secular counterpart – that is called being smarter and more intelligent .

  115. @Philip Neal
    The key to this, as Landesman hints in the first sentence, is that Julie Burchill is working class. I never knew a working class Englishman who did not think that Jews are amazingly intelligent and I never knew a middle class one who did, possibly because different standards of intelligence are in operation. To a clever pusher of allegedly lowly birth like the young Burchill, a Jewish marriage spells instant insiderdom, an alternative path to advancement, and a whole network of people with the same enemies as her own.

    Interesting. Class is much more significant to an English person than to Americans. Factor that. As for Ms. Burchill’s age, she was the same way many years ago so why blame that? Usually people become more “tribal”, not less, with age. I can’t even begin to entertain notions that came easily to me in my teens and twenties. That’s why some of these interracial relationships I see young people going for, make me shudder. Even just ten years later, much less 20 or 30, they will wonder what on earth they were thinking. Not all, but most.

  116. @Anonymous
    Jewish food is just like Central European/German/Eastern European food i.e. pretty bland and not that great. It's good for hearty and filling simple stuff like sandwiches, knishes, latkes, motza ball soup, etc. But like German and C/E Euro food, the entrees aren't exactly spectacular. Not like Italian or French cuisine.

    try telling that to people in Afula, or Netivot.

    In another generation, Israel will more Ethiopian Jews in American Jews.

    In 5 more generations, the USA will have more Ethiopian Jews than white-Ashkenazi “American Jews”.

  117. If there is an alien race with an IQ of 140 would it be justifiable for this race to exterminate the human species who have a lower average IQ?

  118. Lot – “Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0·75 to 1·0 standard deviations above the general European average..”

    That’s an idiotic statement. Comparing Ashkenazi Jews to “the general European average” is a meaningless exercise. AJ’s are a small subset of the general “European” population, and might usefully be compared to other similar subsets of it, such as Amish or Episcopalians. For some reason this is rarely done though.

    I stand by my original point. There is no good data indicating Jewish IQ in the 115 range. You yourself displayed the common techniques used in inflating estimates of Jewish IQ.

    1) Citing Jewish achievement and working backwards from there, in effect arguing that they MUST have very high IQ’s because look at what they’ve accomplished as a group. Of course using that logic Europeans MUST have significantly higher IQ’s than East Asians. Just look at their respective intellectual accomplishments.

    2) “Anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-semite!”. How very intellectual of you.

    3) Switching back and forth when convenient between different definitions of the term “Jews”. The original question posed was on “Jewish IQ”, and Burchill’s philo-semitism is evidently for undifferentiated “Jews”. But when it comes to making the case for “Jewish IQ” people like you focus like a laser on Ashkenazi Jews, and since that’s not selective enough to give you the results you want, on Ashkenazi Jews in specific countries – excluding Israel. As I pointed out in my initial response to Sunbeam, figuring out the answer to the question “What is Jewish IQ” requires coming up with an answer to the question “What exactly makes someone ‘Jewish’?”. Your emotional diatribe mainly serves to illustrate the truth of that point.

    The IQ testing of even geographically concentrated and homogeneous groups is a crude and inexact science. This is why the apparent national IQ of e.g. Poles can seem to vary significantly over a very short time. Give the same test to two samples of Polish people and you’ll get two different results. The problem is even more difficult for heterogeneous and widely dispersed populations, which is what Jews are. It may well be that an IQ test administered to fifty Ashkenazi Jewish boys in a yeshiva in Manhattan shows an IQ of 120. Does that tell us anything useful about “Jewish IQ” – meaning the average IQ of all Jews everywhere? It almost certainly does not, any more than we can make useful conclusions about “white IQ” by looking at the IQ’s of fifty white guys studying engineering at MIT.

    • Replies: @Lot

    That’s an idiotic statement.
     
    That's a direct quotation from a published and peer-reviewed study by Greg Cochran. You should take your issues with this up with him at West Hunter.

    Comparing Ashkenazi Jews to “the general European average” is a meaningless exercise.
     
    Meaningless to you perhaps. Others find it a fascinating exercise, though high-IQ anti-Semites don't like the results. I don't really understand why they find this so offensive, nobody is saying they have low IQs. Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ. There's an easy partial solution to this: marry a jew! Really I don't understand why people can't be more objective. My English ancestors are from near the Scottish border and lower IQ than SE England English. My rural Prussian-German ancestors, no doubt partly Germanized Wends, probably came from a lower IQ pool than Bavarian and Rhineland Germans. My Russian Ashkenazi stock is a lot less accomplished than the German Ashkenazi. So what? I am also happy to say that gentiles are better athletes on average!

    Also, my comparisons, as well as Lynn and Cochran's, are really to the north, central and western Euro IQ-100 norm. Balkan whites, as well as southern Iberians and Italians, are likely a few points short, with Albanians and Bosnians at the European white bottom. The white Euro average is probably more like 99 on the US/UK white scale.

    I have never brought up the evidence for lower south and Balkan euro IQ since they are fine (mostly) Christian people at no fault for the damage Muslims did their their stock. Indeed, they are the ones who ultimately defeated Islam in Europe and saved the rest of our ancestors from the terror of Islamic conquest during the low point of European and the high point of Islamic military power.

    Aside from these limited exceptions, IQ is surprisingly similar across Europe. I suspect Finns and Estonians, who are massively over-represented in computer programming, might be a little high, as well as northern France, SE England, both sides of the Rhine, Bavaria, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy. But we're talking at most an 1/8 of a SD. But 100 is basically right from Madrid to Aberdeen to Stockholm to Moscow to Slovenia to Rome. That is, indeed, part of why the high Ashkenazi IQ is so fascinating. The only other instance where a small ethnic group has a much higher IQ than the rest of the population are the Parsi in India, and the old historical example of the Greeks.

    “Anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-semite!”
     
    Except that's not what I said. I said that open anti-Semites (like Svigor) have attached themselves to outlier Ashkenazi IQ estimates, such as the one Lynn put out then corrected later, and ignored everything else.

    “Jewish IQ” people like you focus like a laser on Ashkenazi Jews, and since that’s not selective enough to give you the results you want, on Ashkenazi Jews in specific countries – excluding Israel.
     
    Sephardic European IQ is boring. All evidence points to yet another European group around 100. I also don't focus on Slovak IQ. Another 100 group. Anyway, the US has by far the most Ashkenazi, something like half the world's population. We also, along with the UK, have the most IQ research and most refined tests.
  119. @Steve Sailer
    Here's P.R.'s 2007 movie review on Four Ways of Looking at "300":

    http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/300_2.html

    The 2B’s review of 300 remains a virtuoso tour-de-force highlight of that fascinating blog.

    • Replies: @Lot
    I also really liked 2b's review of 300. I share the sentiment that the comic-book/CGI-ization of action movies is both impressive in a way but lamentable. I did not actually see 300 though.

    If you like movies set in the ancient greek/roman world, you should give Agora a watch.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora_%28film%29

    Set during the last years of the Western Roman empire in Alexandria, it is an amazing movie, filmed in English with English actors with funding from the Spanish government. One aspect I really liked is it showed how Rome, especially during the later years, kept a tenuous hold on its provinces with a small number of soldiers.

    Part of the plot is the Roman governor is strongly sympathetic to the remaining traditional polytheistic Greek/Roman religion, but is not able to protect it from Christian and Jewish mobs and the increasingly powerful Christian hierarchy.

    It has a nice balance of drama, history, and violence.

  120. @ben tillman

    But ok, Jews (and Asians) are smarter. We’ve established that.

    My question now is “So What?” Seems to me that when you have a conflict of interests, it’s just another day, just another fight, just another walk in the hobbesian jungle.

    Intelligence is a useful tool, but as far as I know, no higher power has parted the heavens and looked down as a gigantic head and said “Thou shall always heel to the smarter, for I have given them dominion over the earth, and all that is in it.”

    Seems to me that you could take a page from the Oakland Raiders (amusingly I think Al Davis was Jewish) and say “Just win baby.”
     
    You sound like Goldwin Smith who helped put Cornell University on the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwin_Smith


    A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader, whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might, so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the filling Empire they were the great slave traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force?

    Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled.
    It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.
     

    It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.

    Did he seriously think that the Carthaginians were smarter than the Romans? I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that. Based on the available evidence, the Greeks seem to have had the highest IQs in Classical Antiquity.

    • Replies: @Lot

    Based on the available evidence, the Greeks seem to have had the highest IQs in Classical Antiquity.
     
    There's absolutely no doubt of this. For the entire period of the Roman Republic and western Empire, it sent its upper class youths to spend several years studying in Greece. A Greek tutor or servant in Rome was a status symbol for rich Romans the way a white nanny is for New Yorkers. What are considered modern Jewish niches like finance, trade, and medicine were also dominated by Greeks.

    This is no longer the case. Hundreds of years of Muslim control has took a serious tool on Greek IQ, clearly the highest in the world from 500BC to 1400AD. First all the smart Greeks with portable skills, especially craftsmen and sailors, fled to Italy, and it later years emigrated to Italy, Holland, America, the UK, and Germany. Next a few traitors converted to Islam and served the Sultan, with the high IQ ones often leaving for Turkey to join the army or bureaucracy. The most promising young boys were kidnapped for service to the Sultan as Janissaries.

    By the time Lord Byron started propagandizing for Greek independence, eventually joining its army and dying there, there was a large and wealthy Greek community in England that help spread the word and organize sympathetic locals. It was a tough issue for England at the time. Known as the Ottoman Question, the hearts of the English were with the Greeks, but they also did not want the collapse of the increasingly weak empire, the Sick Man of Europe, to benefit their rivals along its borders: Austria, Russia, and the small, usually pro-Russian south Slavic states.

    Two late-Greek innovations from the Byzantine Era were Greek Fire, a sticky incendiary naval weapon that was like Napalm, and stealing silk production technology from China, which had a torture and death penalty policy for anyone who tried to do so.

  121. @Carey
    The pro-Palestinian British MP George Galloway was recently attacked by a philo-semite who likes to dress up in IDF t-shirts: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/carer-admits-he-repeatedly-punched-mp-in-street-attack.25336894

    On the attacker's Facebook page, he linked to a BBC story about the attack, and who is one of the people who 'Liked' it? His fiend Julie Burchill:
    https://www.facebook.com/neil.masterson.5/posts/10202938263042956?comment_id=10202946458647841&offset=0&total_comments=1&pnref=story

    The pro-Palestinian British MP George Galloway

    More accurately, the pro-Islamification of UK, pro-massive redistribution of wealth from taxpaying whites to cousin-married and uncle-niece 10-kid Paki families, MP George Galloway…

    Galloway is such a communist that he found the explicitly socialist Labour Party, the most left-wing for the four major English parties, too conservative for him and formed a party called “Respect” that is about 75% Muslim, the rest blacks and random extreme lefties.

    He’s supposedly a convert to Islam as well. His second to fourth wives are all Muslims and he married them in Muslim ceremonies, does not drink alcohol, and says things like “”We stand for justice and haqq” and “A Muslim is somebody who is not afraid of earthly power but who fears only the Judgment Day. I’m ready for that, I’m working for that and it’s the only thing I fear.”

  122. @syonredux

    It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.
     
    Did he seriously think that the Carthaginians were smarter than the Romans? I've seen no evidence to suggest that. Based on the available evidence, the Greeks seem to have had the highest IQs in Classical Antiquity.

    Based on the available evidence, the Greeks seem to have had the highest IQs in Classical Antiquity.

    There’s absolutely no doubt of this. For the entire period of the Roman Republic and western Empire, it sent its upper class youths to spend several years studying in Greece. A Greek tutor or servant in Rome was a status symbol for rich Romans the way a white nanny is for New Yorkers. What are considered modern Jewish niches like finance, trade, and medicine were also dominated by Greeks.

    This is no longer the case. Hundreds of years of Muslim control has took a serious tool on Greek IQ, clearly the highest in the world from 500BC to 1400AD. First all the smart Greeks with portable skills, especially craftsmen and sailors, fled to Italy, and it later years emigrated to Italy, Holland, America, the UK, and Germany. Next a few traitors converted to Islam and served the Sultan, with the high IQ ones often leaving for Turkey to join the army or bureaucracy. The most promising young boys were kidnapped for service to the Sultan as Janissaries.

    By the time Lord Byron started propagandizing for Greek independence, eventually joining its army and dying there, there was a large and wealthy Greek community in England that help spread the word and organize sympathetic locals. It was a tough issue for England at the time. Known as the Ottoman Question, the hearts of the English were with the Greeks, but they also did not want the collapse of the increasingly weak empire, the Sick Man of Europe, to benefit their rivals along its borders: Austria, Russia, and the small, usually pro-Russian south Slavic states.

    Two late-Greek innovations from the Byzantine Era were Greek Fire, a sticky incendiary naval weapon that was like Napalm, and stealing silk production technology from China, which had a torture and death penalty policy for anyone who tried to do so.

  123. I’m reading “Judaism’s Strange God’s” by Michael Hoffman, 2013 Third Edition, and a passage caught my eye. On pages 257-258 he writes about a student who was punished for saying good things about Jesus’s teachings:

    The Talmud is here teaching that Jews are not to heed or follow Christ or his disciples and teachings, even when those teachings are in accord with the word of God (in this case, Micah 1:7). It is not what is taught that matters. It is the identity of the teacher that counts. The teacher – Jesus Christ, in the person of his disciple “Jacob” [the student mentioned above] – is a heretic, therefore he is to be discounted even when he speaks the truth! Christianity is itself a form of prostitution and a Jew must not go to the door of “her” (Christianity’s) house (Proverbs 5:8) (emphasis in original)

    That sounded to me like “Who? Whom?” thinking, and I know there are some who say Marxism is supposed to be a product of Jewish influence.

  124. @Greenstalk
    Lot - "Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0·75 to 1·0 standard deviations above the general European average.."

    That's an idiotic statement. Comparing Ashkenazi Jews to "the general European average" is a meaningless exercise. AJ's are a small subset of the general "European" population, and might usefully be compared to other similar subsets of it, such as Amish or Episcopalians. For some reason this is rarely done though.

    I stand by my original point. There is no good data indicating Jewish IQ in the 115 range. You yourself displayed the common techniques used in inflating estimates of Jewish IQ.

    1) Citing Jewish achievement and working backwards from there, in effect arguing that they MUST have very high IQ's because look at what they've accomplished as a group. Of course using that logic Europeans MUST have significantly higher IQ's than East Asians. Just look at their respective intellectual accomplishments.

    2) "Anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-semite!". How very intellectual of you.

    3) Switching back and forth when convenient between different definitions of the term "Jews". The original question posed was on "Jewish IQ", and Burchill's philo-semitism is evidently for undifferentiated "Jews". But when it comes to making the case for "Jewish IQ" people like you focus like a laser on Ashkenazi Jews, and since that's not selective enough to give you the results you want, on Ashkenazi Jews in specific countries - excluding Israel. As I pointed out in my initial response to Sunbeam, figuring out the answer to the question "What is Jewish IQ" requires coming up with an answer to the question “What exactly makes someone ‘Jewish’?”. Your emotional diatribe mainly serves to illustrate the truth of that point.

    The IQ testing of even geographically concentrated and homogeneous groups is a crude and inexact science. This is why the apparent national IQ of e.g. Poles can seem to vary significantly over a very short time. Give the same test to two samples of Polish people and you'll get two different results. The problem is even more difficult for heterogeneous and widely dispersed populations, which is what Jews are. It may well be that an IQ test administered to fifty Ashkenazi Jewish boys in a yeshiva in Manhattan shows an IQ of 120. Does that tell us anything useful about "Jewish IQ" - meaning the average IQ of all Jews everywhere? It almost certainly does not, any more than we can make useful conclusions about "white IQ" by looking at the IQ's of fifty white guys studying engineering at MIT.

    That’s an idiotic statement.

    That’s a direct quotation from a published and peer-reviewed study by Greg Cochran. You should take your issues with this up with him at West Hunter.

    Comparing Ashkenazi Jews to “the general European average” is a meaningless exercise.

    Meaningless to you perhaps. Others find it a fascinating exercise, though high-IQ anti-Semites don’t like the results. I don’t really understand why they find this so offensive, nobody is saying they have low IQs. Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ. There’s an easy partial solution to this: marry a jew! Really I don’t understand why people can’t be more objective. My English ancestors are from near the Scottish border and lower IQ than SE England English. My rural Prussian-German ancestors, no doubt partly Germanized Wends, probably came from a lower IQ pool than Bavarian and Rhineland Germans. My Russian Ashkenazi stock is a lot less accomplished than the German Ashkenazi. So what? I am also happy to say that gentiles are better athletes on average!

    Also, my comparisons, as well as Lynn and Cochran’s, are really to the north, central and western Euro IQ-100 norm. Balkan whites, as well as southern Iberians and Italians, are likely a few points short, with Albanians and Bosnians at the European white bottom. The white Euro average is probably more like 99 on the US/UK white scale.

    I have never brought up the evidence for lower south and Balkan euro IQ since they are fine (mostly) Christian people at no fault for the damage Muslims did their their stock. Indeed, they are the ones who ultimately defeated Islam in Europe and saved the rest of our ancestors from the terror of Islamic conquest during the low point of European and the high point of Islamic military power.

    Aside from these limited exceptions, IQ is surprisingly similar across Europe. I suspect Finns and Estonians, who are massively over-represented in computer programming, might be a little high, as well as northern France, SE England, both sides of the Rhine, Bavaria, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy. But we’re talking at most an 1/8 of a SD. But 100 is basically right from Madrid to Aberdeen to Stockholm to Moscow to Slovenia to Rome. That is, indeed, part of why the high Ashkenazi IQ is so fascinating. The only other instance where a small ethnic group has a much higher IQ than the rest of the population are the Parsi in India, and the old historical example of the Greeks.

    “Anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-semite!”

    Except that’s not what I said. I said that open anti-Semites (like Svigor) have attached themselves to outlier Ashkenazi IQ estimates, such as the one Lynn put out then corrected later, and ignored everything else.

    “Jewish IQ” people like you focus like a laser on Ashkenazi Jews, and since that’s not selective enough to give you the results you want, on Ashkenazi Jews in specific countries – excluding Israel.

    Sephardic European IQ is boring. All evidence points to yet another European group around 100. I also don’t focus on Slovak IQ. Another 100 group. Anyway, the US has by far the most Ashkenazi, something like half the world’s population. We also, along with the UK, have the most IQ research and most refined tests.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    Most of the Slovak-Americans that I have known personally would be Mensa-eligible, by my estimations!?!
    , @ben tillman

    Meaningless to you perhaps. Others find it a fascinating exercise, though high-IQ anti-Semites don’t like the results. I don’t really understand why they find this so offensive, nobody is saying they have low IQs. Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ.
     
    What is the mechanism by which this "regression to the mean" occurs? I've asked this question a number of times, and no one's ever been able to explain it. It certainly doesn't seem to happen in my family.
  125. @PatrickH
    The 2B's review of 300 remains a virtuoso tour-de-force highlight of that fascinating blog.

    I also really liked 2b’s review of 300. I share the sentiment that the comic-book/CGI-ization of action movies is both impressive in a way but lamentable. I did not actually see 300 though.

    If you like movies set in the ancient greek/roman world, you should give Agora a watch.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora_%28film%29

    Set during the last years of the Western Roman empire in Alexandria, it is an amazing movie, filmed in English with English actors with funding from the Spanish government. One aspect I really liked is it showed how Rome, especially during the later years, kept a tenuous hold on its provinces with a small number of soldiers.

    Part of the plot is the Roman governor is strongly sympathetic to the remaining traditional polytheistic Greek/Roman religion, but is not able to protect it from Christian and Jewish mobs and the increasingly powerful Christian hierarchy.

    It has a nice balance of drama, history, and violence.

  126. “Sephardic European IQ is boring.”

    –It would be, wouldn’t it? But then, maybe not EVERY Ashkenazi pediatrician is 1.5 SD ahead of Descartes either.

    For the sake of complete objectivity, I suggest we validate the IQ scores for Maimonides, Wittgenstein, Kubrick, Kafka, Mahler, Mendelssohns Moses, Felix, and Fanny, and Harold and Allan Bloom– maybe LotB can get these from the files at the Kabbalah Center– and use their median and mean as the basement for all further citations of Ashkenazi IQ. It’s the only way to be sure.

    “Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ. There’s an easy partial solution to this: marry a jew!”

    Fantasies of “envious” whites obviously tingle your thigh better than thoughts of your own women. What’s your easy partial solution for JAP-induced ED? Brazil nuts and candy-flipping?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Who are Lot's "own" women? From his self-description, he has mixed Jewish and Gentile ancestry.
  127. @Laguna Beach Fogey
    Jews are neither as interesting nor as intelligent as they (and their admirers and detractors) think they are.

    No doubt your assessment is based on meticulous and dispassionate research rather than animus.

  128. @Greenstalk
    I really would like to see a consistent figure for Jewish IQ. I’ve seen figures all over the place for them, ranging from 107 to even as high as 120. So what is it?


    For a variety of reasons, not least the lack of a good answer to the question "What exactly makes someone 'Jewish'?", it's difficult to say exactly what the Jewish IQ is. But it's certainly a lot closer to the 107 figure than to 120. In fact Lynn examined a large number of Jewish IQ studies and concluded that the American Jewish verbal IQ is about 107. So their overall average IQ after factoring in their math IQ is probably about 105.

    The worldwide Jewish average is lower than that. American Jews are higher IQ than the ones in Israel or Europe.

    The discrepancy in IQ among Ashkenazi Jews is not between “math IQ” and verbal IQ but between verbal IQ and visual/spatial IQ. Mathematics ability is related to both of those domains.

    • Replies: @Lot

    The discrepancy in IQ among Ashkenazi Jews is not between “math IQ” and verbal IQ but between verbal IQ and visual/spatial IQ. Mathematics ability is related to both of those domains.
     
    That's what I'd think too, but in one large study that included a large number of subtests, the largest Jewish advantage was in math, not verbal. Visiospacial was below the white mean, though not to a statistically significant degree.

    The study was fairly interesting, a large one of tens of thousands of schoolchildren. It is an old one, and they identified the Ashkenazi by including all those who said they had one or more grandparents who spoke at least some Hebrew or Yiddish. Not a perfect way to ID them, but I can't imagine a huge government study asking questions like this explicitly.
  129. @Lucius Somesuch
    "Sephardic European IQ is boring."

    --It would be, wouldn't it? But then, maybe not EVERY Ashkenazi pediatrician is 1.5 SD ahead of Descartes either.

    For the sake of complete objectivity, I suggest we validate the IQ scores for Maimonides, Wittgenstein, Kubrick, Kafka, Mahler, Mendelssohns Moses, Felix, and Fanny, and Harold and Allan Bloom-- maybe LotB can get these from the files at the Kabbalah Center-- and use their median and mean as the basement for all further citations of Ashkenazi IQ. It's the only way to be sure.

    "Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ. There’s an easy partial solution to this: marry a jew!"

    Fantasies of "envious" whites obviously tingle your thigh better than thoughts of your own women. What's your easy partial solution for JAP-induced ED? Brazil nuts and candy-flipping?

    Who are Lot’s “own” women? From his self-description, he has mixed Jewish and Gentile ancestry.

  130. @Lot

    That’s an idiotic statement.
     
    That's a direct quotation from a published and peer-reviewed study by Greg Cochran. You should take your issues with this up with him at West Hunter.

    Comparing Ashkenazi Jews to “the general European average” is a meaningless exercise.
     
    Meaningless to you perhaps. Others find it a fascinating exercise, though high-IQ anti-Semites don't like the results. I don't really understand why they find this so offensive, nobody is saying they have low IQs. Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ. There's an easy partial solution to this: marry a jew! Really I don't understand why people can't be more objective. My English ancestors are from near the Scottish border and lower IQ than SE England English. My rural Prussian-German ancestors, no doubt partly Germanized Wends, probably came from a lower IQ pool than Bavarian and Rhineland Germans. My Russian Ashkenazi stock is a lot less accomplished than the German Ashkenazi. So what? I am also happy to say that gentiles are better athletes on average!

    Also, my comparisons, as well as Lynn and Cochran's, are really to the north, central and western Euro IQ-100 norm. Balkan whites, as well as southern Iberians and Italians, are likely a few points short, with Albanians and Bosnians at the European white bottom. The white Euro average is probably more like 99 on the US/UK white scale.

    I have never brought up the evidence for lower south and Balkan euro IQ since they are fine (mostly) Christian people at no fault for the damage Muslims did their their stock. Indeed, they are the ones who ultimately defeated Islam in Europe and saved the rest of our ancestors from the terror of Islamic conquest during the low point of European and the high point of Islamic military power.

    Aside from these limited exceptions, IQ is surprisingly similar across Europe. I suspect Finns and Estonians, who are massively over-represented in computer programming, might be a little high, as well as northern France, SE England, both sides of the Rhine, Bavaria, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy. But we're talking at most an 1/8 of a SD. But 100 is basically right from Madrid to Aberdeen to Stockholm to Moscow to Slovenia to Rome. That is, indeed, part of why the high Ashkenazi IQ is so fascinating. The only other instance where a small ethnic group has a much higher IQ than the rest of the population are the Parsi in India, and the old historical example of the Greeks.

    “Anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-semite!”
     
    Except that's not what I said. I said that open anti-Semites (like Svigor) have attached themselves to outlier Ashkenazi IQ estimates, such as the one Lynn put out then corrected later, and ignored everything else.

    “Jewish IQ” people like you focus like a laser on Ashkenazi Jews, and since that’s not selective enough to give you the results you want, on Ashkenazi Jews in specific countries – excluding Israel.
     
    Sephardic European IQ is boring. All evidence points to yet another European group around 100. I also don't focus on Slovak IQ. Another 100 group. Anyway, the US has by far the most Ashkenazi, something like half the world's population. We also, along with the UK, have the most IQ research and most refined tests.

    Most of the Slovak-Americans that I have known personally would be Mensa-eligible, by my estimations!?!

    • Replies: @dcite
    Nonsense. Mensa IQ must be in the upper 2%, over 132. No ethnic group has "most" of its members that high.
  131. iSteveFan says:

    I have never brought up the evidence for lower south and Balkan euro IQ since they are fine (mostly) Christian people at no fault for the damage Muslims did their their stock. Indeed, they are the ones who ultimately defeated Islam in Europe and saved the rest of our ancestors from the terror of Islamic conquest during the low point of European and the high point of Islamic military power.

    Is that your European heritage expressing those thoughts, or your Jewish side?

  132. @Lot

    That’s an idiotic statement.
     
    That's a direct quotation from a published and peer-reviewed study by Greg Cochran. You should take your issues with this up with him at West Hunter.

    Comparing Ashkenazi Jews to “the general European average” is a meaningless exercise.
     
    Meaningless to you perhaps. Others find it a fascinating exercise, though high-IQ anti-Semites don't like the results. I don't really understand why they find this so offensive, nobody is saying they have low IQs. Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ. There's an easy partial solution to this: marry a jew! Really I don't understand why people can't be more objective. My English ancestors are from near the Scottish border and lower IQ than SE England English. My rural Prussian-German ancestors, no doubt partly Germanized Wends, probably came from a lower IQ pool than Bavarian and Rhineland Germans. My Russian Ashkenazi stock is a lot less accomplished than the German Ashkenazi. So what? I am also happy to say that gentiles are better athletes on average!

    Also, my comparisons, as well as Lynn and Cochran's, are really to the north, central and western Euro IQ-100 norm. Balkan whites, as well as southern Iberians and Italians, are likely a few points short, with Albanians and Bosnians at the European white bottom. The white Euro average is probably more like 99 on the US/UK white scale.

    I have never brought up the evidence for lower south and Balkan euro IQ since they are fine (mostly) Christian people at no fault for the damage Muslims did their their stock. Indeed, they are the ones who ultimately defeated Islam in Europe and saved the rest of our ancestors from the terror of Islamic conquest during the low point of European and the high point of Islamic military power.

    Aside from these limited exceptions, IQ is surprisingly similar across Europe. I suspect Finns and Estonians, who are massively over-represented in computer programming, might be a little high, as well as northern France, SE England, both sides of the Rhine, Bavaria, Austria, Switzerland and Northern Italy. But we're talking at most an 1/8 of a SD. But 100 is basically right from Madrid to Aberdeen to Stockholm to Moscow to Slovenia to Rome. That is, indeed, part of why the high Ashkenazi IQ is so fascinating. The only other instance where a small ethnic group has a much higher IQ than the rest of the population are the Parsi in India, and the old historical example of the Greeks.

    “Anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-semite!”
     
    Except that's not what I said. I said that open anti-Semites (like Svigor) have attached themselves to outlier Ashkenazi IQ estimates, such as the one Lynn put out then corrected later, and ignored everything else.

    “Jewish IQ” people like you focus like a laser on Ashkenazi Jews, and since that’s not selective enough to give you the results you want, on Ashkenazi Jews in specific countries – excluding Israel.
     
    Sephardic European IQ is boring. All evidence points to yet another European group around 100. I also don't focus on Slovak IQ. Another 100 group. Anyway, the US has by far the most Ashkenazi, something like half the world's population. We also, along with the UK, have the most IQ research and most refined tests.

    Meaningless to you perhaps. Others find it a fascinating exercise, though high-IQ anti-Semites don’t like the results. I don’t really understand why they find this so offensive, nobody is saying they have low IQs. Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ.

    What is the mechanism by which this “regression to the mean” occurs? I’ve asked this question a number of times, and no one’s ever been able to explain it. It certainly doesn’t seem to happen in my family.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Here is Rushton explaining it with IQ:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

    An important point is that Galton observed and proved its existence (in height) well before anyone could explain why it happened.
  133. I find this shocking. Not only what this woman says but also the reaction to her comments from presumably white gentile readers here.

    What does this type of philo semitism that can be found amongst the “goyim” say about the future of whites? No wonder white people are so willing to destroy their own countries, and just for the shot at being an elite jew instead of prole lay person?

    WoW!

  134. Steve,

    As an aside, check out this new article: “Jesus and the Modern Man” by James Carrol in the NYT.

    For a brief second, I thought that it would be an article that might speak to the hearts of a large contingent of the USA: traditional Christians. I was quickly made aware of how stupid it was to allow myself to think such a thing.

    It’s worth a read, if only to first-hand reaffirm the boilerplate Christian hate and philosemitism in the media, but I’ll summarize it for you in the order of the points made by the author:

    1.) Pope Francis is awesome, and probably sent by god himself to wipe out dogma (read: Catholic tradition), bureaucracy (read: resistance to liberalism), and male power (read: we hate white men who run things and so should good Catholics).

    2.) A ban on contraception is morally wrong, and it single-handedly made the Catholic Church morally wrong.

    3.) Liberalism = Christianity

    4.) Conservative Catholics are anti-Jesus, and are therefore irrelevant to Catholicism.

    5.) It is “established” that change is necessary for the “human condition”, and the Church has struggled to keep up.

    6.) Truth is relative.

    7.) The Catholic Church is guilty of sex abuse and misogyny, both of which are anti-Jesus (for the record: I agree on former, but disagree about latter characterization of the Church).

    8.) Jesus was a Jew, and the gospels got it wrong when they characterized Jesus as being against Judaism (apparently Mathew 23 and other relevant entries are hallucinations – in another 50 years they’ll probably be regarded as forgeries).

    9.) Jesus was a Jew, and any argument to the contrary is “conflicted misremembering”.

    10.) If you refuse to recognize this conflicted misremembering, then you are a Nazi who wantstokillsixmillionjews.

    11.) The Catholic Church has a moral imperative to continue its liberal reformation because Holocaust.

    12.) The reform must be concentrated on a rewriting of the Gospel texts, so that the misremembered anti-Jewish Jesus can give way to the philosemitic Jewish Jesus.

    13.) The Catholic Church, and all other Christian Churches, should be Universalist and not limited to Christian worldviews.

    14.) All traditions must be measured against the author’s concept of a Universalist Jesus. A characteristics of this Jesus notably includes giving up all power.

    end summary.

    Everyone should read number 12 again.

    My question to the author is why the Orthodox Jews that take up enormous, insular space in NYC, aren’t subject to the same liberal rectal exam? They are much more conservative than are the most conservative Catholics. Where is their call to reform their texts? Where is their lecture on their books and beliefs? Where is their lecture on their misogyny? For that matter, where is their liberal head Rabbi?

    Why do superficially Christian articles devolve to being Judaism-centric?

    Why is the Holocaust a de facto moral imperative for Catholics to reform their faith, but not for Judaism to reform their own?

    Why are Catholics being singled out for this so-called moral imperative? Germany was and is an overwhelmingly protestant country. Catholics in the USA fought against Germany in large numbers.

    Are all Jews comfortable with this gentile author’s exploitation of the Holocaust to lobby for his liberal Catholic reformation agenda? Are they willing to be attached to the potential political fallout that comes with using the Holocaust as a front-line reason to rewrite the Christian Gospels? Did they get a say in the matter? How will Jewish organizations respond to this very cynical political use of the Holocaust?

    Ar Jews comfortable with the political fallout that could come from Christians being dictated the controversial Jewish status of Jesus? After all, his Jewishness is actually a fringe view and isn’t at all accepted in mainstream Christianity, and for good historical reasons.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    9.) Jesus was a Jew, and any argument to the contrary is “conflicted misremembering”.
     
    You've got to help me out here. Where in the NT is there anything that says that Jesus was not a Jew? To the best of my recollection, the NT was pretty clear on Jesus being a Jew.
  135. @Anonymous
    The discrepancy in IQ among Ashkenazi Jews is not between "math IQ" and verbal IQ but between verbal IQ and visual/spatial IQ. Mathematics ability is related to both of those domains.

    The discrepancy in IQ among Ashkenazi Jews is not between “math IQ” and verbal IQ but between verbal IQ and visual/spatial IQ. Mathematics ability is related to both of those domains.

    That’s what I’d think too, but in one large study that included a large number of subtests, the largest Jewish advantage was in math, not verbal. Visiospacial was below the white mean, though not to a statistically significant degree.

    The study was fairly interesting, a large one of tens of thousands of schoolchildren. It is an old one, and they identified the Ashkenazi by including all those who said they had one or more grandparents who spoke at least some Hebrew or Yiddish. Not a perfect way to ID them, but I can’t imagine a huge government study asking questions like this explicitly.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    With a large enough sample size, any discernible difference on a given trait or performance result between two similarly sized experimental or survey groups, no matter how small that difference might be, is going to be statistically significant, whether or not that difference has any practical significance whatsoever. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that a study involving tens of thousands of subjects, from two fairly discrete demographic groups, is going to fail to provide a statistically significant difference between them.
  136. @ben tillman

    Meaningless to you perhaps. Others find it a fascinating exercise, though high-IQ anti-Semites don’t like the results. I don’t really understand why they find this so offensive, nobody is saying they have low IQs. Maybe they are envious that an ashkenazi with an IQ of 130 will see less regression to the mean of their children than a gentile with the same IQ.
     
    What is the mechanism by which this "regression to the mean" occurs? I've asked this question a number of times, and no one's ever been able to explain it. It certainly doesn't seem to happen in my family.

    Here is Rushton explaining it with IQ:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

    An important point is that Galton observed and proved its existence (in height) well before anyone could explain why it happened.

  137. @Luke Lea
    "Jews are smarter, more successful and better than the rest of you . . ."

    I get the smarter and more successful, but better? I despise the copula that unreflectively links "the best" and "the brightest" -- no matter the ethnicity! Intelligence, like technology, can be used for good or ill. The smartest are no more immune from egotistical, callous, even sociopathic behavior than the physically strongest have been historically. (Indeed the smartest are the strongest in modern societies.) We need to rediscover what our forebears meant by character.

    Intelligence, like technology, can be used for good or ill.

    This reminds me of an old Warren Buffett quote:

    Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy

  138. @Lot

    The discrepancy in IQ among Ashkenazi Jews is not between “math IQ” and verbal IQ but between verbal IQ and visual/spatial IQ. Mathematics ability is related to both of those domains.
     
    That's what I'd think too, but in one large study that included a large number of subtests, the largest Jewish advantage was in math, not verbal. Visiospacial was below the white mean, though not to a statistically significant degree.

    The study was fairly interesting, a large one of tens of thousands of schoolchildren. It is an old one, and they identified the Ashkenazi by including all those who said they had one or more grandparents who spoke at least some Hebrew or Yiddish. Not a perfect way to ID them, but I can't imagine a huge government study asking questions like this explicitly.

    With a large enough sample size, any discernible difference on a given trait or performance result between two similarly sized experimental or survey groups, no matter how small that difference might be, is going to be statistically significant, whether or not that difference has any practical significance whatsoever. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that a study involving tens of thousands of subjects, from two fairly discrete demographic groups, is going to fail to provide a statistically significant difference between them.

    • Replies: @Lot

    I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that a study involving tens of thousands of subjects, from two fairly discrete demographic groups, is going to fail to provide a statistically significant difference between them.
     
    The Jewish sub-sample was not tens of thousands, and the difference in means was pretty small.

    That said, the fact the lower Jewish visiospacial score wasn't statistically significant doesn't mean its not true, it means that the proposition is between 50 and 95% likely to be true.

    You should be able to find the study on Google Scholar from my description and look for yourself.
  139. Maybe I missed it but I did not see anybody mention the relative size of the Bell Curve and its affect on the absolute numbers of smart Goys and smart Jews.
    Say Jews do have an average IQ of 115 and Goys have an average IQ of 100.
    What about the right tail of the Bell Curve?
    The Jewish Bell curve is 32 times smaller than the dumb Goy Bell curve.
    So there would be 7 times more 130 IQs amongst Goys and 4.5 times more 140 IQs amongst Goys simply because of the larger size of their Bell curve.
    So whats with the over representation in all the brainiac positions of influence?

    I think at the very highest IQs there are more Jewish people but the numbers are very small.

    Here is a posting that goes into detail.

    http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/why-is-the-iq-of-ashkenazi-jews-so-high

    “This suggests that either the “bell’s curve” is lifted for the Ashkenazi a bit longer at the high end or there are additional factors that enhance their ability to succeed. Regarding the first possibility, Charles Murray notes that “the proportion of Jews with IQs of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else.” Harpending, Hardy and Cochran sport roughly the same equation; “4 out of every 1,000 Northern European is 140+ IQ, but 23 out of every 1,000 Jew is 140+.” Murray also relays a report from sky-high up in the genius range, when he notes that a 1954 survey of New York public school children with 170+ IQs revealed that 24 of the 28 were… Jewish.”

    My question, as always, is what about the fact that the Goyim Bell curve is 32 times larger? Sure it is 24 of 28 in NYC. NYC is the center of Judaism in the US.
    I thought there were 6 million Jewish people and 200 million White Goyim. So given those numbers, and the Stupid Goys with a HUGE Dumb Bell Curve, 32 times larger, the actual IQ ratio of Goys to Jews at the upper levels is 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Stuff like the oil and natural gas industry employs a lot of smart people, not many of them Jewish. The technical geniuses that invented horizontal drilling and all the other crazy stuff to squeeze more hydrocarbons out of the ground aren't household names.
    , @syonredux

    Say Jews do have an average IQ of 115 and Goys have an average IQ of 100.
     
    Goyim covers everyone who is non-Jewish: Blacks, Amerinds, South Asians, East Asians, Australian Aborigines, etc.Needless to say, not all of those groups have a mean IQ of 100. For that matter, Middle Eastern Jews don't average anywhere near 115. I think what you are trying to compare is the difference between the White American Gentile mean and the White American Ashkenazi mean.
    , @D. K.
    Most New York City elites probably were sending their kids to private schools, back in 1954, as they do today. As for the rest of its non-Hispanic White-gentile population, there was probably a fairly large portion going to Catholic schools, back then, considering the prevalence of Irish and Italians among New York's Whites, with a lot of its other ethnic Whites also being Catholics. The smarter the kids, the more likely that their parents were affluent, and the more likely that they were sending their smart kids to Catholic schools rather than to public schools. (I am reading a biography of John Updike, at the moment, and, when he was at Harvard, from 1950-1954, annual tuition was supposedly $600! So, I assume that New York City's Catholic grade schools charged somewhat less.)
  140. Here is Rushton explaining it with IQ:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

    He did no such thing.

  141. @conatus
    Maybe I missed it but I did not see anybody mention the relative size of the Bell Curve and its affect on the absolute numbers of smart Goys and smart Jews.
    Say Jews do have an average IQ of 115 and Goys have an average IQ of 100.
    What about the right tail of the Bell Curve?
    The Jewish Bell curve is 32 times smaller than the dumb Goy Bell curve.
    So there would be 7 times more 130 IQs amongst Goys and 4.5 times more 140 IQs amongst Goys simply because of the larger size of their Bell curve.
    So whats with the over representation in all the brainiac positions of influence?

    I think at the very highest IQs there are more Jewish people but the numbers are very small.

    Here is a posting that goes into detail.

    http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/why-is-the-iq-of-ashkenazi-jews-so-high

    "This suggests that either the “bell’s curve” is lifted for the Ashkenazi a bit longer at the high end or there are additional factors that enhance their ability to succeed. Regarding the first possibility, Charles Murray notes that “the proportion of Jews with IQs of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else.” Harpending, Hardy and Cochran sport roughly the same equation; “4 out of every 1,000 Northern European is 140+ IQ, but 23 out of every 1,000 Jew is 140+.” Murray also relays a report from sky-high up in the genius range, when he notes that a 1954 survey of New York public school children with 170+ IQs revealed that 24 of the 28 were… Jewish."

    My question, as always, is what about the fact that the Goyim Bell curve is 32 times larger? Sure it is 24 of 28 in NYC. NYC is the center of Judaism in the US.
    I thought there were 6 million Jewish people and 200 million White Goyim. So given those numbers, and the Stupid Goys with a HUGE Dumb Bell Curve, 32 times larger, the actual IQ ratio of Goys to Jews at the upper levels is 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145).

    Stuff like the oil and natural gas industry employs a lot of smart people, not many of them Jewish. The technical geniuses that invented horizontal drilling and all the other crazy stuff to squeeze more hydrocarbons out of the ground aren’t household names.

  142. @D. K.
    With a large enough sample size, any discernible difference on a given trait or performance result between two similarly sized experimental or survey groups, no matter how small that difference might be, is going to be statistically significant, whether or not that difference has any practical significance whatsoever. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that a study involving tens of thousands of subjects, from two fairly discrete demographic groups, is going to fail to provide a statistically significant difference between them.

    I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that a study involving tens of thousands of subjects, from two fairly discrete demographic groups, is going to fail to provide a statistically significant difference between them.

    The Jewish sub-sample was not tens of thousands, and the difference in means was pretty small.

    That said, the fact the lower Jewish visiospacial score wasn’t statistically significant doesn’t mean its not true, it means that the proposition is between 50 and 95% likely to be true.

    You should be able to find the study on Google Scholar from my description and look for yourself.

  143. @conatus
    Maybe I missed it but I did not see anybody mention the relative size of the Bell Curve and its affect on the absolute numbers of smart Goys and smart Jews.
    Say Jews do have an average IQ of 115 and Goys have an average IQ of 100.
    What about the right tail of the Bell Curve?
    The Jewish Bell curve is 32 times smaller than the dumb Goy Bell curve.
    So there would be 7 times more 130 IQs amongst Goys and 4.5 times more 140 IQs amongst Goys simply because of the larger size of their Bell curve.
    So whats with the over representation in all the brainiac positions of influence?

    I think at the very highest IQs there are more Jewish people but the numbers are very small.

    Here is a posting that goes into detail.

    http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/why-is-the-iq-of-ashkenazi-jews-so-high

    "This suggests that either the “bell’s curve” is lifted for the Ashkenazi a bit longer at the high end or there are additional factors that enhance their ability to succeed. Regarding the first possibility, Charles Murray notes that “the proportion of Jews with IQs of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else.” Harpending, Hardy and Cochran sport roughly the same equation; “4 out of every 1,000 Northern European is 140+ IQ, but 23 out of every 1,000 Jew is 140+.” Murray also relays a report from sky-high up in the genius range, when he notes that a 1954 survey of New York public school children with 170+ IQs revealed that 24 of the 28 were… Jewish."

    My question, as always, is what about the fact that the Goyim Bell curve is 32 times larger? Sure it is 24 of 28 in NYC. NYC is the center of Judaism in the US.
    I thought there were 6 million Jewish people and 200 million White Goyim. So given those numbers, and the Stupid Goys with a HUGE Dumb Bell Curve, 32 times larger, the actual IQ ratio of Goys to Jews at the upper levels is 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145).

    Say Jews do have an average IQ of 115 and Goys have an average IQ of 100.

    Goyim covers everyone who is non-Jewish: Blacks, Amerinds, South Asians, East Asians, Australian Aborigines, etc.Needless to say, not all of those groups have a mean IQ of 100. For that matter, Middle Eastern Jews don’t average anywhere near 115. I think what you are trying to compare is the difference between the White American Gentile mean and the White American Ashkenazi mean.

  144. @conatus
    Maybe I missed it but I did not see anybody mention the relative size of the Bell Curve and its affect on the absolute numbers of smart Goys and smart Jews.
    Say Jews do have an average IQ of 115 and Goys have an average IQ of 100.
    What about the right tail of the Bell Curve?
    The Jewish Bell curve is 32 times smaller than the dumb Goy Bell curve.
    So there would be 7 times more 130 IQs amongst Goys and 4.5 times more 140 IQs amongst Goys simply because of the larger size of their Bell curve.
    So whats with the over representation in all the brainiac positions of influence?

    I think at the very highest IQs there are more Jewish people but the numbers are very small.

    Here is a posting that goes into detail.

    http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/why-is-the-iq-of-ashkenazi-jews-so-high

    "This suggests that either the “bell’s curve” is lifted for the Ashkenazi a bit longer at the high end or there are additional factors that enhance their ability to succeed. Regarding the first possibility, Charles Murray notes that “the proportion of Jews with IQs of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else.” Harpending, Hardy and Cochran sport roughly the same equation; “4 out of every 1,000 Northern European is 140+ IQ, but 23 out of every 1,000 Jew is 140+.” Murray also relays a report from sky-high up in the genius range, when he notes that a 1954 survey of New York public school children with 170+ IQs revealed that 24 of the 28 were… Jewish."

    My question, as always, is what about the fact that the Goyim Bell curve is 32 times larger? Sure it is 24 of 28 in NYC. NYC is the center of Judaism in the US.
    I thought there were 6 million Jewish people and 200 million White Goyim. So given those numbers, and the Stupid Goys with a HUGE Dumb Bell Curve, 32 times larger, the actual IQ ratio of Goys to Jews at the upper levels is 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145).

    Most New York City elites probably were sending their kids to private schools, back in 1954, as they do today. As for the rest of its non-Hispanic White-gentile population, there was probably a fairly large portion going to Catholic schools, back then, considering the prevalence of Irish and Italians among New York’s Whites, with a lot of its other ethnic Whites also being Catholics. The smarter the kids, the more likely that their parents were affluent, and the more likely that they were sending their smart kids to Catholic schools rather than to public schools. (I am reading a biography of John Updike, at the moment, and, when he was at Harvard, from 1950-1954, annual tuition was supposedly $600! So, I assume that New York City’s Catholic grade schools charged somewhat less.)

  145. @Jon
    Steve,

    As an aside, check out this new article: "Jesus and the Modern Man" by James Carrol in the NYT.

    For a brief second, I thought that it would be an article that might speak to the hearts of a large contingent of the USA: traditional Christians. I was quickly made aware of how stupid it was to allow myself to think such a thing.

    It's worth a read, if only to first-hand reaffirm the boilerplate Christian hate and philosemitism in the media, but I'll summarize it for you in the order of the points made by the author:

    1.) Pope Francis is awesome, and probably sent by god himself to wipe out dogma (read: Catholic tradition), bureaucracy (read: resistance to liberalism), and male power (read: we hate white men who run things and so should good Catholics).

    2.) A ban on contraception is morally wrong, and it single-handedly made the Catholic Church morally wrong.

    3.) Liberalism = Christianity

    4.) Conservative Catholics are anti-Jesus, and are therefore irrelevant to Catholicism.

    5.) It is "established" that change is necessary for the "human condition", and the Church has struggled to keep up.

    6.) Truth is relative.

    7.) The Catholic Church is guilty of sex abuse and misogyny, both of which are anti-Jesus (for the record: I agree on former, but disagree about latter characterization of the Church).

    8.) Jesus was a Jew, and the gospels got it wrong when they characterized Jesus as being against Judaism (apparently Mathew 23 and other relevant entries are hallucinations - in another 50 years they'll probably be regarded as forgeries).

    9.) Jesus was a Jew, and any argument to the contrary is "conflicted misremembering".

    10.) If you refuse to recognize this conflicted misremembering, then you are a Nazi who wantstokillsixmillionjews.

    11.) The Catholic Church has a moral imperative to continue its liberal reformation because Holocaust.

    12.) The reform must be concentrated on a rewriting of the Gospel texts, so that the misremembered anti-Jewish Jesus can give way to the philosemitic Jewish Jesus.

    13.) The Catholic Church, and all other Christian Churches, should be Universalist and not limited to Christian worldviews.

    14.) All traditions must be measured against the author's concept of a Universalist Jesus. A characteristics of this Jesus notably includes giving up all power.

    end summary.

    Everyone should read number 12 again.

    My question to the author is why the Orthodox Jews that take up enormous, insular space in NYC, aren't subject to the same liberal rectal exam? They are much more conservative than are the most conservative Catholics. Where is their call to reform their texts? Where is their lecture on their books and beliefs? Where is their lecture on their misogyny? For that matter, where is their liberal head Rabbi?

    Why do superficially Christian articles devolve to being Judaism-centric?

    Why is the Holocaust a de facto moral imperative for Catholics to reform their faith, but not for Judaism to reform their own?

    Why are Catholics being singled out for this so-called moral imperative? Germany was and is an overwhelmingly protestant country. Catholics in the USA fought against Germany in large numbers.

    Are all Jews comfortable with this gentile author's exploitation of the Holocaust to lobby for his liberal Catholic reformation agenda? Are they willing to be attached to the potential political fallout that comes with using the Holocaust as a front-line reason to rewrite the Christian Gospels? Did they get a say in the matter? How will Jewish organizations respond to this very cynical political use of the Holocaust?

    Ar Jews comfortable with the political fallout that could come from Christians being dictated the controversial Jewish status of Jesus? After all, his Jewishness is actually a fringe view and isn't at all accepted in mainstream Christianity, and for good historical reasons.

    9.) Jesus was a Jew, and any argument to the contrary is “conflicted misremembering”.

    You’ve got to help me out here. Where in the NT is there anything that says that Jesus was not a Jew? To the best of my recollection, the NT was pretty clear on Jesus being a Jew.

  146. Comparing Ashkenazi IQ to a country’s or region’s IQ is an absurd, underhanded, and self serving Jewish supremacist tactic.
    Factor out the lower IQs of immigrants in let’s say, Germany. Those lower IQs drag the total down significantly. It then becomes a different ball game when one compares IQs of indigenous, true Germans vs. a selected subset of Jews, the Ashkenazis.

    In fact, looking at the IQ of Israeli Jews in general reveals a much lower IQ than that of a selected Ashkenazi subset.
    And speaking of Israel, it wouldn’t last a month without the handouts it receives from us ‘antisemites’

    antisemitic: any thought or person that a Jew doesn’t like

  147. http://news.yahoo.com/russian-couple-registers-first-same-sex-marriage-140903966.html;_ylt=AwrBEiGukV9U6lcAnbDQtDMD

    The marriage on Friday went through because one of the women was born male but is now transgender and undergoing hormone therapy, said Anna Anisimova, an activist working with Vykhod, an LGBT rights group in Saint-Petersburg.

  148. @Svigor

    I have never heard of this person, but the idea that smart people are generally hated for being smart
     
    Is self-serving bullshit.

    See? It doesn't take a wall of text.


    I believe Derbyshire is accurate, and thus as say, dumber populations in Europe regarded the Jews with hatred over being smart, so too do Blacks regard the smarter Whites with hatred for being marginally smarter. This fits in with lower IQ SE Asian populations being filled with hatred for smarter IQ Chinese diaspora populations.
     
    "Marginally," lol. The gap is twice or more the European-Jewish gap. So, what does that make the latter? Marginally marginal?

    Blacks are below the threshold for advanced civilization. So, everyone living outside of black rule inspires envy in the blacks around them, given enough time. It also requires a substantial black population - a few upper crust blacks fresh from Africa won't do it. No, it's living in another group's country that inspires envy and resentment. Sort of like how Jews have been living in other people's countries for 2000 years, and diaspora Jews often have giant chips on their shoulders about it. It isn't just ethnocentrism, it's also an inferiority complex, an alienation complex, etc. Israelis have none of that, obviously. Just the ethnocentrism.


    So when can you classify a given population as inbred?
     
    When you're Jewish and they're European?

    ***

    Does anyone aware of Jews' self-congratulatory impulses really have to think hard about why they've been kicked out of various places more than a hundred times, down through the years?

    "We're so hated because we're so wonderful," LOL.

    ““Marginally,” lol. The gap is twice or more the European-Jewish gap. So, what does that make the latter? Marginally marginal?”

    Who the hell is calling the gap “marginal”? That is one of the funniest things I’ve read. The gap between Asians and Europeans is “marginal.” The gap between full blood American Indians and mestizos is perhaps “marginal.” But a gap of 15 points (actually 18 but they usually round the black average up to 85) is very major indeed. Not only is the average major, but it is major that the black IQ bell curve has a more narrow range so that most IQ bunches up between about 80 and 90-95. Even those with IQs over 100 are only about 10% and those with IQs over 130 number no more than a few thousand out of many millions. The gap is drastic. What on earth would make anyone think it is marginal? Michael Levinson (I think that was the name) said one of the scariest and truest things ever, when he answered the question, “why would anyone think blacks and whites are not equal?” , with “why would anyone think they are equal.”
    Does that mean there are no highly intelligent blacks? Of course not. But the gap on the average is very, very major. That is why there is so little hope concerning the degradation of our cities as long as they form majorities in them.

  149. One of the most salient things about Burchill’s beliefs, is that it accepts genes and heredity. If one thinkgs Jews as an ethnicity can be smarter (despite most of the modern world actually being invented by gentiles; Jews didn’t get into the act until pretty late and recently), then obviously whites are smarter than, oh, name that race. She sort of right–Jews do have a certain something about their mentality that makes one think–brains–but they’re not drastically more inventive technologically than non-Jews. I’ve noted how many of them are not really into numbers and statistics for example. And these were extremely smart people, IQs 135 or so. I think it is a fact that Jewish brains are language oriented, and on the scientific front, they are not as over-represented, although they are certainly well represented.

  150. @D. K.
    Most of the Slovak-Americans that I have known personally would be Mensa-eligible, by my estimations!?!

    Nonsense. Mensa IQ must be in the upper 2%, over 132. No ethnic group has “most” of its members that high.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    Please re-read what I wrote; then, take it literally. Almost every Slovak-American that I know is either a sibling, an aunt or an uncle of mine. The one current exception is an anesthesiologist of more-recent acquaintance; she reports an IQ of 140-- the same as my father's, when he joined the Coast Guard in 1940. I suspect that all but one of my eight siblings could have been Mensa material.
  151. @Lot

    The smartest are no more immune from egotistical, callous, even sociopathic behavior than the physically strongest have been historically.
     
    Actually, in general, they are. Maybe not immune from evil, but statistics on intelligence and measures of morality (empathy, future time orientation, crime rate) shows that IQ is indeed correlated with morality. Also with good looks and good health. These aren't especially strong correlations though, but they do exist. Linda Gottfriedson is the person who has most extensively breached these taboo topics. I think Satoshi and Cochran have also done so.

    Yes, that’s true. Even if a highly intelligent person does not feel particularly kindly, they can usually muster enough objectivity, or possess a certain self-awareness of how they look to others. They have more self-control with less external force. The less intelligent need far more agressive incentives to encourage decent behavior. I read that rape (not the messy date-kind, but rape with hostile, possibly deadly intent) is the crime most associated with the lowest IQs.

  152. @dcite
    Nonsense. Mensa IQ must be in the upper 2%, over 132. No ethnic group has "most" of its members that high.

    Please re-read what I wrote; then, take it literally. Almost every Slovak-American that I know is either a sibling, an aunt or an uncle of mine. The one current exception is an anesthesiologist of more-recent acquaintance; she reports an IQ of 140– the same as my father’s, when he joined the Coast Guard in 1940. I suspect that all but one of my eight siblings could have been Mensa material.

  153. Julie Burchill is twice the woman Brie Bella is while being the same height as Layla which is what you expect from a top paid columnist who goes to a Health Spa for a weekend and loses all of one ounce.

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