The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
“Three Identical Strangers:" A Documentary About Separated-at-birth Triplets
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The reunited triplets checking out either Madonna or Rosanna Arquette in 1985’s “Desperately Seeking Susan.”

From the Times of Israel:

Sundance film festival debuts dark tale of Jewish triplets split at birth

Reunited as adults, brothers discovered they were separated in the 1960s as part of a ‘nature versus nurture’ social experiment

By FRANKIE TAGGART
20 January 2018, 1:42 pm

PARK CITY, Utah (AFP) — If it were a conspiracy thriller it would be dismissed as far-fetched, but Tim Wardell’s astonishing story of Jewish triplets separated at birth and reunited by pure chance is all too real.

His debut feature documentary “Three Identical Strangers,” which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on Friday, introduces Bobby Shafran, Eddy Galland, and David Kellman, who had no idea they were triplets until the age of 19.

But don’t expect “The Parent Trap,” for this altogether darker film shows how the trio’s joyous reunion set in motion a chain of events that unearthed a conspiracy that went far beyond their own lives. …

The triplets, it turned out, were among a number of identical siblings split up as part of a dark 1960s “nature versus nurture” social experiment led by psychoanalyst Peter Neubauer of the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services in Manhattan.

Visits by researchers throughout their childhoods were explained away as a “child development study” when in reality Neubauer was scrutinizing the brothers’ personalities and relationships with their very diverse adoptive families.

Neubauer was a Freudian psychoanalyst from Austria. From Lawrence Wright’s 2007 book Twins:

Neubauer believed at the time that twins posed such a burden to parents, and to themselves in the form of certain developmental hazards, that adopted twins were better off being raised separately, with no knowledge of their twinship.

I have a stereotype in my head that early to mid-20th Century German-speaking social scientists and psychologists had all sorts of cranky dogmas about child-raising. Freud, for example, thought the toilet training experience was incredibly important for the rest of your life. They didn’t necessarily agree with each other about whether, say, autism was caused by “refrigerator mothers” or the like, but they tended to hold their idiosyncratic prejudices with immense self-confidence. And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)

Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan’s biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes’ UCLA meteorologist in Scorsese’s “The Aviator.”

Neubauer also recognized the exceptional research possibilities such a separation offered. Studies of twins reared apart are one of the most powerful tools that scholars have to analyze the relative contributions of heredity and environment to the makeup of individual human natures. Identical twins are rare, however, and twins who have been separated and brought up in different families are particularly unusual. Neubauer was aware of a mere handful of studies examining twins reared apart, and in most cases the twins being studied had been separated for only part of their childhoods and were reunited at some point long before the study began.

Apparently, Neubauer intervened to get the four pairs of twins and these triplets separated by adoption agencies rather than wait around for adoptive parents willing to take both or all three. This didn’t seem all that dubious back then because the reigning prejudices of the time favored Nurture over Nature, so splitting them up into families where they’d have more resources from the parents because there was only one of them seemed like the right thing to do.

Today, in the wake of the famous Minnesota Twins study started by Thomas J. Bouchard, the feeling is usually that identical twins like being with their twin, even if they sometimes get on each other’s nerves due to intense sibling rivalry. (Bouchard’s study, unlike Neubauer’s more proactive and intrusive one, only looked retrospectively at “naturally-occurring” separated twins who had reunited for their own reasons.)

… The agency that placed the children shortly after their birth informed the potential adoptive parents that the girls were already involved in a study of child development, and the parents were strongly urged to continue it; however, neither the parents nor the girls themselves would ever be told that they were twins.

The records of this small study have been sealed from scientific review until 2066.

https://youtu.be/X_-plbgOa_o?t=2m54s

 
Hide 90 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)”

    Is this still a thing? I don’t particularly associate this accent with high intelligence. Not quite old enough to have seen Von Braun on tv or anything.

    If anything my attitude towards a German accent is something like: “My god, you are going to bore me to death, aren’t you?”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan's biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in "Bedtime for Bonzo." The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes' UCLA meterologist in Scorsese's "The Aviator."
    , @Steve Sailer
    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan's biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in "Bedtime for Bonzo." The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes' UCLA meterologist in Scorsese's "The Aviator."
    , @Propagandist Hacker
    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German....german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics...einstein was far from the only one...and a huge percentage of them were jewish...and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews...but they love western civilization...umm...jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ...hello? Jews are white...and they were a big part of making western civ great...
    , @Dmitry
    Because the United States got a lot of the world's smartest foreign people coming over in the 1930s-1940s, which I guess created these associations in American hearers of the accents which they were exposed to as experts speaking on television or radio.

    I guess in 1950s America, television viewers associated hearing Russian accent with people like Vladimir Nabokov (I don't know how often he was on television - but you can see him speaking English on a US TV show on YouTube).

    This association with intelligence or science would rapidly disappear once exposed to the majority of bearers of these accents in the home country, who are neither intellectuals or scientists. With the internet nowadays, these associations can be lost even for those who do not travel, as all kinds of average people are shown.

    , @harmonshoal
    Take a look at 1965's "The Flight of the Phoenix."
    , @Chrisnonymous

    Is this still a thing?
     
    Does "everyone" act like Merkel/Germany are the moral leaders of the universe?
  2. I just dropped by to post about this Sailer-bait, and you beat me to it.

  3. @Sunbeam
    "And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)"

    Is this still a thing? I don't particularly associate this accent with high intelligence. Not quite old enough to have seen Von Braun on tv or anything.

    If anything my attitude towards a German accent is something like: "My god, you are going to bore me to death, aren't you?"

    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan’s biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes’ UCLA meterologist in Scorsese’s “The Aviator.”

    • Replies: @Jimi
    There was of course Dr. Strangelove
    , @guest
    You still see the German scientist stereotype in media, but I think it's shifted to cartoons and commercials.

    Germans in movies may be Herr Docktor Professors, but they're more likely to be Nordic Supermen Villains. Who are allowed to be smart, but it's not their defining characteristic.

    , @Neoconned
    This sounds like a Mengele type experiment minus the homicidal intent. I'd the state of NY if I we're these guys.
    , @Paul Jolliffe
    Dr. Zola from "Captain America" fits. Also, Dr. Emmet Brown from "Back to the Future" was actually
    a Von Braun - they changed their names!

    https://youtu.be/KwjXPA8mZYk

    https://youtu.be/acZ_apyP81s

    , @Wency
    TV Tropes calls it Herr Doktor and has a reasonably long list of examples:

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HerrDoktor

    The cartoon Dexter's Lab was an example of how widespread the trope is. Dexter is an elementary school-aged mad scientist who inexplicably speaks in a goofy German accent despite everyone else in his family being core Americans with neutral accents. So the whole joke is just a reference to this trope.
  4. @Sunbeam
    "And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)"

    Is this still a thing? I don't particularly associate this accent with high intelligence. Not quite old enough to have seen Von Braun on tv or anything.

    If anything my attitude towards a German accent is something like: "My god, you are going to bore me to death, aren't you?"

    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan’s biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes’ UCLA meterologist in Scorsese’s “The Aviator.”

  5. There’s a book about two of the twins who discovered the situation as adults:

  6. Nothing inspires confidence in the above-boardedness of something like the records being sealed until everyone involved is dead.

    • Agree: JerryC, AndrewR
    • LOL: Bernardista
  7. German accent=Science (on the one hand) – – : – – And on the other hand – : – Science is not necessarily good, since it is always embedded in the prejudices and idiosyncracies and blind spots of it’s times: Stated oustandingly self-confident scientists with – -ehe – German accents – – since this is the program really of the Frankfurt School – and of Heidegger, in a way: Put in a nutshell, exclusively for the readers of iSteve and for the first time ever in never before seen brevity by – yours truly – – with the – – – German accent.

  8. The crazy, unethical professor / scientist was also a stock character in the short films of the USA Jewish comedy troupe The Three Stooges, such as ‘A Bird in the Head’ from 1946

  9. “refrigerator mothers”

    I thought Bruno Bettelheim had been unpersoned, but I see from Amazon that several of his books are still in print.

  10. @Sunbeam
    "And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)"

    Is this still a thing? I don't particularly associate this accent with high intelligence. Not quite old enough to have seen Von Braun on tv or anything.

    If anything my attitude towards a German accent is something like: "My god, you are going to bore me to death, aren't you?"

    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German….german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics…einstein was far from the only one…and a huge percentage of them were jewish…and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews…but they love western civilization…umm…jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ…hello? Jews are white…and they were a big part of making western civ great…

    • Replies: @JollyOldSoul
    and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews…but they love western civilization…umm…jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ…hello?

    I dunno. I suppose it depends on which alt-righter you're talking to. I don't hate Jews. I hate certain aspects of Jewish culture, such as their open borders insanity, and their belief in their own right to an ethnice identity but that no one else has a similar right.
    , @Anonymous
    Many Jewish doctors , scientists, etc contributed positively to Western science, no one disputes this. But other Jewish influences were often destructive. With no Jews, we would have ended up at the same place, maybe not as fast.
    , @Allen
    There are definitely some dailystormer types who think Jews are to blame for all evils, but I think most alt-righters are just angry about the Jewish double standard. Jews frequently portray themselves as "fellow white people" when convenient and then portray themselves as an oppressed minority group when its benefits them.

    Thus you get some Jewish figures on both sides of the aisle condemning "white privilege" and then shouting anti-semitism when you point out how many Jews are in politics/news/movie studios. Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel's border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you "fascist" for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.

    Having said that, not all Jews fall into this category and any rational alt-righter has to be grateful for people like Stephen Miller, Paul Gottfried, and Ron Unz.
    , @Lurker
    If jews were somehow removed from the equation then some areas of science might not be as advanced but all those fields of study would still exist.

    Remove whites from the equation, which IS what is happening and I fear it will be game over for civilisation as we see it. And the biggest cheerleaders and enablers of our removal would appear to be jews themselves.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I don't dislike Jews. In fact, I'd say I'm philo-Semitic.

    On the other hand, I disagree about Jews contributions to western civ. They contributed a lot to modern life, but there is a certain extent to which modernity and western civ are in tension, and much of what Jews contributed has actually been erosive to western civ.

    I'm not saying Jewishness and western civ are at odds. I suspect the situation is largely due to the fact that modernity freed up Jewish ability.
    , @Percy Gryce

    modern science, which is a huge part of western civ
     
    Meh. I look at it more like frosting on the cake.
  11. Sick [email protected]#$. Reminds me how awful the 60’s were and how we have never recovered from it.

  12. • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Disney's "Trip to the Moon" must be responsible for lots of boys getting interested in science.
    , @prosa123
    Stanley Kubrick based the Dr. Strangelove character on a composite of four scientists: Edward Teller, Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, and Werner von Braun. Von Braun was the only German among the four. Kahn was born in New Jersey, while Teller and von Neumann were Hungarian. The character's voice was modeled after that of Arthur "Weegee" Fellig, who was from what is now Ukraine.

    One common misconception is that Kubrick also based the character on Henry Kissinger. At the time, Kissinger was not widely known outside of academic circles.

    Trivia: when John von Neumann was on his deathbed with cancer at a military hospital only people with security clearances were allowed to attend him, out of fears that he would blurt out secrets in his delirium.
  13. Moose knuckles

  14. @Sunbeam
    "And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)"

    Is this still a thing? I don't particularly associate this accent with high intelligence. Not quite old enough to have seen Von Braun on tv or anything.

    If anything my attitude towards a German accent is something like: "My god, you are going to bore me to death, aren't you?"

    Because the United States got a lot of the world’s smartest foreign people coming over in the 1930s-1940s, which I guess created these associations in American hearers of the accents which they were exposed to as experts speaking on television or radio.

    I guess in 1950s America, television viewers associated hearing Russian accent with people like Vladimir Nabokov (I don’t know how often he was on television – but you can see him speaking English on a US TV show on YouTube).

    This association with intelligence or science would rapidly disappear once exposed to the majority of bearers of these accents in the home country, who are neither intellectuals or scientists. With the internet nowadays, these associations can be lost even for those who do not travel, as all kinds of average people are shown.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Kissinger was a guy who sounded really smart. Came over in '38.
  15. I thought the Minnesota Twins study was going to be about Rod Carew and Bert Blyleven.

    • Replies: @Marty
    The twins haven't been the same since they got rid of Vic Power.
  16. What is the state of German science today? I don’t hear much about it and that concerns me for the future of the world…

    • Replies: @Stephen Marle

    What is the state of German science today? I don’t hear much about it and that concerns me for the future of the world…
     
    Weren't the Germans involved in that potentially earth-destroying, black-hole producing Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland? Which I think is the answer to the Fermi paradox.
  17. @Steve Sailer
    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan's biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in "Bedtime for Bonzo." The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes' UCLA meterologist in Scorsese's "The Aviator."

    There was of course Dr. Strangelove

  18. If you read about what Dr. James Money got away with, we should probably be thankful there aren’t more New Zealand social scientists out and about.

  19. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Disney’s “Trip to the Moon” must be responsible for lots of boys getting interested in science.

  20. I recently observed two young women who were identical twins. I consider myself a strong hereditarian but was genuinely surprised by how different they seemed.

    Their voices and mannerisms were different. Without either one having marred looks, their faces seemed different. I don’t know whether it was an illusion or not – they styled their hair differently. But I thought the bone structure was subtly but obviously different. Initially, I thought they were just sisters that closely resembled each other.

    Having said all that I imagine that they were statistically very similar, in an economic or social sense.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Identical twins generally have somewhat different personalities.
    , @Triumph104
    From a 1999 article:


    But twin expert Nancy Segal says some identical twins don't look alike, while many fraternal twins do. Everything from nutrition to how twins are positioned inside the mother before birth can cause noticeable differences. ...

    Segal's own study found that 67 percent of delivering doctors have been wrong in their determination of whether twins were identical or fraternal, she says.
     
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/double-life-identical-or-not/
    , @william munny
    How can you be sure they are identical and not fraternal? There are a significant fraction of people who think they are identical twins who actually are fraternal twins. Many parents don't really understand the difference, nor do people in general. Parents of boy/girl twins laugh about the number of times they are asked if the twins are identical.
  21. @songbird
    I recently observed two young women who were identical twins. I consider myself a strong hereditarian but was genuinely surprised by how different they seemed.

    Their voices and mannerisms were different. Without either one having marred looks, their faces seemed different. I don't know whether it was an illusion or not - they styled their hair differently. But I thought the bone structure was subtly but obviously different. Initially, I thought they were just sisters that closely resembled each other.

    Having said all that I imagine that they were statistically very similar, in an economic or social sense.

    Identical twins generally have somewhat different personalities.

  22. @Dmitry
    Because the United States got a lot of the world's smartest foreign people coming over in the 1930s-1940s, which I guess created these associations in American hearers of the accents which they were exposed to as experts speaking on television or radio.

    I guess in 1950s America, television viewers associated hearing Russian accent with people like Vladimir Nabokov (I don't know how often he was on television - but you can see him speaking English on a US TV show on YouTube).

    This association with intelligence or science would rapidly disappear once exposed to the majority of bearers of these accents in the home country, who are neither intellectuals or scientists. With the internet nowadays, these associations can be lost even for those who do not travel, as all kinds of average people are shown.

    Kissinger was a guy who sounded really smart. Came over in ’38.

    • Replies: @Realist
    "Kissinger was a guy who sounded really smart. Came over in ’38."

    Key word...sounded.
  23. It seems like there would have been double-blind problems unless the visiting researchers didn’t know exactly why the kids were being researched. I’ve always suspected that some of the crazier stories about the identical habits of separated twins, such as Stephen Pinker tells, are influenced by the researcher. “By the way, do you like to swirl your finger three times around the rim of your glass and say the word dachshund before drinking A&W root beer at 3:00 p.m.?” “What?! … uh, yeah, I guess, whatever.” “Check!”

    At any rate, this separation doesn’t seem all that dark to me. There are good reasons to do it either way. At the end of the day, the worst thing for the kids is that they won’t be raised by their natural parents. But if you’re making a documentary, or writing a long-form piece of “journalism,” you have to have your narrative, in three acts.

    • Replies: @jon

    At any rate, this separation doesn’t seem all that dark to me.
     
    The darkness depends a lot on the specifics of the separation (which nobody will apparently know in any of our lifetimes).

    The levels of depravity:
    1. The natural parents were actually encouraged to give the kids up for adoption "for science." This is a one-way-ticket-no-waiting-in-line trip to hell as far as I am concerned.
    2. Parents were giving the kids up without encouragement, but the potential adoptive parents were discouraged from taking all three kids. Still gets you to hell, but probably not line-cutting privileges when you arrive.
    3. Parents were out of the picture, no one was willing to take all three, but the adoptive parents were specifically chosen because they differed from each other as opposed to being chosen because they were considered the best choice. Significantly less concerning than one or two, because who really knows who will make good parents anyway.

    On top of these, you also have to add in the whole Truman-show lives that these people led. And the late-life trauma once you found out the truth. Imagine growing up alone, only to discover that you had two brothers all along -- and everyone but you knew that the whole time.

    Pretty dark by my standards. And the fact that no one gets to know any of the details until everyone involved is dead and gone suggests that the truth is closer to option 1 than option 3.
  24. @Anonymous
    What is the state of German science today? I don’t hear much about it and that concerns me for the future of the world…

    What is the state of German science today? I don’t hear much about it and that concerns me for the future of the world…

    Weren’t the Germans involved in that potentially earth-destroying, black-hole producing Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland? Which I think is the answer to the Fermi paradox.

  25. I’m not feeling that title. “Identical Strangers” sounds better, but I suppose it would make people think twins. “Identical Triple Strangers” is stupid.

    I’ll work on it.

    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    How about Perfect Identical Strangers? Nah. Just an excuse to link to a great Deep Purple song.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_kez7WVUU
  26. @Steve Sailer
    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan's biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in "Bedtime for Bonzo." The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes' UCLA meterologist in Scorsese's "The Aviator."

    You still see the German scientist stereotype in media, but I think it’s shifted to cartoons and commercials.

    Germans in movies may be Herr Docktor Professors, but they’re more likely to be Nordic Supermen Villains. Who are allowed to be smart, but it’s not their defining characteristic.

  27. @Propagandist Hacker
    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German....german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics...einstein was far from the only one...and a huge percentage of them were jewish...and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews...but they love western civilization...umm...jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ...hello? Jews are white...and they were a big part of making western civ great...

    and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews…but they love western civilization…umm…jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ…hello?

    I dunno. I suppose it depends on which alt-righter you’re talking to. I don’t hate Jews. I hate certain aspects of Jewish culture, such as their open borders insanity, and their belief in their own right to an ethnice identity but that no one else has a similar right.

  28. Bruce/David Reimer was an identical twin whose penis was destroyed during a circumcision procedure. An unfortunate decision was made to raise him as a girl.

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

    My favorite professor to appear in a movie was Canadian not German — Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall. McLuhan and his wife had six children including a set of twins.

  29. SPOILER?

    Despite having IQs of 148, two of the triplets attended community college and the third attended a four-year college that was open admission. He and another triplet didn’t start college until age 19, with one of them having been convicted of manslaughter “for his part in a robbery in which an 83-year-old woman was beaten to death with a crowbar”

    http://people.com/archive/what-happens-when-three-young-men-find-out-theyre-triplets-its-not-as-simple-as-1-2-3-vol-14-no-15/

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. And, I mean, honestly, who hasn't wanted to beat an 83 year old to death with a crowbar. Right?
  30. @Propagandist Hacker
    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German....german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics...einstein was far from the only one...and a huge percentage of them were jewish...and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews...but they love western civilization...umm...jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ...hello? Jews are white...and they were a big part of making western civ great...

    Many Jewish doctors , scientists, etc contributed positively to Western science, no one disputes this. But other Jewish influences were often destructive. With no Jews, we would have ended up at the same place, maybe not as fast.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    You're saying, basically the jews make no difference - so what's the problem? That you like things a little bit slower (don't move too fast - / don't you want our love to last/ just/ put up a buch of pebble stones/ we're looking for fun/ 'n' feeling: Groovy - - oh: A Jew wrote that, didn't he? - puh life's complicated.
    I , huuh.
  31. @songbird
    I recently observed two young women who were identical twins. I consider myself a strong hereditarian but was genuinely surprised by how different they seemed.

    Their voices and mannerisms were different. Without either one having marred looks, their faces seemed different. I don't know whether it was an illusion or not - they styled their hair differently. But I thought the bone structure was subtly but obviously different. Initially, I thought they were just sisters that closely resembled each other.

    Having said all that I imagine that they were statistically very similar, in an economic or social sense.

    From a 1999 article:

    But twin expert Nancy Segal says some identical twins don’t look alike, while many fraternal twins do. Everything from nutrition to how twins are positioned inside the mother before birth can cause noticeable differences. …

    Segal’s own study found that 67 percent of delivering doctors have been wrong in their determination of whether twins were identical or fraternal, she says.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/double-life-identical-or-not/

  32. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Stanley Kubrick based the Dr. Strangelove character on a composite of four scientists: Edward Teller, Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, and Werner von Braun. Von Braun was the only German among the four. Kahn was born in New Jersey, while Teller and von Neumann were Hungarian. The character’s voice was modeled after that of Arthur “Weegee” Fellig, who was from what is now Ukraine.

    One common misconception is that Kubrick also based the character on Henry Kissinger. At the time, Kissinger was not widely known outside of academic circles.

    Trivia: when John von Neumann was on his deathbed with cancer at a military hospital only people with security clearances were allowed to attend him, out of fears that he would blurt out secrets in his delirium.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Herman ... Kahn was born in New Jersey
     
    More specifically Bayonne, just like Barney Frank and George RR Martin. Talk about a triumverate.
    , @J.Ross
    There was a comedy cartoon on VH-1 satirizing popstar scandals. When it came time to do the Jewish pedophile who prematurely introduced Justin Timberlake to stardom and manhood, the writers decided the best angle would be that of a German-accented gentile white supremacist whose boy band was to be a representation of Arische stammheit. Then again Afred Hitchcock fictionalized the Leopold and Loeb case with a para-Nazi who liked to quote Nietzsche and who gets caught by moral, upright Jews who explicitly compare him to Hitlerites.
    Kind of funny how, in Hollywood, white people are guilty of everything Jews ever did.
  33. I saw some isteve bait recently:

    The 2016 mathematics winner of the new, richer nobel prize created by tech billionaires is someone who seems to be a goy-american and native californian:

    The 2016 prize was announced in November 2015, and it was made to:

    Ian Agol – For spectacular contributions to low dimensional topology and geometric group theory, including work on the solutions of the tameness, virtually Haken and virtual fibering conjectures

    .

    When asked what hed do it he weren’t a mathematician, he pointed out that his identical twin brother, Eric, is an astrophysicist. Oh.

    Eric attended Berkeley for undergrad while Ian went to Cal Tech. The latter said he was planning on majoring in physics, but it wasn’t going too great when he had stacked an ambitious slate of upper level classes his sophomore year. He also realized he had no affinity for lab science.

    Cal Tech: where Fields-level mathematicians learn they’re not quite the best in particular high-bandwidth mathy fields/subfields (but also learn what they can do better than other 99.999 percentile math students)

  34. @Propagandist Hacker
    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German....german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics...einstein was far from the only one...and a huge percentage of them were jewish...and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews...but they love western civilization...umm...jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ...hello? Jews are white...and they were a big part of making western civ great...

    There are definitely some dailystormer types who think Jews are to blame for all evils, but I think most alt-righters are just angry about the Jewish double standard. Jews frequently portray themselves as “fellow white people” when convenient and then portray themselves as an oppressed minority group when its benefits them.

    Thus you get some Jewish figures on both sides of the aisle condemning “white privilege” and then shouting anti-semitism when you point out how many Jews are in politics/news/movie studios. Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.

    Having said that, not all Jews fall into this category and any rational alt-righter has to be grateful for people like Stephen Miller, Paul Gottfried, and Ron Unz.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.
     
    I have yet to see any Jews support border restriction in Israel, but not in the US.

    I have seen plenty of American Jewish people (as mentioned on this blog) who support open immigration in the US - but I would imagine this demographic would lean the same way on issues to with illegal immigration in Israel (those that think or know about it at all - and some of them have been pretty vocal on this).

    This 'double-standard' claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists, without supporting evidence having been presented to me. What is true is that much of the American Jewish demographic have been infected/indoctrinated to a large extent by fanatical social liberalism as relates to immigration (and also various other issues, like abortion, birth control, gender fluidity, post-colonialism, etc). And they generally practice what they preach when it comes to their liberalism (e.g. birth control - secular American Jewish women have fertility rates far below replacement levels).

  35. @prosa123
    Stanley Kubrick based the Dr. Strangelove character on a composite of four scientists: Edward Teller, Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, and Werner von Braun. Von Braun was the only German among the four. Kahn was born in New Jersey, while Teller and von Neumann were Hungarian. The character's voice was modeled after that of Arthur "Weegee" Fellig, who was from what is now Ukraine.

    One common misconception is that Kubrick also based the character on Henry Kissinger. At the time, Kissinger was not widely known outside of academic circles.

    Trivia: when John von Neumann was on his deathbed with cancer at a military hospital only people with security clearances were allowed to attend him, out of fears that he would blurt out secrets in his delirium.

    Herman … Kahn was born in New Jersey

    More specifically Bayonne, just like Barney Frank and George RR Martin. Talk about a triumverate.

  36. Here’s a movie both with twins and a German accent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_(1988_film)

  37. @prosa123
    Stanley Kubrick based the Dr. Strangelove character on a composite of four scientists: Edward Teller, Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, and Werner von Braun. Von Braun was the only German among the four. Kahn was born in New Jersey, while Teller and von Neumann were Hungarian. The character's voice was modeled after that of Arthur "Weegee" Fellig, who was from what is now Ukraine.

    One common misconception is that Kubrick also based the character on Henry Kissinger. At the time, Kissinger was not widely known outside of academic circles.

    Trivia: when John von Neumann was on his deathbed with cancer at a military hospital only people with security clearances were allowed to attend him, out of fears that he would blurt out secrets in his delirium.

    There was a comedy cartoon on VH-1 satirizing popstar scandals. When it came time to do the Jewish pedophile who prematurely introduced Justin Timberlake to stardom and manhood, the writers decided the best angle would be that of a German-accented gentile white supremacist whose boy band was to be a representation of Arische stammheit. Then again Afred Hitchcock fictionalized the Leopold and Loeb case with a para-Nazi who liked to quote Nietzsche and who gets caught by moral, upright Jews who explicitly compare him to Hitlerites.
    Kind of funny how, in Hollywood, white people are guilty of everything Jews ever did.

  38. “It’s pronounced Fronk-in-steen!

  39. @Allen
    There are definitely some dailystormer types who think Jews are to blame for all evils, but I think most alt-righters are just angry about the Jewish double standard. Jews frequently portray themselves as "fellow white people" when convenient and then portray themselves as an oppressed minority group when its benefits them.

    Thus you get some Jewish figures on both sides of the aisle condemning "white privilege" and then shouting anti-semitism when you point out how many Jews are in politics/news/movie studios. Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel's border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you "fascist" for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.

    Having said that, not all Jews fall into this category and any rational alt-righter has to be grateful for people like Stephen Miller, Paul Gottfried, and Ron Unz.

    Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.

    I have yet to see any Jews support border restriction in Israel, but not in the US.

    I have seen plenty of American Jewish people (as mentioned on this blog) who support open immigration in the US – but I would imagine this demographic would lean the same way on issues to with illegal immigration in Israel (those that think or know about it at all – and some of them have been pretty vocal on this).

    This ‘double-standard’ claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists, without supporting evidence having been presented to me. What is true is that much of the American Jewish demographic have been infected/indoctrinated to a large extent by fanatical social liberalism as relates to immigration (and also various other issues, like abortion, birth control, gender fluidity, post-colonialism, etc). And they generally practice what they preach when it comes to their liberalism (e.g. birth control – secular American Jewish women have fertility rates far below replacement levels).

    • Replies: @biz
    You're correct of course, but pointing that out here is like pissing into the wind.

    Hell, there was one time here when a Jewish pundit who writes for freaking Mondoweiss was assumed to be pro-Israel, and no amount of pointing out that not only is Mondoweiss a virulently anti-Israel website but is actually linked on Unz's blogroll on the right and literally one click could lead to familiarity with such made any difference.
    , @Zimriel
    Dmitry: Lots of Jews (mainly lower-to-middle class, but also Israeli expats) support restricting immigration against populations hostile to Jews, which correlate highly with populations hostile to whites. Unfortunately they (we) are not represented in the Left elite. They / we have our own social-circles which have some contact with the Left elite, but not as much as you'd think.
    , @utu

    This ‘double-standard’ claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists
     
    I think you are writing from Israel, right? This might explain why you may believe it. Unlike Israelis the diaspora Jews must navigate more complex reality between mimicry, assimilation, Jewish identity and Zionism. The apparent contradiction in support for wall in Israel and support for multiethnic society where they reside is, well, only apparent. Wall in Israel and no wall in country they live maximizes their benefit (not just perceived but real) function.
    , @AndrewR
    The evidence is abundant and you seem disingenuous.

    I have a policy that saves me time and energy: whenever I doubt someone's intellectual sincerity, I ask them to tell me exactly what evidence they would need to see in order to change their mind.

    So I ask you, before I spend my precious time citing evidence of the countless yehudim/goyim double-standards, what would you need to see that would make you admit that the "conspiracy theorists" might be onto something?

    , @songbird
    I think there is an implicitly different rhetoric when it comes to open borders Jews.

    To Europe: "I think they should take in the poor refugee children fleeing the warzone."
    To Israel: "I don't believe in the idea of a God-given claim."

    That last isn't designed to pull on the heartstrings. It is just an acknowledgement of atheism, which, if you know the person, can probably already be assumed, and so is quite meaningless. It's more vapid virtue-signaling than anything else. Oh, don't get me wrong: most of this stuff is subconscious. It's just that some Jews have a subconscious animus to gentiles. And this just does not apply to other groups, including themselves.

    For instance, one Facebook friend who voiced both of the above sentiments, on the occasion of Charlottesville, said "These are the people who burned my ancestors.". If that is not a historical grudge, I don't know what is. And he was only half a Jew. All this stuff is a spectrum though. And it probably helps that Israel is a small country. One can more easily delude themselves about how Europe or the US can integrate millions of people.
  40. My cousin was an identical twin separated at birth and did not know until much later that he had a twin.

    What happened was that my aunt lost a baby and for some reason though she would never be able to have a child. My mother, who was a midwife, informed her sister that at the hospital there was a single woman who had given birth to identical twins that were in need of adoption.

    “Ooh, I will take one of those!” said my aunt, so next day she showed up at the hospital and offered to take one of the infants, and in fact had her pick of the litter, so to speak. And soon the deed was done.

    Many years later my cousin met his twin and they were both part of a study of twins separated at birth. My cousin married and had 5 children.

    This all took place 72 years ago, and these things were a little more casual then and World War II had caused massive population disruptions and a shortage of housing.

  41. @Dmitry

    Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.
     
    I have yet to see any Jews support border restriction in Israel, but not in the US.

    I have seen plenty of American Jewish people (as mentioned on this blog) who support open immigration in the US - but I would imagine this demographic would lean the same way on issues to with illegal immigration in Israel (those that think or know about it at all - and some of them have been pretty vocal on this).

    This 'double-standard' claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists, without supporting evidence having been presented to me. What is true is that much of the American Jewish demographic have been infected/indoctrinated to a large extent by fanatical social liberalism as relates to immigration (and also various other issues, like abortion, birth control, gender fluidity, post-colonialism, etc). And they generally practice what they preach when it comes to their liberalism (e.g. birth control - secular American Jewish women have fertility rates far below replacement levels).

    You’re correct of course, but pointing that out here is like pissing into the wind.

    Hell, there was one time here when a Jewish pundit who writes for freaking Mondoweiss was assumed to be pro-Israel, and no amount of pointing out that not only is Mondoweiss a virulently anti-Israel website but is actually linked on Unz’s blogroll on the right and literally one click could lead to familiarity with such made any difference.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    You’re correct of course, but pointing that out here is like pissing into the wind.

    Hell, there was one time here when a Jewish pundit who writes for freaking Mondoweiss was assumed to be pro-Israel, and no amount of pointing out that not only is Mondoweiss a virulently anti-Israel website but is actually linked on Unz’s blogroll on the right and literally one click could lead to familiarity with such made any difference.
     

    It seems to be one of the pet conspiracy theories of the guy writing this blog, as well as multiple commentators.

    I guess you could believe if it, if all you read are various blog posts on the internet.

    The reason it's comic to me, is given how strong the liberalism movement is in Israel itself, how much of the mainstream media in Israel support illegal immigrants, how much funding there has been specifically for NGOs working against deporting illegal immigrants in Israel, how many times the Supreme Court has blocked any attempts to get them to leave. And all the other infuriating details.

    All of which would be impossible according to the conspiracy theory (which also seems to completely misunderstand that people who advocate liberal politics - actually believe in this stuff).

    In Israel, there is the New Israel Fund (American Jews funding it to $30 million a year), the EU, Ford Foundation, much of the Israeli media, (and now various American Jewish groups, and celebrities including Sarah Silverman's sister), who have been effectively and successfully working to keep illegal immigrants from being deported, despite the rape and crime wave they've brought to Israel.

    Afterall American Jewish money is even funding the infiltrators to learn Hebrew in Israel:

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

  42. “I thought Bruno Bettelheim had been unpersoned…”

    Bettelheim should not be unpersoned. He should be held up as an example of an evil person.

  43. • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    They aged better than Madonna.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Yikes! They look like Amerimutt, aka Le 56% Face:

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/313/674/6dc.png
  44. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “What is the state of German science today?”

    List of countries by research and development spending:

    Germany spends nearly the same per capita on R&D as the US ($1,351.1 vs $1,442.51).

    Germany is ranked 4th in the world for R&D spending ($109 billion), behind the US, China, the EU, and Japan.

    Science and technology in Germany:

    “…The raw output of scientific research from Germany consistently ranks among the world’s best. Germany was named the second most innovative country in the world in the 2015 Bloomberg Innovation Index, and consistently manages to be in the top three…”

  45. @biz
    You're correct of course, but pointing that out here is like pissing into the wind.

    Hell, there was one time here when a Jewish pundit who writes for freaking Mondoweiss was assumed to be pro-Israel, and no amount of pointing out that not only is Mondoweiss a virulently anti-Israel website but is actually linked on Unz's blogroll on the right and literally one click could lead to familiarity with such made any difference.

    You’re correct of course, but pointing that out here is like pissing into the wind.

    Hell, there was one time here when a Jewish pundit who writes for freaking Mondoweiss was assumed to be pro-Israel, and no amount of pointing out that not only is Mondoweiss a virulently anti-Israel website but is actually linked on Unz’s blogroll on the right and literally one click could lead to familiarity with such made any difference.

    It seems to be one of the pet conspiracy theories of the guy writing this blog, as well as multiple commentators.

    I guess you could believe if it, if all you read are various blog posts on the internet.

    The reason it’s comic to me, is given how strong the liberalism movement is in Israel itself, how much of the mainstream media in Israel support illegal immigrants, how much funding there has been specifically for NGOs working against deporting illegal immigrants in Israel, how many times the Supreme Court has blocked any attempts to get them to leave. And all the other infuriating details.

    All of which would be impossible according to the conspiracy theory (which also seems to completely misunderstand that people who advocate liberal politics – actually believe in this stuff).

    In Israel, there is the New Israel Fund (American Jews funding it to $30 million a year), the EU, Ford Foundation, much of the Israeli media, (and now various American Jewish groups, and celebrities including Sarah Silverman’s sister), who have been effectively and successfully working to keep illegal immigrants from being deported, despite the rape and crime wave they’ve brought to Israel.

    Afterall American Jewish money is even funding the infiltrators to learn Hebrew in Israel:

  46. Monozygotic twins actually have three parents, at least one of whom is dead.

    In order to give the full context of this interesting sidebar, I would like to deal first with an expression oft cited in pro-life circles, viz. that “Life begins at conception.” The sentiment here expressed is easy enough to understand, but the statement as formulated is incorrect on technical grounds. It is not my intention to dissolve the pro-life position (with which I agree), but to rescue it from the vagueness with which it is afflicted and place it on an unassailable theoretical foundation.

    If the statement that life begins at conception (LBAC) is wrong, it becomes necessary to ask when it does begin. The first part of the answer must involve the recognition that there is a sense in which life does not begin at all, i.e. is without beginning. A strict interpretation of LBAC would entail that only the diploid stage of human existence could indeed be described as living and the haploid stages (spermatozoa and ova) aren’t alive at all. This of course is not the case. Life flows on from parent to child in a continuous stream of cytoplasm from whence new individuals now and again arise. The living stream is epistemologically endless, as is the world itself.

    But we know that it is the act of individuation to which LBAC really refers and in that sense it is correct, but not completely so. Certainly a new individual begins at conception, but not only then. For new individuals also begin at twinning events, and it remains to discuss the relation of these to the former.

    Haploid stages are alive but they are not the substantial forms of individuals. They are extensions of the vital force of the parents which unite to form a new body. The fertilized zygote, however, becomes an individual from the moment of conception and from that moment on is the substantial form of a human being with a body of its own. Thus, all forms of chemical or mechanical birth control which prevent the implantation of the fertilized zygote are in fact instruments of homicide—there is no other word for it.

    The destruction of haploids does not destroy an individual body and thus is not homicide, but in the case of twinning something entirely different is going on. For here we have a zygote or blastocyst which already is an individual dividing into two (or more) other individuals. When twins are produced by an act of division, neither one of them is identical to the substance of the undivided, first body. Nor can we say that the substance of the first body divided itself between the two of them, for substances are simple and monadic and cannot be mechanically or even conceptually partitioned. And yet the undivided first body was a human being whose fate must be decided somehow. What has happened to that human being? The only answer is that he has ceased to be. That person has perished; that person is no more.

    Therefore it can be truly said that monozygotic twins have not two but three parents—the mother, the father, and the undivided first body—the latter of whom died in the act of begetting them. The correct formulation of LBAC is “Not life but individuation begins at either conception or division,” i.e. the events at which new bodies arise, the destruction of which in all cases constitutes homicide. Monozygotic twins have a moral duty under the 4th Commandment to mourn for the lost parent and to pray for his or her soul, the same as they would for their mother and father.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The destruction of haploids does not destroy an individual body and thus is not homicide, but in the case of twinning something entirely different is going on. For here we have a zygote or blastocyst which already is an individual dividing into two (or more) other individuals. When twins are produced by an act of division, neither one of them is identical to the substance of the undivided, first body. Nor can we say that the substance of the first body divided itself between the two of them, for substances are simple and monadic and cannot be mechanically or even conceptually partitioned. And yet the undivided first body was a human being whose fate must be decided somehow. What has happened to that human being? The only answer is that he has ceased to be. That person has perished; that person is no more.

    Therefore it can be truly said that monozygotic twins have not two but three parents—the mother, the father, and the undivided first body—the latter of whom died in the act of begetting them. The correct formulation of LBAC is “Not life but individuation begins at either conception or division,” i.e. the events at which new bodies arise, the destruction of which in all cases constitutes homicide. Monozygotic twins have a moral duty under the 4th Commandment to mourn for the lost parent and to pray for his or her soul, the same as they would for their mother and father.
     
    I always thought that proliferism based on life-begins-at-conception was bogus because, provided He exists and chooses to interfere in uterusly affairs, inasmuh as many fertilized eggs never implant and are perioded out: therefore God becomes Public Abortionist Number One.

    Now we have a Heaven populated by the souls of divided zygotes. I feel like a hard hat diver diving a water tower tank and looking at the ground through a window on the bottom.
    , @MEH 0910

    Life flows on from parent to child in a continuous stream of cytoplasm from whence new individuals now and again arise. The living stream is epistemologically endless, as is the world itself.
     

    They are extensions of the vital force of the parents which unite to form a new body.
     
    Are you an old timey vitalist who doesn't give credence to genetics? You must give some credence to genetics since you refer to the haploid and diploid stages. Is there such a thing as a cytoplasmist?

    From a John Derbyshire 2010 science piece:

    This month's other genome story concerned the opposite end of the complexity scale, and points us to the future rather than the past. Craig Venter and his colleagues put together a genome from scratch, using off-the-shelf chemicals. They swapped it for the genome of a living organism, a wee one-celled asexual critter named Mycoplasma capricolum (which, as its name suggests, causes goats to feel unwell). Then they put the transformed cells on dishes of jelly and waited for them to reproduce. The cells did so, very happily, and there are now several billion individuals of this new organism with its made-up genome. (A cell contains much more than a genome; but all the other bits are templated in the genome, and after a few dozen generations Dr. Venter's invented genome was calling the cell-construction shots.)

    There has been much quibbling about whether Venter and Co. have actually "created life." The quibblers are fighting a rearguard action, though — one they actually began fighting eight years ago, when a different group synthesized a virus. The quibblers had a good case then — viruses are more like non-life than life — but they have a much weaker case now, and after another milestone or two along this path, they will have no case at all.

    And quibbles aside, this is a real milestone. As The Economist put it:

    Life's essence is information. Heretofore that information has been passed from one living thing to another. Now it does not have to be.
     
    Dr. Venter's new organism, whatever they decide to call it (may I register a vote against the proposed Mycoplasma laboratorium?) has no ancestors. Of no living — energy-processing, spontaneously-reproducing — thing has that been true for three or four billion years on our planet, so far as we know.
     
  47. @guest
    I'm not feeling that title. "Identical Strangers" sounds better, but I suppose it would make people think twins. "Identical Triple Strangers" is stupid.

    I'll work on it.

    How about Perfect Identical Strangers? Nah. Just an excuse to link to a great Deep Purple song.

  48. Freud should have just jumped right into Biblical scholarship, because when he finally got into that at the end of his life he made some real contributions. [link on name]

    Freud was an intelligent and original thinker, and a brilliant student of Judaism. He just wasn’t a psychologist.

  49. @Dmitry

    Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.
     
    I have yet to see any Jews support border restriction in Israel, but not in the US.

    I have seen plenty of American Jewish people (as mentioned on this blog) who support open immigration in the US - but I would imagine this demographic would lean the same way on issues to with illegal immigration in Israel (those that think or know about it at all - and some of them have been pretty vocal on this).

    This 'double-standard' claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists, without supporting evidence having been presented to me. What is true is that much of the American Jewish demographic have been infected/indoctrinated to a large extent by fanatical social liberalism as relates to immigration (and also various other issues, like abortion, birth control, gender fluidity, post-colonialism, etc). And they generally practice what they preach when it comes to their liberalism (e.g. birth control - secular American Jewish women have fertility rates far below replacement levels).

    Dmitry: Lots of Jews (mainly lower-to-middle class, but also Israeli expats) support restricting immigration against populations hostile to Jews, which correlate highly with populations hostile to whites. Unfortunately they (we) are not represented in the Left elite. They / we have our own social-circles which have some contact with the Left elite, but not as much as you’d think.

  50. @MEH 0910
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5291387/Sundance-debuts-dark-tale-triplets-split-birth.html

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2018/01/20/19/wire-2116814-1516475707-71_634x442.jpg

    They aged better than Madonna.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Madge hasn't aged especially poorly. I'd say she's doing better than Chrissie, whose face has really fallen apart probably due to 50 years of not eating dead critters. Long term vegetarians, especially female, pay a price.
  51. @Dmitry

    Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.
     
    I have yet to see any Jews support border restriction in Israel, but not in the US.

    I have seen plenty of American Jewish people (as mentioned on this blog) who support open immigration in the US - but I would imagine this demographic would lean the same way on issues to with illegal immigration in Israel (those that think or know about it at all - and some of them have been pretty vocal on this).

    This 'double-standard' claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists, without supporting evidence having been presented to me. What is true is that much of the American Jewish demographic have been infected/indoctrinated to a large extent by fanatical social liberalism as relates to immigration (and also various other issues, like abortion, birth control, gender fluidity, post-colonialism, etc). And they generally practice what they preach when it comes to their liberalism (e.g. birth control - secular American Jewish women have fertility rates far below replacement levels).

    This ‘double-standard’ claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists

    I think you are writing from Israel, right? This might explain why you may believe it. Unlike Israelis the diaspora Jews must navigate more complex reality between mimicry, assimilation, Jewish identity and Zionism. The apparent contradiction in support for wall in Israel and support for multiethnic society where they reside is, well, only apparent. Wall in Israel and no wall in country they live maximizes their benefit (not just perceived but real) function.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I think you are writing from Israel, right?
     
    I have Israeli citizenship (Teudat Zehut) - but not Israeli passport as I was there for under one year.

    I have a good overview on all these issues and understand all relevant languages, different cultures, knowledge about different religions, and political scenes. My viewpoint is a lot more informed than the average blogging people.


    This might explain why you may believe it. Unlike Israelis the diaspora Jews must navigate more complex reality between mimicry, assimilation, Jewish identity and Zionism. The apparent contradiction in support for wall in Israel and support for multiethnic society where they reside is, well, only apparent. Wall in Israel and no wall in country they live maximizes their benefit (not just perceived but real) function.
     
    The point is that there is no such double-phenomenon.

    People that support open immigration in the US are the same people who support it in Israel. They legitimately believe in open immigration and think it is wonderful. They might theoretically have been told that Israel is supposed to be a Jewish state, but the liberal American synagogues do $30 million a year funding the New Israel Fund - which tries to do the opposite.

    When it comes to social-liberalism, they 'put their money where their mouth is' (at least to the extent that upper-middle class people who live in safe suburbs do).

    They would be a lot less dangerous if they were just doing some kind of double think, as in such a case they would be reasonable people (who you could show immigration situation in France to, and they would rapidly 'change their tune'). The problem with fanatics, is that they actually believe in what they are saying. Liberal ideas infected them the same as religion did in former times.

  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What’s amazing about Madonna is that she is not especially pretty, doesn’t have a particularly shapely figure (she’s buff, but not particularly sexily shaped) and while obviously not stupid, I don’t think she has a super-high IQ either. And she is a terrible actress. Yet she’s a billionairess. As completely self-made as anyone could be.

  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Monozygotic twins actually have three parents, at least one of whom is dead.

    In order to give the full context of this interesting sidebar, I would like to deal first with an expression oft cited in pro-life circles, viz. that "Life begins at conception." The sentiment here expressed is easy enough to understand, but the statement as formulated is incorrect on technical grounds. It is not my intention to dissolve the pro-life position (with which I agree), but to rescue it from the vagueness with which it is afflicted and place it on an unassailable theoretical foundation.

    If the statement that life begins at conception (LBAC) is wrong, it becomes necessary to ask when it does begin. The first part of the answer must involve the recognition that there is a sense in which life does not begin at all, i.e. is without beginning. A strict interpretation of LBAC would entail that only the diploid stage of human existence could indeed be described as living and the haploid stages (spermatozoa and ova) aren't alive at all. This of course is not the case. Life flows on from parent to child in a continuous stream of cytoplasm from whence new individuals now and again arise. The living stream is epistemologically endless, as is the world itself.

    But we know that it is the act of individuation to which LBAC really refers and in that sense it is correct, but not completely so. Certainly a new individual begins at conception, but not only then. For new individuals also begin at twinning events, and it remains to discuss the relation of these to the former.

    Haploid stages are alive but they are not the substantial forms of individuals. They are extensions of the vital force of the parents which unite to form a new body. The fertilized zygote, however, becomes an individual from the moment of conception and from that moment on is the substantial form of a human being with a body of its own. Thus, all forms of chemical or mechanical birth control which prevent the implantation of the fertilized zygote are in fact instruments of homicide---there is no other word for it.

    The destruction of haploids does not destroy an individual body and thus is not homicide, but in the case of twinning something entirely different is going on. For here we have a zygote or blastocyst which already is an individual dividing into two (or more) other individuals. When twins are produced by an act of division, neither one of them is identical to the substance of the undivided, first body. Nor can we say that the substance of the first body divided itself between the two of them, for substances are simple and monadic and cannot be mechanically or even conceptually partitioned. And yet the undivided first body was a human being whose fate must be decided somehow. What has happened to that human being? The only answer is that he has ceased to be. That person has perished; that person is no more.

    Therefore it can be truly said that monozygotic twins have not two but three parents---the mother, the father, and the undivided first body---the latter of whom died in the act of begetting them. The correct formulation of LBAC is "Not life but individuation begins at either conception or division," i.e. the events at which new bodies arise, the destruction of which in all cases constitutes homicide. Monozygotic twins have a moral duty under the 4th Commandment to mourn for the lost parent and to pray for his or her soul, the same as they would for their mother and father.

    The destruction of haploids does not destroy an individual body and thus is not homicide, but in the case of twinning something entirely different is going on. For here we have a zygote or blastocyst which already is an individual dividing into two (or more) other individuals. When twins are produced by an act of division, neither one of them is identical to the substance of the undivided, first body. Nor can we say that the substance of the first body divided itself between the two of them, for substances are simple and monadic and cannot be mechanically or even conceptually partitioned. And yet the undivided first body was a human being whose fate must be decided somehow. What has happened to that human being? The only answer is that he has ceased to be. That person has perished; that person is no more.

    Therefore it can be truly said that monozygotic twins have not two but three parents—the mother, the father, and the undivided first body—the latter of whom died in the act of begetting them. The correct formulation of LBAC is “Not life but individuation begins at either conception or division,” i.e. the events at which new bodies arise, the destruction of which in all cases constitutes homicide. Monozygotic twins have a moral duty under the 4th Commandment to mourn for the lost parent and to pray for his or her soul, the same as they would for their mother and father.

    I always thought that proliferism based on life-begins-at-conception was bogus because, provided He exists and chooses to interfere in uterusly affairs, inasmuh as many fertilized eggs never implant and are perioded out: therefore God becomes Public Abortionist Number One.

    Now we have a Heaven populated by the souls of divided zygotes. I feel like a hard hat diver diving a water tower tank and looking at the ground through a window on the bottom.

  54. @Propagandist Hacker
    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German....german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics...einstein was far from the only one...and a huge percentage of them were jewish...and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews...but they love western civilization...umm...jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ...hello? Jews are white...and they were a big part of making western civ great...

    If jews were somehow removed from the equation then some areas of science might not be as advanced but all those fields of study would still exist.

    Remove whites from the equation, which IS what is happening and I fear it will be game over for civilisation as we see it. And the biggest cheerleaders and enablers of our removal would appear to be jews themselves.

  55. @Malcolm X-Lax
    They aged better than Madonna.

    Madge hasn’t aged especially poorly. I’d say she’s doing better than Chrissie, whose face has really fallen apart probably due to 50 years of not eating dead critters. Long term vegetarians, especially female, pay a price.

    • Replies: @Flip
    Paul McCartney seems in pretty good shape.
    , @Malcolm X-Lax
    I think she looks like shit.
  56. @MEH 0910
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5291387/Sundance-debuts-dark-tale-triplets-split-birth.html

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2018/01/20/19/wire-2116814-1516475707-71_634x442.jpg

    Yikes! They look like Amerimutt, aka Le 56% Face:

  57. @Steve Sailer
    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan's biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in "Bedtime for Bonzo." The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes' UCLA meterologist in Scorsese's "The Aviator."

    This sounds like a Mengele type experiment minus the homicidal intent. I’d the state of NY if I we’re these guys.

  58. @songbird
    Kissinger was a guy who sounded really smart. Came over in '38.

    “Kissinger was a guy who sounded really smart. Came over in ’38.”

    Key word…sounded.

    • Replies: @songbird
    I think it would have been dangerous to have been in a room with Kissinger. Maybe even it might still be. The guy's IQ has to be like 160, but he speaks in a deliberate, non-asperger kind of way.

    He can probably super-rationalize his first whim, and turn you against someone with experience.
  59. @Stephen Marle
    It seems like there would have been double-blind problems unless the visiting researchers didn't know exactly why the kids were being researched. I've always suspected that some of the crazier stories about the identical habits of separated twins, such as Stephen Pinker tells, are influenced by the researcher. "By the way, do you like to swirl your finger three times around the rim of your glass and say the word dachshund before drinking A&W root beer at 3:00 p.m.?" "What?! ... uh, yeah, I guess, whatever." "Check!"

    At any rate, this separation doesn't seem all that dark to me. There are good reasons to do it either way. At the end of the day, the worst thing for the kids is that they won't be raised by their natural parents. But if you're making a documentary, or writing a long-form piece of "journalism," you have to have your narrative, in three acts.

    At any rate, this separation doesn’t seem all that dark to me.

    The darkness depends a lot on the specifics of the separation (which nobody will apparently know in any of our lifetimes).

    The levels of depravity:
    1. The natural parents were actually encouraged to give the kids up for adoption “for science.” This is a one-way-ticket-no-waiting-in-line trip to hell as far as I am concerned.
    2. Parents were giving the kids up without encouragement, but the potential adoptive parents were discouraged from taking all three kids. Still gets you to hell, but probably not line-cutting privileges when you arrive.
    3. Parents were out of the picture, no one was willing to take all three, but the adoptive parents were specifically chosen because they differed from each other as opposed to being chosen because they were considered the best choice. Significantly less concerning than one or two, because who really knows who will make good parents anyway.

    On top of these, you also have to add in the whole Truman-show lives that these people led. And the late-life trauma once you found out the truth. Imagine growing up alone, only to discover that you had two brothers all along — and everyone but you knew that the whole time.

    Pretty dark by my standards. And the fact that no one gets to know any of the details until everyone involved is dead and gone suggests that the truth is closer to option 1 than option 3.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    Neubauer and the adoption agency, if they can be believed, defend themselves in this 1997 LA Times piece:

    Neubauer, now 84, defended his work as important and said that the subjects would have been separated anyway under a policy of Louise Wise Services.

    "They were not separated for research purposes," Neubauer said. "They [Louise Wise Services] decided to do it, and then they came to me. When we learned about the policy, we decided it gives one an extraordinary opportunity for research."

    Ledy-Gurren said Louise Wise Services' activities must be viewed in the context of the time in which they were carried out, when less emphasis was placed on keeping siblings together.

    "There are many remedies that don't stand the test of time but nevertheless had validity and good faith behind them," she said. "I think that's what we're dealing with here--a community of people who thought the best interest of the child was in separation and placed the child for the child's benefit."

    In all cases, she said, the biological mothers consented to the separation of the children.

    A representative for the National Institutes of Health said that Neubauer received a grant of $9,642 in 1965 to conduct a study entitled "Longitudinal Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart," and that the agency could not comment without reviewing records on the project. The study was funded by the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development. Neubauer also received funding from at least two private foundations.
     

    At least it wasn't a secret kept just from the adoptive brothers. The adoptive parents were also kept in the dark:

    For years the same researchers came to each of their homes under the guise of conducting a "child development study." Throughout their childhoods, their behavior had been charted, their personalities monitored, their relationships with their adoptive parents scrutinized. The same researchers had gone from the Gallands to the Kellmans to the Shafrans, never telling the boys or their parents the study's true nature or that the boys' identical siblings were living nearby.

     

    It's all pretty dark by my standards too.
    , @Alden
    It would be interesting to know why the parents or just the Mother gave the triplets up for adoption. Was she married? In that era it was common for single Mothers to adopt out the babies.

    I’ve never heard of married couples giving babies up for adoption. Maybe during a severe depression but not in the high wage in relation to the cost of living 1960s.

    How did the Dr find the parent or parents? Did he ask obestricians to refer pregnant women to him? Did he have spotters in hospitals who notified him of twin births?
  60. @Anonymous
    Madge hasn't aged especially poorly. I'd say she's doing better than Chrissie, whose face has really fallen apart probably due to 50 years of not eating dead critters. Long term vegetarians, especially female, pay a price.

    Paul McCartney seems in pretty good shape.

  61. @songbird
    I recently observed two young women who were identical twins. I consider myself a strong hereditarian but was genuinely surprised by how different they seemed.

    Their voices and mannerisms were different. Without either one having marred looks, their faces seemed different. I don't know whether it was an illusion or not - they styled their hair differently. But I thought the bone structure was subtly but obviously different. Initially, I thought they were just sisters that closely resembled each other.

    Having said all that I imagine that they were statistically very similar, in an economic or social sense.

    How can you be sure they are identical and not fraternal? There are a significant fraction of people who think they are identical twins who actually are fraternal twins. Many parents don’t really understand the difference, nor do people in general. Parents of boy/girl twins laugh about the number of times they are asked if the twins are identical.

    • Agree: Triumph104
    • Replies: @songbird
    The facial difference was kind of subtle. Up close,and side by side, it would be impossible for anyone with good eyesight to confuse them. On an old TV set or grainy picture, or perhaps viewed separately without foreknowledge, they would have looked exactly alike.

    I think it comes down to different levels of hormones or blood supply in the womb. I recall some celebrity set of twins saying something like one was an inch shorter or had a leg that was an inch shorter. I guess the same could apply to the face, but maybe a millimeter here and there. Nothing that ruined the symmetry though, in this case. There is a third sister and seeing her really brought home the idea that the two were identical.
  62. @Dmitry

    Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.
     
    I have yet to see any Jews support border restriction in Israel, but not in the US.

    I have seen plenty of American Jewish people (as mentioned on this blog) who support open immigration in the US - but I would imagine this demographic would lean the same way on issues to with illegal immigration in Israel (those that think or know about it at all - and some of them have been pretty vocal on this).

    This 'double-standard' claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists, without supporting evidence having been presented to me. What is true is that much of the American Jewish demographic have been infected/indoctrinated to a large extent by fanatical social liberalism as relates to immigration (and also various other issues, like abortion, birth control, gender fluidity, post-colonialism, etc). And they generally practice what they preach when it comes to their liberalism (e.g. birth control - secular American Jewish women have fertility rates far below replacement levels).

    The evidence is abundant and you seem disingenuous.

    I have a policy that saves me time and energy: whenever I doubt someone’s intellectual sincerity, I ask them to tell me exactly what evidence they would need to see in order to change their mind.

    So I ask you, before I spend my precious time citing evidence of the countless yehudim/goyim double-standards, what would you need to see that would make you admit that the “conspiracy theorists” might be onto something?

  63. @Sunbeam
    "And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)"

    Is this still a thing? I don't particularly associate this accent with high intelligence. Not quite old enough to have seen Von Braun on tv or anything.

    If anything my attitude towards a German accent is something like: "My god, you are going to bore me to death, aren't you?"

    Take a look at 1965’s “The Flight of the Phoenix.”

  64. @Propagandist Hacker
    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German....german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics...einstein was far from the only one...and a huge percentage of them were jewish...and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews...but they love western civilization...umm...jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ...hello? Jews are white...and they were a big part of making western civ great...

    I don’t dislike Jews. In fact, I’d say I’m philo-Semitic.

    On the other hand, I disagree about Jews contributions to western civ. They contributed a lot to modern life, but there is a certain extent to which modernity and western civ are in tension, and much of what Jews contributed has actually been erosive to western civ.

    I’m not saying Jewishness and western civ are at odds. I suspect the situation is largely due to the fact that modernity freed up Jewish ability.

  65. @Sunbeam
    "And Americans were too in thrall to the idea that a German Accent = Science to offer needed resistance. (Sometimes they were right, e.g., Einstein, other times they were mostly wrong, e.g., Freud or Jung.)"

    Is this still a thing? I don't particularly associate this accent with high intelligence. Not quite old enough to have seen Von Braun on tv or anything.

    If anything my attitude towards a German accent is something like: "My god, you are going to bore me to death, aren't you?"

    Is this still a thing?

    Does “everyone” act like Merkel/Germany are the moral leaders of the universe?

  66. @Triumph104
    SPOILER?

    Despite having IQs of 148, two of the triplets attended community college and the third attended a four-year college that was open admission. He and another triplet didn't start college until age 19, with one of them having been convicted of manslaughter "for his part in a robbery in which an 83-year-old woman was beaten to death with a crowbar"

    http://people.com/archive/what-happens-when-three-young-men-find-out-theyre-triplets-its-not-as-simple-as-1-2-3-vol-14-no-15/

    Well, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. And, I mean, honestly, who hasn’t wanted to beat an 83 year old to death with a crowbar. Right?

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    I believe his accomplice did the killing.

    http://people.com/archive/what-happens-when-three-young-men-find-out-theyre-triplets-its-not-as-simple-as-1-2-3-vol-14-no-15/

    but in no time the press reported that Shafran was convicted of manslaughter earlier this year for his part in a robbery in which an 83-year-old woman was beaten to death with a crowbar. (He pleaded guilty, testified against his accomplice and, since in the words of the judge his role was “minimal,” was sentenced to working weekends at a crippled children’s home for five years.)
     
  67. “…as part of a dark 1960s ‘nature versus nurture’ social experiment led by psychoanalyst Peter Neubauer of the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services in Manhattan.”

    I think the West has become part of a dark 1960s “nature versus nurture” social experiment lead by the Jewish Board of Manhattan.

    Maybe it’s not a German accent we’re supposed to associate with intelligence but a Yiddish one.

    On the other hand, I do think the fine work of Mssrs Howard, Fine and Howard should be allowed in the coming ethnostate.

  68. @Steve Sailer
    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan's biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in "Bedtime for Bonzo." The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes' UCLA meterologist in Scorsese's "The Aviator."

    Dr. Zola from “Captain America” fits. Also, Dr. Emmet Brown from “Back to the Future” was actually
    a Von Braun – they changed their names!

  69. @jon

    At any rate, this separation doesn’t seem all that dark to me.
     
    The darkness depends a lot on the specifics of the separation (which nobody will apparently know in any of our lifetimes).

    The levels of depravity:
    1. The natural parents were actually encouraged to give the kids up for adoption "for science." This is a one-way-ticket-no-waiting-in-line trip to hell as far as I am concerned.
    2. Parents were giving the kids up without encouragement, but the potential adoptive parents were discouraged from taking all three kids. Still gets you to hell, but probably not line-cutting privileges when you arrive.
    3. Parents were out of the picture, no one was willing to take all three, but the adoptive parents were specifically chosen because they differed from each other as opposed to being chosen because they were considered the best choice. Significantly less concerning than one or two, because who really knows who will make good parents anyway.

    On top of these, you also have to add in the whole Truman-show lives that these people led. And the late-life trauma once you found out the truth. Imagine growing up alone, only to discover that you had two brothers all along -- and everyone but you knew that the whole time.

    Pretty dark by my standards. And the fact that no one gets to know any of the details until everyone involved is dead and gone suggests that the truth is closer to option 1 than option 3.

    Neubauer and the adoption agency, if they can be believed, defend themselves in this 1997 LA Times piece:

    Neubauer, now 84, defended his work as important and said that the subjects would have been separated anyway under a policy of Louise Wise Services.

    “They were not separated for research purposes,” Neubauer said. “They [Louise Wise Services] decided to do it, and then they came to me. When we learned about the policy, we decided it gives one an extraordinary opportunity for research.”

    Ledy-Gurren said Louise Wise Services’ activities must be viewed in the context of the time in which they were carried out, when less emphasis was placed on keeping siblings together.

    “There are many remedies that don’t stand the test of time but nevertheless had validity and good faith behind them,” she said. “I think that’s what we’re dealing with here–a community of people who thought the best interest of the child was in separation and placed the child for the child’s benefit.”

    In all cases, she said, the biological mothers consented to the separation of the children.

    A representative for the National Institutes of Health said that Neubauer received a grant of $9,642 in 1965 to conduct a study entitled “Longitudinal Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart,” and that the agency could not comment without reviewing records on the project. The study was funded by the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development. Neubauer also received funding from at least two private foundations.

    At least it wasn’t a secret kept just from the adoptive brothers. The adoptive parents were also kept in the dark:

    For years the same researchers came to each of their homes under the guise of conducting a “child development study.” Throughout their childhoods, their behavior had been charted, their personalities monitored, their relationships with their adoptive parents scrutinized. The same researchers had gone from the Gallands to the Kellmans to the Shafrans, never telling the boys or their parents the study’s true nature or that the boys’ identical siblings were living nearby.

    It’s all pretty dark by my standards too.

  70. @Dmitry

    Same thing for those Jews who defend Israel’s border wall and ethnonationalism and then call you “fascist” for wanting those things in the US. The double standard and the pose of the perpetual victim is what gets to you.
     
    I have yet to see any Jews support border restriction in Israel, but not in the US.

    I have seen plenty of American Jewish people (as mentioned on this blog) who support open immigration in the US - but I would imagine this demographic would lean the same way on issues to with illegal immigration in Israel (those that think or know about it at all - and some of them have been pretty vocal on this).

    This 'double-standard' claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists, without supporting evidence having been presented to me. What is true is that much of the American Jewish demographic have been infected/indoctrinated to a large extent by fanatical social liberalism as relates to immigration (and also various other issues, like abortion, birth control, gender fluidity, post-colonialism, etc). And they generally practice what they preach when it comes to their liberalism (e.g. birth control - secular American Jewish women have fertility rates far below replacement levels).

    I think there is an implicitly different rhetoric when it comes to open borders Jews.

    To Europe: “I think they should take in the poor refugee children fleeing the warzone.”
    To Israel: “I don’t believe in the idea of a God-given claim.”

    That last isn’t designed to pull on the heartstrings. It is just an acknowledgement of atheism, which, if you know the person, can probably already be assumed, and so is quite meaningless. It’s more vapid virtue-signaling than anything else. Oh, don’t get me wrong: most of this stuff is subconscious. It’s just that some Jews have a subconscious animus to gentiles. And this just does not apply to other groups, including themselves.

    For instance, one Facebook friend who voiced both of the above sentiments, on the occasion of Charlottesville, said “These are the people who burned my ancestors.”. If that is not a historical grudge, I don’t know what is. And he was only half a Jew. All this stuff is a spectrum though. And it probably helps that Israel is a small country. One can more easily delude themselves about how Europe or the US can integrate millions of people.

  71. @Chrisnonymous
    Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. And, I mean, honestly, who hasn't wanted to beat an 83 year old to death with a crowbar. Right?

    I believe his accomplice did the killing.

    http://people.com/archive/what-happens-when-three-young-men-find-out-theyre-triplets-its-not-as-simple-as-1-2-3-vol-14-no-15/

    but in no time the press reported that Shafran was convicted of manslaughter earlier this year for his part in a robbery in which an 83-year-old woman was beaten to death with a crowbar. (He pleaded guilty, testified against his accomplice and, since in the words of the judge his role was “minimal,” was sentenced to working weekends at a crippled children’s home for five years.)

  72. @william munny
    How can you be sure they are identical and not fraternal? There are a significant fraction of people who think they are identical twins who actually are fraternal twins. Many parents don't really understand the difference, nor do people in general. Parents of boy/girl twins laugh about the number of times they are asked if the twins are identical.

    The facial difference was kind of subtle. Up close,and side by side, it would be impossible for anyone with good eyesight to confuse them. On an old TV set or grainy picture, or perhaps viewed separately without foreknowledge, they would have looked exactly alike.

    I think it comes down to different levels of hormones or blood supply in the womb. I recall some celebrity set of twins saying something like one was an inch shorter or had a leg that was an inch shorter. I guess the same could apply to the face, but maybe a millimeter here and there. Nothing that ruined the symmetry though, in this case. There is a third sister and seeing her really brought home the idea that the two were identical.

  73. @Realist
    "Kissinger was a guy who sounded really smart. Came over in ’38."

    Key word...sounded.

    I think it would have been dangerous to have been in a room with Kissinger. Maybe even it might still be. The guy’s IQ has to be like 160, but he speaks in a deliberate, non-asperger kind of way.

    He can probably super-rationalize his first whim, and turn you against someone with experience.

    • Replies: @Realist
    "The guy’s IQ has to be like 160, but he speaks in a deliberate, non-asperger kind of way."

    You have no basis for stating that his IQ 'is like 160'. He has spent 79 years in this country and still has a German accent.

    Your enthrallment with Kissinger is excessive.

  74. @Intelligent Dasein
    Monozygotic twins actually have three parents, at least one of whom is dead.

    In order to give the full context of this interesting sidebar, I would like to deal first with an expression oft cited in pro-life circles, viz. that "Life begins at conception." The sentiment here expressed is easy enough to understand, but the statement as formulated is incorrect on technical grounds. It is not my intention to dissolve the pro-life position (with which I agree), but to rescue it from the vagueness with which it is afflicted and place it on an unassailable theoretical foundation.

    If the statement that life begins at conception (LBAC) is wrong, it becomes necessary to ask when it does begin. The first part of the answer must involve the recognition that there is a sense in which life does not begin at all, i.e. is without beginning. A strict interpretation of LBAC would entail that only the diploid stage of human existence could indeed be described as living and the haploid stages (spermatozoa and ova) aren't alive at all. This of course is not the case. Life flows on from parent to child in a continuous stream of cytoplasm from whence new individuals now and again arise. The living stream is epistemologically endless, as is the world itself.

    But we know that it is the act of individuation to which LBAC really refers and in that sense it is correct, but not completely so. Certainly a new individual begins at conception, but not only then. For new individuals also begin at twinning events, and it remains to discuss the relation of these to the former.

    Haploid stages are alive but they are not the substantial forms of individuals. They are extensions of the vital force of the parents which unite to form a new body. The fertilized zygote, however, becomes an individual from the moment of conception and from that moment on is the substantial form of a human being with a body of its own. Thus, all forms of chemical or mechanical birth control which prevent the implantation of the fertilized zygote are in fact instruments of homicide---there is no other word for it.

    The destruction of haploids does not destroy an individual body and thus is not homicide, but in the case of twinning something entirely different is going on. For here we have a zygote or blastocyst which already is an individual dividing into two (or more) other individuals. When twins are produced by an act of division, neither one of them is identical to the substance of the undivided, first body. Nor can we say that the substance of the first body divided itself between the two of them, for substances are simple and monadic and cannot be mechanically or even conceptually partitioned. And yet the undivided first body was a human being whose fate must be decided somehow. What has happened to that human being? The only answer is that he has ceased to be. That person has perished; that person is no more.

    Therefore it can be truly said that monozygotic twins have not two but three parents---the mother, the father, and the undivided first body---the latter of whom died in the act of begetting them. The correct formulation of LBAC is "Not life but individuation begins at either conception or division," i.e. the events at which new bodies arise, the destruction of which in all cases constitutes homicide. Monozygotic twins have a moral duty under the 4th Commandment to mourn for the lost parent and to pray for his or her soul, the same as they would for their mother and father.

    Life flows on from parent to child in a continuous stream of cytoplasm from whence new individuals now and again arise. The living stream is epistemologically endless, as is the world itself.

    They are extensions of the vital force of the parents which unite to form a new body.

    Are you an old timey vitalist who doesn’t give credence to genetics? You must give some credence to genetics since you refer to the haploid and diploid stages. Is there such a thing as a cytoplasmist?

    From a John Derbyshire 2010 science piece:

    This month’s other genome story concerned the opposite end of the complexity scale, and points us to the future rather than the past. Craig Venter and his colleagues put together a genome from scratch, using off-the-shelf chemicals. They swapped it for the genome of a living organism, a wee one-celled asexual critter named Mycoplasma capricolum (which, as its name suggests, causes goats to feel unwell). Then they put the transformed cells on dishes of jelly and waited for them to reproduce. The cells did so, very happily, and there are now several billion individuals of this new organism with its made-up genome. (A cell contains much more than a genome; but all the other bits are templated in the genome, and after a few dozen generations Dr. Venter’s invented genome was calling the cell-construction shots.)

    There has been much quibbling about whether Venter and Co. have actually “created life.” The quibblers are fighting a rearguard action, though — one they actually began fighting eight years ago, when a different group synthesized a virus. The quibblers had a good case then — viruses are more like non-life than life — but they have a much weaker case now, and after another milestone or two along this path, they will have no case at all.

    And quibbles aside, this is a real milestone. As The Economist put it:

    Life’s essence is information. Heretofore that information has been passed from one living thing to another. Now it does not have to be.

    Dr. Venter’s new organism, whatever they decide to call it (may I register a vote against the proposed Mycoplasma laboratorium?) has no ancestors. Of no living — energy-processing, spontaneously-reproducing — thing has that been true for three or four billion years on our planet, so far as we know.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910

    Is there such a thing as a cytoplasmist?
     
    https://www.scribd.com/document/38988649/10-Reasons-for-Viruses-Not-Alive

    In 1929, when the first hypotheses to explain the origins of life through natural processes were being formulated, Muller proposed that the first living organism was a primitive gene1. He thereby positioned himself in the debate between ‘nucleocentric’ (genetic material first) and ‘cytoplasmist’ (metabolism first) schools of thought on the origins of life2.
     

    The discovery in 1944 that DNA encodes genetic information7 was fatal for the cytoplasmist theory and created a ‘DNA-centrist’ definition of life that held ‘information’ and ‘evolution’ as central tenets.
     
  75. @Anonymous
    Many Jewish doctors , scientists, etc contributed positively to Western science, no one disputes this. But other Jewish influences were often destructive. With no Jews, we would have ended up at the same place, maybe not as fast.

    You’re saying, basically the jews make no difference – so what’s the problem? That you like things a little bit slower (don’t move too fast – / don’t you want our love to last/ just/ put up a buch of pebble stones/ we’re looking for fun/ ‘n’ feeling: Groovy – – oh: A Jew wrote that, didn’t he? – puh life’s complicated.
    I , huuh.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    You’re saying, basically the jews make no difference – so what’s the problem?
     
    More on the order of "Jews make no positive difference."

    There's a difference.
  76. @MEH 0910

    Life flows on from parent to child in a continuous stream of cytoplasm from whence new individuals now and again arise. The living stream is epistemologically endless, as is the world itself.
     

    They are extensions of the vital force of the parents which unite to form a new body.
     
    Are you an old timey vitalist who doesn't give credence to genetics? You must give some credence to genetics since you refer to the haploid and diploid stages. Is there such a thing as a cytoplasmist?

    From a John Derbyshire 2010 science piece:

    This month's other genome story concerned the opposite end of the complexity scale, and points us to the future rather than the past. Craig Venter and his colleagues put together a genome from scratch, using off-the-shelf chemicals. They swapped it for the genome of a living organism, a wee one-celled asexual critter named Mycoplasma capricolum (which, as its name suggests, causes goats to feel unwell). Then they put the transformed cells on dishes of jelly and waited for them to reproduce. The cells did so, very happily, and there are now several billion individuals of this new organism with its made-up genome. (A cell contains much more than a genome; but all the other bits are templated in the genome, and after a few dozen generations Dr. Venter's invented genome was calling the cell-construction shots.)

    There has been much quibbling about whether Venter and Co. have actually "created life." The quibblers are fighting a rearguard action, though — one they actually began fighting eight years ago, when a different group synthesized a virus. The quibblers had a good case then — viruses are more like non-life than life — but they have a much weaker case now, and after another milestone or two along this path, they will have no case at all.

    And quibbles aside, this is a real milestone. As The Economist put it:

    Life's essence is information. Heretofore that information has been passed from one living thing to another. Now it does not have to be.
     
    Dr. Venter's new organism, whatever they decide to call it (may I register a vote against the proposed Mycoplasma laboratorium?) has no ancestors. Of no living — energy-processing, spontaneously-reproducing — thing has that been true for three or four billion years on our planet, so far as we know.
     

    Is there such a thing as a cytoplasmist?

    https://www.scribd.com/document/38988649/10-Reasons-for-Viruses-Not-Alive

    In 1929, when the first hypotheses to explain the origins of life through natural processes were being formulated, Muller proposed that the first living organism was a primitive gene1. He thereby positioned himself in the debate between ‘nucleocentric’ (genetic material first) and ‘cytoplasmist’ (metabolism first) schools of thought on the origins of life2.

    The discovery in 1944 that DNA encodes genetic information7 was fatal for the cytoplasmist theory and created a ‘DNA-centrist’ definition of life that held ‘information’ and ‘evolution’ as central tenets.

  77. @ScarletNumber
    I thought the Minnesota Twins study was going to be about Rod Carew and Bert Blyleven.

    The twins haven’t been the same since they got rid of Vic Power.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    Ironically they won their only pennant in Metropolitan Stadium the year after they traded Power for Jerry Kindall, who ended up becoming the starting second baseman.
  78. @utu

    This ‘double-standard’ claim seems an invention of various internet conspiracy theorists
     
    I think you are writing from Israel, right? This might explain why you may believe it. Unlike Israelis the diaspora Jews must navigate more complex reality between mimicry, assimilation, Jewish identity and Zionism. The apparent contradiction in support for wall in Israel and support for multiethnic society where they reside is, well, only apparent. Wall in Israel and no wall in country they live maximizes their benefit (not just perceived but real) function.

    I think you are writing from Israel, right?

    I have Israeli citizenship (Teudat Zehut) – but not Israeli passport as I was there for under one year.

    I have a good overview on all these issues and understand all relevant languages, different cultures, knowledge about different religions, and political scenes. My viewpoint is a lot more informed than the average blogging people.

    This might explain why you may believe it. Unlike Israelis the diaspora Jews must navigate more complex reality between mimicry, assimilation, Jewish identity and Zionism. The apparent contradiction in support for wall in Israel and support for multiethnic society where they reside is, well, only apparent. Wall in Israel and no wall in country they live maximizes their benefit (not just perceived but real) function.

    The point is that there is no such double-phenomenon.

    People that support open immigration in the US are the same people who support it in Israel. They legitimately believe in open immigration and think it is wonderful. They might theoretically have been told that Israel is supposed to be a Jewish state, but the liberal American synagogues do $30 million a year funding the New Israel Fund – which tries to do the opposite.

    When it comes to social-liberalism, they ‘put their money where their mouth is’ (at least to the extent that upper-middle class people who live in safe suburbs do).

    They would be a lot less dangerous if they were just doing some kind of double think, as in such a case they would be reasonable people (who you could show immigration situation in France to, and they would rapidly ‘change their tune’). The problem with fanatics, is that they actually believe in what they are saying. Liberal ideas infected them the same as religion did in former times.

  79. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ…”

    On the other hand, Jews were also successful in many places (the Ottoman Empire, Eastern Europe, Russia, around the Black Sea, etc.) where modern science did not take off (at least till late; in some places it still hasn’t). So the causality might go the other way.

  80. @jon

    At any rate, this separation doesn’t seem all that dark to me.
     
    The darkness depends a lot on the specifics of the separation (which nobody will apparently know in any of our lifetimes).

    The levels of depravity:
    1. The natural parents were actually encouraged to give the kids up for adoption "for science." This is a one-way-ticket-no-waiting-in-line trip to hell as far as I am concerned.
    2. Parents were giving the kids up without encouragement, but the potential adoptive parents were discouraged from taking all three kids. Still gets you to hell, but probably not line-cutting privileges when you arrive.
    3. Parents were out of the picture, no one was willing to take all three, but the adoptive parents were specifically chosen because they differed from each other as opposed to being chosen because they were considered the best choice. Significantly less concerning than one or two, because who really knows who will make good parents anyway.

    On top of these, you also have to add in the whole Truman-show lives that these people led. And the late-life trauma once you found out the truth. Imagine growing up alone, only to discover that you had two brothers all along -- and everyone but you knew that the whole time.

    Pretty dark by my standards. And the fact that no one gets to know any of the details until everyone involved is dead and gone suggests that the truth is closer to option 1 than option 3.

    It would be interesting to know why the parents or just the Mother gave the triplets up for adoption. Was she married? In that era it was common for single Mothers to adopt out the babies.

    I’ve never heard of married couples giving babies up for adoption. Maybe during a severe depression but not in the high wage in relation to the cost of living 1960s.

    How did the Dr find the parent or parents? Did he ask obestricians to refer pregnant women to him? Did he have spotters in hospitals who notified him of twin births?

  81. @Dieter Kief
    You're saying, basically the jews make no difference - so what's the problem? That you like things a little bit slower (don't move too fast - / don't you want our love to last/ just/ put up a buch of pebble stones/ we're looking for fun/ 'n' feeling: Groovy - - oh: A Jew wrote that, didn't he? - puh life's complicated.
    I , huuh.

    You’re saying, basically the jews make no difference – so what’s the problem?

    More on the order of “Jews make no positive difference.”

    There’s a difference.

  82. @Marty
    The twins haven't been the same since they got rid of Vic Power.

    Ironically they won their only pennant in Metropolitan Stadium the year after they traded Power for Jerry Kindall, who ended up becoming the starting second baseman.

  83. @songbird
    I think it would have been dangerous to have been in a room with Kissinger. Maybe even it might still be. The guy's IQ has to be like 160, but he speaks in a deliberate, non-asperger kind of way.

    He can probably super-rationalize his first whim, and turn you against someone with experience.

    “The guy’s IQ has to be like 160, but he speaks in a deliberate, non-asperger kind of way.”

    You have no basis for stating that his IQ ‘is like 160’. He has spent 79 years in this country and still has a German accent.

    Your enthrallment with Kissinger is excessive.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Speculative, of course. But he writes very scholarly books. Nixon was at least moderately intelligent and he was convinced. Brzezinksy was also clearly very smart.

    I wouldn't say that of many of their successors. Kerry, Powell, HRC. Standard quongos. Rice sounded smart (at least when talking to Congress) just not on the same level.

    Smart does not equal wise or principled, IMO.
  84. @Anonymous
    Madge hasn't aged especially poorly. I'd say she's doing better than Chrissie, whose face has really fallen apart probably due to 50 years of not eating dead critters. Long term vegetarians, especially female, pay a price.

    I think she looks like shit.

  85. @Realist
    "The guy’s IQ has to be like 160, but he speaks in a deliberate, non-asperger kind of way."

    You have no basis for stating that his IQ 'is like 160'. He has spent 79 years in this country and still has a German accent.

    Your enthrallment with Kissinger is excessive.

    Speculative, of course. But he writes very scholarly books. Nixon was at least moderately intelligent and he was convinced. Brzezinksy was also clearly very smart.

    I wouldn’t say that of many of their successors. Kerry, Powell, HRC. Standard quongos. Rice sounded smart (at least when talking to Congress) just not on the same level.

    Smart does not equal wise or principled, IMO.

    • Replies: @Realist
    "Smart does not equal wise or principled, IMO."

    With that I agree.
  86. @Steve Sailer
    Herr Professors were a regular feature in movies in the 20th Century, like Ronald Reagan's biologist friend who supplies him with a chimp in "Bedtime for Bonzo." The last one I can remember is Howard Hughes' UCLA meterologist in Scorsese's "The Aviator."

    TV Tropes calls it Herr Doktor and has a reasonably long list of examples:

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HerrDoktor

    The cartoon Dexter’s Lab was an example of how widespread the trope is. Dexter is an elementary school-aged mad scientist who inexplicably speaks in a goofy German accent despite everyone else in his family being core Americans with neutral accents. So the whole joke is just a reference to this trope.

  87. @Propagandist Hacker
    this fact has been shoved down the memory hole, but in the early 1900s and thereabouts, most technical/science books were written in German....german speaking europeans more or less invented/discovered much of modern chemistry and nuclear physics...einstein was far from the only one...and a huge percentage of them were jewish...and this is one issue I have with the alt-right: they hate jews...but they love western civilization...umm...jews were a huge part of modern science, which is a huge part of western civ...hello? Jews are white...and they were a big part of making western civ great...

    modern science, which is a huge part of western civ

    Meh. I look at it more like frosting on the cake.

  88. @songbird
    Speculative, of course. But he writes very scholarly books. Nixon was at least moderately intelligent and he was convinced. Brzezinksy was also clearly very smart.

    I wouldn't say that of many of their successors. Kerry, Powell, HRC. Standard quongos. Rice sounded smart (at least when talking to Congress) just not on the same level.

    Smart does not equal wise or principled, IMO.

    “Smart does not equal wise or principled, IMO.”

    With that I agree.

  89. Speaking of Israeli triplets, Radiolab on NPR just aired the most 2018 story ever:

    Two gays in Tel Aviv decide to have kids. Hilarity ensues.

    Honestly, the footprint of suffering and mayhem that their selfishness caused is breathtaking. So is the carbon footprint. Steve you got to hear this.

    If you want a picture of the present, imagine a flock of gay Israelis standing barefoot in the streets of an earthquake zone holding two dozen bawling newborns, forever.

    BONUS: Comments include an attack from the left for even daring to report on Israelis.

    • Replies: @Mark F.
    I thought NOT having kids was one of the huge advantages of being gay.
  90. @attaq me from da right
    Speaking of Israeli triplets, Radiolab on NPR just aired the most 2018 story ever:

    Two gays in Tel Aviv decide to have kids. Hilarity ensues.

    Honestly, the footprint of suffering and mayhem that their selfishness caused is breathtaking. So is the carbon footprint. Steve you got to hear this.

    If you want a picture of the present, imagine a flock of gay Israelis standing barefoot in the streets of an earthquake zone holding two dozen bawling newborns, forever.

    BONUS: Comments include an attack from the left for even daring to report on Israelis.

    I thought NOT having kids was one of the huge advantages of being gay.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS