The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
The de-Rehabilitation of Charles Murray In the Age of Trump
🔊 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
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Originally published in Academic Questions, October, 2018 (click here for original) reposted by permission

When Charles Murray’s book Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 was published in 2003, I was assigned to review it. Forming my thoughts after reading the book, I recalled an earlier exchange I had had with the author. (We had some slight personal acquaintance by way of a private email discussion group we both belonged to.) I recorded that exchange in my review.

I once suggested to Charles Murray that the true object of his intellectual passion is not sociology, or psychology, or psychometry, but statistics. Murray: “If you had said ‘data,’ you would have been nearer to the truth.” That was when he was still at work on Human Accomplishment. Reading the book now, I see the wisdom of his reply. Murray is a master mariner of data—a datanaut, as it were. The science of statistical analysis supplies his tool kit—his sounding line and sextant—but his passion is for the numbers, and the truths that lie hidden in their dim green depths.

That is a key insight into Murray the public intellectual. I should say before proceeding, though, that it sells him short as a writer. The book about the Apollo Program that Murray and his wife Catherine Bly Cox wrote together, published in 1989, is straight reportage with very little number-crunching. It is beautifully done, a small masterpiece of journalism, and rightly received rave reviews. (Murray[1]Private email to me, May 7 2018, quoted with permission.: “The one in the Washington Post[2]From The Earth To The Moon And Beyond, by Charles Sheffield, Washington Post Book World, July 9 1989 … can’t find it on the web. is the stuff of authors’ fantasies.”) With the fiftieth anniversary of the first Moon landing coming up, Apollo: The Race to the Moon is still well worth reading, if you can find a copy.

However, it is that passion for data that most characterizes Murray as a public intellectual. Looking back on his life in a podcast conversation with science writer Sam Harris in April last year, Murray recalled the writing of Human Accomplishment very fondly. The five years he had spent on the book were, he said, “one of the great intellectual adventures of my life … a great memory.”[3]At 2h12m33s in this April 22, 2017 “Waking Up” podcast with Sam Harris. NB: Because I have mined this podcast for recent quotes from Murray in his own voice, I shall henceforth just refer to it in these footnotes as “WU” followed by h-m-s.

That intellectual adventure must also have been something of a refuge. In 1994 Murray had published The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, co-written with psychologist Richard Herrnstein, who died of cancer in the month the book was published. The Bell Curve was of course extraordinarily controversial. I shall enlarge on the reasons for the controversy further along in this article, but a key one was some passing references in the book to race differences in IQ.

Murray is a sociable and articulate man, but a private one, by no means a publicity hound. The obloquy heaped on him by detractors of The Bell Curve must have been vexing to him at the very least, perhaps distressing. It is easy to understand the pleasure he felt, working away on Human Accomplishment those five years, secluded with graphs, tables, and spreadsheets—a datanaut sailing the ocean of numbers, the howling of the mob only a distant murmur far across the waves, beyond the walls of his study.

In the years following 2003 Murray published five more books: two (first, second) offering libertarian approaches to social policy, one on education, one of life advice, and a big one—Coming Apart, 2012—revisiting the theme of The Bell Curve but restricting its attention entirely to white Americans. By mid-2016, Murray told Sam Harris, he believed he had been “pretty much rehabilitated, that the viciousness and the anger and so forth had disappeared.”[4]WU 2h12m59s.

Then came the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency and the rise of the “Resistance” movement and its street-fighting vanguard, the Antifa. Quite suddenly the political temperature went up twenty degrees. In the nation’s intellectual life the dull schoolmarmish conformism of the Bush and Obama years in matters relating to the human sciences gave way to a fierce, angry intolerance of all dissent from socially-approved dogma. Viewpoints that had formerly been countered with a disapproving tongue-click and a roll of the eyes were now denounced from academic pulpits with passionate zeal.

As in Mao Tse-tung’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of 1966-76, persons demoted or blacklisted years before and left to vegetate in silent ignominy were dragged out from their places of banishment to be “struggled” anew for the edification of the masses. Murray encountered this new atmosphere of zealotry when, six weeks into the Trump Presidency, he showed up at Middlebury College, a small liberal-arts school in Vermont, to give a talk about his book Coming Apart at the invitation of a conservative club at the college. More than a hundred shouting, chanting protestors prevented him from speaking. He was eventually able to give his talk, in the form of an interview with Middlebury professor Allison Stanger, by video from a closed room, while the protestors set off fire alarms in the corridors outside. However, when Murray and Prof. Stanger were escorted out from the back of the building by college officials:

[S]everal masked protesters, who were believed to be outside agitators, began pushing and shoving Mr. Murray and Ms. Stanger, Mr. Burger [a spokesman for the college] said. “Someone grabbed Allison’s hair and twisted her neck,” he said.

After the two got into a car, Mr. Burger said, protesters pounded on it, rocked it back and forth, and jumped onto the hood. Ms. Stanger later went to a hospital, where she was put in a neck brace. (New York Times, March 3rd 2017.)


Sixty-seven Middlebury students were subsequently disciplined for the fracas, but the penalties were as light as they could be. No student was expelled nor even suspended. None of the masked assailants who put Prof. Stanger in the hospital were identified, and there were no arrests. “It was more of a scrum,” shrugged Middlebury’s police chief. “There wasn’t any assault per se.”

An irony of the Middlebury event is that Charles Murray, a small-government libertarian-conservative, was a fierce Never Trumper during the 2016 election campaign. This irony is, however, only visible from outside the political cauldron. In the unlikely event the protestors bothered to apprise themselves of it, it would have done nothing to cool their anger. In their eyes Murray had been sufficiently exposed twenty years before in the Bell Curve controversy. He was a counter-revolutionary, an enemy of the people. Denounce! Denounce!

I should add that while he personally dislikes Trump, Murray the social scientist soon understood very well what had happened in November 2016. As he told Sam Harris:[5]WU 1h48m00s. “The working-class guys I know would hate Trump if he lived next door … What I didn’t get was the extent to which they were looking on Trump as the murder weapon … He was a guy who was not acting like the Establishment elite.” Trump as the murder weapon! I know of no better five-word encapsulation of Trump’s appeal.

One more footnote to that March 2017 event. The protestors needed no encouragement to their obscurantism and bad manners. What they needed was dis-couragement, but discouragement came only very feebly and equivocally from the college authorities. Murray told Sam Harris that:[6]WU 2h04m27s.

The President of the college was there and she made a statement beforehand … to the effect that: “We have to let this awful person speak on behalf of the values of freedom of speech” … I wish she’d been a little less willing to feed the preconceptions of the crowd …

The source of those preconceptions was of course Murray’s (with Herrnstein) 1994 book The Bell Curve; or rather, a loud and well-publicized subset of the responses to that book.

Since the middle of the last century much of the academic world—the humanities and most of the soft sciences (especially anthropology)—has been in thrall to a strong ideology. It is a curious thing that this ideology has no fixed name, although several have been suggested and enjoy limited circulation: the Standard Social Science Model, Blank Slate Theory, Neo-Lysenkoism, and a few others. Seeing nothing much to prefer among available options, I shall refer to it just as “the Ideology.”

The essence of the Ideology is that the “BIP” traits (behavior, intelligence, and personality) of a developed human being are shaped entirely by postnatal experiences, with various small allowances generally made for events in the womb. So far as potential development of the BIP traits is concerned, all human zygotes are identical. Charles Murray himself came face to face with the Ideology—by no means for the first time, I am sure—in 2008, following the publication of his book on education. The book argues, among many other things, that people have different innate abilities, and that a rational education system ought to acknowledge the fact. Murray gave an interview about the book to Deborah Solomon of the New York Times. The interview was published in that newspaper on September 19, 2008. It included the following exchange between Murray and Ms. Solomon.

DS: Europeans have historically defined themselves through inherited traits and titles, but isn’t America a country where we are supposed to define ourselves through acts of will?

CM: I wonder if there is a single, solitary, real-live public-school teacher who agrees with the proposition that it’s all a matter of will. To me, the fact that ability varies—and varies in ways that are impossible to change—is a fact that we learn in first grade.

DS: I believe that given the opportunity, most people could do most anything.

CM: You’re out of touch with reality in that regard.

As Ms. Solomon’s remarks illustrate, the Ideology was by that point the default outlook on human nature among cultural elites outside the hard sciences. (Ms. Solomon’s credentials are in Art History and Journalism.) It still maintains that position ten years later.

It follows from the fundamental axioms of the Ideology that IQ tests do not measure any intrinsic, immutable quality of a person. They only record the consequences of a person’s post-conception environment acting on his original zygote, whose potential for development of BIP traits is the same as all other human zygotes’. “Given the opportunity, most people could do most anything.” For the general public, this outlook was presented most influentially in a 1981 book, The Mismeasure of Man, by paleontologist and science popularizer Stephen Jay Gould. The observations and speculations about the current and future evolution of American society that form the real matter of The Bell Curve depend heavily on analysis of large-scale IQ testing. From the point of view of the Ideology, therefore, that means they depend on nothing, so the book is worthless.

Murray and Herrnstein mightily compounded their offense against ideological orthodoxy by including a section—it comprises 48 of the 687 pages of main text in my 1996 edition—dealing directly with race differences in IQ. (A further 72 pages discuss related social consequences.) Large-scale testing of Americans consistently turns up different mean IQs by ancestry group: Ashkenazi Jews highest, northeast Asians next highest, non-Ashkenazi whites lower, blacks lower still. The Ideology is even more fiercely hostile to the reality of race than it is to the reality of innate intelligence. Race and intelligence (and now, most recently, sex) are mere “social constructs.” To say otherwise, declare the ideologues, is tantamount to approving race slavery and the Holocaust. Hence the furious reactions to The Bell Curve. One of the most hysterical was offered by sociologist Steven Rosenthal at a website belonging to Montclair State University:

The Bell Curve is a vehicle of Nazi propaganda wrapped in a cover of pseudo-scientific respectability. It is an academic version of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf … The voices of millions should be raised in condemnation of the authors of The Bell Curve and their circle of Nazi-admiring friends.

(The attitude of actual Nazis towards IQ testing was inconsistent, with no strong party line. IQ tests were used in Germany up to the mid-1930s as they were everywhere else, for identification of the “feeble-minded” and for military selection, but later fell out of favor for reasons unclear to me. That the Nazis banned IQ testing because of the high scores of Jews is an urban legend; there was no formal ban. The party ideologues just seem not to have found psychometry very interesting. In the U.S.S.R. disapproval of IQ testing was stronger and more official, as contradicting Marxist theory about human nature; but again, there does not seem to have been any formal ban.)


These intensely negative responses were already, by the mid-1990s, in the nature of a rearguard action. From the 1960s to the 1980s, while the Ideology was enjoying its glory days, key developments were accumulating to undermine it. IQ testing was improved and refined. Studies of genetics at the “output” end—the BIP-trait consequences of genetic similarity and difference, as revealed by sibling and twin studies—gave birth to Behavioral Genetics as a legitimate field of inquiry. Databases of test results became ever larger and ever more accessible to datanauts thanks to the advent of cheap computing power. While there are always, in any field of science—and in the human sciences more than most—disputes and disagreements among researchers on particular points, the science of intelligence presented in The Bell Curve was as mainstream for 1994 as science gets. A collective statement to that effect by experts in psychometry was organized by Linda Gottfredson, a professor of psychology at the University of Delaware, and published in the Wall Street Journal later that year. In a postscript added slightly later, Prof. Gottfredson wrote:

The mainstream shifted slowly but steadily in recent decades as accumulating research evidence changed our understanding of the nature, measurement, origins, and consequence of differences of intelligence. The press and public have yet to catch up to the new mainstream.[7]The best up-to-date brief survey of the science of intelligence for non-specialists is Stuart Ritchie’s 2015 handbook Intelligence: All That Matters. The title, however, is unfortunate. The book does not make an argument that nothing matters except intelligence; it is merely one of the publisher’s Xxxxx: All That Matters series giving the essentials — all that matters — of numerous general-interest topics.

The Middlebury College incident of March 2nd, 2017 brought Murray back to the attention of the American public in general, and of ideological enforcers in particular. By the time the aforementioned podcast with Sam Harris was published on April 22nd that year, Murray’s hopes of rehabilitation had been dashed. The influential Ideology-compliant website had already, on March 28th, published a 1,700-word tirade against Murray and The Bell Curve by political scientist Nicole Hemmer. She called the book “racist” and “social Darwinist” and linked it to, yes, Donald Trump.

The podcast with Sam Harris itself then inspired a more thoughtful piece, also on, co-authored by three academic psychologists: Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard Nisbett, hereinafter THN. The title of the piece is: “Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ.” Authors are not necessarily responsible for the titles under which their words are published, so we should make allowances. It is the case, however that all three co-authors are on the political Left. (And then some, in Dr. Harden’s case: In a New York Times op-ed published July 24th 2018 she quoted Lenin with approval!)

The science in the THN piece is, to borrow a favorite cant word of the ideologues, problematic. “[N]o self-respecting statistical geneticist would undertake a study based only on self-identified racial category as a proxy for genetic ancestry measured from DNA.” Really? Without trying hard I turned up a 2005 study out of Stanford University Medical Center finding that in a sample “consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic … only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That’s an error rate of 0.14 percent.” THN’s statistical geneticist, as well as respecting himself, would surely respect an accuracy level of 99.86 percent; and presumably twelve further years of research pushed that level higher.

More telling from the THN piece was this:

The new DNA-based science has also led to an ironic discovery: Virtually none of the complex human qualities that have been shown to be heritable are associated with a single determinative gene! There are no “genes for” IQ in any but the very weakest sense. Murray’s assertion in the podcast that we are only a few years away from a thorough understanding of IQ at the level of individual genes is scientifically unserious.

Concerning that first sentence, with its take-that! exclamation point at the end: Who thinks otherwise? Monogenic traits (hairy elbows, crumbly earwax) are exceptional—that’s Genetics 101. Any trait as complex as intelligence can safely be assumed to be polygenic. Scientifically-literate citizens have understood this for decades. What did THN take us for? (And why is this long-held assumption “ironic”?)

And “scientifically unserious”? As I write, in July 2018, the latest news in this field concerns a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. The study found 1,271 significant SNPs. (A SNP, pronounced “snip,” is one of the few million—out of three billion—basic components of the genome that regularly vary among individuals). As genetics blogger Razib Khan notes: “This is a big achievement, considering that five years ago a paper with ∼125,000 individuals identified just 3 SNPs that were significant for this trait!” From 3 to 1,271 in five years is a compounding annual rate of 335 percent. With that rate of progress, Murray’s assertion doesn’t look so “unserious.”

Neuroscientist Richard Haier did a full professional critique of THN at the invaluable website, June 21st 2017. He identified one particular notion as the fundamental sticking-point separating THN from Murray: Whatever factors influence intelligence differences among individuals will also influence average differences among groups. Haier calls this “the Default Hypothesis.” THN, he says, reject it—prematurely, as it is not inherently preposterous, only unproven. The worst possible interpretation of the Murray-Harris podcast is, says Haier, that they prematurely endorse it.

I think an alternative name for the Default Hypothesis would be “the Last Ditch.” THN actually concede most of what Murray and Herrnstein wrote in The Bell Curve. With evidence on the genetic architecture of intelligence accumulating ever faster, the long rearguard action to defend the Ideology against the advance of reality has retreated at last to this one earthwork. But the jig may be up on the Last Ditch stratagem. This past March Harvard geneticist David Reich took to Last Ditch home field, i.e. the New York Times, to write:

So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible—indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd—to deny those differences.

Meanwhile Charles Murray has informed me via private email that he is hard at work on a new book with the working title Human Differences: Gender, Race, and Genes.[8]Private email to me, July 29 2018, by permission. Yes, the datanaut is back on the high seas with compass, sextant, and sounding-line. To judge by that working title, his spirit is in the best nautical tradition: Damn the torpedoes!


John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him.) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.


[1] Private email to me, May 7 2018, quoted with permission.

[2] From The Earth To The Moon And Beyond, by Charles Sheffield, Washington Post Book World, July 9 1989 … can’t find it on the web.

[3] At 2h12m33s in this April 22, 2017 “Waking Up” podcast with Sam Harris. NB: Because I have mined this podcast for recent quotes from Murray in his own voice, I shall henceforth just refer to it in these footnotes as “WU” followed by h-m-s.

[4] WU 2h12m59s.

[5] WU 1h48m00s.

[6] WU 2h04m27s.

[7] The best up-to-date brief survey of the science of intelligence for non-specialists is Stuart Ritchie’s 2015 handbook Intelligence: All That Matters. The title, however, is unfortunate. The book does not make an argument that nothing matters except intelligence; it is merely one of the publisher’s Xxxxx: All That Matters series giving the essentials — all that matters — of numerous general-interest topics.

[8] Private email to me, July 29 2018, by permission.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 236 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Mr. XYZ says:

    Excellent analysis, Mr. Derbyshire! 🙂

    For what it’s worth, while I don’t know for sure if the hereditarian hypothesis is true, I know that it’s certainly extremely plausible. If two groups start out with the same average IQ and the same environment but in one group everyone has two children while in the other group only the elites are reproducing while everyone else remains childless, it is extremely clear that, even without any environmental changes, the second group is going to develop a significantly higher average IQ than the first group within a century–even after taking regression towards the mean into account.

  2. Mr. XYZ says:

    It’s ironic that liberals criticize conservatives for being evolution deniers only to have some members of their own side go ballistic whenever someone suggests that evolution could have resulted in meaningful differences among different groups of humans–such as a different average IQ, differences in personality, differences in behavior, et cetera.

    Indeed, it looks like the left is also full of evolution deniers!

    • Agree: res, Stick
    • Replies: @Anon
  3. dvorak says:

    Human Differences: Gender, Race, and Genes

    Sex, please! Not Gender.

    • Agree: Simon in London
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @Hibernian
  4. (Charles Murray) You’re out of touch with reality in that regard.

    Overall, he may be a bit of a toady, but that’s one hell of a(n accurate) smackdown.

  5. Magus says:

    I bet he cucks in his new book. I wish he had a backbone and went at it: “preponderance of evidence suggests sub-saharan african population groups and those descended from them have one standard deviation (or greater) lower IQ on average than european population groups. This has consequences”.

    But he won’t.

  6. From Bing’s #1 result when I looked up Sam Harris:

    There’s a pattern: although Harris professes not to share the politics of Sargon and Lauren Southern and Charles Murray, he only ever leaps to the barricades on behalf of right-wingers and xenophobes …The most straightforward explanation is that Harris stands up for these prejudiced views because he shares them… [from]

    Typically–you might almost say classically–it never occurs to the author of this hit piece (“Adam Lee”) that Mr Harris stands up for those who are being systematically silenced, a group which includes a grand total of zero of Adam Lee’s heroes.

    Hey Mr Lee–how many ‘refugees’ are living in your spare bedroom right now? Or are you afraid of something, like putting your money where your mouth is, for once?

  7. MBlanc46 says:

    Thank you. It’s appalling that so many on our side kowtow to the Left’s redefinition of terms.

    • Replies: @anon
  8. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    “DS: I believe that given the opportunity, most people could do most anything.

    CM: You’re out of touch with reality in that regard.”

    the jewess doesnt actually believe what she is implying and you are buying and is a very common way the lie is told.
    Note she says “MOST people could do MOST anything”. She understands that if she actually said what she is trying to imply for the rubes edification and the rulers assurance she is Kosher, that she will be dismissed out of hand by the FEW people that can think straight MOST of the time.

    She knows anyone with an IQ over 100 has noticed that SOME people are dummies that cant do certain things and SOme people are so clever they could likely do anything they put their minds to. She understands that Many of these people are not yet baptized into full communion and that she will lose the chance at conversion if she pushes to hard on the faerytales of the faith, so instead she exaggerates a truth in her favor, yeah its a whopper but like most leftist lies it contains a kernel of truth.

    The truth is Few people can do Most anything, and Most People can do very little and we all know this, so she cant say “anyone can do anything” without losing the people she want s to convert. So she just exaggerates the understood reality of cognitive distribution but skews the distribution all the way to the other end of reality,m Voila shes not a lying commie jew, she’s an optimistic and generous elite asking you to join her in encouraging the underclass to do better are you really going to insist on rubbing the truth in the face of those less fortunate than your selves are you so small you need to punch down on principle? After all who can say How many can do how much?

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  9. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    They don’t actually believe race or gender is a social structure either . Again they have crafted a party line that is to send different messages to different peoples. The dumbest people dont question the lines contradiction of other lines they have been taught they are simple minded and its good enough that each line get them a banana so they get bananas for saying race is a social construct and they get a banana for saying whitey stole my banana i gets another.
    the next level is people who get a big shot of dopamine banana when they hear trite phrases like “theres only one race the human race” How clever is that? And like all leftist lies isnt it a little true – and so catchy.
    the next level up understands the game, you cant compare races if there are no races and if you compare races the entire bedrock of leftism is dead done over finis.

    The highest level understands its even worse than an end to welfare for the proxy army. if the goy really gets into the weeds of all this and starts thinking about it lie they think about anti matter and shit it wont be good for the jews. Not only will the jews lose their fifth column of violent apes, and the globalist project be defunded, but if whites begin to understand themselves as a people different from all other people they might want to preserve themselves and their habitat they might question whether a meritocracy pen to smarter non whites which has lead to them being ruled by those non whites is such a good idea. They might wonder if they’d be better off or happier going back to their old ways which despite being told 24/7 were awful they dont remember or look so awful watching downton abbey or noir films they look fucking great actually

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Leon Haller
  10. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    And they know perfectly well that IQ can be measured suggest to them or better yet PWN AOC to demand that the Ivys drop admission tests and admit based on a lottery system only.
    Point out to AOC that if race is a social construct and the social races are all equal and that there is no such thing as IQ and nyway it cant be measured then there is no reason to have any sort of testing to go to an Ivy school that the ONLY pint of these tests and interviews is to discriminate.
    Yes Im suggesting wreck the IVYs wreck it all.
    The fact is the left understands to win it must use hierarchy just like any other group has learned that’s why they marched through all the hierarchical institutions to seize them. Force them to play by their own rules- Alinsky Lets use their proxy army of mudds against them stop arguing how irrational they are instead start whispering in the ears of the AOC and Coates etc that the jews and asians are not walking the walk that that according to the Ideology, their is no reason not to have a lottery for harvard or the board of directors of amazon in fact why leave it to chance just random assignment by racial quota to every institution today now people are dying the earth is dying FORWARD NOW
    If they try to say while their is no such thing as race and so no such thing as racial difference BUT… dont even let them finish because then there’s no excuse for any disparity at all
    ask them how they know this if IQ tests are bullshit how can this be if we are born blank slates, ask them how can it be that f individuals have innate intelligent differences they do not pass these traits on genetically insist that they are JUST CRYPTO NAZIS you go girl alexandria occassio

  11. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    The major reason they get away with this gibberish and the nazi meme is so hardy is we all ( not just the jews or even the goodcucks like Jordy, but even dark lords themselves who banned the likes of me like Land Moldberg Unz sailor) intuit the true implication of the dark enlightenment truly are a nietzschean abyss, that nazism isnt too far off.


    Whats going on subconsciously is what happened consciously for me, my “red pill” moment. Always a sort of conservative libertarian contrarian I had read the bell curve and was not shocked it pretty much confirmed what living in NYC had taught us all who lived there. But the real red pilling was the Trayvon affair or rather the rhetoric about racism that came out of it, sure we had all been through other race hoaxes Tawanna Rodney OJ and began to be changed but by Trayvon the incongruity of how the word racism had shifted since my childhood in the 60s where we were supposedly addressing PRE -JUDICE and dumb bigotry ( yes we were easily convinced the southern mans reported hatred was sheer stupidity based on nothing but evil, which was pretty odd since even Podhoretz had to admit in an essay blacks were dangerously different. But it was pretty much understood that evolution was more than a cudgel to beat southern christians with and that implied race which implies difference which implies suitability for a given environment which implies kinda sorta “superiority”
    What made us different fromnazis and southerners was not that we denied darwin but that we were committed to judging individuals and probably more significantly that we were optimistic that the average differences were not too huge to overcome civilizationally.So even reading the bell curve when it first came out and believing the full standard deviation was true it didnt occur to us just how this was the end of the world as we had known it since at least runnymeade. It just seemed a hard problem.
    By trayvon it was clear the problem was actually much worse than we thought because it wasnt getting solved it was getting worse and partly because the worst solutions were pushed and looking to see the latest anti bell curve arguments i found not only had they still not mustered a plausible refutation but the case was now hardened beyond reproach but worse data was now in on all sorts of other traits like crime aggression future time orientation and it wasnt done by nazxis or southernwrs it was looking at differences in asian wheat vs rice farmers in fact in the time since the bell curve the HBD was so overwhelming it had begun to summon the rough beasts of HBD neo reaction race realism etc etc etc which led into the alt right and a resurgence in “neo nazism”

    the problem is it was all true and true to a degree that was not solvable multiculturalism was an impossibility we were doomed nietzsche was right it was a slave morality and we overcome it or the universe devours us all its dark dark dark the more you gaze into it the darker it becomes. forget the negro’s the jews land wants the bots and AI to inherit the universe others want a cognition spiral of ever smarter defection exits. How can we any of us survive this reality only one of us on this earth is worthy to make the final defection and nick land says some AI is going to snuff that person out and hes glad.

    It was hard to dent derb la griffe land sailor moldberg you’re all smarter than me and can write english. I noticed though that some 0of you really couldn’t look into the abyss long enough sailor was into this citizenist thing, land had moved to china and married a jew, derb even Taylor were not willing to say there’s no way whites can survive if smarter jews and east asians are ruling them.
    and I realized the reason a lot of normies who we know are not dummies in fact the left elite are pretty much the cognitive elite so they have to know they are full of shit. i realized some of us consciously but most of us unconsciously understand if you follow the implication far enough down the abyss its so scary few can go there they would rather just lie to themselves than face what they think they vaguely discern just beyond their gaze. so they come up with leftism or dark enlightenment leftism like citizenism or rule by jews will turn out ok, a few just embrace nazisim etc but are ridiculed for not getting that they dont seem to intuit the cognition spiral will devour them too.
    Although by nature Im a alpha reactionary Randian type I realized that ten percent of the smartest whites could not in fact exit and make a go of it even assuming the path were cleared politically etc if you gave them their seastead an island even new zealand they wont survive. Its not clear that even a geographical fortress like north america if all white could survive without europe also white nations.conversly its not clear any small white nation of say walloons basques french scots greeks could survive if other euro peoples dont come to an understanding not for pan white nationalism but to stop cutting each others throats while slants jews muslims and the apes are all out for us.
    in other words we do need to revert to ethno nations where possible because we simply are different just as other races ethnicities are, china can not allow japan or korea to rule them at the same time at some point they are likely all going to realize they have more common cause than they do with germans. but maybe more cause with germans than with jews or africans.
    point is cognition spirals aree no smarter than holiness spirals and despite how scary it might be and the fact we may not survive it citizenism is not going to work only ethno nationalism has a chance and not a great one. we didnt evolve rationally according to some plan there i s nothing to suggest we can make this hodge podge of adhoc mutations ever be a sustainable civilization or even work long enough to reboot with crspr. but only ethno states have the size needed for defence with the minimal possible variance in trait distribution to give it a chance. and only in a system of hereditary nationalism do we have a shot at getting along with the other groups not cumbaya but MAD and maybe some trade that is for benefit of the ethnostate not those determined to build a new world order.

    • Replies: @EH
  12. Truth says:

    LOL, I bet you cuck in your next post by continuing with a moniker instead of your real, birth-given name.

  13. I’m not finished reading yet, but I wanted to comment on that great comparison of the present-day ctrl-left to the Maoists during that decade-long Cultural Revolution 1.0. (I have read my share of books on it by survivors of that era in China.) Yes, things are very much as what you write, as the ctrl-left drudges up old writings and talk from years back, even if these Politically Incorrect people have (sadly) apologized since.

    It is much easier now to find these un-PC thoughts in on-line archives, than it was for the Commie Chinese under Mao. The ctrl-left here in the present day has not needed to resort to having 5 year-olds rat out their parents … yet. Chairman Mao probably only thought of such things as pulling up 15 year-old blog comments and youtube videos of 30 year-ago events in his wet dreams. Who will be the reincarnation of the butcher Mao? I know there are a few candidates right here on History rhymes, and we are coming around to that same chorus in which the Commies come crawling out of the woodwork again.

    I’m sure I’ll enjoy the rest of your article, Mr. Derbyshire. Thank you.

  14. Wow, how ’bout that quick excerpt of the exchange between Charles Murray and Miss Solomon?! I gotta say that “credentials in Art History and Journalism” thing of Miss Solomon were not entirely unexpected by this blogger. Those 2 degrees and a $75,000 school loan debt, will get you a barista job and a cup of coffee Grande Vente capuccino latte, with extra soy creme, 1/2 off!

  15. Rich says:

    To this date, I am unable to find any test that shows higher than average IQ tests for Ashkenazi. The average IQ in Israel is listed as 95 (excluding non-Jews). In the US, religion, or ethnicity, is never asked on any tests, including IQ. Every high IQ guess about the Ashkenazi has been based on estimates. Even Richard Lynn, a Judeophile, has admitted his numbers are based on estimates. My best guess is that Ashkenazi in the US probably score similarly to other Whites in their economic class.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Colin Wright
    , @Hail
  16. res says:

    Good article. Thanks for the information about Charles Murray’s new book project. That is exciting! It will be interesting to see how far he goes given his TBC experiences. Has he reached the “I don’t give a damn” stage of life yet?

  17. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. XYZ

    That’s because the Left only cares about evolution as a stick to beat Chirsters with. They don’t give two shits about nerdy sciencey stuff otherwise.

  18. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    The irony is that this is a pretty smart comment but, since it seems to have been painfully typed out on an iPhone, it reads like the product of one those “dummies.” Is this the secret strategy of the globalists?

  19. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    yes but it tells us self preservation is not actually bred out of us and so when groveling is no longer enough they may decide to fight

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  20. “China added more solar capacity last year than the rest of the world combined. In 2018 it already surpassed the goal it had set for 2020. It is now looking to double its capacity over the next two years.”

    The statement trivializes the only successful revolution of the 1960s and obfuscates the fact that 500,000,000 peasants were liberated from their 3,000 year bondage, an emancipation that millions of them still celebrate annually.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  21. @Godfree Roberts

    500,000,000 peasants were liberated from their 3,000 year bondage, an emancipation that millions of them still celebrate annually.

    God (not “-free”) Bless Capitalism! Crap, I meant Socialism with Chinese characteristics. (yes, of course, you will please edit that political-incorrectness out, Comrade.)


    [shakes head slowly, whilst nodding: … like out of the freaking woodwork. sigh …]

  22. Rich says:

    Did you read the paper you linked to, Truthie? The only study mentioned that I’m familiar with is the Lynn one, and he admitted that he arrived at Ashkenazi IQ by estimating it based on the professions of Ashkenazi that he was familiar with. The English study from the 1920’s is interesting, I haven’t come across it before, but it would have to be looked into and repeated to be proven true. One of the studies quoted in the paper you cite states that Ashkenazi actually tested lower, but then is dismissed because it is contrary to the authors’ conclusions.

    Interestingly enough, Steve Sailer linked to a study from Wisconsin that says the Ashkenazi have higher IQ’s, but it’s based on self-identification as Ashkenazi and has a small sample size. Naturally, some group is going to have to come out on top, if the Ashkenazi get the crown, God bless them. I just want to see an honest discussion, not one based on rumor and estimates.

    As I’m sure you know, the IQ of all Jews in Israel averages out at 95. I’d think that Israel would probably be the best place to do an honest study of whether this particular ethnicity does indeed average out at 110.

  23. JLK says:

    I enjoyed Charles Murray’s books, but he never touched on the obvious discriminatory skew of college admission tests despite being uniquely qualified to do so.

    Most people have a little tin cup that they’re either rattling in front of someone, or covering up so that nothing drops out.

  24. Truth says:

    I’d think that Israel would probably be the best place to do an honest study of whether this particular ethnicity does indeed average out at 110.

    Except that Israel is not a particular ethnicity; it is a mixture of ethnicities from Ethiopia, The Caucasus region, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Iran and around the Middle east and North Africa.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @RadicalCenter
  25. If you read the linked Amazon reviews of his book on education, Murray seems to be saying that, regardless of IQ, people have different strengths. But college has been pursued by too many people, especially since it hones certain measurable strengths that do not always lead to a living wage or a productive life. That observation is just common sense—and the lived experience of many educators, not to mention the experience of underemployed, college-educated temps, grading standardized tests at $10.40 per hour—but Murray has the background in statistics to offer proof.

    If this era had not been stripped of common sense, this rational hypothesis would not lead to mob violence on campus. Just a few decades ago, campuses were a debating ground, a place for a free—but civilized—clash of thought options, but now, campuses are a temple of political correctedness, lorded over by spartan monks of the Dark Ages and their youthful, zealous converts.

    Murray is like Galileo, delivering the bad news about planet Earth to a bunch of unthinking religious fanatics, as opposed to thoughtful religious scholars. I thought the Western Enlightenment brought reason to mankind, with succeeding generations advancing that pool of reason. Murray apparently thinks humans are going backwards in terms of top-flight intellectual accomplishments, and it is ironic, no?

    We have all of these dual-high-earner assortative mates, reducing the size of the middle class by half by keeping two household-supporting jobs under one roof, and they reproduce, after which many of them compete like banshees to make sure their gene-pool-enhanced kids are in the gifted classes and all the best private schools.

    Despite all of this intellectual chest-thumping, history-grade intellectual accomplishments across most disciplines are down, making you wonder about the correlation between high IQ and actually getting ‘er done, as they say in the South.

    I also wonder if, like Murray’s observation that the purpose-driven mentality of Christians led to more intellectual achievements in eras that were less antipathetic to religion, the Jewish tradition of debating religious problems led to a higher degree of mental acumen in eras that were more tolerant of a free exchange of ideas.

    Can that change, biologically speaking?

    With all of these contemporary campuses practicing an idea-stifling religion of political correctedness, and with many Jews getting right in the middle of it despite their history of rigorous religious (and other) debate, I wonder if it is possible for IQ to fall, even with all of these gene-pool masters of assortative mating in the Jewish, Asian and Christian communities, respectively ranked, making sure to replicate their mental greatness via selective breeding?

    Derbyshire’s book review article was top-notch, making me want to read all of these books by Murray, even the youth-oriented one with too-late-for-older-Xers-like-me advice on navigating the horrible, demoralizing, dead-end, churn-job scene in the USA, with its family-friendly, absenteeism-friendly, crony-parent gangs and open cutthroatery, substituting for hard work and production.

    Murray should write a book, statistically contrasting the life outcomes of street-smart people v/s book-smart people, assuming that street smartness is not just high IQ in a different form. Maybe, the curmudgeon book is it. Then he should write a book, contrasting the life outcomes of people who pursued different types of intellectual and non-intellectual endeavors to their fullest, proving that IQ and college aren’t the be all of the end all.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  26. @Rich

    I think you raise a very interesting point here. Thinking about it, I realized that, while scientists like Harpending and Cochran et al. have provided a highly plausible model of how a millennium of cultural selection among Ashkenaz Jews could have led to a sub-race with a significantly higher IQ than the Europeans around them, these same scientists failed to realize that this cultural selection was most probably restricted to a subset of Ashkenaz Jews and may have created a sub-sub-race of more intelligent Ashkenaz Jews, while leaving most Ashkenazim with the same or perhaps even slightly lower intelligence than the European population at large.

    In fact, common prejudices among the Jews themselves tend to support this theory. Anyone familiar with a broad cross-section of European Jews is aware that those Jews of German and Sephardic descent tend to disdain Eastern European Jews. Among Eastern European Jews urban ghetto dwellers tend to scorn rural Jews. Within the shtetls, rabbis, merchants and kulaks look down on poor peasants. Yiddish is replete with words reflecting these distinctions. A mechanism of class and IQ homogamy, except more powerful powerful than even that envisioned by Murray and Herrnstein as operating in the USA, may have played out within and among European Jews over the last millennium or so.

    This would explain both the exceptional IQ scores and concomitant success of urban Jews leaving the ghettos of Europe. This is a sub-sub-race, if you will, bred by a millenium of cultural selection and class/IQ homogamy. The other sub-sub-race of Ashkenaz Jews would not have had the benefit of this cultural selection. Indeed. the extraction of highly intelligent individuals from their ranks into marriages with upper class Jews may even have slightly reduced the intelligence of this population.

    IMHO, this is a hypothesis worth further investigation.

  27. Rich says:

    I meant the Ashkenazi as an ethnicity. If you look at how Israelis classify themselves, it’s as Ashkenazi, Sephardic/Mizrahi, Oriental and Ethiopian. The majority are Sephardic/Mizrahi, but Ashkenazi make up a significant minority. I would think it would be easier for the Israelis to do the study because it couldn’t be termed “anti-Semitic” if the results were controversial.

  28. @Rich

    Interesting, but it seems that we cannot treat IQ tests of Israeli Jews as interchangeable with IQ tests of Jews in the North America (USA and Canada).

    Sepphardics constitute a much higher percentage of Israeli Jews than they constitute of North American Jews, who are overwhelmingly Ashkenazim.

    And Ashkenazim, in turn, tend to be heavily white European genetically — primarily Italian but also often some Germanic or Slavic genes. See Jon Entine column at Genetic Literacy Project, reporting a study about ten years ago that found the Ashkenazi Jews genetically tested were EIGHTY percent Italian on the maternal line, on average. Their paternal line was overwhelmingly Middle Eastern / Semitic (closely related to Arabs), as you’d expect.

  29. @Truth

    Yes, just list the Middle East and Italian first, far above the others.

  30. @Endgame Napoleon

    Many people who went to college, would have been better off never attending a four-year university — instead, they could attend a two-year community college or a vocational/technical training school, graduate debt-free, and start working full-time one or two years sooner than their counterparts at over-rated four-year indoctrination factories.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  31. Yeah. The problem for The Ideology, as manifested in the terror tactics of The Last Ditch, is that if heredity is almost everything then big government programs to correct Inequality and enforce Equality are bound to fail.

    And what would the Ideologists do then, poor things.

  32. Murray’s hopeful, Twitter-zealous, #NeverTrump stage.
    Hopeful in that he visibly held the hope it would earn him something it apparently didn’t.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  33. @atlantis_dweller

    The essence of the Ideology is that the “BIP” traits (behavior, intelligence, and personality) of a developed human being are shaped entirely by postnatal experiences.

    Good luck finding an ideology that outsells the thereof.

  34. The party ideologues just seem not to have found psychometry very interesting.

    Nazi philosophy was basically – we are Germans, therefore we will pursue whatever is in the interest of the German people. In Mein Kampf Hitler claims the superiority of the Aryan race lies in its ability of individuals to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the People. Germans have a superior and more spiritual “culture”. Whereas Jews he characterizes as selfish egoists who worry only about self-preservation. Hitler and the Nazis generally detested “thinkers”. Nazis borrowed from scientific race theory, often from American and British thinkers, but only when it was useful to them.

    The German attitude towards Poland shows pretty clearly that Nazis were not racists in a way a modern American lefty would understand – why would you murder millions of blonde, blue-eyed, Catholics with above-average IQs if you believe “whites” are superior?

  35. @Jus' Sayin'...

    I think you are on the right track. I also suspect that lower/average IQ Ashkenazi Jews tend to simply stop identifying as Jews and blend in to the surrounding population. That is particularly true in the US where it is easy to assimilate, and being an unsuccessful Jew carries a particular stigma of failure – like being a Harvard grad with a shitty job.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Anon
  36. EH says:

    Interesting thoughts, but it isn’t clear to me what you mean by “cognition spiral of ever smarter defection exits”, which seems to be the heart of what you are trying to get across. Also a little copy editing would go a long way, particularly to go back and put in punctuation to break up the run-ons and missing capital letters.

    • Replies: @anon
  37. @Magus

    How about 2 or 3 standard deviations lower in the realm of MQ (“morality quotient”)?

  38. @anon

    LOL and classic! MAGA – never stop saying “MAGA!” There’s a reason or two the Left hates that phrase – but I think the word they hate most is “Again”. Because this is their world, not ours, and it sucks -bigtime!

  39. Anon[724] • Disclaimer says:

    Let the “Bell Curve” ring!

  40. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Jews of German and Sephardic descent tend to disdain Eastern European Jews.

    This played out in my family history. My great-great-grandfather was born in what is now Russia, with a Turkish surname. When he came to the US, he changed his name to the German equivalent, because he knew that German Jews had higher status in the Jewish community than those from Eastern Europe.

    • Replies: @anon
  41. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    Sorry My alcoholic genes interfered in my formal education really early

    Im writing as if everyone sort of gets moldbug and nick land neoreaction etc which all smart people ought to at least familiarize themselves with moldbug and his descendents thats where redpill, holiness spiral and others come into use in the american political sense for instance.
    Extremely briefly Moldbug is sort of saying the problem is we still have hierarchy (harvard) but they dont have ownership so act like renters, if you gve them ownership of their domains theyde be better stewards, and we might be serfs again but our lives would be better or maybe we would be merchants. one way he imagines getting there from here is exit as in voice vs exit so yeah they cheer on all brexits, which got neoWN interested since hierarchy of course came out of HBD and their rejection by NRX kinda sorta begat alt right but thts way too simple much of alt right isnt even political and others really are the old neonazis etc (not that thats a bad thing)
    Ok im down the rabbit hole you cant do neoreaction briefly you need to start with moldbug and read the cannon there’s a lot to be gotten from them even if like me you ultimately reject all of them. Instinctually I liked them if youre naturally a libertarian or a reactionary you will (yeah its contradictory but hey im an ape that wears clothes)If nothing else they get you to start questioning your premises not just HBD but say the enlightenment the american constitution scientism, Have you ever read the anti federalist papers, how familiar are you with popper or hoppes libertarianism, so a lot of us muh constitution conservatives dont actually think of jefferson as leftist revolutionary or communism and democracy as variants of the same ideology.
    whoops another rabbit hole.


    So a lot of this starts with the rationalist bloggers and HBD bloggers and the math, so theres this racist element but these are all former libs and libertarians that have accidentally redpilled themselves by actually looking at the facts to they are reluctant to go full WN but you cant help realize its implied except many are jews and sinos or philes of them.complex anyway at some point this whole anti democracy pro hierarchy thing leads to the phrase the Dark Enlightenment being coined as in all men are not created equal they evolved differently and culture is part of the biological feedback loop not an alternative hypothesis- as in ants etc.
    So nick land a semi famous former marxist current capitalist accelerationist philosopher writes an essay of that tittle DE and becomes a major player in nrx. his thing is techno futurism and capitalist accelerationism Not going down that rabbit hole but he kinda implies that if you take this whole nrx thing to its logical conclusion which he agrees we must eventually AI wins and thats a good thing or mybe hes trolling and really only hopes some half jew half englishman will be able to control the AI and its robat drone army- whatever. It does get you well me thinking about this knee jerk defense of capitalism we conservatives have since the cold war. do we love us some capitalism because the commies hate it, because its such a beautiful machine like evolution, because it serves us? all three for me but what if it didnt serve us us being me and mine and my people.then it would be a wicked machine and whats with commies loving capitalism lately, and is globalism capitalism or corporatism? and do we really think we cant interfere with capitalism in the lightest without wrecking it or is the real point when socialists o they wreck it but we all agree we dont allow capitalism in the crack cocaine market, we dont allow monopolies, and all sorts volumes of other laws that regulate capitalism, In fact its not even true that capitalism and democracy are inseparable capitalism has found a way to work in monarchies theocracies and totalitarian communist states, while socialism has worked ok in democracies. and did communism really wreck the west seems communism is a reaction to capitalism kinda wrecking the west ( not that thats necessarily a bad thing) but it was the acceleration of capitalism thats really wrecked our culture, take russia if you doubt me they have mostly recovered from absolute communism in a few decades and still have their culture where as the west is unlikely to ever recover its culture. No I dont entirely reject our trad story about communism just checking premises. and i note the euro ape seems to have a low tolerance for suffering yet a high tolerance for individualism/capitalism so can you actually ignore the ape economic duality i dont think you can without leaving an opening for commies to exploit better admit our nature and get in front of the situation with low suffering solved with say high homogeneity/ outcomes and market solutions to safety nets.

    yes im getting to the point you asked about- sorry. One of the biggest NRX tenets that came out of its take on HBD and evolutionary psychology was GNON a joke natures god think of the god referred to in rutger hauer’s last scene in blade runner. The god of evolution, the joke is sort of theres nothing you can do to outwit evolution that evolution doesnt incorporate into the game of chromosomes – yah i made that up just know also made up game of crones cuz its a feminist show. so gnon theory dark enlightenment is always saying theres no escape even crspr is going to get incorporated into the death race. so all ideas in NRX are put through this sieve, and they always kind of conclude the smart will inherit the earth. But i started thinking about this which being a halfway smart white guy appeals always has but my premises said Im an ape and are apes capitalist or social ists whats our dna say what is gnons written into our souls. we re both we have genes that detect cheating slacking greed lying chimps routinely demonstrate these abilities they trade food sex grooming and they punish cheating stealing etc but they have learned to lie to bluff to fake also in some uses capitalist but on the other hand they are socialists they object to not sharing, to using ones alpha or physical size to hoard and they will use their social skills to punish anti socialist behavior they will gang up on a alpha leader thats not a team player. This ought to make one wonder about the contradiction in instincts, one thing that already happening in apes is new instinctual traits are not so much mutated whole rather new ways to use existing traits develop nd you can also find ways to then trigger them for other even opposite purposes again in other words sometimes a trait is used for a purpose and in another era or situation for a purpose thats seems to be its antithesis, anti cheating instincts serve capitalism and socialism both cap/com serve the species to thrive. apes are sexually reproductive and most of us are therefor group survivors.Humans are certainly group strategy.
    And yet we are hierarchical. so heres NRX esentially saying look all us hicogs should simply exit as in anyn rands the strike and when the proles realize they aint shit without us they will beg to be our serfs again- thus the whole neo monarchy strain of nrx which sort of led to evola and then to hrx or heroic reaction and then some sort of sid hey some of these alt right which at the time were not todays alt right were not so wrong just a bit too socialist and low brow i digress

    so I always like atlas shrugged so why not? here’s why.
    first off there’s no where to exit to the cathedral has the entire planet in lockdown ask milosovek et al- ok well maybe you could go to china or russia but the cathedral hates them precisely because they are not universalist and when you show up saying hey bro they are going to tell you you’re not their bro, and if the cathedral ever actually goes to war with them again you’re behind enemy lines. so until we open up outer pace the days of white xeit are just a sci fi novel- NRX like to think technology will solve this my replay is look around you who own the latest tech besides DARPA techno jew cathdralist and cucks like Gates and what do they use it for cucking and cathedral so there will be no techno exit they are moving to shut down the net which i predicted they would. so no voice no exit but there has always been a third option that doesn’t occur to the type of faggot that likes nrx blogs- WAR. even a war

    Ok this is wayyyy too long but these are all interrelated issues,
    the cognitive spiral all reaction neo reaction even libertarianism implies extreme individualism expressed in radical capitalism yet is in tension of its pre american revolutionary Carlyle authoritarian conservatism watered down to hierarchism/ meritocracy- let me be clear im not a monarchist i think meritocracy was an improvement to solve the inefficient a good king is hard to find one with a good son impossible problem od west civ.
    But (((somehow))) meritocracy in america gets translated into demotism, its starts out white adult men of good character and property may have an equal say in which of them will be our best representatives and decide how our own taxes are to be used. to any nigger who can climb this fence can vote himself a credit card in my great grandchildrens name.

    so not only is there no exit possible even if there were a place and a way would it work, this is land and moldbugs idea the smart people can shrug us all off, and of course their readers all assume they will make the cut, despite my writing ability i too assume i would. But lets say everyone over a 125 or 130 IQ exits you can’t have the non whites in that trench because their offspring reverts to their mean and because jews and east asians are tribal so the cog elite whites can they alone produce an economy that produces enough wealth to build the defense industry needed to ward off the rest of the world can they alone produce a nation they will enjoy living in, who is going to make the baked goods and build the ballistic missiles man the submarines?robots perhaps will they even have the manpower to man enough robots will defending themselves against the envy they inspire consume them? what we want to know is what is the ideal size of a nation. Before we get into that lets just say they can and do. heres the problem you asked about. in this tiny nation people with IQs of 125 -135 are considered proles dummies to be given the menial tasks a burden on the rest the average IQ is now 140 if this nation is succesful it makes sense for them to exit again and again. a cognition spiral and if cognition is our only value then maybe land is correct let AI turn out the lights on us, keep in mind NRX has already posited that out cog elite descendants will not actually be anglo saxons ar even han chinese but crspr will result in face tentacles and a genome that can not in any meaningful waay be ascribed as still “us” genetically so why get upset AI will be about as much “us” as some tentacled faced creature with a 3000 IQ in the year 2200
    so My point was an exit of cog elites even if possible would become a cognition spiral would logically lead ever smaller group of european people assuming these eggheads agree it ought to start that way which not all do. so even if possible not possible or not desirable for those of us discussing an entirely different problem which is the problem european people throughout the world have with postmodernism. so yeah like capitalism hierarchy is good when it serves us.

    I think the problem the real problem is no life on earth evolved in a sensible way it evolved ad hoc and so this expectation there is a sustainable cultural system is absurd, the better question is can we find ways to be nimble enough to changing circumstances which include the last solutions we tried to survive long enough to be able to attempt a reboot from scratch. In other words all that repurposing genetic instincts that we can not escape yet bad actors can attempt to PWN has got to go or be recoded do its harder and not hackable by ambitious individuals
    that proles and their occasional socialist shtick isnt the problem they are always instigated by elites who eschew maintenance for glory and defect proles are actually a cultural ballast against elite impulsiveness, that an ethno nation is the ideal size of a nation and while its good policy to cultivate proles and do ones best to shorten the left tails while strengthening the right the actual goal is greater homogeneity for greater stability thus an ethno state and while you need hierarchy you have to guard against elites using that power to cheat the dumber apes because they are not so dumb they dont notice- its not that its immoral its actually natural nd positive impulse but it leaves an opening for another elite ape to use the inherent power of the greater number of proles for personal advantage a destabilizing advantage that benefits that elite in the short run but in the end as his ethno state goes so goes he. we used to get this and instill our elites with a sense of duty, its actually capitalism perhaps that’s created a individualistic zeitgeist in elites and we are reluctant to counter this because the commies have set us up with a knee jerk reaction to anti individualism. when we again have a frontier we can again allow some elites or even poles to express greater individualism out there but when we are surrounded by hostiles in a closed system we are going to have to act more like a monkey troop than we may wish _ dont actually like this in fact decades ago thinking about why leftists were doing what they were doing yet seemed not dummies i concluded they had come to understand the world was getting smaller and they had to lower our individualist expectations- of course back then i didnt understand bill gtes was actually breeding 60 IQ apes by the billions and even if i did i probably would have agreed we could even consider just doing away with all the races we can. They fact is we are in a life and death struggle with all life and other apes are our greatest threat well jews get this and slants get it just us universalists dont get it.

  42. @Rich

    ‘ …My best guess is that Ashkenazi in the US probably score similarly to other Whites in their economic class.

    I’m afraid that in my experience, that wouldn’t be the case. They are by no means all towering geniuses, but I grew up around a lot of Jews, and now live in a virtually all white gentile environment.

    Ashkenazi are noticeably more intelligent than my current neighbors, on average. It’s not true in each individual case, and intelligence is far from being the sole human virtue, but that is what I perceive.

    I wish it weren’t so, but it is. What’s actually interesting is to contemplate how and why intelligence did come to be apparently the sole human virtue. That wasn’t always the case.

  43. @Peter Akuleyev

    ‘I think you are on the right track. I also suspect that lower/average IQ Ashkenazi Jews tend to simply stop identifying as Jews and blend in to the surrounding population. That is particularly true in the US where it is easy to assimilate, and being an unsuccessful Jew carries a particular stigma of failure – like being a Harvard grad with a shitty job.’

    Interestingly, I’ve voiced the same suspicion elsewhere. I don’t know if there’s actually anything to it, but…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  44. Rich says:
    @Colin Wright

    My experience is different. I grew up in Queens, N.Y., moved out to Long Island and graduated from Queens College. I’ve been working in NYC for most of my adult life, so I do have a bit of experience with our Khazarian cousins. My experience is that many are smart and many aren’t. They seem to be just about the same as every other White ethnic group. I think those who live outside of NYC don’t get to meet the regular every day Jew we have walking around here in their homeland. But that’s just my experience.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Colin Wright
  45. Truth says:

    Then how-come they own everything?

    • Replies: @Rich
  46. Rich says:

    Yeah, imagine, they came over here with nothing, most couldn’t speak the language, no affirmative action, no welfare, and yet they worked hard, stuck together and did well. Got to give them their due, but I still don’t think they’re a race of super geniuses, I know too many of them that aren’t.

  47. I admire Charles Murray greatly, but if he (and his wife) wrote a whole book about the Apollo Space Program without realizing that the moon landings were a hoax, there are at least some chinks in his intellectual armor.

  48. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says:

    Murray wants to have it both ways. Remain respectable and shift the Overton Window. Very difficult.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  49. @Priss Factor

    ‘Murray wants to have it both ways. Remain respectable and shift the Overton Window. Very difficult.’

    Yeah, but if you don’t remain ‘respectable’, you wind up without an audience.

    One has to be honest — or at least I prefer to try. At the time, there’s no point in offending everybody and ending up talking to yourself. Sometimes, you have to choose your battles.

    The place I perpetually have to bite my tongue is when it comes to Israel. I vehemently and without qualification loathe Israel and hope for its destruction. At the same time, the anti-Israel field is dominated by ‘progressives’ — a tribe with whom I disagree on quite a few points. So do I say something every time they trot out one of their inane platitudes — or do I stick to the point, and try to help the cause rather than just starting fights?

    To the extent that I can without actually lying, I choose the former course. Sometimes, if you can’t say something nice, it really is best to say nothing at all.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  50. @Rich

    ‘My experience is different. I grew up in Queens, N.Y…’

    It’s possible we’re both right.

    I grew up in Berkeley, California ( a lot to be said about that, but…not right now).

    Anyway, it occurs to me that disproportionately, the Jews I knew were faculty or students at UC Berkeley, or drawn into that orbit in some way. Obviously, they’d tend to be brighter than your average Jew residing in Queens.

  51. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    Murray allowed himself to be used by Richard Hernstein to publish a book that perpetuates the lie
    that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ, giving this group cover to explain away their success instead of acknowledging the truth, that their success is largely due to dishonesty, ruthlessness, clannishness and shamelessness(otherwise known as chutzpah). Dishonest people always make the honest look stupid by comparison, and Jews are not just dishonest but completely shameless about it, using the “2,000 year oppression” and the holocaust as justification. Hernstein knew if he were to publish the book by himself, people would know he was tooting his own horn. Having a goy as a co-author helped legitimize his claim. Murray was an unknown then and signed on with Hernstein to make a name for himself.

    Subsequent authors on IQ like Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton simply quoted and requoted Hernstein on Jewish IQ because they know who they needed to suck up to to get their books published. Rinse and repeat a lie enough times and it becomes fact.

    Jews entered the Ivy League in large numbers because they figured out long ago before all other groups how to prep for the SAT. The first such test prep center was opened by a Jew named Kaplan. Once they took over Harvard, they use legacy admission to further perpetuate the high IQ claim, and clannishness to ensure their success in banking, law, politics, Hollywood, journalism, now tech. Real Jewish IQ is probably closer to Ron Unz’ study of NMSF qualifiers in his article on Harvard’s discrimination against Asians. Unz said then that Jewish achievement under 40 had fallen off a cliff. It didn’t fall. That was their true IQ. All the fields Jews dominate are fields that involve opinions and persuasion – politics, law, sociology, psychology, philosophy, economics. Not real science and math. Freud and Einstein were both frauds and plagiarists.

    The most successful Jews in European history were the Sephardic Jews during the Spanish Inquisitions and the Dutch Golden Age. Ashkenazis were a poor and much looked down upon group throughout much of European history, until the time of Eastern European and Russian pogroms and communism. Then they became known for their vindictiveness.

  52. lhtness says:

    “Last ditch” sounds like a reasonable description. The main problem is that we are required to simultaneously accept that a) different human populations are exactly the same in terms of cognition, and b) different human populations are so different, that we can’t just assume that an allele that affects cognition does pretty much the same thing in one population as another.

  53. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says:

    Murray allowed himself to be used by Richard Hernstein to publish a book that perpetuates the lie
    that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ

    Not true. Murray had to insist that the stuff about higher Jewish IQ be included. Murray prevailed over Herrnstein’s objections.

    • Replies: @Anon
  54. JLK says:

    Don’t get so lost in the discussion that you lose sight that most of the Jews you have actually met in real life might not match the stereotypes often expressed on this site, other than having slightly elevated verbal intelligence on average. Most of the ones I’ve met are living everyday lives, absorbing the same media manipulation as the rest of us, with perhaps a different take and some indoctrinated fears.

    There’s a benefit to the real powers-that-be to keep the cognitive elite, not matter how you define it, divided just like the masses below are.

    I don’t think any group should be above criticism, and that the college admissions tests need an objective overview, but we should keep in mind that most people of all stripes in the past just trusted in the process and accepted the results, as we have about various historical issues.

  55. Anon[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Not true. Murray had to insist that the stuff about higher Jewish IQ be included. Murray prevailed over Herrnstein’s objections.

    Never heard of that. Hernstein had already published papers on Jews’ high IQ before the book.

    Also, Israel’s IQ is a middling 94, not 107 as claimed by Hernstein.

    Israel has never done well in International math and science olympiads. Their PISA scores are below OECD average.

  56. Hail says: • Website

    Jewish cognitive ability compared with Catholics and Lutherans in Wisconsin (b.1939 cohort); study by Emil Kirkegaard (2019).

    Jews at 110 IQ
    Catholics, Lutherans at 101 IQ.

    Summary of results:

    Wisconsin Jews (birth cohort, ca.1939)
    – IQ 95 to 124: Typical person (middle 68%)
    – IQ 124 to 138: Intra-group leadership class (84th to 98th percentile)

    Wisconsin Catholics (birth cohort, ca.1939)
    – IQ 87 to 116: Typical person (middle 68%)
    – IQ 116 to 130: Intra-group leadership class (84th to 98th percentile)

    Wisconsin Lutherans (birth cohort, ca.1939)
    – IQ 87 to 116: Typical person (middle 68%)
    – IQ 116 to 131: Intra-group leadership class (84th to 98th percentile)

    Above IQ 125, a lower-bound for national-level senior leadership: Top CEOs, politicians, judges, generals, etc.
    – Jews: 14.5%
    – Catholics: 5.0%
    – Lutherans: 5.5%

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Anon
  57. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rex Little

    Ive had several jewish friends make sure i understood they were german jews as opposed to slavik jews so this is true but sort of odd it seems they are bragging about what percent european they are the equivalent blacks preferencing light skin and hispanics preferencing white blood and no black blood. being a euro of course i think this makes sense but its goes against the complaint we have of jews, of course we apes are all famous for our dueling instincts so i suppose early jew immigrants understood passing as an advantage even to the extent they would throw those who struggled to pass under the bus. seems tests show akz jews to be bout 50% italianish so there actually is a difference,

  58. David says:

    If I have money in the bank compounding annually at 10% and I want to know what I’ll have after five years, I’d add 10% to 1, raise the result to the 5 power and multiply that result with my starting bank balance. That’s what I understood. But here, Derb would call that compounding at 110%. Maybe that’s the terminology sometimes?

    3 * 3.35^5 = 1265.7ish

    • Replies: @BC
  59. @Magus

    More interesting would be – if Murray ever gets around to it

    “preponderance of evidence suggests, in the US, _______ state population groups and those descended from them have one standard deviation (or greater) lower IQ on average than ______ state population groups. This has consequences”

    Iowa produced Charles Murray and his unremarkable, economically useless hokum I refer to all his Pol.Sci. work Iowa also produced the great Robert Noyce, though fellow MIT grad was smarter and more consequential by an order of magnitude.

  60. @Anon

    PISA? That’s a laugh.

    In the 1994 Math Olympiad
    1. Maryam Mirzakhani won Gold with 41
    2. Subhash Khot won Silver with 31
    3. Akshay Venkatesh won Bronze with 28

    #1 won Fields in 2014
    #2 won Nevalinna in 2014
    #3 won Fields in 2018

    Would be interesting to put random Harvard UG admits thru GaoKao, JEE/JAT or HBS admits thru CAT. At least one US bank has long since been using the CAT to screen applicants en masse.

  61. Rich says:

    From my understanding, that particular test is greatly flawed because of small sample size, self reported religion and location (the small number of Jews would be professionals who came to Wisconsin degrees in hand). It may be correct, but as others have pointed out in the comment section of both this thread and Sailer’s, it’s not definitive.

  62. Alfa158 says:

    THN have succeeded in proving that IQ is real and some people are less endowed with it than others. However to be fair to them, I wouldn’t ding them for the misuse of ironic, since 99% of people don’t seem to know what it really means either.

  63. Art Deco says:
    @Colin Wright

    The place I perpetually have to bite my tongue is when it comes to Israel. I vehemently and without qualification loathe Israel and hope for its destruction.

    And who talks this way?

    Damaged goods.

  64. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says:

    Never heard of that. Hernstein had already published papers on Jews’ high IQ before the book.

    For special journals that few experts reads. But a book for general readers is a whole new ballgame.

    Murray explains:

  65. MEH 0910 says:

  66. MEH 0910 says:

  67. Hibernian says:

    No gender, please, we’re British.

  68. I hate that Watson has been squashed for speaking. Doesn’t make him right. But that doesn’t matter. People should be free to say what they want.

    • Agree: JLK
    • Replies: @Anon
  69. Anon[145] • Disclaimer says:

    For Watson to be wrong, it would take a publicly established (non-throw away) scientist who is putting his good name on the line to undertake a formal scientific review of Watson’s paper(s) on the subject. Not a journalist mashing together random quotes, opinions, and politically correct censure. Not a pop sci book. Not an associate professor at a third rate university who is willing to gamble his scientific integrity for PC support and fame. Not anything but what I mentioned, which should be serious enough for Watson to want to actively defend his research against. Anything less he will rightly ignore.

    Watson’s methods are good, and absent what I mentioned above they should be assumed to be good given the man’s immense stature and credibility (assuming any random reader cannot critique his science for their own benefit). He is de facto “right” in the public and scientific spheres until his detractors launch an objectively scientifically successful front attack.

    The NYT article headline is an open admission of his detractor’s political pressure taking precedence over legitimate science critique:

    “James Watson Had a Chance to Salvage His Reputation on Race”.

    No science critique, especially as the science stands, would dare seriously imply that such a critique represents a closed case that impugns Watson’s reputation. Stating that Watson “had a chance to salvage his reputation” for not performing penance in response to a scientific critique is ridiculous and political in the extreme, and reveals as much.

  70. @anon

    Very good. This is like a direct download of information.

  71. All this hooha about “smart people.” Sheesh.

    Where is a smart person? What is a “smart person”? What, you mean some geek who does math? Have you ever met a “smart person”? I’ve met some high IQ people and they can hardly function. In other words, they are stupid. My general impression of mankind is a great undifferentiated mass, a kind of featureless gray ocean, of stupidity, with little bumps in it that you guys get your panties all bunched over but that to me look like mere ripples.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Wally
  72. Wally says:

    “Large-scale testing of Americans consistently turns up different mean IQs by ancestry group: Ashkenazi Jews highest, northeast Asians next highest, non-Ashkenazi whites lower, blacks lower still.”

    Notice the selection of Ashkenazi Jews from other Jews, the selection of “northeast Asians” from other Asians, while the highly vague “non-Ashkenazi whites” are grouped as one.

    Completely bogus comparisons.

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  73. Anon[142] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    lower/average IQ Ashkenazi Jews tend to simply stop identifying as Jews and blend in to the surrounding population

    Seriously? That’s ridiculous. Jews do not self-evaluate their IQ and adjust their Jewish status accordingly.

    1. Most non-Jews have poor Jew-dar and often simply to not register common Jews as such.
    2. Jews are enthusiastic over-sellers of exceptional Jews, and thus you hear about them more.
    3. Jews are over-represented in many realms for a variety of reasons, and so they are more visible.

    As a non-Jew, I know a lot of completely average Jews, and a lot of fucked up Jews. And a lot of smart Jews. And a lot of medium smart Jews.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
  74. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

    The Jewish sample size of 53 individuals is not remotely close to valid within the context of the study design, and the study should have been re-designed or postponed until a greater sample was sourced to adjust for it.

    Then there is the likely variable that small group minorities will have experienced some form of selection bias that geographically placed them within a larger majority.

    This study might be interesting if they used the data from 2,000 random Jews from Israel or even Brooklyn. Otherwise, I don’t see how the study is interesting other than to present the Bell curve of Catholics and Lutherans in Wisconsin. However, even that data is of marginal interest because those populations likely are not nearly as inbred as any Jewish population. Even in 1957 Wisconsin, what you would be measuring is merely the IQ of a cultural affinity group and not an actively cultivated race as you otherwise would be for the Jews.

    So perhaps the most interesting study would have been a comparison between two thousand Israeli Jews and people living in Northern Sweden as “Lutherans”. Counting Jews as a pure religious group, in a study using religious affinity as the variable, skews all results with the large uncontrolled variable of genetic distance between individuals.

    • Replies: @Hail
  75. @George F. Held

    The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken photographs of the landing zones of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 showing objects left from those missions on the lunar surface, but I suppose you judge that fake too. The USSR and UK closely monitored all Apollo missions, and BOTH Ivan and the Limeys would have been OVERJOYED to reveal fakery, but, I suppose being under Illuminati Reptoid control they’re in on the scam…. OK, the clincher, look at the famous photo of Armstrong in the LM after completion of the EVA(see Wikipedia), no way to fake that face, even by an actor, and Neil Armstrong was no actor, merely one of the finest test pilots ever, anywhere.

  76. “I believe that given the opportunity, most people could do most anything”

    So it’s only because I wasn’t given the opportunity to run a 9.58 100 meter dash that I couldn’t?

  77. Bruno says:

    I read that Afro American are 18% white on average. Then a AA 85 IQ corresponds to a 81.7 black IQ. And if it’s USA norms, where the white norm is then around 103 and not 100, black IQ would be 80. So the gap would be 1.3 sd.

    (An 80 black IQ would better explain the phenotypic l70 IQ of Africans, 10 being the toll of poverty. East German recovered 10 IQ points following reunification. Irish did the same while going out of poverty).

  78. Jhau says:

    An interesting article, and well argued.

    Personally, I think that it is extremely likely that heredity plays a part in IQ.

    However, two questions flow on from that:
    a) how much of a part does heredity play; and
    b) is “race” (insofar as “race” means anything at all) involved at all or does it simply come down to parental genetic characteristics (rather than some larger, more widespread qualities)?

    The difficulty, as I see it, is that it is impossible to prove. There is no realistic way to separate out the myriad of socio-economic influences, then the individual genetic influences, so that you can look at a person and say with certainty that their intellect (whether it be high or low) is due to the racial group.

    Whether we like it or not, socio-economic influences play a huge role in who we are. If you grow up in a household with university-educated parents who encourage you to read and who discuss current affairs etc over the dinner table, you’re already considerably ahead of other kids who don’t grow up in similar households. Does that mean that you are genetically brighter? Most likely not – you just got lucky with your parents.

    You can’t separate that stuff out and, as you can’t realistically separate it out, I think that it’s rash to speculate on it in books as it is such a controversial subject. I’m all for freedom of speech, but if you’re going to write a book in which you speculate that white people might have some sort of intellectual superiority because of genetics, then you’re going to inevitably draw some heat, particularly as you cannot prove your arguments.

    • Replies: @phil
    , @phil
  79. @obwandiyag


    1) Poor whites tend to grow up in worse situations, because their parents are generally poor. In rural environs, this is less of a life and death issue. In cities where they are in public schools it is disaster.

    2) Poor whites get hooked on crystal meth or crack and it destroys their life. Smarter whites may get into cocaine or heroin (Like Bourdain) but it does not destroy their life.

    3) Poor whites tend to go to jail for repeat petty offenses. The second time they steal a car or third DUI they end up in prison, where they are subjected to torture and rape.

    4) Poor whites often have children out-of-wedlock or have children to young. At twenty, they have a kid they cannot support.

    5) Poor whites tend to behave in inappropriate ways sexually. They are sluts who get pregnant by random men, or commit statutory rape or cannot remain in monogamous.

    6) Poor whites are influence by cultural garbage produced in Hollywood. Their ability to differentiate between reality and fiction is flimsy.

    7) They are not street smart. Italians, Jews, Asians and Hindus come from corrupt civilizations and are street smart. Put a Brahmin in the US system of bureaucracy and they adapt easily and find weaknesses in the power structure.

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  80. ” “This is a big achievement, considering that five years ago a paper with ∼125,000 individuals identified just 3 SNPs that were significant for this trait!” From 3 to 1,271 in five years is a compounding annual rate of 335 percent. With that rate of progress, Murray’s assertion doesn’t look so “unserious.””

    Hmmmmmm . . . only three billion plus to go. Look even by your own article, we have no idea how snp’s work individually or pairs any combination to IQ. The tiny smidge we do know, is relevant to nonsubjective attributes – biology.

    I hate to bring it up

    “But one of these things is not like the other.” Your making huge leaps without acknowledging that it is fact a leap unsupported by anything save a tiny portion of sells which have only been linked to biological constructs. And even to those static properties, the nature of the mechanics are unclear.

    Three billion is a lot of data and while collecting it might be considered an acheivement, whether or not I can build and accurate construct of the billions to accurate explain IQ differences is another matter. For example, despite the mountains of data sets that indicate humans are one species (race) who are comprised of multi-varient biological differences, skin color being among but one identifiable component of biodiversity, Dr. Murray continues to use an incorrectly identified trait on which to base his next book, unless he intends to make arguments that humans are a singular species, but rather there are humans and then there are other animals identified as humans which should not be categorized as humans and he intends to make that case in writing.

  81. onebornfree says: • Website
    @George F. Held

    George F. Held says: “I admire Charles Murray greatly, but if he (and his wife) wrote a whole book about the Apollo Space Program without realizing that the moon landings were a hoax, there are at least some chinks in his intellectual armor.”

    It clearly demonstrates that he’s even worse at analyzing photos and videos and drawing conclusions than he is analyzing data sets.

    Or did he simply [like most do], just happily assume that the videos and photos “must” be genuine, because governments don’t lie [or whatever]? 🙂

    And even raising the question of photo/video authenticity ignores the plain fact that it was/is impossible for the “astronots” to have survived exposure to the Van Allen radiation belt[s], something that Mr Murray was apparently entirely unaware of .

    And so it goes…….

    Regards, onebornfree

  82. lavoisier says: • Website

    All the fields Jews dominate are fields that involve opinions and persuasion – politics, law, sociology, psychology, philosophy, economics. Not real science and math.

    Jews are also very over-represented in science and math. Some of the really important scientific advances in medicine over the past 50 years have had Jewish roots. This is also true in chemistry and physics.

    Look, I have no doubt that nepotism and networking have advanced Jewish individuals at the expense of others, in particular white non-jewish individuals. But to claim that Jews have not made any significant accomplishments in the natural sciences is simply not true.

    The work of RU is an important argument against the strict meritocracy claim.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @anon
  83. onebornfree says: • Website
    @George F. Held

    George F. Held says:“I admire Charles Murray greatly, but if he (and his wife) wrote a whole book about the Apollo Space Program without realizing that the moon landings were a hoax, there are at least some chinks in his intellectual armor.”

    It clearly demonstrates that he’s even worse at close analysis of videos and photos than he is at analyzing data sets, as far as I can see.

    It appears that he, like most, simply assumed that all of the photos and videos “must” be genuine, because, I’m guessing “governments don’t lie” etc.

    And even saying that much completely ignores the fact that it was, and is, impossible for “astronots” to survive passage through the Van Allen radiation belts.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  84. The real problem or at least one problem among others with the article is that it reinforces the point of view of those it is intended to call into question.

    The article contends that Dr. Murray’s right to speak because in the author’s view he is right. I take it the issue then is not the value of civil debate and discussion, but instead the level of correctness. That said, suppose the protestors are correct, that Dr. Murray’s analysis is biased based on his subjective view of colored people. And that bias has colored his interpretation of data to espouse causes to treat certain people of color disparagingly based on the same by shortcutting color to humaness or human value to justify x treatment or rights access. If they are right, Dr. Murray is advancing unfair treatment to a segment of the population and his being wrong — denies him the right to advocate his views.

    Dr. Murray was invited to speak and should be permitted to do because one of the mechanisms we have adopted in coming to know or understand truth is via a dialectic exchange of ideas that compete for sense making. And civil discourse even civil protest works to that end. Bit then this author would like to ship out a segment of the population based on some view that 3% represent an ethos of the other 97%.

    So I get why missing the point might be an issue.

    • Replies: @John Yuma
  85. Hail says: • Website

    Even in 1957 Wisconsin, what you would be measuring is merely the IQ of a cultural affinity group and not an actively cultivated race

    For the b.1939 cohort of Wisconsin Lutherans, there is going to be quite a lot of ethnic cohesion. Of course nothing like the world’s most ethnocentric group, but I would expect an aggregate 23andMe result of 100% European, 90%+ NW European. Of the specific 23andMe-assigned aggregate ethnicity guesses, German and Scandinavian will dominate.

    In global terms, this is a pretty cohesive ethnic stock drawn from a certain range within northern-central Europe.

    There is a question of how they assigned participants as Lutheran (and Catholic), though, which may make your point more valid. Is is “active Lutheran church attendee,” or is it “of Lutheran ancestry”? The exact same question could apply to Jews, of course.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  86. @lavoisier

    This could be a true to a degree, but Jews as a group display a verbal ability that makes them good comedians and shyster lawyers.

    There have been brilliant scientists from every race but few Chinese are comedians.

    I suspect that science and math are less nepotistic than going out LA with little money and trying to break into film or television. Possibly it helps to be Jewish.

    This begs the question of how, if being a Jew is so invaluable, more Gentiles don’t fake it. Wouldn’t everyone who wanted to be an actor in Hollywood try to change the name to Silverstein or something?

    You cannot really impersonate a black if you are blonde and blue-eyed, but you can impersonate a Jew easy enough.

    Stephen Hawkins is not Jewish and Jews did not conspire to prevent his success. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were not Jewish, for all the later accusations of Jews importing Hindus as technocratic substitute for whites simply to further disadvantage the white race.

    I have to ask what advantage Jews can extract from importing a Hindu technocratic class. It appears to be at least possibly true.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  87. I agree with JD on many issues (except his pessimism), but I do find his IQ fixation strange. JD knows history, but his neglect of historical currents is astonishing. Let me repeat my dogmatic tenets…

    1. there is no g, not some quantifiable IQ. There are different, 3-6, say, types of cognitive abilities & that’s all. Forget about factor analysis & similar phlogistons- there is not a cat-mouse which is a combo of a cat & a mouse.

    2. life around us, history, world … show us that cognitive abilities differ in individuals, sexes, races, perhaps other collectives.

    3. intelligence is just one trait, now more important than before, but other traits, both measurable & non-measurable are perhaps even more important. For instance, creativity, imagination, something…
    E.M. Forster wrote his best & last novel “A Passage to India” in 1924; he died when he was 91, 1970. Why for almost half a century he had been writing only minor & trivial things? Laziness? Or muse had, alas, definitely departed.

    Most theoretical physicists are finished by their 35, max 40 (including the greatest, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, or among truly moderns Dirac & Heisenberg). Why? We don’t know.

    With regard to intellectual creativity on highest levels we can glean from history that philosophers & mathematicians age well, while physicists are like women, especially Nordic white & Japanese- they, alas, don’t age well.

    4. Jewish supposed extremely high IQ is a myth. Frankly, I believed for some time in it-although didn’t care (as I said, I don’t mind all this IQ stuff)- until I saw there was no empirical evidence about it. 115? 110? Not a single serious test about their g. This all is urban legend.

    Now, it is evident there is something biological & cultural in all these matters. Jews had been around for ca. 3000 years & had- apart from great literature like Bible & similar texts- not produced anything truly worthwhile until last 150 or so years. They soared on the wings of German Enlightenment.

    A brief excursus: historically, some collectives are astonishingly not only “over-represented”, but truly incomprehensible in their creativity (“intelligence”) & influence: ancient Greeks from 700-200 BC, Italians from 1300-1600, English from 1500-1750, Germans from 1750-1850 (a rough sketch, of course). Greeks are doubtlessly the greatest genius of a people in history. How, why, …? We don’t know.

    The English had created immensely from, say, 1500 to 1900 (and swallowed a quarter of the globe in the process). How, why, …? There was a significant pre-Norman English culture, but Normans (French Vikings) had destroyed most of it & English nation had begun to form, anew, somewhere around 1350-1400. So, English made in 300 years more than Jews in 3000 years.

    So much about “Jewish supremacy”.

    In the US, Jews thrive. Probably, it is a combination of their genetics, ethics & culture. They have slightly higher some cognitive abilities than others, in some areas- I think they are 40-50% of National Science medalists. This is not fake. Genetic element which may have contributed is detectable in their hereditary diseases ( – basically, too much inbreeding is bad for your health). Culturally, they’ve been following adopted Platonized ethics of betterment through learning. Their traditional literary culture, mostly Talmud & other commentaries, is not nuanced, bold, creatively strong or anything similar. One slightly above average Greek philosopher would have left all Jewish mental culture in 2500 years in the dust. But they persisted & nourished their, eh, “sages”- unlike other peoples.

    As far as I know, no other people had adopted such a way of life, with accent on learning (never mind the content).

    Also, like other Levantines, they have a knack for money & huckstering. They’re tribal. Now, with high rates of intermarriage, they’re melting away into healthier individual lives.

    Their “success” in the US is visible in many areas, but most of it has not much to do with intelligence (except for scientists). Their influence in media, journalism, most professions like lawyers & dentists, acting, politics…. is not a sign of any great “cognitive ability”. Who on earth thinks that journalists & pols like Rubin Erdely, Tim Wise, Bernie Sanders or Bernstein (from Watergate) are towering intellects?

    Most (annoying) prominent US Jews are into ethnic networking, frequently fraudsters & mafiosi. On the other hand, those like Feynman, Minsky, Gell-Mann, …- Joe Sixpack hasn’t heard of them.

    So how are they prominent above average?

    Anytime, every time, someone is prominent above average, and especially on much larger scale (see Greeks, Italians, Germans,..).
    Such is life. Rise & fall. Ups & downs.

    4. as far as Murray & “Human Accomplishment” – this is a very, very entertaining book & mostly wrong. Basically -you can’t measure accomplishment & retain common sense. Of course Gauss is greater than Abel & Plato than Whitehead. But it is impossible to compare, say, a 16th C & 19th C mathematician. And any table that puts Byron above Dostoevsky or Tolstoy is patently absurd.

    This book is fun. And a simple compass on many names. But it shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

    5. race & IQ. I don’t care. I have eyes to see Detroit, Lagos, Kingston, Baltimore, Rio, Johannesburg…

  88. BC says:

    Yes, David. By your last expression, which is correct, the compounding rate would be the (amount raised to the power) minus one, or 3.35 – 1 = 2.35, or about 235%, roughly.
    S=P*(1+rate)^5 for five years annual compounding.

  89. Wally says:

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    In every instance where blacks & browns are in great numbers, and / or control governments of cities, counties, regions, states, countries, & continents we see:
    massive murder rates
    massive crime in general
    degraded property
    massive disease, especially STDs
    massive drug & alcohol abuse
    general filth, squalor
    massive birthrates
    inability / unwillingness to support their own children
    massive youth pregnancies rates
    massive school dropout rates
    incredibly low IQs & test scores
    violence as a way of life
    fathers nowhere to be found

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  90. anon[140] • Disclaimer says:

    Scientific research is an extremely cut throat and increasingly political field. Scientists at the highest level routinely steal from one another’s research. Einstein was a hack who bullied and plagiarised his way to the top. Sigmund Freud or a complete fraud who drugged his patients and falsified test results. The Jewish chutzpah, i.e. dishonesty and shamelessness, come in handy for success in any field. Also Jews only quote from other Jews to elevate the group status. The term “expert” is an endearing term that Jews in the media bestow on Jews in academia. They largely succeed as a group through vigorous self-promotion.

    Are there some genuinely smart Jews out there? Of course, Richard Feynman for one, but no more as a proportion of their general population than whites or northeast asians. Their smart people simply got more promotion because they own the media. Israel’s low average IQ and PISA scores, and low achievement in International Math and Science Olympiads, along with Jewish Americans’ low representation in NMSF, IMO and International Chem/Physics Olympiad in the past 2 decades are much more indicative of average Jewish IQ.

    And btw Ashkenazi Jews make up 47.5% of Israeli Jews, or about 36% of all Israelis, that’s not a minor representation.

    • Agree: Wally
    • Replies: @lavoisier
  91. Anonymous [AKA "Truth be told"] says:

    The white group with the highest IQ is Episcopalian, not Lutheran.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @JLK
  92. Wally says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    You protest too much, you’re fooling no one.

    Of course Jews won’t “conspire to prevent the success” of those that shill for their agenda. That is their goal; i.e.: the ‘shabbos goy’.

    You are in denial of facts which Jews themselves make clear:

    Jews more than twice as likely to be gay, lesbian

  93. @Anonymous

    That would make sense. These are the descendants of upper class English merchants and scholars who received grants in New England and Tidewater colonies from the British Crown.

  94. @Wally

    Also government corruption with what little fiscal funds are available being stolen.

    The problem is that apart from Los Angeles and the East Coast, few of these cities matter. Whites can live without Baltimore. They can live without St. Louis. They can live without Arizona entirely.

    At a certain point, whites can say “go ahead and burn down your crackhouses.”

    White control the food supply. Jews don’t. Blacks don’t. Hispanics do to an extent in the Southwest and unlike blacks or Jews who are urban people entirely dependent upon whites, scarily Hispanics can be self-sufficient to a degree without whites which means they will move to separate the Southwest from the US.

    The big issue will not be New Mexico or Phoenix, but Texas oil supplies. This primary economy might become a point of war. Whites are close to simply writing off Southern California, which produces little these days but porn.

    However, the oil supply is a different matter.

  95. JLK says:

    The white group with the highest IQ is Episcopalian, not Lutheran.

    The Quakers are higher than the Episcopalians, and the Unitarians are higher yet. All three are self-selected to some extent. The Lutherans may be the highest of the non self-selected Protestant sects, but some Catholic subgroups may be higher yet.

    • Replies: @Alden
  96. eah says:

    The obloquy heaped on him by detractors of The Bell Curve must have been vexing to him at the very least, perhaps distressing.

    Perhaps part of the problem is that intellectuals (not that there’s anything wrong with being an intellectual) like Derbyshire and Murray react to anti-rational venom and insults with verbs and phrases like “it’s vexing” or “it’s distressing” — maybe even an “oh dear” — you cannot be civil with the uncivil — by showing such weakness you only increase the contempt they already have for you — same with the thugs who use physical intimidation and even violence to disrupt simple academic gatherings and discussions — if each and every one of them had to pay a heavy physical price (like getting the shit kicked out of them) for such behavior, I guarantee you it would stop overnight.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Anon
  97. @Jeff Stryker

    You cannot really impersonate a black if you are blonde and blue-eyed, but you can impersonate a Jew easy enough.

    You can especially if you’re a typical south Italian like Al Pacino or Joe Mantegna. This vid is tendentious, the guy who made it (Corey) evidently picked more “tanned” Israelis. Anyway- funny is that brownest young types are, in their minds, white…

  98. @Bardon Kaldian

    I’d like to hear your reasoning for denying g besides pointing to history as a complex system.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  99. @eah

    Alright, but what do you expect? That Derb or Murray engage in fist-fights?

    Intellectuals, when in power, can be deadly (Saint Just, Lenin)- but they don’t waste their time on thugs. They try to change the whole climate of dominant discourse & social structure so that thugs can be lawfully eliminated.

    Even more mentally able Nazis like Hitler or Goebbels (who were not intellectuals) left street fighting to low IQ goons.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @eah
    , @Truth
  100. @Bardon Kaldian

    I’m not advocating violence, but pepper spray works….

  101. @No guac for me, please

    You got highly verbally articulate person who cannot solve the equation X + 2 = 4. Why put these two abilities of mental functioning into a single category?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  102. Alden says:

    The Quaker communist Berkeley crew who ran Jim Jones Peoples Temple weren’t so smart.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  103. eah says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    That Derb or Murray engage in fist-fights?

    You know, believe it or not I did stop to think about that when writing the comment — the answer to that specific question is ‘No’ — but they can stop using verbs like “vexing” and “distressing” (and forget about “oh dear”) — re the “goons” part, I could ask: at those meetings, how many able-bodied male attendees were there compared to the number of disruptive thugs? — too often I see there is absolutely no physical resistance to what is essentially a physical assault, ie the violent disruption of a meeting, even though it is clear there are males in the audience who could mix it up — and that is what I do not understand.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  104. If the purpose of all these hand-wringing is to secure the strong survivability and continued prosperity of the White Christian race, then it would behoove the involved actors, to find out exactly who the Ashkenazi Jew is, for he may hold the sword of Damocles.

    Israeli author, Shlomo Sand has attempted to figure it out without any definite answer. And until the so called high IQ creature is determined to be who he really is, all these efforts are nothing more than spitting in the wind!

  105. Agent76 says:

    “A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.” William Shakespeare

    May 5, 2017 The Reproduction of Real Life

    From political and social chaos to economic instability and global warfare, the crises created by the privatization of politics are increasingly spinning out of control.

  106. @RadicalCenter

    That’s true. My parents’ generation was full of high school graduates who easily and effectively filled the kinds of positions that now require a 4 year degree.

    They also somehow managed to attain in high school a comparatively high level of general education; I’d wager the average high school class of, say, ’65 or earlier had a stronger general grasp (and appreciation) of fields as diverse as history, literature, geography, current events, etc than most of my generation of college graduates.

    …let alone college freshmen. I feel like I spent most of my first 2 years being forced to take prerequisite courses that were simply bringing most of the class up to minimum high school level. It was a good excuse to coast and party, which many of us did to excess without significant impact on our academic career.

    Now I’m consistently managing and interacting with 20-somethings who haven’t gone to college. For the most part, they seem easily as bright as (and largely more motivated than) many of my fellow college alumni. They’ll do fine pursuing a vocational or technical degree in this field – provided the employers and colleges (and most of all, creditors and debt holders) don’t conspire to make a Bachelor’s degree a universal requirement for entry.

  107. Truth says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Alright, but what do you expect? That Derb or Murray engage in fist-fights?

    Hey, legend has it that The Derb learned his left hook to the liver from none other than the great ‘Enry Cooper himself.

  108. Anon[147] • Disclaimer says:

    When they go low…

    I wish I could say those who resort to physical violence will eventually lose the people’s support, but judging from how the violent anti-war hippie protesters turned out, i.e. they are now running the country, violence might just be our only salvation.

    Maybe it’s time to fight fire with fire.

  109. @Colin Wright

    My experience with Jews is that it’s less their IQ advantage, which likely exists, but isn’t overwhelming. By far, the biggest difference that I’ve noticed with Jews is their personality. Relative to white gentiles, Jews seem to be intellectually aggressive and have a much greater desire to get ahead.

    In any profession, they seem much more driven to reach the top and they don’t seem to even know why. With entrepreneurs, they are much more driven to grow the business as far as they can take it. They don’t seem to worry too much about what toll all of this takes on the rest of their life. (In this regard, they’re similar to Asians, but Jews are way more adept at playing the game whereas Asians are just grinders.)

    White gentiles who could reach the top of some profession or grow their small business even larger often choose to stay where they’re at for a variety of reasons. I don’t see that decision nearly as often with Jews.

  110. renfro says:
    @Colin Wright

    What’s actually interesting is to contemplate how and why intelligence did come to be apparently the sole human virtue

    Its also interesting what some consider to be intelligence.
    Most intelligence today isn’t that intelligent.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  111. @Bardon Kaldian

    Would you not put the ability to run and to swim in the same category of “physical fitness”? If a person can run well but cannot swim, does that prove that the general category of “physical fitness” does not exist ?

  112. @renfro

    “…What’s actually interesting is to contemplate how and why intelligence did come to be apparently the sole human virtue…”

    Yes it is somewhat one-sided, but it is understandable for our modern technological civilization which runs entirely on the cultivation of the analytical mind.

  113. Art says:

    I believe that given the opportunity, most people could do most anything.

    The reason behind the statement is nefarious. The above is a guilt trip. Its context implies that “whites are suppressing your opportunity.”

    Deborah Solomon and Stephen Jay Gould are Jews. The loudest voices pushing the Blank Slate Theory are Jews. Why?

    Of course, it is 100% political. White guilt gives Jews power. The Blank Slate Theory pushes the idea that humanity is being suppressed by the alpha white male. It says, it is the white man’s social system that holds other people back from achievement.

    Of course, it is bizarre that of all people on our planet, it is the tribal Jews who reject biology as source of decision making.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  114. @eah

    It’s up to the organizer, in some instances Jared Taylor, to secure protection. But with current laws (see Charlottesville & police behavior) it is not so easy. Look what happened to McInnes & his actually benign group “Proud Boys”after they’ve been denounced as “fascists” ( ).

    You cannot expect mostly middle-aged men to start boxing with some drooling punks on drugs. For the time being, the solution is better organization of these conferences with deployment of serious & experienced para-military groups, registered & with guns. There are tons of such groups & they could easily dispatch any violent punk.

    As for vexing & distressing…it could be worse. It could be oh my goodness, most unpleasing, good gracious, …

  115. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    By far, the biggest difference that I’ve noticed with Jews is their personality. Relative to white gentiles, Jews seem to be intellectually aggressive and have a much greater desire to get ahead.

    In any profession, they seem much more driven to reach the top and they don’t seem to even know why. With entrepreneurs, they are much more driven to grow the business as far as they can take it. They don’t seem to worry too much about what toll all of this takes on the rest of their life.

    This may very well be true, but I don’t think we can truly know why. These national-cultural stereotypes are frequently true, but puzzling.

    Jews are, I think, Levantines overly focused on material wealth & tormented by conflicting drives & superiority (chosen) and inferiority (fugly nose aliens, basically cheap ) complexes. These characteristics are seen in Western civilization in past 150-200 years, when they started to assimilate in masses. They’re a minority that wants to succeed, to retain their recognizable identity & attain respect. Vindictive, too, against historical West, so they think their newly acquired material status somehow vindicates them.
    In the US & Anglosphere in general, no other Caucasian population is so neurotic, alienated & self-absorbed. All those Italians, Irish, Greeks, .. are not true historical aliens. Add constant indoctrination in their schools with exaggerated persecution stories, us-vs-them mentality, Auschwitz religion, non-existent afterlife.. and you get Harvey Weinstein on steroids.

    Of course, successful individuals who are not annoying & hysterical go unnoticed under radar. Also, many of them simply vanish into greater society via intermarriage because high-status tribalism, at the end, is too heavy a burden. Being a neurotic, even on a grandiose scale, eventually becomes boring.

    • Agree: utu
  116. @Art

    Tabula Rosa has nothing to do with white oppression by definition and it is largely to the developmental of minding how and what a person thinks. It was advanced by John Locke. Furthermore blank slate does not mean what is constantly argued here. tabula Rosa goes to not impacted by outside influence. In otherwords, the material is blank, but that does not mean material will itself is empty. blank chalkboard will still have properties unto itself that may shape what is written upon it looks like.

    Blank slate simply refers to a condition without outside influence save that which is being immediate outside of its own condition as in mind.

    A child is blank of how to see the world until the world acts upon that child. it does not men the material being impacted is without influence. In otherwords, a two year old is not a blank slate. For its mind has begun the process of interacting with the world outside of the womb as to minding. Does the biological construct being impacted matter — it does.

    The attribution concerning white oppression being to tabula rosa is a mischaracterization.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Art
  117. charles murray has no problem at all when leftist mobs show up to harass people. he’s totally fine with it in fact. he only complains when it happens to him.

    charles murray is a never trumper. he’s a fat bald loser who wouldn’t lift a finger to save civilization. he doesn’t care at all about the thing he claims to hold in the highest regard – human accomplishment. he bad mouths any attempt at trying to stop endless third world hordes from overrunning the west. all he cares about is losing politely. trying to stop the hordes from destroying us would be rude.

    screw that guy. the mob went too easy on him. next time he shows his face in public some leftist should punch him right in big fat stupid mouth.

    • Replies: @John Yuma
    , @jack daniels
  118. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yeah, but why conflate all these talents into “intelligence” (in this case)? I know that what follows is not “scientific”, but, historically, most rankings give Johann Wolfgang Goethe & Leonardo da Vinci as “greatest geniuses of all time” & “the most intelligent people in history”.

    13 Most Intelligent People In The History Of The World

    Ten Highest IQs

    IQ: 200+

    10 persons with highest IQ in world

    Goethe is an embodiment of Western civilization & truly one of the greatest creative minds (see interesting, although rather bizarre & crazy discussion here:,+Math+%26+universal+Genius ).

    Goethean “science” is …well, it was an eccentricity. Goethe couldn’t, with all his praises, learn more than elementary algebra.

    So, why should a mix of various gifts (verbal, spatial, musical, arithmetic, ..I would add political & military (Caesar, Napoleon)) be conflated into single digit which means, in real life- not much?

    Highest measured IQs have, I think, Savant & Sidis, whose lives were not outwardly so accomplished (I am not saying their lives are/were not meaningful):

    So-why insist on this artificial category?

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
  119. c matt says:

    Given the opportunity, most people could do most anything.

    I think that is true, with the following edit:

    Given the opportunity, most people could do most anything rather poorly.

    The problem is that we, as a society, treat equally (in most situations) the ones who do things poorly and the ones who do the same thing well . However, I have yet to come across someone who would prefer Dr. Affirmative Action over Dr. Vale Dictorian to perform their open heart surgery.

  120. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    ‘…In any profession, they seem much more driven to reach the top and they don’t seem to even know why. With entrepreneurs, they are much more driven to grow the business as far as they can take it. They don’t seem to worry too much about what toll all of this takes on the rest of their life…’

    You just described Stu Miller, one of my colleagues (and competitors) when I was in the moving business. He was Jewish.

    I could go on about him all day. He was so rabidly competitive, and greedy, and unscrupulous. The thing is, moving is one of those occupations where if you do a good job, and offer good value, you’ll always have plenty of work. I used to feel like screaming at him: ‘mellow out! There’s plenty of room here for both of us! This is not that competitive a field.’

    Dunno where to start. One time, I needed to find a place to park a truck, and I heard he was renting parking somewhere. I call him up and ask him about it. He gets all frigging cagey — like maybe, if more movers are parking there, the rates will go up, or maybe, if he doesn’t tell me, I’ll have to pay more for parking, or something.

    And I could go on, and on, and on. He was an anti-semite’s dream.

  121. lavoisier says: • Website

    I disagree.

    I think Jews have a disproportionate positive influence on scientific discovery and innovation.

    I also think that they have a disproportionate negative influence on Western civilization through control of mass media, the political whores, and finance.

    Not everything the Jews do for our society is bad.

    More Jewish geniuses than Gentile geniuses? No.

    Deserving of 25% of the spots in the Ivy League? Almost certainly not.

    On average smarter than the median Gentile? Likely true.

    How many Jews do you know who spend their lives thinking about statistics on College football games or can spend an entire weekend in front of the television watching professional sports?

    • Replies: @John Yuma
  122. John Yuma says:

    It’s almost intuitively obvious that some brains would work better than others. It may not be 50/50, but to believe that the “score” is Heredity 0, Environment 100 borders on the absurd.

  123. John Yuma says:

    How many Jews do you know who spend their lives thinking about statistics on College football games or can spend an entire weekend in front of the television watching professional sports?

    Quite a few!

  124. John Yuma says:
    @prime noticer

    Murray’s worth six or more of you.

  125. John Yuma says:

    Dr. Murray was invited to speak and should be permitted to do because one of the mechanisms we have adopted in coming to know or understand truth is via a dialectic exchange of ideas that compete for sense making.

    Finally, an intelligent person here!

    • Replies: @anon
  126. @Colin Wright

    That is consistent with my speculative contribution to discussion many years ago on how the Ashkenazi IQ rose. While all the emphasis of Greg Cochran at al. was on the rabbit’s many children marrying the successful businessman’s many children I suggested that dim Jews, especially males, failed to reproduce as Jews. I think my calculation was that 500 years of no reproduction by those whose IQ was 2 or more SDs below average would raise average IQ from 100 to 115. Now the 115 is not accepted as the Ashkenazi average as it was 20 years ago.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  127. @Alden

    I’m not convinced of the relevance of your small sampling of Quakers but there is a bigger problem. The Wikipedia shows Jim Jones to have been quite flexible in his church affiliations but a search for Quaker comes up with nothing.

  128. Art says:

    The attribution concerning white oppression being to tabula rosa is a mischaracterization.

    You may or may not know tabula rosa or Blank Slate – but I know Jews.

    The Jews are using this as a political power tool – end of story.

    The Jew attacks are personal – meaning that the facts are not on their side.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  129. @Franklin Ryckaert

    A more concise answer. You have two guys with the same IQ. One is a very competent mechanic; the other a good journalist.

    What do we get by lumping those two guys into the “same IQ” category ? Wouldn’t it be more productive to get some table of a few different cognitive abilities (or talents, in other variants of psychometry) to ascertain strong & weak areas of tested people (of course, taking into consideration only those fields which can be tested)?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  130. Art says:

    The Jewes Deborah Solomon said: “I believe that given the opportunity, most people could do most anything.”

    “given the opportunity” has nothing to do with a blink mind at birth. She is questioning “opportunity”.

    Who historically gives more people the means to advance themselves then the Christian West in America.

    That Jew is making trouble – period.

    Think Peace — Do No harm — Art

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  131. Another Murray book – I will look forward to it immensely. Always well written, well documented, and we’ll argued. Hope it’s out soon!

  132. phil says:

    Biologically-unrelated adoptees reared in the same upper-middle class home do not tend to have similar IQ scores despite growing up in the same family and community. They are as likely to be similar to one another as two people picked at random off the street.

    In 2006 more than 32000 Chinese from 31 provinces were tested. This nationally representative sample, in a country which, at the time, was well behind Mexico in terms of average living standards, received an average IQ score of 107 (based on British scoring norms). Even now, China’s average living standards are behind Mexico’s (per the World Bank), yet many companies have now moved research and development departments to China.

    When visiting China many years ago, my young daughter asked the right question, “How come these people are so smart and so poor?”

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  133. phil says:

    In the US, blacks from families with $100,000-200,000 of income have lower SAT scores, on average, than whites and Asians from families with less than $20,000 of income.

    • Replies: @Jhau
  134. @Anon

    Freud and Einstein were both frauds and plagiarists.

    Yeah, General and Special Relativity are overrated.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @Rich
  135. Latest News.
    Kamala Haris has a black hair and ill fitted brown wig.
    She cannot properly fix her wig, and she wants to fix the country.
    he he.

  136. @Bardon Kaldian

    Yeah, but why conflate all these talents into “intelligence” (in this case)?

    The reason is that, empirically, they are very highly correlated with one another. Anecdotes aside, the data show that people who are very high in one of the sub-test categories are extremely likely to score well on the others.

    From this correlation, it can be inferred (but not proven), that the high sub-scores are all due to a general cognitive skill — which they call g.

    I think you’re right that it’s somewhat arbitrary to lump all the measurements together into a single number. But that just goes to the age old debate between “lumpers” and “splitters.” It depends what you find most useful – categories that are general and simple, or ones that are more complicated but nuanced.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  137. I have 4 kids. Anyone who tells me they were born with the same cognitive abilities is out of touch with reality.

  138. @Bardon Kaldian

    Well the mechanic would have a high visual-spatial IQ, while the journalist would have a high verbal IQ, but still both would have a high general IQ. Such a specific-cum-general assessment could be made. It has always been found that those gifted in art, which many would think has less to do with intellect but more with imagination and emotion, still are also highly intelligent.

    I think however that the use of “intelligence” as a general term for all kinds of talent is misleading. Let’s use “talent” as a general term, and “intelligence” for a special kind of mental talent*). The term “emotional intelligence”, which is sometimes used and contains a contradiction, could then be avoided.

    *) I would define “intelligence” as the mental talent to classify phenomena, to see patterns, understand functional structures and causal relations.

    As another kind of mental talent, not to be called “intelligence”, I would propose “transvision”, the talent to see through illusions.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  139. @Hypnotoad666

    Yes, but they were fairly intelligent frauds.

  140. @phil

    “…When visiting China many years ago, my young daughter asked the right question, “How come these people are so smart and so poor..?”

    Because they had the wrong system (= deluded leadership). Same with the difference between North and South Korea.

    • Replies: @phil
  141. Caruthers says:

    What is the evidence that the standard deviation of Ashkenazi Jews is 15, the same as the standard deviation of the general population?

    • Replies: @JLK
  142. JLK says:

    What is the evidence that the standard deviation of Ashkenazi Jews is 15, the same as the standard deviation of the general population?

    It’s a good question, and for East Asians as well. There are some sources that identify the East Asian variance as being in the 13+ range, but that is hard to believe given their performance on US college admission tests, which are biased against their strengths in the first place.

  143. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I have no qualms about that. Just, I find it puzzling that researches say they’re measuring general intelligence:

    A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—”catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.

    Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of “intelligence” are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.

    Alright, Joe is good with tools, has a knack for fixing things, but his verbal ability is hardly an ability; Jack is a words man who can write a suggestive article, but cannot screw a bulb. They have the same measured IQ. Joe will always be a tools man & will not learn how to write anything redable; Jack will always be a words man & will remain screw-bubble ignoramus.

    Never mind correlation etc.- why call this abilities “intelligence”? And why lump them together?

    • Replies: @phil
    , @utu
  144. Without doubting the existence of a genetic component in IQ, it is not clear why the issue is so important to “conservatives.” The idea seems to be that inequality does not prove the absence of equal opportunity, so the existing social arrangements cannot be faulted on that ground. Okay, but if human potential is set at birth, the Horatio Alger idea that anyone can rise through industry and virtue is false. The poor will deserve their poverty less and the rich will less deserve their wealth. If ‘fairness’ or ‘justice’ is admitted as a goal of social policy then the case for state intevention and redistribution is strengthened.
    Secondly, intelligence is not the only trait that affects (or ought to affect) income and achievement. One would hope that honesty, industry, self-discipline, loyalty, unselfishness, and perseverence are also important. Perhaps THESE traits also have genetic roots. Suppose it were studied and someone came to the conclusion that one race or ethnic group outshines or lags the others. Are the defenders of IQ-chauvinism willing to defend some future finding that group X is lazy or group Y dishonest? I doubt it. It’s not an accident that IQ enthusiasts never fail to mention the superiority of Ashkenazi Jews even though they are hardly a “race.” They mention this to suck up to Jewish readers whom they see as powerful and likely to oppose them. The picture of IQ realists as scientific idealistists being set upon by close-minded bullies is flattering but not realistic. Don’t expect Charles Murray to speak up in favor of Richard Spencer’s right to speak.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  145. @Wally

    Excellent point. Ashkenazi Jews are not a race. How do we know there aren’t genetic niches or subsets of whites, Asians, Indians who are superior to Ashkenazi Jews? Probably no one has looked for them.

    I don’t doubt that Jews are smarter on average than (other?) whites, and this finding is helpful in explaining the disproportionately high achievement and wealth of Jews. Ironically, Jews take the lead in demanding at least proportionate representation for under-performing nonwhite minorities, but seem content to let white gentiles bear the consequences of their inferiority.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  146. @Jeff Stryker

    Your point 7 that poor whites are not “street smart” because they don’t come from “corrupt civilizations.” Very interesting observation! (Any particular sources for this e.g. books?) However, there is an alternative way of putting the point: Poor whites tend to believe in an archaic code of manliness and honor often expressed in the lyrics to country music songs. “I’ll keep workin’ as long as these two hands are fit to use.” They have, or used to have, a disdain for welfare. That is to their credit, and if their ethic is not adaptive at present maybe that is the fault of the present, and needs to be changed.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Evergreen
  147. I confess I find Murray very irritating, even malevolent. First of all he’s a neocon and being a goyim has to grovel a lot to kiss up to the gatekeepers of neocondom. Murray’s Bell Curve book came out just as black opinion-makers like William Raspberry were beginning to come round to the idea that blacks should put aside their focus on past racism and re-focus on correcting the behavior that so often holds them down (dropping out, committing crimes, children out of wedlock, etc.) The Republican Party outreach to blacks was beginning to work, which would have been a really consequential development. It would also have been threatening to neocons since their leverage in the GOP is tied to scolding it for racist tendencies, leading to a failure to attract blacks. Murray’s book and its defense by mainstream conservatives at once destroyed the budding reconciliation between blacks and the GOP.
    Secondly Murray wants to have his ideological cake and eat it too. He writes a great book about all the horrible consequences of the counter-culture, but when interviewed is always quick to assure the audience that he would never want to return to pre-counter-culture America. Why not? No iPhones?? He also cites approvingly his daughter’s alienation from the GOP’s social conservatism. But that very social conservatism is vindicated by Murray’s work! I tend to think he is genuflecting to the culturally liberal sensibilities of the donors who control his sinecure.
    Tom Sowell is similar in that way. After writing a spate of columns condemning abortion rights and feminism Sowell joined several other socially conservative writers in calling for the removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican platform of 1996. I can’t believe there is any explanation for this odd behavior other than pressure from donors who control the paycheck at Hoover, AEI, and similar places.

  148. phil says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Bingo! Please tell Godfree Roberts.

  149. Jhau says:


    If so, perhaps that means that when we talk about IQ, we are actually measuring the wrong thing – or perhaps we’re measuring something pointless.

    I know that I’m only a sample size of one (and I’m of white, European heritage) but all through high school and university I was objectively smarter (read: got higher marks) than all but one of my friends and yet I’m a mid-level public servant and a lot of my friends are very successful businesspeople, lawyers, accountants, scientists with PhDs and so on.

    IQ is but one contributing factor to what we call “success” (and, of course, there are different ways of defining success – money is but one of those ways).

  150. @Art

    That has nothing to do with blank slate. In fact it suggests something much different. And that goes to capacity, not blank slate – but whatever the slate, she suggests that most people could accomplish what they desire.

    Same or like capacity is not the same thing as tabula rosa. Because it lacks opportunity —

    In her view one can learn whatever is required despite slate an overgeneralized comment that is really directed to one’s will, and barriers and I suspect that her emphasis is to artificial barriers.

    The jew is making trouble comment makes no sense to me. There have been people making this contention since there were people. It’s not a scientific advance. It’s more to encouragement and having a “positive” outlook. It’s context here is not to slate, but to opportunity. Now I am not supportive of this woman’s politics and she may very well be causing a ruckus as you say, but if so it’ ruckus based on a belief for which even the founders predicated their revolution – that people ought to be free to accomplish what they will minus arbitrary barriers —

    “all men are created equal”.

    They were not Jews.

    • Replies: @res
  151. @Art

    I think tabula rosa is what I described.

    I am going to laugh about this being a personal attack. While it is not to anyone’s specific character or being one could take it as a personal afront merely because it challenges a position they hold.

    Again, I don’t think that John Locke was a jew. And his proposition is definitely toward political and social theory.

    • Replies: @Art
  152. @Hypnotoad666

    It’s not just that. Evidently, most tests measure space (geometry), numbers & words abilities. I’ve solved not few such tests. But leaving this aside, we know of people who excel in some of these fields & flunk at others. Some are- and this is not just an anecdotal evidence- considered to be geniuses in their fields.

    For instance, Goethe, Jung and Heidegger (especially the latest duo) were bad at math. Trotsky, not a genius but doubtlessly highly intelligent, admitted he was a “topographic idiot”. On the other hand, Napoleon was all-around genius- words, numbers, actions, will, space, imagination…everything.

    So, where is this correlation if a hypothetical Jung, Hegel or, God forbid, Beethoven were so atrocious with mathematics? As far as I can see, there is virtually no correlation. Those guys were great in some areas & way below average in others.

  153. DanGood says:

    “Murder weapon. I know of no better five-word encapsulation of Trump’s appeal.” How about simply “wrecking ball”? The US voter could simply not countenance another four years of Clinton in the White House. With the Trump vote they said: “No Hillary, you are not going to go back to the White House, no matter how entitled you feel about it.” End of story. The voter took his/her chances. There were no secrets about who Trump was, nor what they were getting. The main thing was, it was not Hillary.

  154. @jack daniels

    “… Ironically, Jews take the lead in demanding at least proportionate representation for under-performing nonwhite minorities, but seem content to let white gentiles bear the consequences of their inferiority…”

    That is not “ironically”, that is the whole point of their strategy : using non-Whites as a weapon to weaken Whites, which will leave it to the Jews to dominate the scene.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @jack daniels
  155. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Yuma

    have you considered there might be higher order concerns than truth or better ways to find it that didn’t have risks of other ways?
    Consider why we value truth or ought to- because it can help us survive. but what ruths help what people survive? Truth aside for a moment, the method of discerning it your so committed to , public debates at universities. Sure we get why you think this has been a historically effective and good way to discern truth , but have you considered it is this commitment and similar commitments that have allowed the left to destroy the world. Does it not seem what is actually being discovered is more like the gladiator cicero battles would discover. Are we not allowing truth to be voted on, are we not allowing clever rhetoricians to slyly equivocate smaller truths over bigger truths at the expense of the nation and the people.Does this not make the fragile project we call civilization so much more fragile?

    Im just a dumb steamfitter not one of the smart ones you value but I could go on for volumes about the assumptions you make we have all made assumptions that are part of our cultural heritage that may or may not have ever been true or which have been cleverly changed ever so slightly or the circumstances in which they served us no longer hold.

    Take the gist of the controversy at hand Murray and the truths he spread with the bell curve, truths that were well known within scientific circles but which he thought ought to be more widely disseminated. All men are not created equal, they are evolved differently. This is the dark enlightenment.
    But does Murray’s truth serve a nation committed to multiculturalism multiracialism and multigenderism? The left protest is essentially “what use is this information, what could you possibly want to use it for?” And they are right if indeed 30 Years ago african americans with 25% average white blood had 85 average IQs and pure bred africans have 65 IQs and in the past 30 years we have double the african american population with pure africans because the existing ones were doing so well, and we have also in that period reduced the white population with a 103 average IQ from 90% to 60% the new people all being from third world countries with about a 85% average IQ. What are you hoping to gain by allowing murray to spread the information that there are vast genetic differences in mean abilities of half our population?

    To my mind the only logical thing to do with that information is to immediately stop the immigration and deport every illegal and retroactively review ll past citizenship grants for irregularities which they all contain and deport them as well.

    If the far left agreed their was some use to Murrays information it would be to argue even more forcefully for set asides welfare etc. because they understand the implications better than the muh enlightenment constitutionalist cuckservatives, in fact they being really the spear head of the jesus jeffersons marx leftist revolution, take more seriously than cuckservatives the whole all men are my brothers and god created them equally and i owe them my life than conservatives do.

    Cuckservatives think they have a solution to the dilemma of what our lying eyes tell us about all men and what jesus jefferson and mrx tell us to do with our brothers.Meritocracy! Voila its all solved.You seem not to grasp the really simple you’re so enamoured of your cleverness.a pavement ape with even an average african american IQ is not going to look on a meritocracy as such a good idea to him and for that matter all the amerindians mid easterners south asians etc its a system that is designed to make them all who are 40% of the population and rapidly increasing only 3% of the elite, its a system that will argue that social programs which are bankrupting us are completely futile, that allowing any more of their family in is dangerous and should be reversed.They do not have you values you jeffersonian gentlemen’s agreement theology. Like the more intelligent jews and east asian they believe in tribe and force to get what they want.

    The value you think you are preserving and are of value were revolutionary when they were developed by our people and adopted by our people they only work for a while before some bright elite realizes he can use this gentlemen’s agreement to out flank his fellow elites and offer gentleman status to the plebeians which leads to a demotic spiral and another white civilization collapses. the answer is not more freedom and more diversity but less individualism particularly for elites who have the smarts to use it for personal rather than ethno national advancement. we live or die as an ethno nation, even if we whites have evolved less strong tribalism we have to recognize all the other races and all animals have not. Its both our edge and our achilles heel.

    Im not arguing against debate exactly but truth that does not serve or that we have no intention of allowing it to serve its purpose is not really of use. To me race realism i of use i want to use it to red pill cucks into understanding we have only a narrow path to ethno cultural survival and thats a restoration of our ethno nations nd patriarchy. But you and murray hav no intention of that you want to try and convince africans etc that hey guys the majority of you are actually what 70 years ago we considered retarded but we allowed you to vote anyway and have quadrupled the population of retards and we just want you to vote to be 4th class citizens because thats what makes the most sense to us and trust us we are smarter than you.Thats never going to happen.

    Meanwhile east asian and jews who are smarter than us but we thought would be a great idea to allow into our nations and give access to our levers of power nd wealth and who now at 2% of pop have 50% of wealth and power, yet understand without superior violence ability their numbers dont support their grip on us is tenuous. They look on this 40% population of near morons as an army. So let’s be clear this meritocracy open truth uber individualism married to the cuck slave morality of jesus jefferson marx is a two edged sword that cuts us from above as well as from below.

    By now you have decided Im a racis and stuuuupid because i write badly but really because of the cognitive dissonance ive caused you mum cuckservative enlightenment constitution is not was not a leftist revolution it was a right wing revolution because the king was bad or something and its just a coincidence jefferson exported it to france and they chopped everyone’s head off then exported it to russia and di the same and then tried it on germany but got stopped for a while so focused on britain and then back to finish the job on america. Youre like but look at our rocket ships something must have worked, and it did all white civilizations from mesopotamia to USA have rocked as long as the hierarchy was in force, and yeah even meritocracy can be a efficient solution to a good king is hard to find but the minute you allow some ambitious elite or outsider elite to expand the franchise we start the collapse process which can take centuries.the trick is to start with and keep as homogenous a population as possible instill in elites a sense of familial duty to cultivate the nation including its left tail which should be managed to be shortened humanely while moving the national average ahead.females must never be allowed power they are not suited for anything more than the considerabe influence they wield through the men who love them

    • Replies: @Curle
  156. @Anon

    Jews do not self-evaluate their IQ and adjust their Jewish status accordingly.

    That is not what I’m saying. I am saying that “mediocre” Jews find it hard to keep up with their more successful relatives over time. It is not cheap to be an observant Jew in the US – Bar mitzvahs, Hebrew school, paying for tickets for High Holy Days, and just the status challenge of keeping up with your peers. It tends to drive the less economically successful away from religious identification over time. They are more likely to marry outside the Tribe and their children are more likely to identify with their gentile ancestors. Financially successful Jews marry out, but in modern American being Jewish is a status symbol, and Jewish identity something to be preserved, if you can afford it.

    I suspect the high relative IQ of Episcopalians can be explained the same way. The Episcopalian Church attracts high-status/more intelligent WASPs and drives away lower IQ whites who don’t feel comfortable in that environment.

  157. @Peter Akuleyev

    Catholics seem to be more successful than evangelical Protestants and Baptists are synonymous with poverty.

  158. @jack daniels

    Italians were first to arrive and really exploit the system-unions, corruption, extortion, bribery. Irish as well. Things long practiced in Rome. Jews of course, also understood bureaucracy and how to exploit it. Asians and Hindus, needless to say, come from corrupt societies run by Kleptomaniacs.

    We won’t get into Hispanics.

    These people thrive under a bloated bureaucracy much better than Anglo-Celtics and WASPS who celebrate a direct relationship with the Lord religiously and town-hall meetings. Catholicism and the Vatican always encouraged corruption. Unsurprisingly, beginning with Irish, East Coast cities became increasingly corrupt, dishonest, exploitative etc.

    If you notice, none of these people from these corrupt societies of Southern Europe or Latin America or Asia or India want to live in rural US states. Not many Israelis are immigrating to the bible belt. Hindus and Asians are not as disadvantaged in California by the corruption of Latinization.

  159. phil says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    “Tools” and “words” are not the sub-tests used to calculate g. The actual sub-tests used do have a common factor. Moreover, this common factor is more predictive of many real-life outcomes than IQ itself. It also correlates well with brain-wave amplitude, nerve conduction velocity, and other physiological attributes.

  160. Art says:

    Wiki: Tabula rasa refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception.

    Tabula rasa and opportunity are two different things. Having a blank mind and having the opportunity to fill it up are not the same thing.

    Actually in part, I agree with her – through education most people in Western culture can do a lot of different things.

    But I believe that she was being political – not making a statement of fact, trying to advance knowledge.

    I do not understand why she should be given the benefit of the doubt. She is a Jew taking a political stance that advances her tribes agenda. Her differences with Charles Murray where political.

    Think Peace — Art

  161. @Anon

    You do realize Ashkenazi Jews are a minority of Israel’s Jewish population, right? Additionally there are non-Jewish people living in Israel as well.

  162. Rich says:

    Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity” had actually been published two years earlier by an Italian named Olinto De Pretto. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a smart guy, but it does mean he was both a fraud and a plagiarist.

  163. Anonymous [AKA "Ivan123"] says:

    They would have us believe that obesity is genetic but being stupid is cultural. They used to imply everything was 50/50 until people realized that was absurdly simplistic. Now it depends on what suits the ideology and polling demographic.

  164. @Rich

    As a result of his studies, he wrote a paper entitled “Ipotesi dell’etere nella vita dell’universo”, that is to say: Hypothesis of the Aether in the Life of the Universe”. The article appeared on Nov. 29, 1903 in Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, vol. LXIII, namely: Procedings of the Royal Veneto Institute of Science, Letters and Arts. The work was endorsed by the illustrious astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli (1835-1910). In this 62-page article, De Pretto attempted to prove the existence of the aether. During his study, he proposed that the formula mc2 (with the modern notation c for the light speed) would measure the amount of energy contained in every material body of mass m, even if the body was at rest. Here are his words, in a personal translation:

    “Nobody would easily admit that, stored in each kg of each mass, completely concealed to our investigations, there exists such an amount of energy, corresponding to the quantity of energy which can be obtained by millions and millions of Kg of coal; the idea would surely be considered as a foolish one”.

    Very Interesting. I had never heard of this. Without getting too deep into the work (which I probably wouldn’t understand anyway), it looks like De Pretto might have beaten Einstein to Special Relativity by two years. Could be like Wallace and Darwin, in which Wallace was first but Darwin really worked out the theory rather than just proposing the hypothesis.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  165. @Art


    I am unclear how that differs from what I said. That knowledge comes from expereience — that does not in any manner address the nature of the slate itself.

  166. @Art

    What John Locke is talking about is the development of self or identity. And all of that in his view is derived from experiencing the environment into which one is born. His advance does not in any negate that one’s slate, one’s biology also has an impact.

    I am going to reject your attempt to hijack as your own what I have already described. No kidding, what her comment refers to is capacity and in context, I am confident she is referring to “artificial barriers”. Your comments previous completely misconstrued “tabula rosa” and it so in several ways.

    1. it has nothing to do specifically with power human dynamic – which is what you contended.

    2. You further claimed that it was uniquely personal trouble making which it is not

    3. You confuse four constructs:

    a. capacity
    b. opportunity and
    c. minding and its development from experience
    d. it does not in any manner dismiss the nature of the slate in a, b, and c interact

    The only person thus engaging ad homenim attack has been you by relegating the contention to something unique to Jews when in fact tabula rosa is best known as proposition from John Locke and it goes the further understanding of “equality among men”. I am not inclined to excuse you attempt to squeeze through a false narrative you are attempting to claim.

    Whether her statement is a statement of fact or merely an assertion, it is predicated on the positive notion that “people can achieve anything”. That is not a uniquely Jewish expression, In fact, it would for many be a cliche’ among people in various parts of the globe.

    Her politics is to advance a liberal agenda. But an argument that people can do almost anything is hardly a liberal notion. But her argument is so general as to be largely meaningless. if she advances a position that denies the freedom of speech to Dr. Murray, then I stand in complete opposition to her. If she made a claim that everyone can achieve the same thing, I would challenge her. But a point that suggests that there are artificial barriers put in place by others — is plainly evident, though I suspect, I might challenge magnitude, depth, variance, and population.

    • Replies: @Art
  167. Art says:

    You are beating this to death. The point we disagree on, is that she is engaging in Jew politics.

    Why you want to absolve her of this is beyond me.

    The need to repeatedly call me ignorant diminishes – YOU!


  168. @jack daniels

    I would have thought Ashkenazi Jews were, until about 1900 as close to being an archetypal race, not least by modern standards informed by knowledge of genes and DNA, as any other ethnic group. A high rate of intermarriage amongst genetically close and restricted extended families is what does/did it. Whereas Disraeli happily used the word “race” for Jews in the mid 19th century Jews have led the way to the position you have just espoused ever since Hitler made racialism dangerous.

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  169. @Rich

    C’mon, surely you can do better, and should out of respect for at least the founding intelligence behind UR. Not only do you commit the *post hoc propter hoc* fallacy but you omit completely the allegations of fact needed to support your accusation of fraud and plagiarism.
    1. That Einstein had read or otherwise been reliably informed about de Pretto paper
    2. Was thereby given a critical element of the work for which he was given credit without which he wouldn’t have got there, or would have been much delayed in getting there.

    I don’t know, and I am confident that you don’t either, how important e=mc^2 was to the work that made Einstein famous. A quick search suggests it was a formulation proposed by many others before him. But where are all those contemporaries complaining that they were ahead of Einstein on Special Relativity or whatever? If you are not stupid presumably you don’t care that your language brands you as a died in the wool antisemite.

    Follow on question, what made you into an antisemite, and when? I write as one with Jewish relations who are very critical of Israel and who has learned over the last few years that US ME policy is dominated by the Israel lobby but I wonder about the cause of deep seated emotions as yours seems to be.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Bardon Kaldian
  170. @Hypnotoad666

    I think Darwin was actually first by many years but had been sitting on and continuing to compile masses of of data. Wallace wrote to him and the prospect of Wallace going public/publishing first led him to behave with remarkable honesty inasmuch as he didn’t prevent his learned peers knowing that Wallace had also got to the essential truth of natural selection.

  171. utu says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    And why lump them together?. – Idealogical reason. Reductionism. Physics envy. Lack of algorithms to find all eigenvectors of the covariance matrix.

  172. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Wow, you guys really do see anti-Semites in your ham sandwiches, don’t you? It’s an established fact that De Pretto published his Theory of Relativity 2 years earlier than your boy. Sorry. Read a little before commenting and making yourself look stupid. Maybe facts are anti-Semitic?

    As a follow up, what made you become an anti-European, and when? Was it when all the normal kids used to beat you up in grammar school? Maybe when you couldn’t make the football team? When girls wouldn’t date you? Or was it just the magnificence of Euroman’s achievements, his art, his science, his beauty? Or are you still upset about losing Khazaria?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  173. utu says:

    You are mistaking the formula E=mc^2 for the theory of relativity. The relativistic mass which is related to this formula was derived couple years earlier by Lorentz and was used to explain Kaufmann experiment before Einstein arrived at the same formula. De Pretto contribution is minor and whether it influenced Einstein or not is of secondary importance. De Pretto did not have sound derivation of the formula and it looks like he pulled it out of thin air. If you want to look into the issue of alleged Einstein plagiarism concentrate on Lorentz and Poincare work in which pretty much everything what Einstein presented in his 1905 paper on special relativity was already demonstrated. A very strong case for Einstein plagiarism can be made however the evidence is circumstantial.

    As far as E=mc^2 even wiki says:

    “Mass–energy equivalence arose originally from special relativity as a paradox described by Henri Poincaré.”

    As far as Einstein derivation of it physicists still argue about its correctness (not the validity of the formula).

    • Replies: @Rich
  174. @Art


    I would that it would die. First you tell me I don’t know what tabula Rosa (rasa) is. You then make reference that therm is to “white oppression”. I correct that. You also claim that therm is personal in nature. That was also incorrect. I only know what it is I explain it’s lack of revelence to the afformentioned comment concerning what anyone is capable of doing.

    The only person in this conversation that has made any personal references to anyone else’s knowledge deficiency has been you — in reference to what you thought or asserted what i don’t know about the Tabula Rosa/rasa and it’s meaning and application.

    I have made no reference to or insinuation about your intelligence. Integrity in discussion perhaps. The bit I have pressed is to hold you to account for your comments, nothing at all about your intelligence.

    What I am defending is not her but my position that environment paramount to subjective knowledge and reasoning.

  175. Rich says:

    You’re argument isn’t with me, it’s with the historians who’ve recently given credit to De Pretto. I only came across the De Pretto story recently. I doubt the man could have pulled the formula “out of thin air”, he wasn’t a wizard, after all. This Lorentz and Poincare information is also very interesting, all new to me. Einstein was turned into an idol by many people and some have difficulty when they find out the graven image they worshiped was a forgery.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Wizard of Oz
  176. @Art

    excuse the correction: What I am defending is not her but my position that environment paramount genetics/biology to subjective knowledge and reasoning (in the general).

  177. @gcochran

    Apologies. It wasn’t a fair summary of your thesis. But I wanted a contrast with my left side of Bell Curve hypothesis (not an exclusive contrast of course) and I suppose it seemed a bit less belligerent than noting that you had summarily dismissed my speculations about the elimination of the dim from the breeding pool..

  178. @Rich

    I am sorry you feel too embarrassed to attempt any justification or apology for your ill chosen words of which I made precise criticisms. I doubt that I shall be the only one who draws adverse conclusions about the value of spending time reading your comments from your substituting for a proper answer a ridiculous rant in which almost every assertion, assumption and guess is absurdly wrong, and would be seen to be such not only by me but anyone who cared at all for truth on UR or whether your comments were sane and well informed.

    • Replies: @Rich
  179. @Rich

    You must be very stupid to keep on digging after having admitted your ignorance. (Wow, “this Lorentz and Poincaré information ….., all new to me” but you have the chutzpah to carry on with your Einstein was “a fraud and a plagiarist” line. Before you expose yourself further perhaps you would care to explain why he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics and later became one of the academic stars of Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Study. Of course you would have trouble understanding what it was that he got the Nobel Prize for (not relativity but explaining the photoelectric effect). Me, I would be reluctant to stick my neck out and say he was a fraud and plagiarist.

    • Replies: @Rich

    if anyone can find a single comment that John Locke contends everyone is born to the same genetics/biology

    Have at it.

    Tabula rasa is to minding not biology.

  181. Evergreen says:

    Regarding the assertion that most people can do most anything, its very important to note that intelligence tests are timed. Intelligent people don’t simply solve problems and arrive at correct answers, as “most anybody” can do, they do it much faster and with less effort than less intelligent people can do.
    Its not the average of the population that brings a society an enlightenment, but rather a small percentage of people who were aberrations. In time, those who are aberrations should civilize and build a great society, even if the average IQ is 85 among the commoners, Flynn notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  182. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I really touched a nerve there, eh? What do you have a little shrine to Einstein in your house that you kneel in front of while you try to wipe away those painful, dateless, friendless, memories of your youth? You’re an angry little fellow, maybe you should try exercise or meditation, or something. Anyway, go argue with the historians and researchers who published this information, not me. And. Wiz (funny name), you ain’t half as smart as you think you are.

  183. @Wizard of Oz

    This all is useless. Einstein is probably the last universal physicist, on par with Newton and Maxwell. His SR is just a part-although a very important part- in his whole opus (Brownian motion, photo effect-dual nature of matter/light, heat capacity of solids, GR, Bose-Einstein statistics, EPR paradox/quantum entanglement, …).

    Just, I don’t think he, if resurrected, could have done much now. Such is contemporary state of physics.

    In a way, he was lucky to be born in the right place & in the right time.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  184. Curle says:

    “But does Murray’s truth serve a nation committed to multiculturalism multiracialism and multigenderism?“

    No. But it serves a nation collectively deciding whether to continue with these so-called commitments.

    I met an otherwise intelligent person once who refused to believe the Civil Rights Act was amendable.

    • Replies: @anon
  185. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    And yet, an obscure Italian physicist published “his” theory two years before him. That’s historical fact. Why do you Einstein fanboys have so much trouble with facts?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  186. Evergreen says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    It proves that turtles are physically fit but giraffes are not.

  187. Evergreen says:
    @jack daniels

    Street smarts are not learned in the streets, they are taught at home and within peer groups. I recall before I was a teen, a trouble maker younger than me, advised that “you would never talk to the cops”. That is something that Lois Lerner knew but Roger Stone did not.

    • Replies: @Truth
  188. Anonymous [AKA "LittleJew"] says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yeah, I can hardly wait to get my share once we attain world domination….

    • LOL: JLK
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  189. @Franklin Ryckaert

    It does seem that there aren’t a lot of Freddie-the-Freshman types at the Ivies of late.
    As I see it, the Rainbow Coalition strategy is to throw flattery and sinecures at non-white minorities to get them to vote Dem. Once elected, Dems can be counted on to promote the foreign policy of AIPAC and the domestic policy of Wilhelm Reich. The GOP tries to out-do the Dems on the Israel front but that is in order to atone for being three degrees to the right of Wilhelm Reich on domestic issues.

  190. @Evergreen

    IQ is a grab-bag of abilities. I suspect that most people worthy of the term ‘genius’ have exceptionable ability in some narrow area. I am told that Floyd Whyburn, who all but invented topology, had an IQ of 115. But boy he was a holy terror when it came to paper folding!
    I knew a guy in the Law School who swore he had an IQ over 200 and had 800s on all his SATs. He stunk at chess despite devoting a large amount of time to it. In a game with me he once captured his own piece!! What was he thinking?

    • Replies: @Evergreen
  191. @Peter Akuleyev

    This is speculation and goes against what I’ve heard and seen. Affluent Jews are more likely to intermarry. Also, the high Jewish IQ probably comes from the fact that for centuries Jews have made their way as merchants, bankers, teachers, lawyers, administrators, and the like. Very few are farmers, soldiers, or urban laborers. What makes a Jewish man attractive to a Jewish woman is tilted in favor of brains over brawn. You don’t find a lot of Jews pumping iron to look good in a T-shirt. They are more likely to be pumping calculus to look good in a BMW.

  192. @Wizard of Oz

    I’m not up on biology so I will take your word for it on race. For whatever causes, the more common usage of the term today counts only very large groups as races. That usage may well be open to criticism as biologically ill-founded.

  193. ” These results suggest that outcome differences are being passed on along family lines, and that they are not due to common ethno-cultural factors. This is consistent with an evolutionary-genetic model, but environmental familial models cannot be ruled out at this stage..”

    Excuse me . . . if environmental models cannot be ruled out, you’ll have to explicate why your assumption to genetics is any more valid and less a fallacy than those who lean more to environment.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  194. @prime noticer

    I largely share your view of Murray. He’s just a careerist who has chosen to shill for a think-tank and in order to keep his sinecure he has to avoid any appearance of genuine conservative commitment. To lose politely is indeed his game. But his research could be powerful ammunition in the hands of people of more manly temperament.

    • Replies: @Anon
  195. @Rich

    Not “established fact” FWIW. You haven’t even read what others have tried to help you with. (Better to stick with the rather murky late 1920s story of Einstein having to apologise for non-acknowledgment).

    • Replies: @Rich
  196. @Anonymous

    As a little Jew you are entitled only to a little share. Know your place !

  197. Rich says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You’re factually wrong. Anyone reading this can easily google “Olinto De Pretto” and see the same information I’ve seen. If you deny the world is round, what can I do? Now go polish that Einstein statue of yours. FWIW.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @utu
    , @Wizard of Oz
  198. @EliteCommInc.

    excuse posted to the wrong article

  199. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    Quite. Anyone can get your extremely limited knowledge of what Wikipedia says. Advice to stop digging was about right for someone so thick and unaware of his limitations.

    • Replies: @Rich
  200. Rich says:

    You’re right, I just checked Wikipedia and even they know about Mr De Pretto. Pretty amazing that even Wikipedia, as well as a hundred other sites,have this information and,yet, so many remain ignorant. Thanks for pointing that out.

  201. utu says:

    I found the 1903 paper of Olinto De Pretto where he argues (he does not prove) that there is some latent energy that can be expressed as mc^2. Here is a part where he argues it:
    Now if all the intimate body of a body is animated by infinitesimal movements, but very rapid, like perhaps the ether, movements to which no particle is subtracted, it should be concluded that the matter of an ordinary body contains in itself a sum of energy represented by the whole mass of the body, which moved all together and en bloc in space, with the same speed of the single particles.

    But this deduction leads us to unexpected and incredible consequences. One kilogram of matter, launched with the speed of light, would represent a sum of this energy that can not even conceive of it.

    You clearly can see this is not a proof. It is just speculative talking and rambling. You find things like that in science-fiction. They often are convincing and creative but they are not science, they are fiction. De Pretto writes a fiction that turned out to be kind of true.

    It is very likely that Einstein was a very savvy and unscrupulous plagiarists but by concentrating on Olinto De Pretto case which is so easy to dismiss you and all those who push De Pretto story are doing a great disservice to the cause of studying Einstein plagiarism by shining light in a wrong place. You are barking at the wrong tree. You are puling the red herring on the string to disorient the hunting dogs.

    • Replies: @Rich
  202. Rich says:

    [Too much nonsense about Einstein cluttering up this comment thread.]

  203. @Rich

    There’s no reason to regard Einstein as a saint or even unparalled genius. He wasn’t after all a gentleman with inherited money like Darwin. But, as well as his Nobel Prize and welcome by Princeton it should not be forgotten that it was Einstein’s theory of relativity that Eddington set out to confirm by his astronomical measurements (finally firmed up accuratrly in Australia a few years later I think). That was at a time when antisemitic German scientists were continuing to cast doubt on relativity and include it in the “Jewish physics” they condemned. Whatever case might be made for saying there was a Jewish campaign to whitewash anything unsavoury about Einstein or to boost his standing as a great scientist I don’t think you would find that an easy case to make in the years when he was acquiring his scientific fame up to the 1920s. Why don’t you read up on his misguided early opposition to quantum physics?

    • Replies: @utu
  204. @Bardon Kaldian

    You might even have compared Einstein’s attitude, at least in the 1920s, to quantum physics to Newton’s interest in alchemy!

  205. Anon[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @jack daniels

    How shrewd of you to pick the 76 year old Murray as a shill and careerist. Any man of proper modesty could have taken a cue from you and retired to batting a few balls round on the Internet – in his case, with a Scottish name, choosing a good Scotch Whisky pseudonym like White Grouse shall we say?

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  206. Anonymous [AKA "CohenOchs"] says:

    OMG, “all three co-authors are on the political Left. (And then some, in Dr. Harden’s case: In a New York Times op-ed published July 24th 2018 she quoted Lenin with approval!)” No, tell me it isn’t so!!!

    Oh, wait, in fact it isn’t. Dr. Harden’s op-ed explicitly states her disagreement with the quote she recited from Lenin. But never mind, it’s all in the service of this desperate grab bag to defend the indefensible by an author whose writing I guess we aren’t supposed to discount just because he’s on the political Right and then some. . . .

  207. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    of course but at this point changing our mind means civil war and then race war with china possibly taking advantage
    personally i think we should do this but to almost everyone else this is just an impossible thought and so encouraging thought that could lead to that is criminal true or not

    consider even trying to eliminate affirmative action, mere meritocracy.
    there would be no blacks browns or women above 1% in any capacity, relegating them to third class citizens again, even the jews and east asians without the political power and the violence potential that goes with political power of the blacks browns etc jews and asians would find their slight IQ advantage would be sidelined to a great extent. Now when minorities were 9% of the nation we were not able to maintain the peace do you think with 40% minorities we could no it would be war if we wanted to amend back to a meritocracy in fact it will be a war if we want to stop this march to being turned into Boers being hunted by zulus financed by commie jews and capitalist jews

  208. Clashes such as these are subsumed within a titanic religious war that has been festering off and on for centuries. And now Western Civilization is truly in the thick of it. Western democracies are no longer some kind of level playing field where you assume the opponent’s arguments have any kind of validity such that each side ends up in cozy compromise.

    Instead we are in an existential civil war of one type of religion against another type of religion, one type of morality incompatible with another type of morality. There is no room for compromise between warring religions when the leftist secular religious cult has vowed to destroy all others, including especially traditional Christianity.

    Why is this not glaringly self-evident to everyone? Wake up and physically fight for your life, because if you don’t the left will end up putting a bullet in your brain as they march your children off to reeducation camps.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  209. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The Nobel Committee explicitly stated that the Nobel prize is not for relativity:
    The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for “services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”. At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented “without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future”.

    Eddington measurements did not help (accuracy was low and many outliers). Some including Einstein believed that he was held back because of measurements by Dayton Miller in Cleveland, Ohio and on Mt. Wilson in California. Some speculated that it was because Poincare was dead and Lorentz was still alive and everybody knew that Poincare and Lorentz deserved the prize as well. For example Wilhelm Wien nominated Lorentz and Einstein together for relativity in 1911. So giving Einstein the prize for the photoelectric effect was kind of a Solomonic decision. Still Einstein was not happy and decided to not go to Stockholm to receive it (like Bob Dylan) and later when time came to deliver the acceptance speech he talked about relativity w/o mentioning the photoelectric effect at all.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  210. @utu

    Yes, interesting isn’t it? But I am not sure it adds much to our knowledge. I read that he chose to continue on a planned lecture tour of Japan rather than go to Stockholm and it was suggested that it had something to do with the murder of Rathenau and Einstein’s name allegedly being coupled with his for assassination. But he would no doubt have had some adverse reaction to the Nobel Prize committee having apparently given in to the critics of relativity.

    • Replies: @utu
  211. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I have some doubts about the Rathenau story. Also I think that on the rational level Einstein understood that Dayton Miller measurements (that were ongoing until Miller’s death in 1940s) were a death blow to his theory. He expressed it himself on several occasions but otoh his pride and ego could not accept it so he felt slighted.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  212. @utu

    “A death blow to his theory?” I haven’t heard of any of that? What theory exactly?

    How does it square with this?

    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
  213. @Anon

    I make my case against Murray in another comment. He did some good work but he’s also a sellout.

    • Replies: @utu
  214. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan:

    I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.

    Einstein stated in a letter, July 1925, to Edwin E. Slosson:

    My opinion about Miller’s 􏰂aether􏰃 experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain; however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.

    In 1954 Einstein in letter to Shankland who after Dayton Miller’s death reworked Miller’s data and concluded that the shift measured by Miller could be ignored (or whatever – I have’t read Shankland’s paper):

    I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted. You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause 􏰂having􏰃 nothing to do with ‘ether wind’, but with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles, which produce the bands of interference.

    Shankland believed that Miller’s work was responsible for Einstein not getting Nobel prize for Relativity. What Einstein believed we do not know.

  215. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    One more thing. It would be interesting to look into the letter (June 1921) to Millikan. Millikan has just moved to Caltech from Chicago and Miller was doing experiments at Mt. Wilson observatory which was owned by Caltech. Was Einstein probing or lobbying his case in the year in which the Nobel Committee was deliberating?

    And here is an interesting info:

    An interesting note: Records show the Nobel Prize Awarding Institution, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, decided to reserve the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, and therefore awarded no Physics prize that year. According to the statutes, a reserved prize can be awarded the year after, and Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for 1921 one year later, in 1922.

    This suggests the some serious deliberations and lobbying were going on and Einstein was a center of it.

    Interesting piece of info on Millikan and his Nobel prize:

    Millikan and his then graduate student Harvey Fletcher used the oil-drop experiment to measure the charge of the electron (as well as the electron mass, and Avogadro’s number, since their relation to the electron charge was known).

    Professor Millikan took sole credit, in return for Harvey Fletcher claiming full authorship on a related result for his dissertation.[11] Millikan went on to win the 1923 Nobel Prize for Physics, in part for this work, and Fletcher kept the agreement a secret until his death.

    Clearly this show that Milliken was a kind of guy that you could make deals with him. Milliken earlier work on experiments relating to Einstein photoelectric effect. They were buddies.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  216. utu says:
    @jack daniels

    Sellout. At least Murray found some buyers for his ass. This can’t be said about Derbyshire regardless how much lipstick he puts on his ass.

  217. Evergreen says:
    @jack daniels

    Are you arguing with something I said ? I think most people are aware of IQ = g Factor and g stands for general. Most people are aware of savants and savant traits in geniuses. We have all heard of “book smart”. Most people have probably arrived at the concept of the theory of multiple intelligence, all on their own.
    My comment was not an endorsement of what IQ tests do and do not measure, but rather to point out how crucially important speed and time are, in measuring any of it. I was commenting on people who score high on Stanford Binet, or SAT’s or whatever test is being administered. But I am sure I would apply the same time constraints to a masterpiece painter or a songwriter or a solver of Fermat’s enigma…or a chess player.
    “Anyone can do most anything”, even if true, would require “given enough time”.

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  218. @utu

    I was totally unaware of Miller, or anyone, keeping the idea of the ether alive. I wonder if it is going to get some sort of lease of new life by reference to dark matter or dark energy.

    BTW there doesn’t seem to be anything in that correspondence to lower Einstein’s reputation and give comfort to the antisemites who want to label him a fraud.

  219. Anonymous [AKA "MrPointerMan"] says:
    @Monotonous Languor

    There’s an animated map on the web somewhere that shows the rise and fall of various religions, particularly Islam and Christianity. Like it or not, it kinda looks like it’s Islam’s turn to dominate. Could this be a sub rosa plan of the recent large groups of migrants? Is Europe sowing the seeds of its own doom?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  220. @Anonymous


    One thing about the US is that Muslims cannot cross the pond as easily and it is dominated by Jews. So ironically, America is going to be a European civilization for longer than Europe itself.

    Muslims in Europe can gradually take over the streets, legally or no. Hispanics and blacks in the US won’t be letting Pakistanis do this. Mexican cartels-run by white or mostly-white Mestizos-are too well organized and too well-armed. Try being a Pakistani pimp attempting to groom little Mexican girls in the hood by drugging them with heroin.

    Jews make a big deal of multiculturalism but the second some Linda Sarsour ran for mayor on a platform against Israel she would be kicked out of the world.

    Eventually, too, Europeans who object to the presence of the US military will want them to fight Muslim insurgency in Europe.

    • Replies: @jack daniels
  221. @Evergreen

    In chess the best players at 2-minute are not the best players at 5-minute who are not the best players at 30-minute who are not the best players at 3-hour, who are not the best players at correspondence games. To be sure, the best player at 5-minute will be pretty good at 2-minute and 30 minute and so on, but the pecking order changes as you change the time limit. I expect the same phenomenon would be observed when rating ability at other intellectual skills.
    Also, it is unknown how strong a correlation there is between extreme, genius-level ability at some particular skill like solving Soma cubes or composing melodies, and Stanford Binet scores. It might even be that the greatest single-sector geniuses have below average IQs.

    • Replies: @Evergreen
  222. Evergreen says:
    @jack daniels

    Are you trying to argue that time is not an important component of IQ?
    I completely disagree.
    If you ask musicians who the greatest of all time was, they all answer “Bach”, unless they are contrarians for the sake of being contrary. Most people who have studied the man, assess that he was a genius in the general sense, as well as in the musical sense. But if his brain had worked so slowly that he only produced one of his masterpieces, he would still be a talent, but he would not be the greatest of all time. More importantly, he would not have been able to accomplish “most anything” because he would not live enough centuries to do so. So in my world, if you cannot get things done in a reasonable amount of time, you score lower on the test and in life. They directly correlate.

  223. I never argued time was not a “component.” What I argued is that the person who does best with a 5 minute time limit might not be best with a 20 minute or 24 hour time limit. Compare track and field. The fastest 100 meter runner is Usain Bolt, but Bolt is not the fastest at the mile or the 25 mile. People want to think there is one way of computing intelligence that is clearly the best but that is very unlikely. You probably get different rankings of test-takers depending on what time limits you use, among other things.

  224. @Jeff Stryker

    As Rand Paul would say, can’t the Euros do ANYTHING for themselves?
    Personally I would LOVE to see Muslims overrun Europe. I hate Europe. My ancestors are from Europe but left before it sank into total decadence. The Euros deserve everything they get in SPADES. Friggin poofters. Now I am just talking about WESTERN Europe. Eastern Europe and Russia are still recognizably human which is why we want to fight them and overthrow their governments.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
  225. @onebornfree

    If what you say is true about passage through the Van Allen belts, are you the only person who knows it? What’s the deal?

  226. @jack daniels


    But I assume your British from your use of the word “poofter”. So your situation is a bit different that of the United States.

  227. Anonymous [AKA "Daniel Sebold"] says:

    The cognitive dissonance instilled by abusive nuns and women lay teachers in Catholic school is a far greater intellectual inspiration than having expert eloquent teachers of parallax, Cepheid luminosities, red shifts, evolution through punctuated equilibrium or glaciations causing neotony. My kid brother had the sweetest, most sympathetic and brightest teachers, rendering him a complete ignorant moron Trump supporting, war mongering, philistine. I was told to stand in the corner for writing the wrong answer in my workbook. What better way to refute religion and turn one to the arts and sciences?

  228. MEH 0910 says:

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS