The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Paige Harden's Upcoming Book "The Genetic Lottery"
🔊 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

I hear a lot of talk about “the genetic lottery.” But is randomness the sole cause of why your children wind up with the genes that they do?

How randomly did Professor Harden, for example, marry?

From the New York Times wedding announcements:

WEDDINGS/CELEBRATIONS
Kathryn Harden, Elliot Tucker-Drob
JUNE 18, 2010

Kathryn Paige Harden and Elliot Max Tucker-Drob were married Saturday by Rabbi Jake Rubin at the Colonnade Club, the faculty club at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The bride and bridegroom, who are assistant professors of psychology at the University of Texas in Austin, met at Virginia, from which each received a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. …

Really rolling the dice …

Seriously, I think people in general have a hard time keeping in mind that when it comes to genetics, the glass is often about half full and half empty.

I apologize to my long-time readers. I’ve been harping on this metaphor for about 20 years now. But it’s not clear I’ve made much progress in getting more than a few people to see this.

 
Hide 128 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “The Genetic Lottery,” a book on the genetics of social inequality that will argue that genetic research can help create a more just and equal society.”

    Sounds like Hitler.

    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Actually it sounds like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute.

    Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection
    https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php

    .... the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing. ...

    ...Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims. ....

    In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

    The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.

    The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. .....
  2. Regardless of whether a person’s parents engaged in intentional assortative mating,* that person’s (vastly important) genetic inheritance will still be a function of something other than that person’s revealed merit. Similar to whether your parents are rich, or loving. In each sense it is a lottery, unless a principle or being greater than us manages creation.

    *Itself a product of ancient, inherent, utterly ruthless mating programming shared among all organisms.

  3. I’m more worried about the part that argues that “genetic research can help create a more just and equal society.”

    Do they have in mind cloning or genetic engineering to create a kind of brave-new-world society where everyone is “equal”? (except of course the elite, but that is par for the course).

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with “equality” is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before? I guess the usual view is that it comes from the Enlightenment, then French Revolution, and US Independence (all men created equal etc), but I’m not sure about that.

    I don’t think ancient people would think this way, and the whole concept of “equality” is frankly absurd, when you consider how different men are and act and how different are their outcomes in life.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    All men classify, and say "this is that, and this is not that." It is a primary fundament of thought, and all men classify other men across any number of interesting parameters. Because recognition and classification are fundamental, an attractive method for prying men loose from their moorings in order to debilitate them is to extinguish or corrupt the flows of accurate information necessary to create, sustain, and update the structures of classified knowledge that we use to make decisions. To destroy a man, first weaken his resolve and release doubt in the foundation of his confidence.
    , @Tyrion 2

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with “equality” is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before? I guess the usual view is that it comes from the Enlightenment, then French Revolution, and US Independence (all men created equal etc), but I’m not sure about that
     
    I doubt European Jews were much interested in equality pre-Enlightenment. They seem mostly to have been interested in endlessly studying the Torah and deriving ever more pointless social and personal rules from it.

    I suppose the fun was to be had in the learned debate, even if the topic was generally dreary.

    On the other hand, social competition in such places does not tend to focus on who has the best material goods. No D&D player wins by arriving in the most expensive jacket. So in that way they were quite egalitarian.

    The following blokes also pre-dated the Enlightenment:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers
    , @Amasius

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with “equality” is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before?
     
    It goes to the fundamental nature of Judaism which is rebellion against the strong (muh liberation from Pharaoh's oppression), followed logically by egalitarianism for the rebels. The prophets of the Yahweh alone movement were obsessed with muh "social justice." Judaism is just leftism in an extremely potent religious form. "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit": the Jesus movement, black American spirituals, Rastafarianism, Mormonism, Puritanism, Lutheranism and the Peasants' Revolt, Civil Rights, Bolshevism, the Islamic umma, you see it again and again and again from them and those who share their religious mindset.

    As a tribe they view themselves as morally and intellectually superior to everyone else of course, but that's a separate intergroup dynamic.

  4. Anon[146] • Disclaimer says:

    I hadn’t known that Harden was Jewish.

    To see what else she had tweeted recently I went to Twitter and started clicking out on all the retweets, replies, and at-marks, and she as might be expected is part of a large conversation about genetics by many prominent academics and researchers in the field. And they are virtually all Jewish (Stephen Hsu an example of an exception), well over an order of magnitude what they would be by random chance.

    I guess that’s good in that members of a tribe that could be considered gatekeepers are interested in discussing this topic in a more scientific, non-Stephen Jay Gould manner. On the other hand, there is an obvious political bias, as well as disturbing gatekeepingesque discussions about “ethics boards” approving research, screening researchers’ political correctness before sharing data, and the evil of what they perceive as pure science research and “just asking questions.”

    • Replies: @Beene1
    I kind of doubt she's Jewish. Her parents don't seem very Jewish, and not just because they're from Tennessee. A pilot father and a mother named Patti.
    , @Almost Missouri
    I presume she married in. Since the wedding was officiated by a rabbi, she probably converted.

    Off the top of my head, I know two gentile women who converted to Judaism to marry their Jewish husbands. Both of them are far more Judeo-centric than their actually Jewish husbands, who tend toward take-it-or-leave-ism on subjects Jewish.

    I don't think it is anything to do with Judaism per se. For example, I know another Euro woman who married a Muslim Maghrebi. After marrying him, she became much more SJW-ish, especially about things Mohammedan, while her husband has a pretty ordinary Western outlook. This has resulted in amusing but uncomfortable situations where she condemns me for my views, while her husband and I agree, but apparently her brain doesn't compute that her husband and I actually hold the same view, probably because she holds her husband in a different ethno-religious category from me, so she doesn't notice that we are saying the same thing. In other words, she is being racist while accusing me of racism. Or, as I call it, another day in reality.
    , @hyperbola
    You are mistaken in thinking that this has anything to do with "a more scientific" approach. In fact this is nothing more than snake oil from a racist-supremacist sect. On the principle of "the big lie repeated enough times...." we really should object to those that give publicity to such obvious frauds.

    These “million person” studies are so under-sampled as to be nothing but random noise, which is why each one of them finds completely different sets of genes. Take 40 genes with 2 variants each (this is only a very small fraction of the genes that have been proposed to be correlated with things like “IQ”). The possible number of genetic variants is then 2 to the 40th power – that is more than ONE TRILLION combinations of those 40 genes with only two variants each. A sample size of one million persons corresponds to testing less than 1 part per million of those combinations.

    This leads to two inescapable conclusions.

    1. There are NOT enough people in the world to EVER do meaningful statistics on complex traits that involve >ca. 30 genes. ALL of these studies are measuring nothing more than noise artefacts.

    2. NO genetic test will ever be able to predict the “IQ” (or related things like “education achievement”) for an individual person.

    The question we should be asking ourselves is why we are being sold so much obvious snake oil from "psychologists".

    Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West
    “We are bringing them the plague.”—Sigmund Freud, on his way to America in 1909[1]
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/24/sigmund-freud-psychoanalysis-and-the-war-on-the-west/

    Like Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud did not base psychoanalysis, which he championed to the entire Western world, on scientific premises. ...
    Freud was on a Jewish mission. Jewish professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz of New York University writes that “one of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was…to inflict vengeance on Christianity.”[10]
    Other Jewish scholars such as Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter noted the same thing, adding that “though it is sometimes forgotten today, Freud’s work was profoundly subversive to the cultural underpinnings of European Christian society…There is evidence that some of the impetus for the creation of psychoanalysis lay in his hostility to Christianity.”[11]
    .... Freud in fact had a secret library in which he housed books on the Kabbala, and a copy of the Zohar,[16] which is “the most important document in Jewish mysticism,” and which, among other things, “taught the Jews to sacrifice Christian virgins for God’s pleasure.”[17] ....
  5. In what meaningful sense can it be “just” for a society to be “equal” when the people who comprise it are inherently otherwise?

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Yup: you have to choose which one you want.
    , @Travis
    very true. for SJWs a Just society means Equality in outcomes via unequal treatment of individuals, discrimination and racial quotas. (they have tried this for 40 years and inequality remains).

    Difficult to understand how learning about genetic inequality will result in more "equality". It is more likely to result in more inequality , if the wealthy start using genetic tests to determine which embryos to implant. As we learn more about genetic it becomes obvious that we will not have the ability to use genetic engineering to alter the ~1,500 genes which effect IQ. Because changing so many genes in tails significant risks to altering good genes and these genes do not offer any benefit to all races.

    So far genetic research has just confirmed that the model we use for gaining entry into college and graduation rates is a more effective method to determine IQ. than any genetic tests. Just as looking in the mirror is a more effective method to determine ones eye color than using a genetic test. for example autosomal DNA testing results indicate a 90% chance my eyes are Blue, while we knew from birth that there was 100% chance my eyes were Blue.
    , @Logan
    Actually, that's a very interesting question.

    The great and powerful Dr. Jonathan Haidt answers, or at least addresses, it in his work.

    Justice is essentially defined, in our minds, by fairness. And fairness, confusingly, has two paradisms when it comes to sharing out the fruits of a group endeavour.

    1. Share equally.

    2. Share based on contribution to the success of the endeavor.

    While almost everybody combines them in varying degrees, liberals/progressive lean towards 1, while conservatives/libertarians lean towards 2.

    Conservatives/libertarians then have the knotty question of defining how much each person contributed.

    Or, possibly, your question comes down to, "How do you define 'just' and 'equal'?"
  6. From her Twitter feed and her blog posts, I’m pretty sure she’s reading this blog as well as keeping up in general with (what she considers) the dark underbelly of genetics. So, hi Kathryn, how’s the weather in Texas today?

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    A more appropriate response would be an anagram of "fit grotto"
  7. Steve’s point also applies to immigration.

    A person’s place of birth, like their genetic endowment, is not chosen by them. But it is not a matter of luck, it is (even more than genetics) the result of their parent’s choices.

  8. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Okay, let’s have real genetic lotteries to even things out in the name of Equality.

    No, it’s not arranged marries but lottery marriages. Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time.

    This way, Prof Harden wouldn’t have married some high-IQ smart guy to perpetuate more genetic elitism. She might have ended up with a Mexican lettuce picker, Afghan cabbie, Palestinian small grocer, or black rapper.

    Lottery wedding, the new social justice agenda of the 21st century.

    • Replies: @D. K.
    One of my good friends from high school became a Moonie, much to my shock. She was married in one of those mass weddings, and it was written up in the local newspaper, back in Northwest Indiana, whence we came.
    , @JudyBlumeSussman

    Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time.
     
    Looking at that video, was Moonism a way for a group of foreign men to get access to White women? Kind of like the Love Gurus of the sixties?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Okay, let’s have real genetic lotteries to even things out in the name of Equality. ... Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time. ... Lottery wedding, the new social justice agenda of the 21st century."
     
    Y'know, I think you're on to something here. But still, I can't help but notice that all of those "random" marriage partners are pretty fit and attractive. No obesity, no visible tattoos. Everyone seems smart, healthy and above average. Heck, that may be the prettiest Cote d'Ivorian I've seen.

    If I, or my offspring, had to accept a random spouse from a pool of candidates, on the face of it there are very many worse pools--and not too many better pools--to fish from.

  9. @Anon
    From her Twitter feed and her blog posts, I'm pretty sure she's reading this blog as well as keeping up in general with (what she considers) the dark underbelly of genetics. So, hi Kathryn, how's the weather in Texas today?

    A more appropriate response would be an anagram of “fit grotto”

  10. I don’t understand: is her name Paige or Kathryn?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Kathryn Paige Harden
  11. @Roderick Spode
    I don't understand: is her name Paige or Kathryn?

    Kathryn Paige Harden

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Kathryn Paige Harden and Elliot Max Tucker-Drob were married
     
    So she's Paige Harden Tucker-Drob? That sounds downright kinky.

    I sure hope, for her sake, that Max Tucker-Drob isn't Tucker Max.

    Kathryn Paige Tucker-Drob = A Kinky, Turbocharged Pert
    , @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/1072540916949364737
  12. Paige Harden’s Upcoming Book

    I hope it’s a paige-turner.

    Does she have a brother named Case?

  13. @Steve Sailer
    Kathryn Paige Harden

    Kathryn Paige Harden and Elliot Max Tucker-Drob were married

    So she’s Paige Harden Tucker-Drob? That sounds downright kinky.

    I sure hope, for her sake, that Max Tucker-Drob isn’t Tucker Max.

    Kathryn Paige Tucker-Drob = A Kinky, Turbocharged Pert

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Now if we could only persuade the disgraced former governor of New York and the disgraced former representative of New York to marry.

    They could be Elliot Spitzer-Weiner and Anthony Wiener-Spitzer.
  14. @Anon
    Okay, let's have real genetic lotteries to even things out in the name of Equality.

    No, it's not arranged marries but lottery marriages. Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time.

    This way, Prof Harden wouldn't have married some high-IQ smart guy to perpetuate more genetic elitism. She might have ended up with a Mexican lettuce picker, Afghan cabbie, Palestinian small grocer, or black rapper.

    Lottery wedding, the new social justice agenda of the 21st century.

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

    One of my good friends from high school became a Moonie, much to my shock. She was married in one of those mass weddings, and it was written up in the local newspaper, back in Northwest Indiana, whence we came.

  15. Genes are not akin to a lottery ticket. The lottery player is not made up of the lottery ticket. We are each made up of our genes.

    Ronaldo’s teams tend to do very well at football because Ronaldo plays for them, yet it’d be a silly if stimulating* comment to say that Ronaldo is lucky because Ronaldo is always playing on Ronaldo’s team.

    I mean how on earth could Ronaldo get so lucky as to always have Ronaldo playing on his team? Something must be done.

    *Why is the phrase “genetic lottery” stimulating to read? Also “black lives matter”, “white racism”, “Trump = Hitler”, “#MeToo”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Reminds me of Lil' Abner.

    Who when asked who he would most like to be, answered: "Me".

    "You?" "What's so special about you?"

    "Nothing special. It's just so handy, that's all."

  16. Anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    Your birth is not luck.

    If you believe in predestination: then your parents didn’t have any choice in being your parents and you didn’t have any choice in being you. Nothing lucky about it.

    If you believe in human agency: then your parents each made conscious (or subconscious) decisions that resulted in your birth. It’s a faulty perception to ascribe luck to the chain of events that led up to your birth. Your parents engaged in behaviors that are known to result in pregnancy. Your birth was an expected outcome.

    The human mating game is not random. If someday all births are constructed in the lab in a completely random manner (impossible by the way), then and only then would your birth be a matter of luck.

    People who feel guilty about being born to good parents in good countries in good times ascribe the whole thing to “luck”…but that is narcissistic misperception. It’s a bogus internal dialog.

    The fact is that very few people in the world actually want to truly switch births with anyone else. They may want to emigrate to better opportunities but they don’t want to actually be someone else with all that entails.

    Bottom line is that a lot of guilty whites ascribe “luck” to their births because they wrongly assume all sorts of non-whites want to switch places with them. But actually the non-whites have higher self esteem and don’t want to switch births at all. Which makes the entire premise of the lucky birth…junk perception.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    There is a sort of existential sense of life being a lottery - did you never think as a child "why am I me, not someone else?"

    I bet Richard Mannington Bowes was grateful as a child that he was born an Englishman, not a poor Jamaican whose descendants were to beat him to death.

    But people don't (generally) mate at random. Otherwise, as Steve implies, the good Professor would have been just as likely to marry, say, a Catholic Mexican or a white farmhand.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, no matter how you slice it, your birth was in no way the result of luck. Yet, enormous, preposterous and calamitous conclusions have been erected on this obviously ludicrous ontology.

    BTW, year after year, Paige Harden's lab assistants are overwhelmingly white. Is that luck or is she secretly a white supremacist?

    https://www.google.com/search?q=paige+harden+lab&tbm=isch
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Now this is the best comment for one of Steve's posts for the second quarter of 2018. Hands down. Clear, concise, right to the point, with common sense and containing more wisdom as a rejoinder to Paige Harden's entire thesis.

    Question: How exactly does a clinical psychologist suddenly become qualified to help interpret findings of the human Gnome as well as relatively complex science of genetics? It would seem that a discipline of psychology (long thought to be part of the "soft" sciences) isn't really on par with genetics, which is more a part of the "hard" sciences.

    But an excellent comment.
  17. @Dumbo
    I'm more worried about the part that argues that "genetic research can help create a more just and equal society."

    Do they have in mind cloning or genetic engineering to create a kind of brave-new-world society where everyone is "equal"? (except of course the elite, but that is par for the course).

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with "equality" is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before? I guess the usual view is that it comes from the Enlightenment, then French Revolution, and US Independence (all men created equal etc), but I'm not sure about that.

    I don't think ancient people would think this way, and the whole concept of "equality" is frankly absurd, when you consider how different men are and act and how different are their outcomes in life.

    All men classify, and say “this is that, and this is not that.” It is a primary fundament of thought, and all men classify other men across any number of interesting parameters. Because recognition and classification are fundamental, an attractive method for prying men loose from their moorings in order to debilitate them is to extinguish or corrupt the flows of accurate information necessary to create, sustain, and update the structures of classified knowledge that we use to make decisions. To destroy a man, first weaken his resolve and release doubt in the foundation of his confidence.

  18. @Dumbo
    I'm more worried about the part that argues that "genetic research can help create a more just and equal society."

    Do they have in mind cloning or genetic engineering to create a kind of brave-new-world society where everyone is "equal"? (except of course the elite, but that is par for the course).

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with "equality" is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before? I guess the usual view is that it comes from the Enlightenment, then French Revolution, and US Independence (all men created equal etc), but I'm not sure about that.

    I don't think ancient people would think this way, and the whole concept of "equality" is frankly absurd, when you consider how different men are and act and how different are their outcomes in life.

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with “equality” is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before? I guess the usual view is that it comes from the Enlightenment, then French Revolution, and US Independence (all men created equal etc), but I’m not sure about that

    I doubt European Jews were much interested in equality pre-Enlightenment. They seem mostly to have been interested in endlessly studying the Torah and deriving ever more pointless social and personal rules from it.

    I suppose the fun was to be had in the learned debate, even if the topic was generally dreary.

    On the other hand, social competition in such places does not tend to focus on who has the best material goods. No D&D player wins by arriving in the most expensive jacket. So in that way they were quite egalitarian.

    The following blokes also pre-dated the Enlightenment:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, I think "equality" is just a convenient lever to raise oneself up in a disparate, multicultural society that has a nominal but unexamined commitment to MUH EQUALITY.

    Since one of their disparate features is higher average IQ, Jews tend to be better at this than others, but I see plenty of others playing the "equality" game too.

    P.S. I don't understand your expensive jacket metaphor, if indeed it is a metaphor.
  19. • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/858802991100551168
  20. @eah
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/899627302165909504

    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/834818186126168064
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    How many Evangelical Christians does Dr. Harden personally know? Chances are, not very many. So because she is one of the good people, she's allowed to generalize and make airheaded assumptions that others are not permitted to make.
    , @Bubba
    LOL! She married into the tribe and is the usual idiotic SJW hypocrite - just replace "white" with "Jewish" and "the US evangelical church" with "Israel."
  21. @eah
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/858802991100551168

    • Replies: @eah
    Ha!

    https://twitter.com/twnutt/status/804710019379920900
  22. “Seriously, I think people in general have a hard time keeping in mind that when it comes to genetics, the glass is often about half full and half empty.”

    But in the case of couples that pair up that are on the right side of the Bell Curve, perhaps the glass is more like three quarters full. Whereas with people who hook up that are more on the left side of the Bell Curve, the glass oftentimes appears to be more than three quarters empty (e.g. some are born with “two strikes against them”, even before they start out in life).

    Per those couples that are solidly on the right side of the Bell Curve, its easier to reach the top (in society, top rung of the economic ladder, etc.) when one is literally starting out AT (or pretty near) the top.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Agree, it may have been a slight error to deploy the glass-half-empty metaphor on this. The point is not half-nature-half-nurture, but that people can and do an enormous amount to determine the the genetic prospects of their offspring, i.e., the genetic inheritance of the next generation. So if it is a lottery, it is only a lottery that is almost entirely fixed in advance with a deck stacked in advance by the deeds and misdeeds of the progenitors.
  23. I feel awful saying this, but the statement reflects my true feelings, I hope that she decides not to bear children.

  24. @eah
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/834818186126168064

    Ha!

  25. That this malevolent woman is allowed to teach young Whites to hate themselves and their heritage, and non-whites to hate Whites and their ‘privilege’, is proof that ‘white supremacy’ is pretty weak sauce — which she is too stupid to see.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anon
    Stupid? Of course not. As Upton Sinclair said, it's hard to convince someone of something if their paycheck depends on denying it.
  26. But it’s not clear I’ve made much progress in getting more than a few people to see this.

    As the Donald has shown us, things are not always as they seem. Cultural evolution can also proceed via punctuated equilibria, aka paradigm shifts. The long, hard work of preparing the ground is crucial.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  27. @Anon
    I hadn't known that Harden was Jewish.

    To see what else she had tweeted recently I went to Twitter and started clicking out on all the retweets, replies, and at-marks, and she as might be expected is part of a large conversation about genetics by many prominent academics and researchers in the field. And they are virtually all Jewish (Stephen Hsu an example of an exception), well over an order of magnitude what they would be by random chance.

    I guess that's good in that members of a tribe that could be considered gatekeepers are interested in discussing this topic in a more scientific, non-Stephen Jay Gould manner. On the other hand, there is an obvious political bias, as well as disturbing gatekeepingesque discussions about "ethics boards" approving research, screening researchers' political correctness before sharing data, and the evil of what they perceive as pure science research and "just asking questions."

    I kind of doubt she’s Jewish. Her parents don’t seem very Jewish, and not just because they’re from Tennessee. A pilot father and a mother named Patti.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    People who assume it’s Jews pushing the nonsense are just showing they have had next to no contact with the non-Jewish White ruling class.

    Another reason White Nationalism is a nonstarter.
  28. @Anon
    Okay, let's have real genetic lotteries to even things out in the name of Equality.

    No, it's not arranged marries but lottery marriages. Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time.

    This way, Prof Harden wouldn't have married some high-IQ smart guy to perpetuate more genetic elitism. She might have ended up with a Mexican lettuce picker, Afghan cabbie, Palestinian small grocer, or black rapper.

    Lottery wedding, the new social justice agenda of the 21st century.

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

    Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time.

    Looking at that video, was Moonism a way for a group of foreign men to get access to White women? Kind of like the Love Gurus of the sixties?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    I know an Irish girl who was married in a Moonie mass wedding. Hubby is a white American, and they're still together twenty five years on. First meeting was their wedding day.

    I guess with an arranged marriage, expectations are lower and love/lust can grow from a zero baseline rather than decline from a peak.
  29. I work in the backwaters of academia, and to a first approximation none of the people I have worked with would ever endorse any kind of eugenics whatsoever. Even the idea of aborting kids with Downs syndrome is touchy, and you notice people being very careful with their words when it comes up. Eugenics is simply Nazism, and thinking about the subject, unless to denounce it, is suspect.

    With that out of the way: these people would sooner gouge out their own eyes than have their children marry workers. You have no idea. No medieval Italian patriarch ever plotted his children’s betrothal as rationally as my coworkers steer their kids towards the “right” match. If my boss’s daughter came home one day and said she was going to marry a Mexican truck driver, the daughter would be involuntarily committed.

    I am not joking.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, Nathan
  30. @Dumbo
    I'm more worried about the part that argues that "genetic research can help create a more just and equal society."

    Do they have in mind cloning or genetic engineering to create a kind of brave-new-world society where everyone is "equal"? (except of course the elite, but that is par for the course).

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with "equality" is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before? I guess the usual view is that it comes from the Enlightenment, then French Revolution, and US Independence (all men created equal etc), but I'm not sure about that.

    I don't think ancient people would think this way, and the whole concept of "equality" is frankly absurd, when you consider how different men are and act and how different are their outcomes in life.

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with “equality” is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before?

    It goes to the fundamental nature of Judaism which is rebellion against the strong (muh liberation from Pharaoh’s oppression), followed logically by egalitarianism for the rebels. The prophets of the Yahweh alone movement were obsessed with muh “social justice.” Judaism is just leftism in an extremely potent religious form. “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”: the Jesus movement, black American spirituals, Rastafarianism, Mormonism, Puritanism, Lutheranism and the Peasants’ Revolt, Civil Rights, Bolshevism, the Islamic umma, you see it again and again and again from them and those who share their religious mindset.

    As a tribe they view themselves as morally and intellectually superior to everyone else of course, but that’s a separate intergroup dynamic.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Traditional Judaism has very little to do with social justice. The scriptures offer an endless array of opinions on every subject, often contradictory and if you are a Jewish SJW you can cherry pick a few passages here and there that make it seem as if Judaism is concerned with the same thing that SJWism is. Of course they complete ignore the other passages that they don't like, like the ones calling homosexuality an abomination. The fundamental nature of Judaism does not resemble the agenda of modern (Jewish or non-Jewish) leftists at all. All of Jewish leftism is, almost by definition, espoused by people who actively reject the fundamental precepts and practices of Judaism - you can be a practicing Jew or a practicing leftist but you can't be both. What you (and many other anti-Semites) are doing is akin to defining Catholicism in terms of the practices of people who have left the Church.
  31. eah says:

    But it’s not clear I’ve made much progress in getting more than a few people to see this.

    Why might that be? — you do have good points to make — perhaps too much “wry detachment”? — it’s not clear if you really stand for anything, and if so, what exactly — ?

    But is randomness the sole cause of why your children wind up with the genes that they do?

    And why ask dumb rhetorical questions like this? — clearly it is not and you know it is not — “randomness” is part of what happens when a genetic deck gets reshuffled, and may help explain eg a phenomenon like ‘regression to the mean’ (who were Einstein’s children and what did they accomplish?) — but ‘maintenance of the mean’ seems the norm, and apparently there isn’t a lot of “randomness” involved there.

  32. @Anonymous
    Your birth is not luck.

    If you believe in predestination: then your parents didn't have any choice in being your parents and you didn't have any choice in being you. Nothing lucky about it.

    If you believe in human agency: then your parents each made conscious (or subconscious) decisions that resulted in your birth. It's a faulty perception to ascribe luck to the chain of events that led up to your birth. Your parents engaged in behaviors that are known to result in pregnancy. Your birth was an expected outcome.

    The human mating game is not random. If someday all births are constructed in the lab in a completely random manner (impossible by the way), then and only then would your birth be a matter of luck.

    People who feel guilty about being born to good parents in good countries in good times ascribe the whole thing to "luck"...but that is narcissistic misperception. It's a bogus internal dialog.

    The fact is that very few people in the world actually want to truly switch births with anyone else. They may want to emigrate to better opportunities but they don't want to actually be someone else with all that entails.

    Bottom line is that a lot of guilty whites ascribe "luck" to their births because they wrongly assume all sorts of non-whites want to switch places with them. But actually the non-whites have higher self esteem and don't want to switch births at all. Which makes the entire premise of the lucky birth...junk perception.

    There is a sort of existential sense of life being a lottery – did you never think as a child “why am I me, not someone else?

    I bet Richard Mannington Bowes was grateful as a child that he was born an Englishman, not a poor Jamaican whose descendants were to beat him to death.

    But people don’t (generally) mate at random. Otherwise, as Steve implies, the good Professor would have been just as likely to marry, say, a Catholic Mexican or a white farmhand.

  33. @JudyBlumeSussman

    Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time.
     
    Looking at that video, was Moonism a way for a group of foreign men to get access to White women? Kind of like the Love Gurus of the sixties?

    I know an Irish girl who was married in a Moonie mass wedding. Hubby is a white American, and they’re still together twenty five years on. First meeting was their wedding day.

    I guess with an arranged marriage, expectations are lower and love/lust can grow from a zero baseline rather than decline from a peak.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I know an Irish girl who was married in a Moonie mass wedding. Hubby is a white American, and they’re still together twenty five years on. First meeting was their wedding day.
     
    Are they still Moonies? Is anybody?
    , @Don't Look at Me
    But a Moonie marrying a Moonie isn't an exactly random arrangement. They both have to be Moonies and that in itself indicates that they have some characteristics in common.
  34. @Anon
    I hadn't known that Harden was Jewish.

    To see what else she had tweeted recently I went to Twitter and started clicking out on all the retweets, replies, and at-marks, and she as might be expected is part of a large conversation about genetics by many prominent academics and researchers in the field. And they are virtually all Jewish (Stephen Hsu an example of an exception), well over an order of magnitude what they would be by random chance.

    I guess that's good in that members of a tribe that could be considered gatekeepers are interested in discussing this topic in a more scientific, non-Stephen Jay Gould manner. On the other hand, there is an obvious political bias, as well as disturbing gatekeepingesque discussions about "ethics boards" approving research, screening researchers' political correctness before sharing data, and the evil of what they perceive as pure science research and "just asking questions."

    I presume she married in. Since the wedding was officiated by a rabbi, she probably converted.

    Off the top of my head, I know two gentile women who converted to Judaism to marry their Jewish husbands. Both of them are far more Judeo-centric than their actually Jewish husbands, who tend toward take-it-or-leave-ism on subjects Jewish.

    I don’t think it is anything to do with Judaism per se. For example, I know another Euro woman who married a Muslim Maghrebi. After marrying him, she became much more SJW-ish, especially about things Mohammedan, while her husband has a pretty ordinary Western outlook. This has resulted in amusing but uncomfortable situations where she condemns me for my views, while her husband and I agree, but apparently her brain doesn’t compute that her husband and I actually hold the same view, probably because she holds her husband in a different ethno-religious category from me, so she doesn’t notice that we are saying the same thing. In other words, she is being racist while accusing me of racism. Or, as I call it, another day in reality.

    • Replies: @Triumph104
    I doubt she converted to Judaism. Harden was married by a Reconstructionist rabbi. Reconstructionism is the little-known fourth branch (denomination) of Judaism in the United States and it is the most liberal with no problems performing interfaith marriage.

    Like Amy Chua, Kathryn Paige Harden may not care about religion at all and will let her husband raise their future children in his religion. Bill Maher's Jewish mother didn't care about religion, so Maher's father raised the children Catholic.

    Reconstructionist Judaism grew out of the work of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in the middle of the last century as an offshoot of the more traditionally religious Conservative denomination. Though level of observance can vary from congregation to congregation, the movement fundamentally rejects the belief that Jewish law is unimpeachable, and embraces the concept of Judaism as both a religion and a community of people bound by culture and ancestry.

    In practice, this has led to some of the most progressive and controversial reforms in Judaism. Reconstructionists have shepherded the rest of the religion into the twenty-first century, ordaining female and gay rabbis, officiating same-sex weddings, and embracing interfaith congregants before any other denomination.
     
    https://newrepublic.com/article/120853/interfaith-rabbi-debate-rocks-reconstructionist-judaism-america
  35. Really rolling the dice …

    Surely Harden’s point was not that humans should all mate randomly. It was simply that who we turned out to be, the traits and inclinations we were born with, etc can all to some degree be likened to a lottery. As a result, some people do better/worse in life than others for some reasons which lie outside their control. I don’t get why Sailer thinks this is worth arguing about.

    Seriously, I think people in general have a hard time keeping in mind that when it comes to genetics, the glass is often about half full and half empty.

    I don’t know what this is getting at, but the glass half full for me here is that at least lefties are talking about heredity. Hopefully, lefties will realize that the smart way to run a welfare state is to adjust its breeding incentives in order to create a fertility differential favoring bright and industrious people over dumb and lazy people. (A fertility differential here implies that dumb/lazy people can still have kids – even many kids – but just fewer kids, on average, than bright/industrious people.)

  36. Of course, there is a genetic lottery, meiosis.

    If you’re smarter than your parents and sibs, you’re a winner.

  37. @Anonymous
    Your birth is not luck.

    If you believe in predestination: then your parents didn't have any choice in being your parents and you didn't have any choice in being you. Nothing lucky about it.

    If you believe in human agency: then your parents each made conscious (or subconscious) decisions that resulted in your birth. It's a faulty perception to ascribe luck to the chain of events that led up to your birth. Your parents engaged in behaviors that are known to result in pregnancy. Your birth was an expected outcome.

    The human mating game is not random. If someday all births are constructed in the lab in a completely random manner (impossible by the way), then and only then would your birth be a matter of luck.

    People who feel guilty about being born to good parents in good countries in good times ascribe the whole thing to "luck"...but that is narcissistic misperception. It's a bogus internal dialog.

    The fact is that very few people in the world actually want to truly switch births with anyone else. They may want to emigrate to better opportunities but they don't want to actually be someone else with all that entails.

    Bottom line is that a lot of guilty whites ascribe "luck" to their births because they wrongly assume all sorts of non-whites want to switch places with them. But actually the non-whites have higher self esteem and don't want to switch births at all. Which makes the entire premise of the lucky birth...junk perception.

    Yeah, no matter how you slice it, your birth was in no way the result of luck. Yet, enormous, preposterous and calamitous conclusions have been erected on this obviously ludicrous ontology.

    BTW, year after year, Paige Harden’s lab assistants are overwhelmingly white. Is that luck or is she secretly a white supremacist?

    https://www.google.com/search?q=paige+harden+lab&tbm=isch

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "your birth was in no way the result of luck" What an absurd statement. Are you saying that your being born dim was deliberate on someone's part?
  38. @Tyrion 2

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with “equality” is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before? I guess the usual view is that it comes from the Enlightenment, then French Revolution, and US Independence (all men created equal etc), but I’m not sure about that
     
    I doubt European Jews were much interested in equality pre-Enlightenment. They seem mostly to have been interested in endlessly studying the Torah and deriving ever more pointless social and personal rules from it.

    I suppose the fun was to be had in the learned debate, even if the topic was generally dreary.

    On the other hand, social competition in such places does not tend to focus on who has the best material goods. No D&D player wins by arriving in the most expensive jacket. So in that way they were quite egalitarian.

    The following blokes also pre-dated the Enlightenment:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers

    Yeah, I think “equality” is just a convenient lever to raise oneself up in a disparate, multicultural society that has a nominal but unexamined commitment to MUH EQUALITY.

    Since one of their disparate features is higher average IQ, Jews tend to be better at this than others, but I see plenty of others playing the “equality” game too.

    P.S. I don’t understand your expensive jacket metaphor, if indeed it is a metaphor.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    People play status games with designer clothes. Ultra Orthodox Jews don't. They all wear the same stuff. (Instead their status games revolve around who is the biggest Torah nerd.) Nonetheless, perhaps they are more egalitarian (not by sex obvs, but by family) than mainstream society

    I mention this because it seems that a lot of the motive to implement communism is to reduce keeping up with the Jones type thinking. The Khmer Rouge made everyone wear the same black pajamas.

    This point even got a mention in Enemy at The Gates. Where the characters observed that they believed they had reduced material inequality and therefore competition to gain status by having a lot of stuff. (However there'd always be competition in love.)

    In the same vein, I met an American ultra-Orhodox in Israel. I was hitchiking and he picked me up realising I was a tourist. I asked him why he had moved into such a community. A good deal of his explanation dealt with how egalitarian his new community was, even if he didn't use that word.
  39. @D. K.
    In what meaningful sense can it be “just” for a society to be “equal” when the people who comprise it are inherently otherwise?

    Yup: you have to choose which one you want.

  40. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Seriously, I think people in general have a hard time keeping in mind that when it comes to genetics, the glass is often about half full and half empty."

    But in the case of couples that pair up that are on the right side of the Bell Curve, perhaps the glass is more like three quarters full. Whereas with people who hook up that are more on the left side of the Bell Curve, the glass oftentimes appears to be more than three quarters empty (e.g. some are born with "two strikes against them", even before they start out in life).

    Per those couples that are solidly on the right side of the Bell Curve, its easier to reach the top (in society, top rung of the economic ladder, etc.) when one is literally starting out AT (or pretty near) the top.

    Agree, it may have been a slight error to deploy the glass-half-empty metaphor on this. The point is not half-nature-half-nurture, but that people can and do an enormous amount to determine the the genetic prospects of their offspring, i.e., the genetic inheritance of the next generation. So if it is a lottery, it is only a lottery that is almost entirely fixed in advance with a deck stacked in advance by the deeds and misdeeds of the progenitors.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But how much is their "free" choice/free decision actually free? If genetics are determined in advance, then it's only logical the outcome that each person will make when determining their life partner/hookup etc.

    Perhaps one day experts can look at a person's DNA and literally "read" it, as if reading their fortune, but instead will be able to read a person's future.

    "Oh, this six year old's DNA shows a few diverse strains. This means that by age 25, he'll be in the middle of pursuing his PHD in STEM related field, be engaged to a woman also in PHD in STEM field. This other strain shows that they should be married by age thirty, will have about three kids, maybe two. If no untoward events occur, he should be Dean of his university before he's fifty, he'll also retire around 72, and live to ripe age of 88, perhaps age 93."

    While another DNA might show:

    "Oh my, this person's DNA shows that by age twenty, he'll be in jail for attempted murder and just barely escape the death sentence. Possibly he'll get paroled around age thirty five, but it will be one long struggle just to remain on the streets and keep his head above water. If only that divergent strain in his DNA could be removed, he would probably be a well adjusted person, with a slightly above average IQ at around 104, and possibly could have been a welder if not a construction worker."

    Is this basically what science can expect one day to perform? That a simple "reading" of individual DNA's (preferably at a young age) will reveal all the major highlights of a person's life, even before they attempt them?

    Now THAT would be amazing, and could definitely help improve society for the better in the long term (assuming this powerful "reading" doesn't fall into the wrong hands).
    , @DRA
    Even with good genes, a lot of luck is involved. Consider a couple with excellent health, good looks, athletic capability, time preference, intelligence, etc. One could expect only good of their offspring.

    Now consider if they were siblings...

    Many traits are polygenetic, such as intelligence. But while the likelihood is that children of significantly above average intelligence will have an above average prospect, there does seem to be more autism spectrum disorders in such parings. Definitely room for luck, as well as breeding.
  41. @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, no matter how you slice it, your birth was in no way the result of luck. Yet, enormous, preposterous and calamitous conclusions have been erected on this obviously ludicrous ontology.

    BTW, year after year, Paige Harden's lab assistants are overwhelmingly white. Is that luck or is she secretly a white supremacist?

    https://www.google.com/search?q=paige+harden+lab&tbm=isch

    “your birth was in no way the result of luck” What an absurd statement. Are you saying that your being born dim was deliberate on someone’s part?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yes.

    Dumb parents + dumb hookup = dumb offspring.

    You know how all those Nobel Prize winners come from low-IQ ghettos and favelas and serf plantations because that is where we would expect to find them by "luck"? Oh wait. That doesn't happen.
  42. @Reg Cæsar

    Kathryn Paige Harden and Elliot Max Tucker-Drob were married
     
    So she's Paige Harden Tucker-Drob? That sounds downright kinky.

    I sure hope, for her sake, that Max Tucker-Drob isn't Tucker Max.

    Kathryn Paige Tucker-Drob = A Kinky, Turbocharged Pert

    Now if we could only persuade the disgraced former governor of New York and the disgraced former representative of New York to marry.

    They could be Elliot Spitzer-Weiner and Anthony Wiener-Spitzer.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    They could be Elliot Spitzer-Weiner and Anthony Wiener-Spitzer.

     

    That's like Ireland's first same-sex marriage, Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick.
  43. “I’ve been harping on this metaphor for about 20 years now. But it’s not clear I’ve made much progress in getting more than a few people to see this.”

    I too have been pointing out to people that everyone who reproduces is a eugenicist whether they mean to be or not. I too have gotten nearly zero traction, probably because “eugenics” is one of those crimestopped words that causes listeners’ brains to shut off.

    Maybe what we need is a new Sailerist term for the actions that people take that influence their offspring’s genetics. “Bio-inheritancism”? “Bio-endowmentism”? “Bio-legacy-ism”? Something to break the Sapir-Whorf roadblock.

    • Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    Good point...

    The survival of the fittest implies That the evolutionary winners over the last 50 years in America is Blacks. African Americans have increased their population by over 100% over the last 50 years. In the 1970 Census we counted 21 million Blacks , and today 43 million African Americans , while the number of whites had stagnated , growing from 180 million to 195 million and now starting to decline as white deaths exceed births since 2013. The percentage of Americans with Blue eyes has declined from 75 million in 1970 to just 40 million today...survival of the fittest indicates blue-eyed blondes face exctinction over the next century

    , @jim jones
    I like to tell people who have children that they are racist because they give preference to them over all other children
    , @silviosilver

    I too have been pointing out to people that everyone who reproduces is a eugenicist whether they mean to be or not. I too have gotten nearly zero traction, probably because “eugenics” is one of those crimestopped words that causes listeners’ brains to shut off.
     
    Maybe you've gotten so little traction because it's a poor analogy. Eugenics is interested in raising the genetic quality of the entire population. People who reproduce are only interested in the quality of their own offspring - and they're often not all that interested in even that.
  44. @D. K.
    In what meaningful sense can it be “just” for a society to be “equal” when the people who comprise it are inherently otherwise?

    very true. for SJWs a Just society means Equality in outcomes via unequal treatment of individuals, discrimination and racial quotas. (they have tried this for 40 years and inequality remains).

    Difficult to understand how learning about genetic inequality will result in more “equality”. It is more likely to result in more inequality , if the wealthy start using genetic tests to determine which embryos to implant. As we learn more about genetic it becomes obvious that we will not have the ability to use genetic engineering to alter the ~1,500 genes which effect IQ. Because changing so many genes in tails significant risks to altering good genes and these genes do not offer any benefit to all races.

    So far genetic research has just confirmed that the model we use for gaining entry into college and graduation rates is a more effective method to determine IQ. than any genetic tests. Just as looking in the mirror is a more effective method to determine ones eye color than using a genetic test. for example autosomal DNA testing results indicate a 90% chance my eyes are Blue, while we knew from birth that there was 100% chance my eyes were Blue.

  45. @Amasius

    p.s. I wonder if this modern and (apparently) Jewish obsession with “equality” is something new (19th/20th century), or came from before?
     
    It goes to the fundamental nature of Judaism which is rebellion against the strong (muh liberation from Pharaoh's oppression), followed logically by egalitarianism for the rebels. The prophets of the Yahweh alone movement were obsessed with muh "social justice." Judaism is just leftism in an extremely potent religious form. "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit": the Jesus movement, black American spirituals, Rastafarianism, Mormonism, Puritanism, Lutheranism and the Peasants' Revolt, Civil Rights, Bolshevism, the Islamic umma, you see it again and again and again from them and those who share their religious mindset.

    As a tribe they view themselves as morally and intellectually superior to everyone else of course, but that's a separate intergroup dynamic.

    Traditional Judaism has very little to do with social justice. The scriptures offer an endless array of opinions on every subject, often contradictory and if you are a Jewish SJW you can cherry pick a few passages here and there that make it seem as if Judaism is concerned with the same thing that SJWism is. Of course they complete ignore the other passages that they don’t like, like the ones calling homosexuality an abomination. The fundamental nature of Judaism does not resemble the agenda of modern (Jewish or non-Jewish) leftists at all. All of Jewish leftism is, almost by definition, espoused by people who actively reject the fundamental precepts and practices of Judaism – you can be a practicing Jew or a practicing leftist but you can’t be both. What you (and many other anti-Semites) are doing is akin to defining Catholicism in terms of the practices of people who have left the Church.

    • Agree: Prester John
    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    Well, traditional Islam has little to do with shooting up bus stations and bombing public buildings, but here we are anyway.
    , @Anon
    "Of course they complete ignore the other passages that they don’t like, like the ones calling homosexuality an abomination."

    You mean, the one passage. Added after the return from Babylon. Unknown to, say, David and Jonathan. Just to be accurate.
  46. @Jack D
    Traditional Judaism has very little to do with social justice. The scriptures offer an endless array of opinions on every subject, often contradictory and if you are a Jewish SJW you can cherry pick a few passages here and there that make it seem as if Judaism is concerned with the same thing that SJWism is. Of course they complete ignore the other passages that they don't like, like the ones calling homosexuality an abomination. The fundamental nature of Judaism does not resemble the agenda of modern (Jewish or non-Jewish) leftists at all. All of Jewish leftism is, almost by definition, espoused by people who actively reject the fundamental precepts and practices of Judaism - you can be a practicing Jew or a practicing leftist but you can't be both. What you (and many other anti-Semites) are doing is akin to defining Catholicism in terms of the practices of people who have left the Church.

    Well, traditional Islam has little to do with shooting up bus stations and bombing public buildings, but here we are anyway.

  47. @Anonymous
    Your birth is not luck.

    If you believe in predestination: then your parents didn't have any choice in being your parents and you didn't have any choice in being you. Nothing lucky about it.

    If you believe in human agency: then your parents each made conscious (or subconscious) decisions that resulted in your birth. It's a faulty perception to ascribe luck to the chain of events that led up to your birth. Your parents engaged in behaviors that are known to result in pregnancy. Your birth was an expected outcome.

    The human mating game is not random. If someday all births are constructed in the lab in a completely random manner (impossible by the way), then and only then would your birth be a matter of luck.

    People who feel guilty about being born to good parents in good countries in good times ascribe the whole thing to "luck"...but that is narcissistic misperception. It's a bogus internal dialog.

    The fact is that very few people in the world actually want to truly switch births with anyone else. They may want to emigrate to better opportunities but they don't want to actually be someone else with all that entails.

    Bottom line is that a lot of guilty whites ascribe "luck" to their births because they wrongly assume all sorts of non-whites want to switch places with them. But actually the non-whites have higher self esteem and don't want to switch births at all. Which makes the entire premise of the lucky birth...junk perception.

    Now this is the best comment for one of Steve’s posts for the second quarter of 2018. Hands down. Clear, concise, right to the point, with common sense and containing more wisdom as a rejoinder to Paige Harden’s entire thesis.

    Question: How exactly does a clinical psychologist suddenly become qualified to help interpret findings of the human Gnome as well as relatively complex science of genetics? It would seem that a discipline of psychology (long thought to be part of the “soft” sciences) isn’t really on par with genetics, which is more a part of the “hard” sciences.

    But an excellent comment.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Question: How exactly does a clinical psychologist suddenly become qualified to help interpret findings of the human Gnome as well as relatively complex science of genetics?
     
    In the same way that only a fraction of the 1000+ scientists who signed some dorky Global Warming petition knew anything about climatology.

    She's a scientist, man! And she's a woman, so her opinion on everything is correct. No man splaining, bro.
  48. @eah
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/858802991100551168

    How many Evangelical Christians does Dr. Harden personally know? Chances are, not very many. So because she is one of the good people, she’s allowed to generalize and make airheaded assumptions that others are not permitted to make.

  49. @Almost Missouri
    Agree, it may have been a slight error to deploy the glass-half-empty metaphor on this. The point is not half-nature-half-nurture, but that people can and do an enormous amount to determine the the genetic prospects of their offspring, i.e., the genetic inheritance of the next generation. So if it is a lottery, it is only a lottery that is almost entirely fixed in advance with a deck stacked in advance by the deeds and misdeeds of the progenitors.

    But how much is their “free” choice/free decision actually free? If genetics are determined in advance, then it’s only logical the outcome that each person will make when determining their life partner/hookup etc.

    Perhaps one day experts can look at a person’s DNA and literally “read” it, as if reading their fortune, but instead will be able to read a person’s future.

    “Oh, this six year old’s DNA shows a few diverse strains. This means that by age 25, he’ll be in the middle of pursuing his PHD in STEM related field, be engaged to a woman also in PHD in STEM field. This other strain shows that they should be married by age thirty, will have about three kids, maybe two. If no untoward events occur, he should be Dean of his university before he’s fifty, he’ll also retire around 72, and live to ripe age of 88, perhaps age 93.”

    While another DNA might show:

    “Oh my, this person’s DNA shows that by age twenty, he’ll be in jail for attempted murder and just barely escape the death sentence. Possibly he’ll get paroled around age thirty five, but it will be one long struggle just to remain on the streets and keep his head above water. If only that divergent strain in his DNA could be removed, he would probably be a well adjusted person, with a slightly above average IQ at around 104, and possibly could have been a welder if not a construction worker.”

    Is this basically what science can expect one day to perform? That a simple “reading” of individual DNA’s (preferably at a young age) will reveal all the major highlights of a person’s life, even before they attempt them?

    Now THAT would be amazing, and could definitely help improve society for the better in the long term (assuming this powerful “reading” doesn’t fall into the wrong hands).

  50. @Beene1
    I kind of doubt she's Jewish. Her parents don't seem very Jewish, and not just because they're from Tennessee. A pilot father and a mother named Patti.

    People who assume it’s Jews pushing the nonsense are just showing they have had next to no contact with the non-Jewish White ruling class.

    Another reason White Nationalism is a nonstarter.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Which admittedly is getting smaller and smaller with each passing decade while the Jewish percentage of the Ruling Class isn't shrinking, and thus is actually increasing with each passing decade.

    Look at Forbes and Fortune's list of wealthiest people. At about 3% of the US's total population, what percentage of Forbes and Fortune's list of wealthiest people have Jewish ancestry? Is the percentage about 3%, which would match the total Jewish population of the US?

    Is it?
    , @Anon
    "the non-Jewish White ruling class"

    You assume they are acting on their own? That's like making a big, important distinction btw occupiers and collaborators.

    Of course, historically "the non-Jewish White ruling class," by which I assume you mean the WASP establishment, was a bunch of larpers anyway.
  51. I find the concept and use of “genetic lottery” standing by itself to be misleading.

    How about people who win the actual lottery. Do we really believe that they must have some small or large portion of their winnings taken away because they got their fortune by sheer luck? Don’t we instead respect that the winnings are rightfully theirs, even if they did nothing to “deserve” it?

    And that doesn’t even get into the obvious distinctions here. Our “genetic lottery” grants us features that are part of our very person: diligence, IQ, etc. How can we not deserve things that come our way because of attributes so central both to who we are, and what we have done to acquire those things?

    What do we owe to the lazy by genetics?

    • Replies: @Triumph104

    How about people who win the actual lottery. Do we really believe that they must have some small or large portion of their winnings taken away because they got their fortune by sheer luck?
     
    In the United States lotteries are taxed. Lotteries winners can have up to 50% of their winnings taken away due to state and federal taxes. Two or three states will look back and make lottery winners that win as little as $10,000 pay back any welfare/unemployment assistance that they received. Sometimes it is a ten year look-back, but I think one state will even look back to a winner's childhood. Lottery winnings in Canada are not taxed.
  52. This is what losing the genetic lottery looks like:

    The look on Maria’s face says it all.

    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
    Did that young man "lose the genetic lottery" or did he "lose the battle with carbohydrates"?
  53. Born on third base and thought she’d hit a triple. About the only degree dumber than a Phd in Psychology is one in Edumacashun. Science, my butt.

  54. @D. K.
    In what meaningful sense can it be “just” for a society to be “equal” when the people who comprise it are inherently otherwise?

    Actually, that’s a very interesting question.

    The great and powerful Dr. Jonathan Haidt answers, or at least addresses, it in his work.

    Justice is essentially defined, in our minds, by fairness. And fairness, confusingly, has two paradisms when it comes to sharing out the fruits of a group endeavour.

    1. Share equally.

    2. Share based on contribution to the success of the endeavor.

    While almost everybody combines them in varying degrees, liberals/progressive lean towards 1, while conservatives/libertarians lean towards 2.

    Conservatives/libertarians then have the knotty question of defining how much each person contributed.

    Or, possibly, your question comes down to, “How do you define ‘just’ and ‘equal’?”

  55. DRA says:
    @Almost Missouri
    Agree, it may have been a slight error to deploy the glass-half-empty metaphor on this. The point is not half-nature-half-nurture, but that people can and do an enormous amount to determine the the genetic prospects of their offspring, i.e., the genetic inheritance of the next generation. So if it is a lottery, it is only a lottery that is almost entirely fixed in advance with a deck stacked in advance by the deeds and misdeeds of the progenitors.

    Even with good genes, a lot of luck is involved. Consider a couple with excellent health, good looks, athletic capability, time preference, intelligence, etc. One could expect only good of their offspring.

    Now consider if they were siblings…

    Many traits are polygenetic, such as intelligence. But while the likelihood is that children of significantly above average intelligence will have an above average prospect, there does seem to be more autism spectrum disorders in such parings. Definitely room for luck, as well as breeding.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Obviously, there are exceptions, such as Down Syndrome. Even then, though, a child with Down Syndrome from capable, well-off parents has much better prospects than a child with Down Syndrome from incompetent, poor parents. And if I may add my personal observations, the Down child of high-IQ parents is smarter than the Down child of low-IQ parents. So the exceptions prove the rule, as it were.

    Anyhow, I'm not speaking so much of the negative as of the positive (such as Professor Harden): if you were born with a favorable genetic endowment, you are not "lucky"; you are the beneficiary of the deliberate, accumulated deeds of your ancestors.

    Should thank them and build on their achievement, or should you give away the fruits of what they worked for to someone whose ancestors' acts produced much less favorable results?
  56. This woman is described as a “clinical psychologist”, not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist. What is this woman’s expertise in the latter two disciplines?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    She's a woman.
  57. @YetAnotherAnon
    I know an Irish girl who was married in a Moonie mass wedding. Hubby is a white American, and they're still together twenty five years on. First meeting was their wedding day.

    I guess with an arranged marriage, expectations are lower and love/lust can grow from a zero baseline rather than decline from a peak.

    I know an Irish girl who was married in a Moonie mass wedding. Hubby is a white American, and they’re still together twenty five years on. First meeting was their wedding day.

    Are they still Moonies? Is anybody?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "Are they still Moonies? Is anybody?"


    As far as I know, yes. I don't really talk religion when I see them, more how our respective kids are getting on.
  58. @Tyrion 2
    Genes are not akin to a lottery ticket. The lottery player is not made up of the lottery ticket. We are each made up of our genes.

    Ronaldo's teams tend to do very well at football because Ronaldo plays for them, yet it'd be a silly if stimulating* comment to say that Ronaldo is lucky because Ronaldo is always playing on Ronaldo's team.

    I mean how on earth could Ronaldo get so lucky as to always have Ronaldo playing on his team? Something must be done.

    *Why is the phrase "genetic lottery" stimulating to read? Also "black lives matter", "white racism", "Trump = Hitler", "#MeToo".

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction

    Reminds me of Lil’ Abner.

    Who when asked who he would most like to be, answered: “Me”.

    “You?” “What’s so special about you?”

    “Nothing special. It’s just so handy, that’s all.”

  59. @Almost Missouri

    "I’ve been harping on this metaphor for about 20 years now. But it’s not clear I’ve made much progress in getting more than a few people to see this."
     
    I too have been pointing out to people that everyone who reproduces is a eugenicist whether they mean to be or not. I too have gotten nearly zero traction, probably because "eugenics" is one of those crimestopped words that causes listeners' brains to shut off.

    Maybe what we need is a new Sailerist term for the actions that people take that influence their offspring's genetics. "Bio-inheritancism"? "Bio-endowmentism"? "Bio-legacy-ism"? Something to break the Sapir-Whorf roadblock.

    Good point…

    The survival of the fittest implies That the evolutionary winners over the last 50 years in America is Blacks. African Americans have increased their population by over 100% over the last 50 years. In the 1970 Census we counted 21 million Blacks , and today 43 million African Americans , while the number of whites had stagnated , growing from 180 million to 195 million and now starting to decline as white deaths exceed births since 2013. The percentage of Americans with Blue eyes has declined from 75 million in 1970 to just 40 million today…survival of the fittest indicates blue-eyed blondes face exctinction over the next century

  60. One can see the outlines of the developing Leftist approach to the unwelcome empirical discrediting of their blank slate faith; they will argue that since no one “deserves” his genetic inheritance, the state should intervene to somehow equalize people.

    People like Harden have obviously not thought this through. There is no way to “equalize” people who are fundamentally different in their capacities and character.

    Eventual acknowledgement of the reality of human biodiversity will be deeply problematic for the Left. Lucrative state interventions are based on the argument that but for some form of cryptic injustice, people would all be the same and social pathologies would vanish. Absent such fatuous hopes, redistribution is only robbing Peter to pay Paul.

  61. @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, I think "equality" is just a convenient lever to raise oneself up in a disparate, multicultural society that has a nominal but unexamined commitment to MUH EQUALITY.

    Since one of their disparate features is higher average IQ, Jews tend to be better at this than others, but I see plenty of others playing the "equality" game too.

    P.S. I don't understand your expensive jacket metaphor, if indeed it is a metaphor.

    People play status games with designer clothes. Ultra Orthodox Jews don’t. They all wear the same stuff. (Instead their status games revolve around who is the biggest Torah nerd.) Nonetheless, perhaps they are more egalitarian (not by sex obvs, but by family) than mainstream society

    I mention this because it seems that a lot of the motive to implement communism is to reduce keeping up with the Jones type thinking. The Khmer Rouge made everyone wear the same black pajamas.

    This point even got a mention in Enemy at The Gates. Where the characters observed that they believed they had reduced material inequality and therefore competition to gain status by having a lot of stuff. (However there’d always be competition in love.)

    In the same vein, I met an American ultra-Orhodox in Israel. I was hitchiking and he picked me up realising I was a tourist. I asked him why he had moved into such a community. A good deal of his explanation dealt with how egalitarian his new community was, even if he didn’t use that word.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Orthodox Jews don't take vows of poverty (though many are poor because they spend all their time studying the talmud instead of working). If you know where to look, there ARE differences in the way that they dress (within the Orthodox dress code) based on wealth. The fur hats (shtreimels) that the ultra-Orthodox wear on the sabbath can vary from fake fur to Russian sable. A poor man might have only one shtreimel but someone wealthier might have one for when it raining so he can save his better one. Likewise the wigs that ultra-Orthodox women wear - the finest human hair wigs can cost thousands. And so on down to every item of clothing. It may all look the same to you, but someone who is immersed within the culture can readily spot the differences.
    , @hyperbola
    Well, ultraorthodox jews certainly seem to be "egalitarian" in abuse of children.

    The Child-Rape Assembly Line
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbe8bp/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11

    .... The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn's Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. "From anecdotal evidence, we're looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage." ....
  62. @Almost Missouri
    I presume she married in. Since the wedding was officiated by a rabbi, she probably converted.

    Off the top of my head, I know two gentile women who converted to Judaism to marry their Jewish husbands. Both of them are far more Judeo-centric than their actually Jewish husbands, who tend toward take-it-or-leave-ism on subjects Jewish.

    I don't think it is anything to do with Judaism per se. For example, I know another Euro woman who married a Muslim Maghrebi. After marrying him, she became much more SJW-ish, especially about things Mohammedan, while her husband has a pretty ordinary Western outlook. This has resulted in amusing but uncomfortable situations where she condemns me for my views, while her husband and I agree, but apparently her brain doesn't compute that her husband and I actually hold the same view, probably because she holds her husband in a different ethno-religious category from me, so she doesn't notice that we are saying the same thing. In other words, she is being racist while accusing me of racism. Or, as I call it, another day in reality.

    I doubt she converted to Judaism. Harden was married by a Reconstructionist rabbi. Reconstructionism is the little-known fourth branch (denomination) of Judaism in the United States and it is the most liberal with no problems performing interfaith marriage.

    Like Amy Chua, Kathryn Paige Harden may not care about religion at all and will let her husband raise their future children in his religion. Bill Maher’s Jewish mother didn’t care about religion, so Maher’s father raised the children Catholic.

    Reconstructionist Judaism grew out of the work of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in the middle of the last century as an offshoot of the more traditionally religious Conservative denomination. Though level of observance can vary from congregation to congregation, the movement fundamentally rejects the belief that Jewish law is unimpeachable, and embraces the concept of Judaism as both a religion and a community of people bound by culture and ancestry.

    In practice, this has led to some of the most progressive and controversial reforms in Judaism. Reconstructionists have shepherded the rest of the religion into the twenty-first century, ordaining female and gay rabbis, officiating same-sex weddings, and embracing interfaith congregants before any other denomination.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/120853/interfaith-rabbi-debate-rocks-reconstructionist-judaism-america

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I seem to recall in the late 20th century a (Reconstructionist?) Rabbi + liberal Catholic Priest pair who went up and down the East Coast performing interfaith marriages.
  63. @candid_observer
    I find the concept and use of "genetic lottery" standing by itself to be misleading.

    How about people who win the actual lottery. Do we really believe that they must have some small or large portion of their winnings taken away because they got their fortune by sheer luck? Don't we instead respect that the winnings are rightfully theirs, even if they did nothing to "deserve" it?

    And that doesn't even get into the obvious distinctions here. Our "genetic lottery" grants us features that are part of our very person: diligence, IQ, etc. How can we not deserve things that come our way because of attributes so central both to who we are, and what we have done to acquire those things?

    What do we owe to the lazy by genetics?

    How about people who win the actual lottery. Do we really believe that they must have some small or large portion of their winnings taken away because they got their fortune by sheer luck?

    In the United States lotteries are taxed. Lotteries winners can have up to 50% of their winnings taken away due to state and federal taxes. Two or three states will look back and make lottery winners that win as little as $10,000 pay back any welfare/unemployment assistance that they received. Sometimes it is a ten year look-back, but I think one state will even look back to a winner’s childhood. Lottery winnings in Canada are not taxed.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    There are some states that do NOT tax lottery winnings at all, so all a winner would have to do is pay the federal tax, which as the top rate, would be 39.6 percent. So the trick is to have the luck to win in a state that doesn't tax winnings.
    , @Jack D
    Right. The Internal Revenue Code starts out by taxing "all income from whatever source derived" and then there are certain exclusions and deductions allowed (5,000 pages of them), but if there is not a specific exclusion (and there is none for lottery winnings, game show winnings, etc.) then the default is that the income is taxable.

    In SJW terms, it is not a big reach to count your "genetic lottery winnings" like any other lottery winnings and declare them to be taxable. That they are not actual cash winnings is no problem - they can be valued just like they compute the value of the Barcalounger that you won on The Price is Right. I am sure there are plenty of economists right now who would be glad to attach a dollar value to your "genetic inheritance". Maybe the government will be nice and allow you to pay the tax on your genetic inheritance in installments over your entire lifetime instead of just hitting you with a lump sum bill at birth or age 18.

    Democrats LOVE LOVE LOVE taxes of every kind (or at least they used to until they figured out that the government can just spend money without actually collecting a comparable amount of taxes, at least at the Federal level) because tax money allows them to redistribute wealth in a way that is "fair" (it is always "fair" to give more money to Democrat party interest groups) and earns them the eternal support and gratitude and votes of the recipients (or at least for as long as the checks keep coming). They can be generous using YOUR money, which is the best kind of generosity possible. Democrat politicians get all the credit (and you are still an evil white person even though you are the one paying for the dinner).

    , @candid_observer
    Lottery winnings are treated as taxable income, as is virtually any form of income.

    Point is, they are not treated as a special "undeserving" case because they are the product of sheer luck.

  64. @Almost Missouri

    "I’ve been harping on this metaphor for about 20 years now. But it’s not clear I’ve made much progress in getting more than a few people to see this."
     
    I too have been pointing out to people that everyone who reproduces is a eugenicist whether they mean to be or not. I too have gotten nearly zero traction, probably because "eugenics" is one of those crimestopped words that causes listeners' brains to shut off.

    Maybe what we need is a new Sailerist term for the actions that people take that influence their offspring's genetics. "Bio-inheritancism"? "Bio-endowmentism"? "Bio-legacy-ism"? Something to break the Sapir-Whorf roadblock.

    I like to tell people who have children that they are racist because they give preference to them over all other children

  65. @Triumph104

    How about people who win the actual lottery. Do we really believe that they must have some small or large portion of their winnings taken away because they got their fortune by sheer luck?
     
    In the United States lotteries are taxed. Lotteries winners can have up to 50% of their winnings taken away due to state and federal taxes. Two or three states will look back and make lottery winners that win as little as $10,000 pay back any welfare/unemployment assistance that they received. Sometimes it is a ten year look-back, but I think one state will even look back to a winner's childhood. Lottery winnings in Canada are not taxed.

    There are some states that do NOT tax lottery winnings at all, so all a winner would have to do is pay the federal tax, which as the top rate, would be 39.6 percent. So the trick is to have the luck to win in a state that doesn’t tax winnings.

  66. @Desiderius
    People who assume it’s Jews pushing the nonsense are just showing they have had next to no contact with the non-Jewish White ruling class.

    Another reason White Nationalism is a nonstarter.

    Which admittedly is getting smaller and smaller with each passing decade while the Jewish percentage of the Ruling Class isn’t shrinking, and thus is actually increasing with each passing decade.

    Look at Forbes and Fortune’s list of wealthiest people. At about 3% of the US’s total population, what percentage of Forbes and Fortune’s list of wealthiest people have Jewish ancestry? Is the percentage about 3%, which would match the total Jewish population of the US?

    Is it?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Most people here think its ridiculous when the left demands that the % of say
    black nuclear physicists match their % of the general population.

    I think that if you were to adjust membership in the Forbes list for IQ, Jews would be just where they should be, just as you have to adjust the roster of NFL cornerbacks for the qualities needed to be a good cornerback.

    What the WN's don't get is that "whites" in America have never been a unified group. The Boston Brahmins (whose descendants are still in the Forbes list - hell the Forbes family itself go back to the earliest days of Mass Bay colony) never thought of themselves as having any commonality with say the Irish, which is why they had no qualms about filling their mills with even more recent immigrants. The plantation owners did not give a damn for the poor whites in the mountains of VA (later W.Va.) When the US had an all white Christian ruling class they treated that portion of the workforce that was not literally enslaved like shit. In some respects they treated slaves better because slaves were valuable property - if some white miner died it was no skin off their back. You could get rid of every Joo and it wouldn't be any better because there is always going to be a ruling class. You can do like the Communists did and get rid of the ruling class and a new ruling class will just take its place. Right now we have a particularly shitty and selfish ruling class but even by your count it is 75 or 80% pure white Christian.

  67. @Triumph104

    How about people who win the actual lottery. Do we really believe that they must have some small or large portion of their winnings taken away because they got their fortune by sheer luck?
     
    In the United States lotteries are taxed. Lotteries winners can have up to 50% of their winnings taken away due to state and federal taxes. Two or three states will look back and make lottery winners that win as little as $10,000 pay back any welfare/unemployment assistance that they received. Sometimes it is a ten year look-back, but I think one state will even look back to a winner's childhood. Lottery winnings in Canada are not taxed.

    Right. The Internal Revenue Code starts out by taxing “all income from whatever source derived” and then there are certain exclusions and deductions allowed (5,000 pages of them), but if there is not a specific exclusion (and there is none for lottery winnings, game show winnings, etc.) then the default is that the income is taxable.

    In SJW terms, it is not a big reach to count your “genetic lottery winnings” like any other lottery winnings and declare them to be taxable. That they are not actual cash winnings is no problem – they can be valued just like they compute the value of the Barcalounger that you won on The Price is Right. I am sure there are plenty of economists right now who would be glad to attach a dollar value to your “genetic inheritance”. Maybe the government will be nice and allow you to pay the tax on your genetic inheritance in installments over your entire lifetime instead of just hitting you with a lump sum bill at birth or age 18.

    Democrats LOVE LOVE LOVE taxes of every kind (or at least they used to until they figured out that the government can just spend money without actually collecting a comparable amount of taxes, at least at the Federal level) because tax money allows them to redistribute wealth in a way that is “fair” (it is always “fair” to give more money to Democrat party interest groups) and earns them the eternal support and gratitude and votes of the recipients (or at least for as long as the checks keep coming). They can be generous using YOUR money, which is the best kind of generosity possible. Democrat politicians get all the credit (and you are still an evil white person even though you are the one paying for the dinner).

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  68. @Tyrion 2
    People play status games with designer clothes. Ultra Orthodox Jews don't. They all wear the same stuff. (Instead their status games revolve around who is the biggest Torah nerd.) Nonetheless, perhaps they are more egalitarian (not by sex obvs, but by family) than mainstream society

    I mention this because it seems that a lot of the motive to implement communism is to reduce keeping up with the Jones type thinking. The Khmer Rouge made everyone wear the same black pajamas.

    This point even got a mention in Enemy at The Gates. Where the characters observed that they believed they had reduced material inequality and therefore competition to gain status by having a lot of stuff. (However there'd always be competition in love.)

    In the same vein, I met an American ultra-Orhodox in Israel. I was hitchiking and he picked me up realising I was a tourist. I asked him why he had moved into such a community. A good deal of his explanation dealt with how egalitarian his new community was, even if he didn't use that word.

    Orthodox Jews don’t take vows of poverty (though many are poor because they spend all their time studying the talmud instead of working). If you know where to look, there ARE differences in the way that they dress (within the Orthodox dress code) based on wealth. The fur hats (shtreimels) that the ultra-Orthodox wear on the sabbath can vary from fake fur to Russian sable. A poor man might have only one shtreimel but someone wealthier might have one for when it raining so he can save his better one. Likewise the wigs that ultra-Orthodox women wear – the finest human hair wigs can cost thousands. And so on down to every item of clothing. It may all look the same to you, but someone who is immersed within the culture can readily spot the differences.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    The same phenomenon has been noted with regard to school uniforms. The egalitarians say that uniforms level the social playing field because “Everyone looks the same!” But the rich kids always find a way to stand out.
  69. @eah
    That this malevolent woman is allowed to teach young Whites to hate themselves and their heritage, and non-whites to hate Whites and their 'privilege', is proof that 'white supremacy' is pretty weak sauce -- which she is too stupid to see.

    Stupid? Of course not. As Upton Sinclair said, it’s hard to convince someone of something if their paycheck depends on denying it.

  70. @Jack D
    Traditional Judaism has very little to do with social justice. The scriptures offer an endless array of opinions on every subject, often contradictory and if you are a Jewish SJW you can cherry pick a few passages here and there that make it seem as if Judaism is concerned with the same thing that SJWism is. Of course they complete ignore the other passages that they don't like, like the ones calling homosexuality an abomination. The fundamental nature of Judaism does not resemble the agenda of modern (Jewish or non-Jewish) leftists at all. All of Jewish leftism is, almost by definition, espoused by people who actively reject the fundamental precepts and practices of Judaism - you can be a practicing Jew or a practicing leftist but you can't be both. What you (and many other anti-Semites) are doing is akin to defining Catholicism in terms of the practices of people who have left the Church.

    “Of course they complete ignore the other passages that they don’t like, like the ones calling homosexuality an abomination.”

    You mean, the one passage. Added after the return from Babylon. Unknown to, say, David and Jonathan. Just to be accurate.

  71. @Desiderius
    People who assume it’s Jews pushing the nonsense are just showing they have had next to no contact with the non-Jewish White ruling class.

    Another reason White Nationalism is a nonstarter.

    “the non-Jewish White ruling class”

    You assume they are acting on their own? That’s like making a big, important distinction btw occupiers and collaborators.

    Of course, historically “the non-Jewish White ruling class,” by which I assume you mean the WASP establishment, was a bunch of larpers anyway.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Of course, historically “the non-Jewish White ruling class,” by which I assume you mean the WASP establishment, was a bunch of larpers anyway.
     
    In what way were they LARPERs?
  72. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    “A poor man might have only one shtreimel but someone wealthier might have one for when it raining so he can save his better one. ”

    I used to see them in NYC wearing plastic bags or some kind of covering, like the plastic people put over living room furniture, when it rained. Guess the poor guy only had one hat.

  73. Fascinating subject, fascinating comments. Steve is always interesting, and this one, maybe because it’s so gossipy, is one of the best.

  74. @Triumph104

    How about people who win the actual lottery. Do we really believe that they must have some small or large portion of their winnings taken away because they got their fortune by sheer luck?
     
    In the United States lotteries are taxed. Lotteries winners can have up to 50% of their winnings taken away due to state and federal taxes. Two or three states will look back and make lottery winners that win as little as $10,000 pay back any welfare/unemployment assistance that they received. Sometimes it is a ten year look-back, but I think one state will even look back to a winner's childhood. Lottery winnings in Canada are not taxed.

    Lottery winnings are treated as taxable income, as is virtually any form of income.

    Point is, they are not treated as a special “undeserving” case because they are the product of sheer luck.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Not in the UK. Gambling is exempt here. Imagine betting on red at roullette but needing to pay 45% if you won.

    Taxing most gambling is the same as banning it, except for the total lunatics who might do it anyway.
  75. @newrouter
    "The Genetic Lottery," a book on the genetics of social inequality that will argue that genetic research can help create a more just and equal society."

    Sounds like Hitler.

    Actually it sounds like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute.

    Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection
    https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php

    …. the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little-known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing. …

    …Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims. ….

    In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.

    The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.

    The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. …..

  76. @Jack D
    Orthodox Jews don't take vows of poverty (though many are poor because they spend all their time studying the talmud instead of working). If you know where to look, there ARE differences in the way that they dress (within the Orthodox dress code) based on wealth. The fur hats (shtreimels) that the ultra-Orthodox wear on the sabbath can vary from fake fur to Russian sable. A poor man might have only one shtreimel but someone wealthier might have one for when it raining so he can save his better one. Likewise the wigs that ultra-Orthodox women wear - the finest human hair wigs can cost thousands. And so on down to every item of clothing. It may all look the same to you, but someone who is immersed within the culture can readily spot the differences.

    The same phenomenon has been noted with regard to school uniforms. The egalitarians say that uniforms level the social playing field because “Everyone looks the same!” But the rich kids always find a way to stand out.

  77. @Tyrion 2
    People play status games with designer clothes. Ultra Orthodox Jews don't. They all wear the same stuff. (Instead their status games revolve around who is the biggest Torah nerd.) Nonetheless, perhaps they are more egalitarian (not by sex obvs, but by family) than mainstream society

    I mention this because it seems that a lot of the motive to implement communism is to reduce keeping up with the Jones type thinking. The Khmer Rouge made everyone wear the same black pajamas.

    This point even got a mention in Enemy at The Gates. Where the characters observed that they believed they had reduced material inequality and therefore competition to gain status by having a lot of stuff. (However there'd always be competition in love.)

    In the same vein, I met an American ultra-Orhodox in Israel. I was hitchiking and he picked me up realising I was a tourist. I asked him why he had moved into such a community. A good deal of his explanation dealt with how egalitarian his new community was, even if he didn't use that word.

    Well, ultraorthodox jews certainly seem to be “egalitarian” in abuse of children.

    The Child-Rape Assembly Line
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbe8bp/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11

    …. The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn’s Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage.” ….

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Being Reform, I could not be further away from the Ultra-Orthodox. It would be like comparing Episcopalians to the Amish. We sing the national anthem in services.

    Nonetheless, is the say so of 2 alienated individuals really enough? Possibly. I find the 50% number too extraordinary a claim to accept with so little evidence though. Then again, in Helmand province, Afghanistan it must be close to 100%...so anything is possible.

    My personal feeling is that Israel is the most appropriate place for Jews who reject the world to live, not London or New York.
    , @Jack D

    Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent
     
    here is an alternate version - which one is more in Ben Hirsch's personal interest?

    Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is vanishingly small. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at less than 1 percent. I don't even know why we have an organization - I should go look for a real job, like selling knishes or something."
     
    The SPLC thinks that 110% of white people are racists, for the same reason.
  78. @candid_observer
    Lottery winnings are treated as taxable income, as is virtually any form of income.

    Point is, they are not treated as a special "undeserving" case because they are the product of sheer luck.

    Not in the UK. Gambling is exempt here. Imagine betting on red at roullette but needing to pay 45% if you won.

    Taxing most gambling is the same as banning it, except for the total lunatics who might do it anyway.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    In the US you are taxed on your gambling winnings, but you are allowed to offset you gambling losses. Needless to say, there is plenty of gambling in the US and the taxability of NET gambling winnings has not killed the industry.
  79. @Reg Cæsar

    I know an Irish girl who was married in a Moonie mass wedding. Hubby is a white American, and they’re still together twenty five years on. First meeting was their wedding day.
     
    Are they still Moonies? Is anybody?

    “Are they still Moonies? Is anybody?”

    As far as I know, yes. I don’t really talk religion when I see them, more how our respective kids are getting on.

  80. @Anon
    I hadn't known that Harden was Jewish.

    To see what else she had tweeted recently I went to Twitter and started clicking out on all the retweets, replies, and at-marks, and she as might be expected is part of a large conversation about genetics by many prominent academics and researchers in the field. And they are virtually all Jewish (Stephen Hsu an example of an exception), well over an order of magnitude what they would be by random chance.

    I guess that's good in that members of a tribe that could be considered gatekeepers are interested in discussing this topic in a more scientific, non-Stephen Jay Gould manner. On the other hand, there is an obvious political bias, as well as disturbing gatekeepingesque discussions about "ethics boards" approving research, screening researchers' political correctness before sharing data, and the evil of what they perceive as pure science research and "just asking questions."

    You are mistaken in thinking that this has anything to do with “a more scientific” approach. In fact this is nothing more than snake oil from a racist-supremacist sect. On the principle of “the big lie repeated enough times….” we really should object to those that give publicity to such obvious frauds.

    These “million person” studies are so under-sampled as to be nothing but random noise, which is why each one of them finds completely different sets of genes. Take 40 genes with 2 variants each (this is only a very small fraction of the genes that have been proposed to be correlated with things like “IQ”). The possible number of genetic variants is then 2 to the 40th power – that is more than ONE TRILLION combinations of those 40 genes with only two variants each. A sample size of one million persons corresponds to testing less than 1 part per million of those combinations.

    This leads to two inescapable conclusions.

    1. There are NOT enough people in the world to EVER do meaningful statistics on complex traits that involve >ca. 30 genes. ALL of these studies are measuring nothing more than noise artefacts.

    2. NO genetic test will ever be able to predict the “IQ” (or related things like “education achievement”) for an individual person.

    The question we should be asking ourselves is why we are being sold so much obvious snake oil from “psychologists”.

    Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West
    “We are bringing them the plague.”—Sigmund Freud, on his way to America in 1909[1]
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/24/sigmund-freud-psychoanalysis-and-the-war-on-the-west/

    Like Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud did not base psychoanalysis, which he championed to the entire Western world, on scientific premises. …
    Freud was on a Jewish mission. Jewish professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz of New York University writes that “one of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was…to inflict vengeance on Christianity.”[10]
    Other Jewish scholars such as Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter noted the same thing, adding that “though it is sometimes forgotten today, Freud’s work was profoundly subversive to the cultural underpinnings of European Christian society…There is evidence that some of the impetus for the creation of psychoanalysis lay in his hostility to Christianity.”[11]
    …. Freud in fact had a secret library in which he housed books on the Kabbala, and a copy of the Zohar,[16] which is “the most important document in Jewish mysticism,” and which, among other things, “taught the Jews to sacrifice Christian virgins for God’s pleasure.”[17] ….

    • Replies: @Jack D

    There are NOT enough people in the world to EVER do meaningful statistics on complex traits that involve >ca. 30 genes.
     
    Maybe if these were 30 truly independent variables. What are the chances that all 30 genes are completely independent of each other and don't come in clusters?

    Freud... had ... a copy of the Zohar which “taught the Jews to sacrifice Christian virgins for God’s pleasure.”[17] ….
     
    I have a copy of Mein Kampf but I'm not a genocidal maniac.
  81. The bride and bridegroom, who are assistant professors of psychology at the University of Texas in Austin, met at Virginia, from which each received a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. …

    Well, you could imply that this shows the most important quality affecting how people marry is nearness. They both worked at the same place. That’s reasonably random, all things considered.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    There are plenty of janitors at U.T., cafeteria workers, landscapers, clerks in the financial aid office and other genetic lottery losers and yet she married a Proven Winner Ph.D. so it wasn't just proximity.
  82. @Tyrion 2
    Not in the UK. Gambling is exempt here. Imagine betting on red at roullette but needing to pay 45% if you won.

    Taxing most gambling is the same as banning it, except for the total lunatics who might do it anyway.

    In the US you are taxed on your gambling winnings, but you are allowed to offset you gambling losses. Needless to say, there is plenty of gambling in the US and the taxability of NET gambling winnings has not killed the industry.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    The offset is critical.
    , @Travis
    true and you can buy losses from gamblers who have lost much more than they have won.
    One lottery winner in NY got caught after 10 years of collecting losing wagers at the racetracks to offset his yearly Lottery payout. He had won $9 million , paid out over 20 years and was thus collecting about $450,000 per year and he was offsetting the taxes by claiming losses of around $200,000 per year to reduce his taxes. Got busted because he was buying losing track bets from various tracks across the state and the IRS realized he could not have been at all these tracks the same day. There is an actual market for losing betting slips and even losing lottery tickets for gamblers to offset their winnings
  83. @Labatt Blu

    The bride and bridegroom, who are assistant professors of psychology at the University of Texas in Austin, met at Virginia, from which each received a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. …
     
    Well, you could imply that this shows the most important quality affecting how people marry is nearness. They both worked at the same place. That's reasonably random, all things considered.

    There are plenty of janitors at U.T., cafeteria workers, landscapers, clerks in the financial aid office and other genetic lottery losers and yet she married a Proven Winner Ph.D. so it wasn’t just proximity.

  84. @hyperbola
    You are mistaken in thinking that this has anything to do with "a more scientific" approach. In fact this is nothing more than snake oil from a racist-supremacist sect. On the principle of "the big lie repeated enough times...." we really should object to those that give publicity to such obvious frauds.

    These “million person” studies are so under-sampled as to be nothing but random noise, which is why each one of them finds completely different sets of genes. Take 40 genes with 2 variants each (this is only a very small fraction of the genes that have been proposed to be correlated with things like “IQ”). The possible number of genetic variants is then 2 to the 40th power – that is more than ONE TRILLION combinations of those 40 genes with only two variants each. A sample size of one million persons corresponds to testing less than 1 part per million of those combinations.

    This leads to two inescapable conclusions.

    1. There are NOT enough people in the world to EVER do meaningful statistics on complex traits that involve >ca. 30 genes. ALL of these studies are measuring nothing more than noise artefacts.

    2. NO genetic test will ever be able to predict the “IQ” (or related things like “education achievement”) for an individual person.

    The question we should be asking ourselves is why we are being sold so much obvious snake oil from "psychologists".

    Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West
    “We are bringing them the plague.”—Sigmund Freud, on his way to America in 1909[1]
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/24/sigmund-freud-psychoanalysis-and-the-war-on-the-west/

    Like Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud did not base psychoanalysis, which he championed to the entire Western world, on scientific premises. ...
    Freud was on a Jewish mission. Jewish professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz of New York University writes that “one of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was…to inflict vengeance on Christianity.”[10]
    Other Jewish scholars such as Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter noted the same thing, adding that “though it is sometimes forgotten today, Freud’s work was profoundly subversive to the cultural underpinnings of European Christian society…There is evidence that some of the impetus for the creation of psychoanalysis lay in his hostility to Christianity.”[11]
    .... Freud in fact had a secret library in which he housed books on the Kabbala, and a copy of the Zohar,[16] which is “the most important document in Jewish mysticism,” and which, among other things, “taught the Jews to sacrifice Christian virgins for God’s pleasure.”[17] ....

    There are NOT enough people in the world to EVER do meaningful statistics on complex traits that involve >ca. 30 genes.

    Maybe if these were 30 truly independent variables. What are the chances that all 30 genes are completely independent of each other and don’t come in clusters?

    Freud… had … a copy of the Zohar which “taught the Jews to sacrifice Christian virgins for God’s pleasure.”[17] ….

    I have a copy of Mein Kampf but I’m not a genocidal maniac.

    • Replies: @hyperbola
    This "new" paper starts out by largely ignoring 30 gene clusters previously identified by others. It then concentrates on 8 "new" ones. These numbers are already very close to the 40 I used as an example. Of course, the hidden assumption that there is only one gene per gene cluster that is "important" is also not a tenable assumption. If such "gene clusters" are actually "physiologically functional" clusters then it is highly likely that the function of the cluster can be impinged by many different genes, i.e. the problem grows again. Criminal conclusions based on extreme undersampling characterizes these "psychologists".
  85. @Jack D
    In the US you are taxed on your gambling winnings, but you are allowed to offset you gambling losses. Needless to say, there is plenty of gambling in the US and the taxability of NET gambling winnings has not killed the industry.

    The offset is critical.

  86. @Jack D
    In the US you are taxed on your gambling winnings, but you are allowed to offset you gambling losses. Needless to say, there is plenty of gambling in the US and the taxability of NET gambling winnings has not killed the industry.

    true and you can buy losses from gamblers who have lost much more than they have won.
    One lottery winner in NY got caught after 10 years of collecting losing wagers at the racetracks to offset his yearly Lottery payout. He had won $9 million , paid out over 20 years and was thus collecting about $450,000 per year and he was offsetting the taxes by claiming losses of around $200,000 per year to reduce his taxes. Got busted because he was buying losing track bets from various tracks across the state and the IRS realized he could not have been at all these tracks the same day. There is an actual market for losing betting slips and even losing lottery tickets for gamblers to offset their winnings

  87. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Now this is the best comment for one of Steve's posts for the second quarter of 2018. Hands down. Clear, concise, right to the point, with common sense and containing more wisdom as a rejoinder to Paige Harden's entire thesis.

    Question: How exactly does a clinical psychologist suddenly become qualified to help interpret findings of the human Gnome as well as relatively complex science of genetics? It would seem that a discipline of psychology (long thought to be part of the "soft" sciences) isn't really on par with genetics, which is more a part of the "hard" sciences.

    But an excellent comment.

    Question: How exactly does a clinical psychologist suddenly become qualified to help interpret findings of the human Gnome as well as relatively complex science of genetics?

    In the same way that only a fraction of the 1000+ scientists who signed some dorky Global Warming petition knew anything about climatology.

    She’s a scientist, man! And she’s a woman, so her opinion on everything is correct. No man splaining, bro.

  88. @Prester John
    This woman is described as a "clinical psychologist", not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist. What is this woman's expertise in the latter two disciplines?

    She’s a woman.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    This woman is described as a “clinical psychologist”, not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist. What is this woman’s expertise in the latter two disciplines?
     
    She’s a woman.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsNgLiPyuCY
  89. @hyperbola
    Well, ultraorthodox jews certainly seem to be "egalitarian" in abuse of children.

    The Child-Rape Assembly Line
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbe8bp/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11

    .... The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn's Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. "From anecdotal evidence, we're looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage." ....

    Being Reform, I could not be further away from the Ultra-Orthodox. It would be like comparing Episcopalians to the Amish. We sing the national anthem in services.

    Nonetheless, is the say so of 2 alienated individuals really enough? Possibly. I find the 50% number too extraordinary a claim to accept with so little evidence though. Then again, in Helmand province, Afghanistan it must be close to 100%…so anything is possible.

    My personal feeling is that Israel is the most appropriate place for Jews who reject the world to live, not London or New York.

    • Replies: @hyperbola
    The same phenomenon of child abuse by a closed,secretive sect has also been documented (in trials) in many other places such as London, Melbourne, Toronto, ..... Seems to be inherent in the religion. Given the proclivities of persons such as Harvey Weinstein, the racist-supremacist abuse seems to extend to areas beyond child abuse. Telling that you are desperate to defer attention to other places/groups rather than addressing the crimes of your own sect.



    Rabbis' absolute power: how sex abuse tore apart Australia's Orthodox Jewish community
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/19/rabbis-absolute-power-how-sex-abuse-tore-apart-australias-orthodox-jewish-community

    Yeshivah leaders in Sydney and Melbourne chose to preserve the prestige of their faith over the safety of children. A national inquiry that reverberated around the world painted a devastating picture of how individuals were abandoned and ostracised as they fought to end the code of silence....
  90. @hyperbola
    Well, ultraorthodox jews certainly seem to be "egalitarian" in abuse of children.

    The Child-Rape Assembly Line
    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbe8bp/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11

    .... The child sex abuse crisis in ultra-Orthodox Judaism, like that in the Catholic Church, has produced its share of shocking headlines in recent years. In New York, and in the prominent Orthodox communities of Israel and London, allegations of child molestation and rape have been rampant. The alleged abusers are schoolteachers, rabbis, fathers, uncles—figures of male authority. The victims, like those of Catholic priests, are mostly boys. Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn's Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders. Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. "From anecdotal evidence, we're looking at over 50 percent. It has almost become a rite of passage." ....

    Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent

    here is an alternate version – which one is more in Ben Hirsch’s personal interest?

    Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is vanishingly small. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at less than 1 percent. I don’t even know why we have an organization – I should go look for a real job, like selling knishes or something.”

    The SPLC thinks that 110% of white people are racists, for the same reason.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn’s Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders
     
    ..thinks the real number is vanishingly small... less than 1 percent
     
    A clear case of Homocaust denial.
  91. @YetAnotherAnon
    I know an Irish girl who was married in a Moonie mass wedding. Hubby is a white American, and they're still together twenty five years on. First meeting was their wedding day.

    I guess with an arranged marriage, expectations are lower and love/lust can grow from a zero baseline rather than decline from a peak.

    But a Moonie marrying a Moonie isn’t an exactly random arrangement. They both have to be Moonies and that in itself indicates that they have some characteristics in common.

  92. @Stan Adams
    This is what losing the genetic lottery looks like:
    http://www.kylekirschbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Kyle-Kirschbaum-Arnold-S.jpg
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/26/10/3F9C7E4C00000578-4446838-image-a-56_1493198533684.jpg

    The look on Maria’s face says it all.

    Did that young man “lose the genetic lottery” or did he “lose the battle with carbohydrates”?

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    The two are not mutually exclusive. We can also add "fashion victim" to the list, as well.

    This pairing did not look especially promising:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mTJSrDPa5is/TnL1VNCZx_I/AAAAAAAANlU/5pymyPtyg4Q/s1600/mildred%2Bbeane.png

    But the kid got lucky:
    http://www.evolutionofbodybuilding.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/arnold-and-joseph10.jpg

    It's interesting that, of Arnold's three sons, the mestizo bastard takes after him the most.

    Now, if you want to talk about a man whose offspring bear no resemblance to him whatsoever, take a gander at this picture:
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/2c/74/d42c74f391c9335abc509c627c5481fe.jpg
  93. @Triumph104
    I doubt she converted to Judaism. Harden was married by a Reconstructionist rabbi. Reconstructionism is the little-known fourth branch (denomination) of Judaism in the United States and it is the most liberal with no problems performing interfaith marriage.

    Like Amy Chua, Kathryn Paige Harden may not care about religion at all and will let her husband raise their future children in his religion. Bill Maher's Jewish mother didn't care about religion, so Maher's father raised the children Catholic.

    Reconstructionist Judaism grew out of the work of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in the middle of the last century as an offshoot of the more traditionally religious Conservative denomination. Though level of observance can vary from congregation to congregation, the movement fundamentally rejects the belief that Jewish law is unimpeachable, and embraces the concept of Judaism as both a religion and a community of people bound by culture and ancestry.

    In practice, this has led to some of the most progressive and controversial reforms in Judaism. Reconstructionists have shepherded the rest of the religion into the twenty-first century, ordaining female and gay rabbis, officiating same-sex weddings, and embracing interfaith congregants before any other denomination.
     
    https://newrepublic.com/article/120853/interfaith-rabbi-debate-rocks-reconstructionist-judaism-america

    I seem to recall in the late 20th century a (Reconstructionist?) Rabbi + liberal Catholic Priest pair who went up and down the East Coast performing interfaith marriages.

  94. @Big Bill
    Now if we could only persuade the disgraced former governor of New York and the disgraced former representative of New York to marry.

    They could be Elliot Spitzer-Weiner and Anthony Wiener-Spitzer.

    They could be Elliot Spitzer-Weiner and Anthony Wiener-Spitzer.

    That’s like Ireland’s first same-sex marriage, Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick.

  95. @Jim Don Bob
    She's a woman.

    This woman is described as a “clinical psychologist”, not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist. What is this woman’s expertise in the latter two disciplines?

    She’s a woman.

  96. @Jack D

    Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is higher. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at over 50 percent
     
    here is an alternate version - which one is more in Ben Hirsch's personal interest?

    Ben Hirsch, director of Survivors for Justice, a Brooklyn organization that advocates for Orthodox sex abuse victims, thinks the real number is vanishingly small. “From anecdotal evidence, we’re looking at less than 1 percent. I don't even know why we have an organization - I should go look for a real job, like selling knishes or something."
     
    The SPLC thinks that 110% of white people are racists, for the same reason.

    Rabbi Rosenberg believes around half of young males in Brooklyn’s Hasidic community—the largest in the United States and one of the largest in the world—have been victims of sexual assault perpetrated by their elders

    ..thinks the real number is vanishingly small… less than 1 percent

    A clear case of Homocaust denial.

  97. The modern co-ed elite university and grad school would seem to serve the same purpose as the 1000 year Ashkenazi Jewish eugenic breeding program in Eastern Europe: Getting two intelligent people to have children together. I would imagine before World War 2, when college educations were far more rare than they are today, overall, the highly intelligent were less likely to marry the highly intelligent, a fact that gave the Ashkenazi an edge. However we have had at least 60 years of solid elite college and grad school mating in the US. Any effects ?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    That was Herrnstein's big idea in 1971: modern test-driven college admissions would make marriage more assortative on IQ.

    Sociologist/biologist (he went back and earned a Ph.D. in biology) Dalton Conley is now investigating Herrnstein's assumptions with polygenic scores for educational attainment and IQ. You can get saliva from 80 year olds and compare it to saliva from 30 year olds to see what the DNA of different levels of educational attainment looks like now and 50 years ago.

    It's a brilliant research idea, although when it will be reliable is another question. Conley's first crack at it a couple of years ago didn't support Herrnstein's view, but I think he was using 2013 era polygenic scores. Now he can use Lee et al's new 2018 polygenic scores (in fact, Conley is one of the 80 or so co-authors on Lee's paper). So I'm looking forward to finding out what he finds on testing Herrnstein's theory of how America changed.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    However we have had at least 60 years of solid elite college and grad school mating in the US. Any effects ?
     
    Yes. They have more talent, but less sense and skill, and no idea what to do with it.

    Except rule over us.

    Everyone here says we're becoming like Brazil. Balderdash. We're fast becoming Imperial China. Pass the test, be the boss.
    , @Anon

    The modern co-ed elite university and grad school would seem to serve the same purpose as the 1000 year Ashkenazi Jewish eugenic breeding program in Eastern Europe: Getting two intelligent people to have children together.
     
    That's why it has been so important to Ashkenazis to have access to and significant participation in Gentile institutions of higher learning. Otherwise, a competing race could improve its intellectual level within itself and threaten Ashkenazi dominance.
  98. @DRA
    Even with good genes, a lot of luck is involved. Consider a couple with excellent health, good looks, athletic capability, time preference, intelligence, etc. One could expect only good of their offspring.

    Now consider if they were siblings...

    Many traits are polygenetic, such as intelligence. But while the likelihood is that children of significantly above average intelligence will have an above average prospect, there does seem to be more autism spectrum disorders in such parings. Definitely room for luck, as well as breeding.

    Obviously, there are exceptions, such as Down Syndrome. Even then, though, a child with Down Syndrome from capable, well-off parents has much better prospects than a child with Down Syndrome from incompetent, poor parents. And if I may add my personal observations, the Down child of high-IQ parents is smarter than the Down child of low-IQ parents. So the exceptions prove the rule, as it were.

    Anyhow, I’m not speaking so much of the negative as of the positive (such as Professor Harden): if you were born with a favorable genetic endowment, you are not “lucky”; you are the beneficiary of the deliberate, accumulated deeds of your ancestors.

    Should thank them and build on their achievement, or should you give away the fruits of what they worked for to someone whose ancestors’ acts produced much less favorable results?

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Anyhow, I’m not speaking so much of the negative as of the positive (such as Professor Harden): if you were born with a favorable genetic endowment, you are not “lucky”; you are the beneficiary of the deliberate, accumulated deeds of your ancestors.
     
    Any parents with more than one child would surely disagree. All their children were, according to you, the products of the same deliberate, accumulated deeds of their ancestors - and yet look how differently they turned out. It's perfectly reasonable to characterize these differences as 'luck.'
  99. @dearieme
    "your birth was in no way the result of luck" What an absurd statement. Are you saying that your being born dim was deliberate on someone's part?

    Yes.

    Dumb parents + dumb hookup = dumb offspring.

    You know how all those Nobel Prize winners come from low-IQ ghettos and favelas and serf plantations because that is where we would expect to find them by “luck”? Oh wait. That doesn’t happen.

  100. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Which admittedly is getting smaller and smaller with each passing decade while the Jewish percentage of the Ruling Class isn't shrinking, and thus is actually increasing with each passing decade.

    Look at Forbes and Fortune's list of wealthiest people. At about 3% of the US's total population, what percentage of Forbes and Fortune's list of wealthiest people have Jewish ancestry? Is the percentage about 3%, which would match the total Jewish population of the US?

    Is it?

    Most people here think its ridiculous when the left demands that the % of say
    black nuclear physicists match their % of the general population.

    I think that if you were to adjust membership in the Forbes list for IQ, Jews would be just where they should be, just as you have to adjust the roster of NFL cornerbacks for the qualities needed to be a good cornerback.

    What the WN’s don’t get is that “whites” in America have never been a unified group. The Boston Brahmins (whose descendants are still in the Forbes list – hell the Forbes family itself go back to the earliest days of Mass Bay colony) never thought of themselves as having any commonality with say the Irish, which is why they had no qualms about filling their mills with even more recent immigrants. The plantation owners did not give a damn for the poor whites in the mountains of VA (later W.Va.) When the US had an all white Christian ruling class they treated that portion of the workforce that was not literally enslaved like shit. In some respects they treated slaves better because slaves were valuable property – if some white miner died it was no skin off their back. You could get rid of every Joo and it wouldn’t be any better because there is always going to be a ruling class. You can do like the Communists did and get rid of the ruling class and a new ruling class will just take its place. Right now we have a particularly shitty and selfish ruling class but even by your count it is 75 or 80% pure white Christian.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Wells said once again, Jack D.

    I am not Jewish, but I could do with less of the 'the joos' stuff around here.

    Most of us agree that Jews punch above their weight in the West, but that's because they are smarter, they work harder, and they stick together.

    I think liberals Jews are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (HT: Whiskey) in thinking that they will not be eaten by the NAM crocodile they encourage. NAMs see them at White.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "You could get rid of every Joo and it wouldn’t be any better because there is always going to be a ruling class."

    That isn't what I asked, but of course it wasn't directly answered either. So, we'll at it this way: notice, throughout the last 2 millennia that even though their total numbers have never been above what, about 5% of their host country's total population, that Jews have usually been an entrenched part of the ruling class in far abundant numbers than their actual numbers. So much that during the Middle Ages they were expelled from most of Western Europe.

    "You can do like the Communists did and get rid of the ruling class and a new ruling class will just take its place."

    Yes, you can. And of that ruling class, whether communist or capitalist, at least 40% will be Jewish. And this isn't a bug but a feature of whichever economic system arises. But all a sudden we're the bad guys for having pointed it out.


    "Right now we have a particularly shitty and selfish ruling class but even by your count it is 75 or 80% pure white Christian."

    Never said that and never would presume that high a number. Try: Of the total number of white, at least 40-45%, depending on the field (e.g. government, economics, business, etc) are going to be Jewish. That is generally proven to be a truism. The rest, yes, would pass for being part of the WASP/Catholic historical establishment.

    If it's okay to now impugn the traditional WASP founders of the US, then it should be reasonable to include every other major group that has also contributed to the US's fortunes (for good and for worse) that is called consistency.

    Also, were only WASPS slave owners during the Antebellum Era? Were they? And, were only WASPS major businessmen during the 19th century?

    Major tomes have been written describing the WASP connection to the problems of America from a societal, sociological, angle. They are often a part of what is considered to be taught as good thinking, and education. The Jewish connection to the US, however, has long been relegated to the back, and whenever it is brought up, the bringer upper is immediately accused of anti-semitism and possibly run permanently out of polite society.

    Just asking, for having noticed a more than slight connection. And with no direct answer given to the question.
  101. @Anon
    Okay, let's have real genetic lotteries to even things out in the name of Equality.

    No, it's not arranged marries but lottery marriages. Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time.

    This way, Prof Harden wouldn't have married some high-IQ smart guy to perpetuate more genetic elitism. She might have ended up with a Mexican lettuce picker, Afghan cabbie, Palestinian small grocer, or black rapper.

    Lottery wedding, the new social justice agenda of the 21st century.

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

    “Okay, let’s have real genetic lotteries to even things out in the name of Equality. … Rev. Mhoon was ahead of his time. … Lottery wedding, the new social justice agenda of the 21st century.”

    Y’know, I think you’re on to something here. But still, I can’t help but notice that all of those “random” marriage partners are pretty fit and attractive. No obesity, no visible tattoos. Everyone seems smart, healthy and above average. Heck, that may be the prettiest Cote d’Ivorian I’ve seen.

    If I, or my offspring, had to accept a random spouse from a pool of candidates, on the face of it there are very many worse pools–and not too many better pools–to fish from.

  102. @Jack D
    Most people here think its ridiculous when the left demands that the % of say
    black nuclear physicists match their % of the general population.

    I think that if you were to adjust membership in the Forbes list for IQ, Jews would be just where they should be, just as you have to adjust the roster of NFL cornerbacks for the qualities needed to be a good cornerback.

    What the WN's don't get is that "whites" in America have never been a unified group. The Boston Brahmins (whose descendants are still in the Forbes list - hell the Forbes family itself go back to the earliest days of Mass Bay colony) never thought of themselves as having any commonality with say the Irish, which is why they had no qualms about filling their mills with even more recent immigrants. The plantation owners did not give a damn for the poor whites in the mountains of VA (later W.Va.) When the US had an all white Christian ruling class they treated that portion of the workforce that was not literally enslaved like shit. In some respects they treated slaves better because slaves were valuable property - if some white miner died it was no skin off their back. You could get rid of every Joo and it wouldn't be any better because there is always going to be a ruling class. You can do like the Communists did and get rid of the ruling class and a new ruling class will just take its place. Right now we have a particularly shitty and selfish ruling class but even by your count it is 75 or 80% pure white Christian.

    Wells said once again, Jack D.

    I am not Jewish, but I could do with less of the ‘the joos’ stuff around here.

    Most of us agree that Jews punch above their weight in the West, but that’s because they are smarter, they work harder, and they stick together.

    I think liberals Jews are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (HT: Whiskey) in thinking that they will not be eaten by the NAM crocodile they encourage. NAMs see them at White.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "but that’s because they are smarter, they work harder, and they stick together."

    Oh, is that the reason? IQ? Work harder? If they stick together and promote their own more readily, then hard work isn't the determining factor, duh. Also, what generally happens if an individual happens to get fired? The group either tosses him to the wolves (seldom ever, unless it can be done without tarnishing the group as a whole), or the whistleblower is accused of anti-semitism (the most likely occurrence) and is never heard from again.

    If you think there's too much observing of Jews in America here, then you probably wouldn't like Dr. Kevin MacDonald's work, who appears to have made a major part of his career having observed the work of Jews in America.
  103. Looking more forward to Lisa Page’s new book: Strzokin’ to the Oldies.

  104. @eah
    https://twitter.com/kph3k/status/858802991100551168

    LOL! She married into the tribe and is the usual idiotic SJW hypocrite – just replace “white” with “Jewish” and “the US evangelical church” with “Israel.”

  105. @Ibound1
    The modern co-ed elite university and grad school would seem to serve the same purpose as the 1000 year Ashkenazi Jewish eugenic breeding program in Eastern Europe: Getting two intelligent people to have children together. I would imagine before World War 2, when college educations were far more rare than they are today, overall, the highly intelligent were less likely to marry the highly intelligent, a fact that gave the Ashkenazi an edge. However we have had at least 60 years of solid elite college and grad school mating in the US. Any effects ?

    That was Herrnstein’s big idea in 1971: modern test-driven college admissions would make marriage more assortative on IQ.

    Sociologist/biologist (he went back and earned a Ph.D. in biology) Dalton Conley is now investigating Herrnstein’s assumptions with polygenic scores for educational attainment and IQ. You can get saliva from 80 year olds and compare it to saliva from 30 year olds to see what the DNA of different levels of educational attainment looks like now and 50 years ago.

    It’s a brilliant research idea, although when it will be reliable is another question. Conley’s first crack at it a couple of years ago didn’t support Herrnstein’s view, but I think he was using 2013 era polygenic scores. Now he can use Lee et al’s new 2018 polygenic scores (in fact, Conley is one of the 80 or so co-authors on Lee’s paper). So I’m looking forward to finding out what he finds on testing Herrnstein’s theory of how America changed.

  106. @Ibound1
    The modern co-ed elite university and grad school would seem to serve the same purpose as the 1000 year Ashkenazi Jewish eugenic breeding program in Eastern Europe: Getting two intelligent people to have children together. I would imagine before World War 2, when college educations were far more rare than they are today, overall, the highly intelligent were less likely to marry the highly intelligent, a fact that gave the Ashkenazi an edge. However we have had at least 60 years of solid elite college and grad school mating in the US. Any effects ?

    However we have had at least 60 years of solid elite college and grad school mating in the US. Any effects ?

    Yes. They have more talent, but less sense and skill, and no idea what to do with it.

    Except rule over us.

    Everyone here says we’re becoming like Brazil. Balderdash. We’re fast becoming Imperial China. Pass the test, be the boss.

  107. Anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    "the non-Jewish White ruling class"

    You assume they are acting on their own? That's like making a big, important distinction btw occupiers and collaborators.

    Of course, historically "the non-Jewish White ruling class," by which I assume you mean the WASP establishment, was a bunch of larpers anyway.

    Of course, historically “the non-Jewish White ruling class,” by which I assume you mean the WASP establishment, was a bunch of larpers anyway.

    In what way were they LARPERs?

  108. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ibound1
    The modern co-ed elite university and grad school would seem to serve the same purpose as the 1000 year Ashkenazi Jewish eugenic breeding program in Eastern Europe: Getting two intelligent people to have children together. I would imagine before World War 2, when college educations were far more rare than they are today, overall, the highly intelligent were less likely to marry the highly intelligent, a fact that gave the Ashkenazi an edge. However we have had at least 60 years of solid elite college and grad school mating in the US. Any effects ?

    The modern co-ed elite university and grad school would seem to serve the same purpose as the 1000 year Ashkenazi Jewish eugenic breeding program in Eastern Europe: Getting two intelligent people to have children together.

    That’s why it has been so important to Ashkenazis to have access to and significant participation in Gentile institutions of higher learning. Otherwise, a competing race could improve its intellectual level within itself and threaten Ashkenazi dominance.

  109. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Genetics used to be more like pottery than lottery. Baked than rolled.

    But maybe it will become more like lottery once again with mass invasions.

    Rape of Sabine women… that was about genetic lottery. A woman didn’t know which guy would rape her and make her have his kids.
    With slut culture and hook-ups and mass invasions of peoples, it’s possible more and more people will have wild sex or be raped and have kids with who knows whom.

    People thought Mhoon’s Wedding was nutty, and it was. But at least there were some norms and forms, some rules and shared values among the Moonies.
    But Merkel’s Love Boat and Love Connection? Now, that’s matchmaking in hell. Let’s bring in millions from Muslim world and Africa and let’s have them mate with our German girls.

    Is Merkel running a nation or a whorehouse, the best little whorehouse in Europe. Madame Merkel than Mama Merkel. Given German’s trauma of post-war when millions of Soviet thugs violated German women, you’d think THAT kind of mentality would what Germans would avoid most. But people learn nothing. It’s MARRIAGE OF MARIA BRAUN all over again. (At least European whores after WWII were paid. Now, it’s like the German people are paying the invader-men to have sex with slut German women who put out for free.).

  110. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    YOU, DEAR READER, HAD ZERO PROBABILITY OF BEING BORN TO ANYONE OTHER THAN YOUR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS.

    Therefore there was no luck involved in your birth. And anyone telling you that you’re “lucky to have such good parents” or its equivalents …is blowing smoke up your a–.

    That is all.

  111. @Jack D
    Most people here think its ridiculous when the left demands that the % of say
    black nuclear physicists match their % of the general population.

    I think that if you were to adjust membership in the Forbes list for IQ, Jews would be just where they should be, just as you have to adjust the roster of NFL cornerbacks for the qualities needed to be a good cornerback.

    What the WN's don't get is that "whites" in America have never been a unified group. The Boston Brahmins (whose descendants are still in the Forbes list - hell the Forbes family itself go back to the earliest days of Mass Bay colony) never thought of themselves as having any commonality with say the Irish, which is why they had no qualms about filling their mills with even more recent immigrants. The plantation owners did not give a damn for the poor whites in the mountains of VA (later W.Va.) When the US had an all white Christian ruling class they treated that portion of the workforce that was not literally enslaved like shit. In some respects they treated slaves better because slaves were valuable property - if some white miner died it was no skin off their back. You could get rid of every Joo and it wouldn't be any better because there is always going to be a ruling class. You can do like the Communists did and get rid of the ruling class and a new ruling class will just take its place. Right now we have a particularly shitty and selfish ruling class but even by your count it is 75 or 80% pure white Christian.

    “You could get rid of every Joo and it wouldn’t be any better because there is always going to be a ruling class.”

    That isn’t what I asked, but of course it wasn’t directly answered either. So, we’ll at it this way: notice, throughout the last 2 millennia that even though their total numbers have never been above what, about 5% of their host country’s total population, that Jews have usually been an entrenched part of the ruling class in far abundant numbers than their actual numbers. So much that during the Middle Ages they were expelled from most of Western Europe.

    “You can do like the Communists did and get rid of the ruling class and a new ruling class will just take its place.”

    Yes, you can. And of that ruling class, whether communist or capitalist, at least 40% will be Jewish. And this isn’t a bug but a feature of whichever economic system arises. But all a sudden we’re the bad guys for having pointed it out.

    “Right now we have a particularly shitty and selfish ruling class but even by your count it is 75 or 80% pure white Christian.”

    Never said that and never would presume that high a number. Try: Of the total number of white, at least 40-45%, depending on the field (e.g. government, economics, business, etc) are going to be Jewish. That is generally proven to be a truism. The rest, yes, would pass for being part of the WASP/Catholic historical establishment.

    If it’s okay to now impugn the traditional WASP founders of the US, then it should be reasonable to include every other major group that has also contributed to the US’s fortunes (for good and for worse) that is called consistency.

    Also, were only WASPS slave owners during the Antebellum Era? Were they? And, were only WASPS major businessmen during the 19th century?

    Major tomes have been written describing the WASP connection to the problems of America from a societal, sociological, angle. They are often a part of what is considered to be taught as good thinking, and education. The Jewish connection to the US, however, has long been relegated to the back, and whenever it is brought up, the bringer upper is immediately accused of anti-semitism and possibly run permanently out of polite society.

    Just asking, for having noticed a more than slight connection. And with no direct answer given to the question.

  112. @Jim Don Bob
    Wells said once again, Jack D.

    I am not Jewish, but I could do with less of the 'the joos' stuff around here.

    Most of us agree that Jews punch above their weight in the West, but that's because they are smarter, they work harder, and they stick together.

    I think liberals Jews are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (HT: Whiskey) in thinking that they will not be eaten by the NAM crocodile they encourage. NAMs see them at White.

    “but that’s because they are smarter, they work harder, and they stick together.”

    Oh, is that the reason? IQ? Work harder? If they stick together and promote their own more readily, then hard work isn’t the determining factor, duh. Also, what generally happens if an individual happens to get fired? The group either tosses him to the wolves (seldom ever, unless it can be done without tarnishing the group as a whole), or the whistleblower is accused of anti-semitism (the most likely occurrence) and is never heard from again.

    If you think there’s too much observing of Jews in America here, then you probably wouldn’t like Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s work, who appears to have made a major part of his career having observed the work of Jews in America.

  113. @Almost Missouri

    "I’ve been harping on this metaphor for about 20 years now. But it’s not clear I’ve made much progress in getting more than a few people to see this."
     
    I too have been pointing out to people that everyone who reproduces is a eugenicist whether they mean to be or not. I too have gotten nearly zero traction, probably because "eugenics" is one of those crimestopped words that causes listeners' brains to shut off.

    Maybe what we need is a new Sailerist term for the actions that people take that influence their offspring's genetics. "Bio-inheritancism"? "Bio-endowmentism"? "Bio-legacy-ism"? Something to break the Sapir-Whorf roadblock.

    I too have been pointing out to people that everyone who reproduces is a eugenicist whether they mean to be or not. I too have gotten nearly zero traction, probably because “eugenics” is one of those crimestopped words that causes listeners’ brains to shut off.

    Maybe you’ve gotten so little traction because it’s a poor analogy. Eugenics is interested in raising the genetic quality of the entire population. People who reproduce are only interested in the quality of their own offspring – and they’re often not all that interested in even that.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Eugenics is interested in raising the genetic quality of the entire population."
     
    How do you raise the genetic quality of the entire population?

    One birth at a time.

    "People who reproduce are only interested in the quality of their own offspring – and they’re often not all that interested in even that."
     
    As already commented,

    Dumb parents + dumb hookup = dumb offspring.
     
  114. @Almost Missouri
    Obviously, there are exceptions, such as Down Syndrome. Even then, though, a child with Down Syndrome from capable, well-off parents has much better prospects than a child with Down Syndrome from incompetent, poor parents. And if I may add my personal observations, the Down child of high-IQ parents is smarter than the Down child of low-IQ parents. So the exceptions prove the rule, as it were.

    Anyhow, I'm not speaking so much of the negative as of the positive (such as Professor Harden): if you were born with a favorable genetic endowment, you are not "lucky"; you are the beneficiary of the deliberate, accumulated deeds of your ancestors.

    Should thank them and build on their achievement, or should you give away the fruits of what they worked for to someone whose ancestors' acts produced much less favorable results?

    Anyhow, I’m not speaking so much of the negative as of the positive (such as Professor Harden): if you were born with a favorable genetic endowment, you are not “lucky”; you are the beneficiary of the deliberate, accumulated deeds of your ancestors.

    Any parents with more than one child would surely disagree. All their children were, according to you, the products of the same deliberate, accumulated deeds of their ancestors – and yet look how differently they turned out. It’s perfectly reasonable to characterize these differences as ‘luck.’

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    You're responding to something no one said. Siblings, even twins, have different personalities. No one said otherwise. But that's not the question.

    If one sibling has a good genetic inheritance, then is another sibling of the same parents likely also to have a good genetic inheritance? Yes, of course. Why? Because they both benefit from the same "deliberate, accumulated deeds of [their] ancestors."
  115. @Steve in Greensboro
    Did that young man "lose the genetic lottery" or did he "lose the battle with carbohydrates"?

    The two are not mutually exclusive. We can also add “fashion victim” to the list, as well.

    This pairing did not look especially promising:

    But the kid got lucky:

    It’s interesting that, of Arnold’s three sons, the mestizo bastard takes after him the most.

    Now, if you want to talk about a man whose offspring bear no resemblance to him whatsoever, take a gander at this picture:

  116. @silviosilver

    I too have been pointing out to people that everyone who reproduces is a eugenicist whether they mean to be or not. I too have gotten nearly zero traction, probably because “eugenics” is one of those crimestopped words that causes listeners’ brains to shut off.
     
    Maybe you've gotten so little traction because it's a poor analogy. Eugenics is interested in raising the genetic quality of the entire population. People who reproduce are only interested in the quality of their own offspring - and they're often not all that interested in even that.

    “Eugenics is interested in raising the genetic quality of the entire population.”

    How do you raise the genetic quality of the entire population?

    One birth at a time.

    “People who reproduce are only interested in the quality of their own offspring – and they’re often not all that interested in even that.”

    As already commented,

    Dumb parents + dumb hookup = dumb offspring.

    • Replies: @hyperbola
    Eugenics, from the beginning, has always been an attempt to justify racist-supremacism. Now that techniques like CRISPR might be bought by the ultra-rich, we will have enormous enjoyment in seeing all the mental and physical cripples that are "produced" for those bastards. It will also be amusing to see who can be sucked in by the propaganda that class produces.


    Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection
    https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php
    , @silviosilver

    How do you raise the genetic quality of the entire population?
     
    Individuals preferring mates with valued traits does not, of itself, raise the genetic quality of the entire population. High IQ people could mate solely with high IQ people, but if dumb people are having more children, the genetic quality of the population will decrease. This is pretty basic.
  117. @silviosilver

    Anyhow, I’m not speaking so much of the negative as of the positive (such as Professor Harden): if you were born with a favorable genetic endowment, you are not “lucky”; you are the beneficiary of the deliberate, accumulated deeds of your ancestors.
     
    Any parents with more than one child would surely disagree. All their children were, according to you, the products of the same deliberate, accumulated deeds of their ancestors - and yet look how differently they turned out. It's perfectly reasonable to characterize these differences as 'luck.'

    You’re responding to something no one said. Siblings, even twins, have different personalities. No one said otherwise. But that’s not the question.

    If one sibling has a good genetic inheritance, then is another sibling of the same parents likely also to have a good genetic inheritance? Yes, of course. Why? Because they both benefit from the same “deliberate, accumulated deeds of [their] ancestors.”

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    If one sibling has a good genetic inheritance, then is another sibling of the same parents likely also to have a good genetic inheritance? Yes, of course.
     
    That's the key word. Likelihood is not certainty. Even the most intelligent parents can have a dumb kid - hence 'lottery.' I don't get why this term is so objectionable.
  118. I guess by her lights white supremacy was foundational to abolition, literacy, sobriety, national parks, the SPCA, Sunday schools, hymns, the School for the Deaf, unions.

    Heck, my mom went to UT in the 50’s and blacks were not allowed in as undergrads. UT Professor Harden needs to do some serious time in the secular confessional for her forbears sins.

  119. @Jack D

    There are NOT enough people in the world to EVER do meaningful statistics on complex traits that involve >ca. 30 genes.
     
    Maybe if these were 30 truly independent variables. What are the chances that all 30 genes are completely independent of each other and don't come in clusters?

    Freud... had ... a copy of the Zohar which “taught the Jews to sacrifice Christian virgins for God’s pleasure.”[17] ….
     
    I have a copy of Mein Kampf but I'm not a genocidal maniac.

    This “new” paper starts out by largely ignoring 30 gene clusters previously identified by others. It then concentrates on 8 “new” ones. These numbers are already very close to the 40 I used as an example. Of course, the hidden assumption that there is only one gene per gene cluster that is “important” is also not a tenable assumption. If such “gene clusters” are actually “physiologically functional” clusters then it is highly likely that the function of the cluster can be impinged by many different genes, i.e. the problem grows again. Criminal conclusions based on extreme undersampling characterizes these “psychologists”.

  120. @Almost Missouri

    "Eugenics is interested in raising the genetic quality of the entire population."
     
    How do you raise the genetic quality of the entire population?

    One birth at a time.

    "People who reproduce are only interested in the quality of their own offspring – and they’re often not all that interested in even that."
     
    As already commented,

    Dumb parents + dumb hookup = dumb offspring.
     

    Eugenics, from the beginning, has always been an attempt to justify racist-supremacism. Now that techniques like CRISPR might be bought by the ultra-rich, we will have enormous enjoyment in seeing all the mental and physical cripples that are “produced” for those bastards. It will also be amusing to see who can be sucked in by the propaganda that class produces.

    Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection
    https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Eugenics, from the beginning, has always been an attempt to justify racist-supremacism."
     
    Wasn't it the other way around? Uber-accomplished Francis Galton wanted to learn how to make other people uber-accomplished like himself. So he wasn't trying to "justify" his supremacism. He was trying to spread it around.
  121. @Tyrion 2
    Being Reform, I could not be further away from the Ultra-Orthodox. It would be like comparing Episcopalians to the Amish. We sing the national anthem in services.

    Nonetheless, is the say so of 2 alienated individuals really enough? Possibly. I find the 50% number too extraordinary a claim to accept with so little evidence though. Then again, in Helmand province, Afghanistan it must be close to 100%...so anything is possible.

    My personal feeling is that Israel is the most appropriate place for Jews who reject the world to live, not London or New York.

    The same phenomenon of child abuse by a closed,secretive sect has also been documented (in trials) in many other places such as London, Melbourne, Toronto, ….. Seems to be inherent in the religion. Given the proclivities of persons such as Harvey Weinstein, the racist-supremacist abuse seems to extend to areas beyond child abuse. Telling that you are desperate to defer attention to other places/groups rather than addressing the crimes of your own sect.

    Rabbis’ absolute power: how sex abuse tore apart Australia’s Orthodox Jewish community
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/19/rabbis-absolute-power-how-sex-abuse-tore-apart-australias-orthodox-jewish-community

    Yeshivah leaders in Sydney and Melbourne chose to preserve the prestige of their faith over the safety of children. A national inquiry that reverberated around the world painted a devastating picture of how individuals were abandoned and ostracised as they fought to end the code of silence….

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    It'd be just as extraordinary to claim that there were zero child abuse in any community as it is to claim that it is 50%. Yet strangely you think it is one or the other...
  122. @hyperbola
    Eugenics, from the beginning, has always been an attempt to justify racist-supremacism. Now that techniques like CRISPR might be bought by the ultra-rich, we will have enormous enjoyment in seeing all the mental and physical cripples that are "produced" for those bastards. It will also be amusing to see who can be sucked in by the propaganda that class produces.


    Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection
    https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Eugenics-and-the-Nazis-the-California-2549771.php

    “Eugenics, from the beginning, has always been an attempt to justify racist-supremacism.”

    Wasn’t it the other way around? Uber-accomplished Francis Galton wanted to learn how to make other people uber-accomplished like himself. So he wasn’t trying to “justify” his supremacism. He was trying to spread it around.

  123. @Almost Missouri

    "Eugenics is interested in raising the genetic quality of the entire population."
     
    How do you raise the genetic quality of the entire population?

    One birth at a time.

    "People who reproduce are only interested in the quality of their own offspring – and they’re often not all that interested in even that."
     
    As already commented,

    Dumb parents + dumb hookup = dumb offspring.
     

    How do you raise the genetic quality of the entire population?

    Individuals preferring mates with valued traits does not, of itself, raise the genetic quality of the entire population. High IQ people could mate solely with high IQ people, but if dumb people are having more children, the genetic quality of the population will decrease. This is pretty basic.

  124. @Almost Missouri
    You're responding to something no one said. Siblings, even twins, have different personalities. No one said otherwise. But that's not the question.

    If one sibling has a good genetic inheritance, then is another sibling of the same parents likely also to have a good genetic inheritance? Yes, of course. Why? Because they both benefit from the same "deliberate, accumulated deeds of [their] ancestors."

    If one sibling has a good genetic inheritance, then is another sibling of the same parents likely also to have a good genetic inheritance? Yes, of course.

    That’s the key word. Likelihood is not certainty. Even the most intelligent parents can have a dumb kid – hence ‘lottery.’ I don’t get why this term is so objectionable.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I offered a witticism, not a dogma.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Because "lottery" implies that results occur by perfect randomness: the drawing of lots.

    But reality is likelihood: your ancestors did certain things to stack the deck, for or against you.

    The former is false. The latter is true.

    Any other questions?
  125. @hyperbola
    The same phenomenon of child abuse by a closed,secretive sect has also been documented (in trials) in many other places such as London, Melbourne, Toronto, ..... Seems to be inherent in the religion. Given the proclivities of persons such as Harvey Weinstein, the racist-supremacist abuse seems to extend to areas beyond child abuse. Telling that you are desperate to defer attention to other places/groups rather than addressing the crimes of your own sect.



    Rabbis' absolute power: how sex abuse tore apart Australia's Orthodox Jewish community
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/19/rabbis-absolute-power-how-sex-abuse-tore-apart-australias-orthodox-jewish-community

    Yeshivah leaders in Sydney and Melbourne chose to preserve the prestige of their faith over the safety of children. A national inquiry that reverberated around the world painted a devastating picture of how individuals were abandoned and ostracised as they fought to end the code of silence....

    It’d be just as extraordinary to claim that there were zero child abuse in any community as it is to claim that it is 50%. Yet strangely you think it is one or the other…

  126. @silviosilver

    If one sibling has a good genetic inheritance, then is another sibling of the same parents likely also to have a good genetic inheritance? Yes, of course.
     
    That's the key word. Likelihood is not certainty. Even the most intelligent parents can have a dumb kid - hence 'lottery.' I don't get why this term is so objectionable.

    I offered a witticism, not a dogma.

  127. @silviosilver

    If one sibling has a good genetic inheritance, then is another sibling of the same parents likely also to have a good genetic inheritance? Yes, of course.
     
    That's the key word. Likelihood is not certainty. Even the most intelligent parents can have a dumb kid - hence 'lottery.' I don't get why this term is so objectionable.

    Because “lottery” implies that results occur by perfect randomness: the drawing of lots.

    But reality is likelihood: your ancestors did certain things to stack the deck, for or against you.

    The former is false. The latter is true.

    Any other questions?

    • Agree: MEH 0910
  128. @Steve Sailer
    Kathryn Paige Harden

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings