The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsJared Taylor Archive
Taking the Fun Out of Being 'Progressive'
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Kathryn Paige Harden

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The evidence that genes influence intelligence and other personality traits is so overwhelming that even a few lefties no longer deny it. But, oh, how they agonize over how to reconcile science with the religion of equality. How do you justify massive social intervention when the people you are trying to help might not be victims of racism or sexism or capitalism? What if at least part of the problem is that they were born stupid or lazy?

I’ve been saying for years that the people who tax us and boss us around in the name of equality won’t stop taxing us and bossing us around just because it turns out that unsuccessful people got a bad roll of the genetic dice. But handout programs will be a harder sell, and “progressives” will have to give up one of their great joys in life: the conviction that they are morally superior to the “racists” and “conservatives” whom they blame for the problems they think they are solving.

The latest issue of the New Yorker devotes one of its bloated articles to just such a case of leftist agony. It’s called “Can Progressives be Convinced that Genetics Matters?” It should be astonishing that anyone needs to be convinced that genetics matter, but we live in an age of resolute ignorance.

The hero of the article is a young academic super-star lefty named Kathryn Paige Harden who, the New Yorker says, is almost single-handedly fighting a two-front war: “on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything.” No one — and I mean no one — thinks genes are “everything,” but that is the pose lefties strike. They believe only committed progressives can truly understand the policy implications of genetics.

As Prof. Harden, who became tenured in psychology at UT Austen at age 32, explains, “There is a middle ground between ‘let’s never talk about genes and pretend cognitive ability doesn’t exist’ and ‘let’s just ask some questions that pander to a virulent on-line community populated by racists with swastikas in their Twitter bios.’ ” There’s that phony dichotomy again. And who is enemy number one in this “virulent on-line community”? Your servant.

First, let us praise Prof. Harden. For an academic, it is risky to say such things as, “If people are born with different genes, if the genetic Powerball lands on a different polygenic combination, then they differ not just in their height but also in their wealth.” Even to hint that being poor might have something to do with genes — that it isn’t exclusively the fault of the cis-gendered white-supremacist hetero-normative xenophobic patriarchy — is heresy. This is just as bad: “Common intuitions about the scale of inequality in our society, and our imaginations about how much progress we would make if we eliminated the visible inequalities by race and class, are profoundly wrong.” Setting aside how common that intuition is outside cozy elite circles, this sort of thing threatens to bring down the whole social-justice house of cards. And lefties know it.

Indeed, this seems to have been what caused one of the first bumps in Prof. Harden’s otherwise charmed career. During the 2015–16 academic year, still just 32 years old, she was scholar-in-residence at the Russell Sage Foundation in New York. The foundation is a nest of progressives who, writes the New Yorker, “seemed certain that behavior-genetics research, no matter how well intentioned, was likely to lead us down the garden path to eugenics. The world would be better, Harden was told, if she quit.”

Prof. Harden was naïve enough to think that this sort of talk “was the vestige of a bygone era” and that “her critics might be reassured by updated information.” She sent them a study of polygenic scores (see here for what that means) that found genetic patterns that could partly explain individual differences in reading ability and years of schooling. “Hope that you find this interesting food for thought,” she wrote cheerily.

Instead, William Darity, who teaches public policy at Duke, lead the attack: “There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research.” In further correspondence, he added that “I feel just as strongly that we should not keep the notions that the world is 6000 years old or that climate change is a fabrication under consideration.”

The New Yorker explains that Prof. Darity is “perhaps the country’s leading scholar on the economics of racial inequality” and a booming voice for reparations for slavery. No wonder he wants to treat behavior genetics as if it were Holocaust denial. If genes account for even just a few points of the black/white IQ gap, it might spoil his calculations of how many trillions we owe blacks.

What the New Yorker fails to mention is that Prof. Darity is black, so a young, lefty “Karen” dared not brush him off as an ignoramus, especially since, as the article notes, she is “otherwise in near-total political agreement” with him. The wounded Prof. Harden “has spent the last five years thinking about Darity’s objections,” but she has not surrendered. In the meantime, she had to fend off another black attacker, Dorothy Roberts, professor of Africana studies at Penn, who says that the only result of recognizing genetic contributions to behavior is a compulsion to “stigmatize, control, and punish.”

This March, Prof. Harden said she favored standardized testing because it predicts college performance better than GPA does. She might as well have hoisted the Nazi flag. Someone started a parody Twitter account called “Dr. Harden, Social Justice Through Eugenics!” and others said she was encouraging “the alt-right.”

Needless to say, Prof. Harden insists that although genes tell us something about differences within groups, they tell us nothing about differences between groups — and, no doubt, never will. Alas, her old nemesis Prof. Darity says that to assert the one but deny the other is “a feint and a dodge,” whereupon the New Yorker introduces your servant:

There is a good precedent for this kind of concern. In “Blueprint,” Robert Plomin wrote that polygenic scores should be understood as “fortune tellers” that can “foretell our futures from birth.” Jared Taylor, a white-supremacist leader, argued that Plomin’s book should “destroy the basis for the entire egalitarian enterprise of the last 60 or so years.” He seized on Plomin’s claim that, for many outcomes, “environmental levers for change are not within our grasp.” Taylor wrote, “This is a devastating finding for the armies of academics and uplift artists who think every difference in outcome is society’s fault.” He continued, “And, although Blueprint includes nothing about race, the implications for ‘racial justice’ are just as colossal.”

I’m amused to find that I, an alleged “white supremacist leader,” am in such intimate agreement with a leading reparations advocate on the question of recognizing genetic influence.

The New Yorker then turns into a promo piece for Prof. Harden’s forthcoming book, The Genetic Lottery. The publisher didn’t send me an advance copy, so I don’t know what’s in it, but I can guess. After many pages of pouring self-righteous scorn on racists and sexists and telling us Hitler was a very bad man, she will try to persuade her fellow progressives to understand that we are all born different, and that genes matter. She will ask them to consider that it might just perhaps possibly be true that some people might just perhaps possibly be born stupid and lazy, and that this might just perhaps possibly explain why they are poor or in jail. But, she will hasten to add, progressives can still be the moral heroes of our era and must never abandon the crusade for equality.

There are two reasons for this. First, ragpickers and jailbirds were genetically unlucky, so degeneracy is no more their fault than if white silence really were violence; so they are just as deserving as ever. Second, lefty professors and soccer moms were genetically lucky. They have to give up the myth, as Prof. Harden says, that “those of us who have ‘succeeded’ in twenty-first century capitalism have done so primarily because of our own hard work and effort.”

As The Genetic Lottery’s cover proclaims, the book will explain “how the science of genetics can help create a more just and equal society.” Since it’s all a matter of luck, the lucky few should be just as devoted as ever to succoring the unlucky many. Redistribution must go on. Besides, Prof. Harden will cheerfully add, the more we know about genetics, the more we can tune our uplift efforts to things that really work — she’s sure to know what they are. And she will end with mighty blasts against the savage racists and sexists of the past and against perverts of the present like your servant who think that an understanding of genetics implies a few policy changes she wouldn’t like.

This is the sort of fluff with which liberals (and even conservatives) must sugar the pill, and all snideness aside, I’m very glad Prof. Harden wrote a book that could prompt more accusations that she is lending comfort to the alt-right.

I must even give the New Yorker some credit. For a drearily predictable, self-righteous, Trump-hating magazine to make a hero out of a behavioral geneticist is a surprise. Her BIPOC foil, the reparations-pushing William Darity, comes off as a bigoted bully. The mainstream media does have occasional spasms of this kind, but then go right back to peddling nonsense.

And yet, for how long can the holy crusade of redistribution survive an understanding of genetics?

The urge to be a ministering angel is certainly strong. Prof. Harden calls herself a “Matthew 25:40 empiricist” (“And the King shall answer, . . . inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”) Today, one of the obligatory marks of virtue is to profess, as loudly as possible, the goal of equality, and to care equally loudly about blacks, winos, immigrants, transsexuals, etc. Virtue doesn’t require actually doing anything to help them other than voting Democrat, but if America has one top-priority goal, it’s equality.

At the same time, surely, much of the thrill of being on the Left is an intoxicating sense of moral superiority, the joy of inventing endless pathologies — racist, sexist, xenophobe, etc. — with which to diagnose conservatives. The entire vocabulary of the Left is Manichean. For there to be “the marginalized,” there must be bad people shoving them into the margins. There are “the underserved” only because the same bad people refuse to serve them. No one would be “downtrodden” if those bad people weren’t trampling them. And, of course, we know who those bad people are. What fun it must be to believe that one’s opponents are depraved.

But what if Prof. Harden is right and America is not so much a crime scene as a story of good luck and bad luck? Could the Left keep pushing the juggernaut without it’s daily — hourly — cocaine fix of moral outrage? I doubt it. There’s such joy in dragging down the white man.

Let’s imagine explaining to white suburban mothers why there has be Section 8 housing in their neighborhood:

Yes, these people live in tar-paper shacks because they’re shiftless, but the poor dears were born that way and can’t help it. You live in nice houses because you are smart and hard-working but you were born that way so you can’t help it. And, yes, they will bring crime, but they can’t help that either.

If that’s the best the Left can do, there won’t be any Section 8 housing. Or affirmative action or reparations or critical race theory or immigrant-coddling or diversity boosting or any of the other dead weights progressives hang around our necks.

And, of course, there will be eugenicist rumblings. If people are born feckless and are likely to have feckless children, how about making Norplant a condition for getting welfare?

Prof. William Darity is right to screech. For him and for the entire Left, “gene” is a four-letter word. Their paychecks, their identities, their zest for life all go up in smoke if the problem is nature and not white supremacy.

I wish Prof. Harden every success with her book. Even if she assures lefties they can still feel self righteous, it will take high-wire oratory to convince them to give up cherished illusions. And who knows? Maybe The Genetic Lottery will make it a little less likely we get idiotic laws such as No Child Left Behind or that we try to turn Afghans into Hubert Humphrey Democrats. We may still lather Quanisha and Juan Pablo with preferences, but the frenzy to make them into doctors and jet pilots may cool. In the long term, the relentless levelling of the last century will not survive widespread understanding of how genes shape behavior.

How long will the long term be? Thirteen years ago, I wrote about dissention in the ranks:

As the number of heretics grows, a few of the less blinkered liberals can see that the egalitarian edifice is shaky. They don’t want to be the last defenders of what may be a doomed orthodoxy. . . . Their vanity tells them that the last to abandon ship will look ridiculous. In retrospect, everyone will see there was not one scrap of positive evidence for egalitarian orthodoxy. But when will it be safe to jump? Who will later be heralded as far-seeing, and who will be put to the stake? The defenders of orthodoxy are still powerful, and desperation makes them vindictive.

Equality has been the main goal in America for so long that people can’t imagine anything else. I can. A society could strive for excellence, integrity, and honor just as mightily as ours strives for equality. I believe that society will come one day; I hope I live to see it.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 314 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The New Yorker explains that Prof. Darity is “perhaps the country’s leading scholar on the economics of racial inequality” and a booming voice for reparations for slavery. No wonder he wants to treat behavior genetics as if it were Holocaust denial. If genes account for even just a few points of the black/white IQ gap, it might spoil his calculations of how many trillions we owe blacks.

    If Darity believed his own talk, he would think that genetics might give blacks a higher potential IQ than whites, and that this is why whites expend so much effort keeping blacks down.

    Of course he doesn’t think that: he knows perfectly well the direction that genetic differences will take.

    • Agree: Irish Savant
    • Replies: @DanGood
  2. Patriot says:

    Most excelent article Mr. Taylor. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Jared Taylor
  3. “Equality has been the main goal in America for so long that people can’t imagine anything else. I can.”
    Now isn’t that funny? B/c in material terms the US has never been so unequal.
    2021, I believe, even buts the “robber baron” period at (roughly) the turn of the 20th C.
    So, a big fat wank for all the progressives — “job well done, guys”.
    This wokest abhorrence for genetic influence on behaviour, I find is profoundly bizarre.
    The concept of “equality” does not demand a tablua Rosa or blank slate foundation.
    Justice demands that people obey the Law, & that people who want help receive some help. Justice does not demand that any “group” who can fashion an “identity” receive extraordinary assistance.
    The material & social structural defects in the US are so massive that nature/nurture debates are now entirely self indulgent.

  4. @Patriot

    I’m very glad you liked it. I sent it to the lady in question. I somehow don’t think she will reply.

  5. ruralguy says:

    Darity and Roberts, pretend professors, exemplify the problem with giving mediocre students worthless degrees. It gives mediocre and ignorant people like them, the braying loud voices to drown out real academics doing critical research. Of course they are against genetic intelligence research. If intelligence and aptitude testing directed students according to their abilities, Darity and Roberts would likely be cleaning the toilets and hallways at their colleges, instead of lecturing their superior ghetto morality to bright students, in the social justices classes now required by colleges.

  6. Dually says:

    reconcile science with the religion of equality

    CRT is “science”, too – just ask her. You both worship the moronic religion of science. You both belong to the same social class and think the same things: that you are somehow victims of your own categories, like

    “racism and sexism”

    You are complaining about yourself!

    • Troll: jamie b.
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  7. Yeah, right, “success” is caused by “intelligence.”

    Do you have even the slightest acquaintance with the real world?

    “Success” is caused by picking the right parents.

  8. So “handouts” are bad, eh.

    They hand out unimaginably fantastically stratospheric mounds of money to the already rich. For free. Just because they are rich.

    And you would begrudge hard-working people a couple food stamps?

    You pretend like you are this big contrarian–but you are really just a shill for the rich.

  9. For myself, genetic influence on traits was clear to me in the 10th grade. The dog we had at the time was a German Shepherd named Rudy. Without any special training Rudy figured out how to open the latch of a gate with his muzzle by observation and let himself out to the front yard where he would sit under his favorite tree. He did other astounding things without the slightest training.

    Now to the human side, one of my high school friends, Mike, a guy who was an excellent surfer and all round jock, could open his math book and study the lesson for five minutes and get an A on the quiz, where others including myself, might be able to do the same after a few hours of study. I’m no longer surprised by the fact that some people just have it, for some things and it demonstrates clearly something else is at work besides practice, study,etc.

    • Agree: Rich, Decoy
  10. halina s. brown:

    “Let’s remember that before the war Poland was a very poor and backward country. Three quarters of the population lived in rural areas, living the lives of poverty or near poverty. The country was governed by a military junta led by Marshal Pilsudski, and political opposition was brutally silenced. My mother went to school hungry as a child, and at fourteen was already working in a Lodz textile factory, with all its unhealthy working conditions. After forty years of “bad communism” three quarters of the population lived in cities, with modest but assured livelihoods and well above poverty level. The illiteracy was completely eliminated, infant mortality plunged, healthcare became a universal right, and access to university education became common. If it was not for that system, my family would be still toiling as proletarians, and I would not have had the life I had during my first 20 years: of superior high school education, high culture, splendid theater, arts, sports, books, and many a thinly veiled contempt, happened.
    You also say that the greatly condensed educational opportunities after the war, mostly for people with working class backgrounds, and necessary to rebuild the missing intelligentsia, produced an army of mediocrity. This is a personal opinion, not a scholarly statement. Let me assure you that there was no more mediocrity in that generation in Poland than in any other society. As to my generation: we were anything but mediocre. We were idealistic, full of hope for the post-war future, full of creativity, curious, engaged. I know because I was there. And you were not.”

  11. The left’s problem is that they think high-IQ people should have more rights and powers. They are the ones who benefited from the system where performance on standardized tests determines your station in life. And now they’re trying to twist turn twist their way out of the implications of such a system without dooming their own privileges.

    The right more takes the view that people should only be rewarded for doing things, not just for scoring high on a test. If a dyslexic guy who can’t even read the SAT is a master cabinetmaker, he should earn more than a verbal adept who writes plays nobody wants to see.

    So questions about IQ distributions have much graver political implications for leftists than for those on the right.

    • Agree: Dumbo, Blackstone
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    , @obwandiyag
  12. Dually says:

    IQ is junk, too; because it doesn’t account for moral value. This is how we wind up with his eminence, Pope Fauci of Science, high-IQ mass murderer.

    • Replies: @Blackstone
    , @Art
    , @RJ Macready
  13. Non-liberal Americans may someday understand that they should not argue with those having an egalitarian hunter-gatherer mindset because they will drag you down to their level and then beat your brains out with their savage behavior.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  14. Hibernian says:
    @obwandiyag

    I know because I was there. And you were not.

    That’s the battle cry of my left wing cousin who says that there were no riots in his adoptive home time of Portland. I think I’ll try it myself and proclaim to the world that Chicago is another Mayberry RFD.

    Massive emigration from Poland to the US proves the answer to the question. One Leftist hired gun named Halina proves nothing.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  15. @Faraday's Bobcat

    http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/MentalismCB.html

    Mentalism and Mechanism
    the twin modes of human cognition

    by Christopher Badcock PhD.,
    Reader in Sociology, University of London

    The following article, commissioned as a chapter to appear in Human Nature and Social Values: Implications of Evolutionary Psychology for Public Policy edited by Charles Crawford & Catherine Salmon (Erlbaum, 2003), sets out a new paradigm for thinking about many fundamental controversies in human thought – especially the fact/value, science/humanities, nature/nurture and mind/brain ones.

  16. @Jared Taylor

    What if at least part of the problem is that they were born stupid or lazy?

    I believe that this language is unnecessarily tendentious and insulting. You may not be trying to win friends, but surely your goals include influencing people. Language like this doesn’t help, and instead supplies ammunition to your enemies.

    Whether we like it or not, the “differently abled” are with us to stay, and we’re better off finding ways to help them live decently than simply saying that they are losers in the genetic sweepstakes, and simply washing our hands.

    Separately, the essay includes a number of misspellings (not typos); e.g. lead vs led, it’s vs its, Austen vs Austin, etc.

    Let me know if you’d like a proofreader.

  17. Some Guy says:
    @obwandiyag

    If it was not for that system, my family would be still toiling as proletarians, and I would not have had the life I had during my first 20 years

    Nonsense, Poland would have developed without communism just as for example Spain did:

    • Agree: Mark G., Bernie
    • Replies: @James J O'Meara
  18. @HammerJack

    People usually don’t have a problem with the “differently abled” or with those that have positions commonly considered low level as long as they don’t try to use their affliction or lack of intelligence or skill as a political platform to rob and denigrate their obvious betters.

    The legal system has caused the animosity felt across the country by declaring that inferiority is equal to superiority; an obvious fallacy.

  19. @HammerJack

    Whether we like it or not, the “differently abled” are with us to stay, and we’re better off finding ways to help them live decently than simply saying that they are losers in the genetic sweepstakes, and simply washing our hands.

    In case you missed it:

    https://www.unz.com/trall/the-collapse-of-the-u-s-government/#comment-4883814

    This response provides a solution which takes care of people like this with minimal bureaucratic overhead. It also removes any possible excuse for criminal activity, and allows the damages caused by misanthropes to be minimized as they are no longer forced to participate in society.

    Most importantly, it provides a safety net for risk taking.

    I should have added these arguments there. Feel free to nominate me for a Nobel.

  20. Al Kayder says:

    blacks and arabs and mexicans? all still better than jews. all still would not be issues if jews didn’t weaponize them against whites.

    • Agree: FreedomAndTruth
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  21. MEH 0910 says:

    Robert VerBruggen:

    • Replies: @Dually
  22. Realist says:
    @obwandiyag

    “Success” is caused by picking the right parents.

    Intelligence is the result of picking the right parents.

    • Agree: donut
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    , @Anon
  23. @Realist

    God, did you pick the wrong parents. You must be “success”ful because you shore isn’t intelligent.

    Why, you ask? (You don’t because you know everything and are curious about nothing, but this is a hypothetical).

    Why are you stupid? In what way are you stupid?

    A. Let us stipulate that intelligence really is genetic and not the result of study and hard work.

    B. The parents of the successful are not the same parents as the parents of the intelligent. In fact, usually it’s just the opposite. Stupid, successful parents bear stupid, successful children.

    C. And thus your “argument” (which your assertion really is not), is irrelevant. Everyone knows that it takes money (not intelligence) to make money. This fact is an a priori truth.

    • Troll: jamie b.
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @annamaria
  24. @Faraday's Bobcat

    Or a semi-retarded pianist like Eroll Garner who makes absolutely transcendent music.

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  25. RoHa says:

    “we are all born different”

    Not me.

    But I think I’m the only one who wasn’t.

    • LOL: Randy Dazzler
  26. Jared Taylor: “Could the Left keep pushing the juggernaut without it’s [sic] daily — hourly — cocaine fix of moral outrage? I doubt it. … In the long term, the relentless levelling of the last century will not survive widespread understanding of how genes shape behavior.”

    To look for widespread understanding of a scientific point by the public seems absurdly optimistic to me. After all, we are talking about a public scientifically illiterate enough, and so reliant on expert opinions that they even have been brought to doubt their own existence as a race; a public so irrational during the current flu panic that they think that their masks will only work if I’m wearing one too; that their mystery shots will only work if I get one too, and so on. Reason and facts are powerless against such all-too-human conformity and smug moralism.

    There are other grounds to doubt Taylor’s optimism, too. For one thing, even if it became widely accepted that human behavior is largely determined by genes and environment, there will always be doubt about the outcome in any individual case, and hence any racial case also, because of the persistence of belief in human “free will”. This belief is so deeply embedded in the culture, and seems in many ways to be so essential to the functioning of any society, it’s very doubtful that it ever would or even could be abandoned. Because of this belief in “free will”, people will always think that any man, or any racial group, could behave differently if only they try. As a practical matter, buying into “free will” entirely destroys the racist case.

    Let’s note too that, unsurprisingly, this anti-racist Harden woman had an intensely Christian upbringing. She calls herself a “Matthew 25:40 empiricist” and, in addition to a belief in “free will”, evidently carries the usual Christian portmanteau full of reasons why whites must feel themselves obligated to sacrifice for the good of others. Her own story and rapid rise to a position of influence is itself powerful proof of the ability of humans to believe two mutually contradictory things at once. Her typically Christian morality obviously remains as solid as ever underneath a veneer of technical expertise because science, by itself, says nothing whatsoever about how humans should treat one another. What’s fair and what’s just are questions it has no ability to answer. Thus, Taylor is wrong when he writes “understanding of genetics implies a few policy changes she wouldn’t like.” Even if the public understood genetics as well as she does, there’s no reason to think they’d be any more favorably disposed to racism.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  27. Realist says:
    @obwandiyag

    Great job of shit-slinging. Why waste your time writing such tripe? Your replies are inconsistent and childish. You are truly a troll on this blog.

    • Agree: Da's Reich
    • Replies: @3g4me
  28. MEH 0910 says:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/12/kathryn-paige-harden-psychologist-genetics-education-school


    [MORE]

    You have been accused of promoting eugenics, including by prominent sociologist Ruha Benjamin, who has written that you are engaging in “savvy slippage between genetic and environmental factors that would make the founders of eugenics proud”.

    Those fears are coming out of a very real place – historically, genetics has been misused. But [eugenics] is literally the opposite of what I’m advocating. The core idea of eugenics is that there is a hierarchy of people who are inferior or superior that is rooted in biology and that inequalities are justified on that basis. Mine is an anti-eugenics approach seeking to use our knowledge of genetic science to build policies and social interventions that create more social equality. Sweeping genetic differences between people under the rug does not make the genome, as a systemic force causing inequality, go away. That genetic and environmental factors are braided together at every level is simply a description of reality.

  29. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “Because of this belief in “free will”, people will always think that any man, or any racial group, could behave differently if only they try.”

    I disagree here. Free will on its own doesn’t posit the equality of races. Free will is a useful tool to demarcate the borders of the [un]known potential of a given race. Case in point – the Meiji Restoration and industrialisation of Japan. Trying to change one’s race’s behaviour is not anti-racist. A Mogoloid won’t grow wings, but a Mongoloid will use a fork (if need be).

    > “…science, by itself, says nothing whatsoever about how humans should treat one another.”

    Is it really rational to support such policies that will lead to the extinction of the very subject of inquiry, or the institute of science itself?

    But of course, I agree with you that cultural intelligence is different from IQ. This is what Chechar has called “judgement” in his recent article. As culture is most commonly instilled by the rape of children’s gaping minds, it takes quite a queer individual completely to evaluate one’s own culture – a skill or proclivity that hardly correlates with a chess/science genius.
    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2021/09/08/on-ron-unz-truthers/

    Jared Taylor: “Could the Left keep pushing the juggernaut without it’s [sic] daily — hourly — cocaine fix of moral outrage?”

    As to this – absolutely. Mr. Taylor has these chimaeras of liberty or even maybe the USSR in mind. I will remind him that true culture generally does not betray itself. Does anyone seriously believe there is a huge underground of atheists in Saudi Arabia? America-worshippers in Juche Korea? Then why would America suddenly harbour a covert resistance of heterosexual White men? The triumph of Christian axiology is absolute, and there is no challenger in sight (aside from Islam/China, but that’s genocide by non-Whites).

  30. Adûnâi: “Free will on its own doesn’t posit the equality of races.”

    “Free will” by definition means that human actions aren’t causally determined. Belief in “free will” destroys the racist case because this necessarily includes genetic causes of behavior. In the final analysis, Christians and other believers in the mystical force of “free will” lack a scientific view of reality. There’s no way to reconcile “free will” with the determinism that science requires.

    Adûnâi: “Free will is a useful tool to demarcate the borders of the [un]known potential of a given race.”

    LOL. In that case, I give you the negro race. Is the potential of negroes unknown? Perhaps, but only if you believe in “free will”.

    Adûnâi: “This is what Chechar has called “judgement” in his recent article.”

    This distinction that you’re trying to make between IQ and judgement is an interesting one. The man who believes in “free will” sees the world differently than one who does not, in the same way as the man who believes in a Ptolemaic system sees the world differently than one who believes in a Copernican system, or in the same way a man who believes in Jesus Christ as his savior sees the world differently than one who does not. Choosing between such worldviews ultimately come down to a matter of judgement, and is more based on emotional factors than IQ.

    From the point of view of white racial survival, I’d say belief in “free will” shows poor judgement, as taking it seriously commits the white man to an anti-racist course of action.

    • Replies: @James J O'Meara
    , @Rich
  31. Apparently you can get tenure, and even be a “rising star,” in psychology without needing to dispense with the handy Straw Man fallacy. Apart from the mythical fanatics who “think only genetics matters,” just how many Twitter bios with swastikas in them does she imagine her readers imagine exist? I guess the audience for the New Yorker is elderly people in dentist offices who seldom “get on the Google,” as W used to say?

  32. @animalogic

    “Now isn’t that funny? B/c in material terms the US has never been so unequal.
    2021, I believe, even buts the “robber baron” period at (roughly) the turn of the 20th C.
    So, a big fat wank for all the progressives — “job well done, guys”.

    Yes indeed, this is the “division of labor” of today. As long as the Left, and the public, is fixated on chimeras like “no child left behind” or tranny bathrooms, etc., no one need pay any attention to boring stuff like economics., and everyone feels more morally superior than ever. No wonder Big Business promotes Woke. To paraphrase Ace Rothstein on Las Vegas, “It’s like a morality car wash.”

  33. @Some Guy

    I think the quoted comment applies better — indeed, superbly — not so much to the cap vs comm debate, as the Trad vs Modernity debate.

    For example, those who like to smugly quote Heidegger about how Russia and the USA were two identical threats to the German volk, and it was “the inner truth and greatness” of National Socialism to recognize this and fight against it. Thus Heidegger, and those calling themselves Traditionalists, praise the simple life of the peasants, and deplore and despise cities, factories, and I suppose universities, which this writer calls benefits.

    And of course, E Michael Jones and his fellow Catholic bigots will point out that the pre-comm peasants lived simple lives of Catholic piety. What profit a man who gains the whole world and lose his soul?

    A lot of “Dissident Right” vaporings amount to LARPing as happy peasants, or advising others to do so, while still enjoying electricity, dentistry, air conditioning, etc.

    There’s also a lot of this on the Left, the Frankfurters came out of the same Germanic tradition (despising the Enlightenment, mocking workers who “traded autonomy for dish washers” etc.), so you get the idea of eliminating cars, organic food, all manner of cutting back to save the Earth, etc., as opposed to the Old Left that was focused on material improvements.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @donut
    , @utu
  34. @HammerJack

    “Misspellings” like miss-speakings, are the privilege of the upper classes: e.g., George W. Oxford grads in my day favored the “Limehouse Accent,” with “don’t” and “ain’t”, doncha know?

    Accuracy and proofreading are for bourgeois strivers. You sound like you were a scholarship student.

  35. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    In a recent article on Counter-Currents, I explored the idea that — to put it in the language of your discussion — if genetics and “free will” are opposed, advances in genetics will erase the opposition; genetics, sufficiently advanced, = free will (as Arthur C. Clarke said, a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic).

    So the Lefty says, “This black child could win a Nobel Prize, just like James Watson, if only he tries hard enough”

    Righty says, “Balls. His race has low IQ, high time preference, and other factors that make that only infinitesimally likely”

    Lefty say: “Ok, let’s fix that” Here’s where the black box enters; gene therapy, surgery, pills, vaccination with periodic boosters, whatever. Genes are changed, Antwoine now has 150 IQ and low time preference, hello Nobel.

    With sufficiently advanced technology, I really CAN be what I WANT to be; just as I CAN get to Thailand in a few hours, compared to 18th century sailing ships.

    White people are committed to both science and racial equality. Why not use the one to pursue the other? Ashley Messenger calls it “Post-racialism via genetic enhancement. In the end, what we are talking about is a literal horror movie replacement scenario in which POC are converted into high-class whites who just happen to have brown bodies.”

    At that point, what can the “race realist” say but, “OK, you were right all along, I just don’t like black skin.”

    “Look out honey, ’cause I’m using technology!” here: https://counter-currents.com/2021/03/eumaios-evola-neville-on-race/

    • Agree: 3g4me
    • Replies: @Dually
  36. Dually says:
    @James J O'Meara

    Post-racialism via genetic enhancement

    Tattoos are cheaper, serves the same purpose of covering up all that unfashionable white skin. The collective white-guilt neurosis of an area can be quantified by the number of thriving tattoo parlors thereabouts.

    • Replies: @3g4me
  37. James J O’Meara: “Here’s where the black box enters; gene therapy, surgery, pills, vaccination with periodic boosters, whatever. Genes are changed, Antwoine now has 150 IQ and low time preference, hello Nobel.”

    I agree with you that that is a possible scenario. At the same time though, interventions of that sort could equally easily be used to suppress racism in whites. Suppose in the future genetic factors that predispose to racism are fully understood. Wouldn’t a gov’t that is trying to promote unity take measures to alter or eliminate such genes? I think so. In fact, such a thing would be very much in tune with the egalitarian Christian worldview on race that has characterized America’s public policy since the Civil War. Nobody would dare speak against such a “noble” goal.

    We should note too that the US government has now all but claimed the unlimited right to forcibly inject the citizenry with whatever compounds it sees fit in the name of the public good. Is it mere coincidence that this is happening now, just when science is perhaps on the verge of making the anti-racist dream you propose a reality? Underneath it all, I detect the movement of a collective intelligence. Without being aware of it, people are preparing themselves for just these kinds of interventions.

    James J O’Meara: “White people are committed to both science and racial equality. Why not use the one to pursue the other?”

    One thing that might stop that from happening in the way you envision is that altering the negro’s genes to make him more white would inevitably be depicted as racist and genocidal, and hence in our Christianized culture a thing to be avoided at all costs. And rightly so, if you want to be consistent with that view. For if you take away everything that makes the negro distinctly a negro — the low IQ, the criminality, the ugliness, the crude behavior, and even the stench — then you have in fact killed his race. It would be hard to see it in any other way than an attack on the holy ideal of diversity.

    In the broader picture though, I agree that the trend in technology has always been, and will always be to make biological race irrelevant. If the technological system survives, it’s easy to see that it will eventually make even man himself obsolete. Already we have futurists salivating over the prospect of uploading their consciousness into a robot body or a supercomputer. That’s why I’ve been saying for years that anyone who wants the white race to survive must oppose the technological system and work for its destruction. But it seems white people, even the ones who purport to be concerned with white racial survival, prefer technological progress to their own survival as a race. It turns out they are more committed to technological civilization’s survival than their own.

    James J O’Meara: “With sufficiently advanced technology, I really CAN be what I WANT to be …”

    Only if you want to be a member of an extinct race.

  38. jamie b. says:

    Africana studies?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  39. TKK says:
    @obwandiyag

    Sometimes, you do nail it.

    So much is based on the environment our parents create. Access to ideas, access to opportunity. I knew an assistant public defender- single mother- who made sure her daughter was on the right track.

    Things I never know about: Outward Bound, applying for grants for summer camps, making sure her daughter did the “right” activities for an Ivy League woke admissions committees. Her daughter is headed to Yale on full scholarship and they are white. Her mother figured it out the game. My parents did not know the game, and were obsessed with their own dramas. Our problems were our own.

    Then, you have those kids whose parents have the connections and money that grease every path. They live in another world.

    I will never forget going away with a friend in college- a real pothead dum dum- for the weekend. And we went to his father’s lakehouse. Bigger than my primary residence. They used it about once a year. Room and more rooms and opulence. He was oblivious to the luxury that was his birthright.

    Born on third base, believing he hit a home run.

    You can drill down even further and know that “success” is a geographical lottery. If we were born as females in Yemen to poor parents , our lives would be unbearable.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
  40. jamie b. says:
    @Jared Taylor

    I sent it to the lady in question.

    Prompting me to re-read it…

    • Replies: @Randy Dazzler
  41. …to turn Afghans into Hubert Humphrey Democrats.

    “Humphrey Democrats” are a hell of a lot more dangerous than Afghan pederasts, especially if the latter stay put. Or even Taliban.

    David Lebedoff worked with literal Humphrey Democrats* in the early 1960s, where he first noticed the stirrings of today’s “woke”, SJW culture, which goes way beyond “bleeding hearts” into totalitarian territory. He says it’s because tests let them think they are smarter, but I’d say the problem is that they actually are. IQ cuts both ways, as Mr T and Prof Rushton know.

    *Literally literally, they were “Democratic-Farmer-Labor”, but this is where they started to abandon the farmer and the laborer. Not long after HHH himself brought them together.

  42. @Al Kayder

    [A]ll still would not be issues if [J]ews didn’t weaponize them against whites.

    With Darwinism and legal abortion? Jews love those. Do you?

    • Replies: @Raches
  43. I apologize for lowering the tone of the discussion, but allow me to point out that Ms. Harden is likely a biological male. I’ll try to embed an image here:

    [MORE]


    Notice:
    – wide jaw and chin
    – shoulders 3x width of head (put calipers on the image)
    – shoulders wider than hips
    – no waist
    – relaxed left arm hangs at <180 degrees.
    – fingers in relaxed left hand curl (often called tranny claws)
    That's probably not convincing to non-experts. Then take a look at this one from a brief web search:

    Now are you convinced? Look at that neck! I’ve seen college linebackers with scrawnier necks.
    I also note that Wikifakia, err, Wikipedia, doesn't give her age which is highly unusual.
    Implications:
    She's a heavily promoted agent of the globohomo conspiracy. Everything she says should be regarded in that light. Her project is obviously to get out ahead of and control HBD discussion.
    Just thought everyone should know.

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    • Troll: Raches
  44. @Sparkylyle92

    BTW, the picture under title put me on to her. Besides the impression of powerful choppers, notice “her” mouth has no Cupid’s bow. That’s quite unusual in young women.

    • Troll: Raches
  45. Dumbo says:

    The Left just pretend ignorance, as it is known for ages, centuries, that our personalities are in large part determined by our heritage – that’s what it was called before the advent of genetic studies. But everyone knew that those things are passed by our parents, grandparents, etc.

    The Left itself, or whatever passes for Left these days, is controlled by a small number of families, so basically the same genes, so of course they know that.

    As for the question of race, it’s a bit more complicated, but the Left has no problem in accepting that Blacks are faster or have bigger dongs, or that Jews are smarter. They just don’t want people to say negative things about those sacred groups, but positive differences are OK.

    Anyway, the problem with Blacks is not that they are dumber or lazier, as the article implies, is that they are more violent and more prone to violent crime.

    Take out their guns with some politically correct excuse, or give them some lithium in the water supply, maybe that helps.

  46. donut says:
    @James J O'Meara

    If TPTB have their way we’re all going to be “LARPing as happy peasants” soon enough , well maybe not so “happy” .

  47. GMC says:

    Those that are geoengineering the US Society for constant sorrow, know damn well Ms. Harden is right . That is why they make sure to put minority fools like Prof. Darity, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, the African US Prez. , Colin Powell, and so many others in top positions. Yes , some of these players are smart – smart enough to work the system , while screwing their own people.

    ” Prof. William Darity is right to screech. For him and for the entire Left, “gene” is a four-letter word. Their Paychecks, their Identities, their zest for life all go up in smoke if the problem is Nature and not white supremacy.” And this statement says it all ! Good article .

  48. Sarah says:

    In the 19th century, progress meant improvements, inventions (railroads, telephone…). Since then, the meaning of the word progress has been diverted and perverted.
    “PROGRESS” means progress towards THEIR goals. And it is not for the good of all of us.

    PROGRESSISM : what does that mean ?

    I am very suspicious of these -ISM words.

    Does it mean doctrine of “progress”? But who is in favor of regression?
    True progress, in the sense defined by me at the beginning, does not need a doctrine.
    The word “progressism” is a nonsense.

    • Agree: donut
    • Replies: @Aristotle
  49. Sarah says:

    ” The Genetic Lottery” : what a bad title ; generics is a science.
    Genes are not the result of a lottery.

    The full title is : ” The Genetic Lottery: ” Why DNA Matters for Social Equality. ”

    The term “social equality” is used as if it were an obvious goal to achieve.

    The real question is not only whether it is necessary, but also whether it is possible to achieve it.

    In addition to that, please avoid linking to AmaCrap.

  50. I am race-ist, therefore I am right.

    • LOL: Agent76
  51. What genetic endowment ends in ‘wealth’? Is it ‘intelligence’ as the wealthy and their boot-lickers assert, or is it rat cunning, amorality and insatiable greed? Or is it just the talent for choosing one’s parents and inheriting the gelt?

    • Replies: @Montefrío
    , @Blubb
  52. Aristotle says:

    Leftie eugenics normalised… just what we need. It will lead to state-sanctioned “re education” of “white supremacists”, as will everything else today… the Trotskyites are too much in control to be easily derailed…

  53. Aristotle says:
    @Sarah

    “social equality” is effectively code for communism…though presumably with “party members” and cadres having quite a lot extra…

    • Agree: Rich, Sarah
  54. Aristotle says:
    @Sarah

    all isms are monomanias and are toxic… socialism emphasises “society” (and kills it), feminism “femininity” (and kills it), materialism “matter” (and kills it by making it an in unsustained ideal), liberalism (“liberty” and kills it by making it meaningless) etc.

    • Agree: Sarah
  55. @Sarah

    I find that those opposed to equality are generally misanthropes. We’re ALL equal, Sarah, because we’re all worm meat.

  56. @obwandiyag

    And after the State took over education and orphanages etc, the priestly kiddy-fiddlers were unemployed, until ‘Freedom’ returned in 1989, and the priests and nuns got back to their old habits, no pun intended. One need only look at how Wojtyla protected priestly paedophiles throughout the Church while Pope, to understand the milieu from which he rose.

  57. I think it’s spelled “dissension”, not “dissention”.

  58. Mike Tre says:
    @HammerJack

    The truth hurts, I know. Euphemisms and politeness have gotten our side nowhere.

  59. Levtraro says:

    If people are born feckless and are likely to have feckless children, how about making Norplant a condition for getting welfare?

    Here lies the weakness of your position and the strenght of leftists like K.P. Harden. Say the genetic lottery benefitted 1% of the people in every generation and these become the wealthiest because we live in the best possible world. Since their number is so small, the probability that they will spawn the next generation of genetic lottery winners is enormously smaller than the probability that the remaining 99% will spawn the new generation of genetic lottery winners. Therefore we must have equality, to guarantee that every loser has the chance to reproduce and raise children that might become super successful, to increase the pool from which the genetic lottery can draw, and implanting Norplant on current generation losers of the genetic lottery is stupid for the community of the next generation.

    It is easy to argue against racial equality, as the group differences are so obvious, but to argue against equality within your own racial group, is very hard.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  60. “You live in nice houses because you are smart and hard-working but you were born that way so you can’t help it. And, yes, they will bring crime, but they can’t help that either.” This is key. Admitting a genetic component to intelligence, foresight, and emotional self-control will still allow leftists to foist responsibility from off of their pet minorities.

    It’s the humongous scam that the left has been running on the rest of us for decades. They conflate all innate skills with morality. ‘Quality of character’ is inextricably linked to IQ’s of 84. It’s a moral imperative that no one is allowed to question. The only way out is to decouple morality from God-given talents or lack thereof. The left will never allow it, but the rest of us must realize that we can treat someone with dignity and respect, but that does not mean we have to ensure their career as an MD, or invite their tribe in to overrun our society.

  61. I can’t find much fault in the analysis of the American condition, but how do you explain Bermuda – where black/white IQs are practically the same.

    Neither side seems interested in finding out why. But if you could understand, then it might help with conditions in the US. Both sides are catastrophic – either IQ can’t be changed due to genetics, or black problems can’t ever be solved due to racism.

  62. gotmituns says:

    No one needs science to tell the difference in blacks and Whites. All anyone with an ounce of sense needs is to watch a black guy “walk” down the street and he knows there’s a big difference between blacks and Whites.

    • Agree: Sarah, Detroit Refugee
  63. Anon[309] • Disclaimer says:

    IQ versus Race – We see it around us every day –

    (1.) Equality? Really?
    https://redstatesrebel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/5-Equality-Disingenuous-Concept.pdf

    (2.) For Deniers and Enablers –
    https://redstatesrebel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/8-Racialist_Primer.pdf

    (3.) Brief Commentary on IQ and Race –
    https://redstatesrebel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/10-Life_is_an_IQ_Test.pdf

    (4.) Related – The Right to Privacy and the Right to Disassociate from Undesirables –
    https://redstatesrebel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/7-Right_to_Privacy.pdf

    Credits – Presented exclusively by https://redstatesrebel.com/

  64. Rich says:
    @ruralguy

    And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with cleaning toilets and hallways and it’s probably a career that would be more beneficial to the university than the poisonous nonsense they force down the throats of the impressionable youths in their classes.

  65. Arnieus says:

    Nature is racist. No amount of progressive gibberish can make everyone equal anymore than it could make everyone 7 feet tall.

  66. DanGood says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Impossible to read this after first few paragraphs. This is a continuation of the “taxation is theft” meme propagated by the likes of Ayn Rand. Issues like universal health care have nothing to do with genetics or equality; they have to do with public good. Is a country better off with a healthy population or not? Simple. Same with retirement benefits: is the country better off if their retirees can live independently, without being a burden on the rest? How about child care? Is it not better for the worker population is freed of the burden of childcare during working hours? Same with education: is a society better off with a skilled population or not? No one says everyone should have a degree from MIT or Harvard. And the list goes on. These issues have nothing to do with genetics. Genetics is like LGBT-type issues: they are convenient red herrings for those who do not want higher taxes.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @Bill
  67. Rich says:
    @obwandiyag

    Is it possible that people can be against handouts to both the rich and the poor? Ever hear the saying ‘two wrongs don’t make a right? Have you ever known any poor people in America? The poor folk I’ve been acquainted with were usually on drugs, alcohol or just plain lazy. They are always looking for handouts and never looking for jobs. In the projects in Queens when I was a kid, it was a kind of contest for some guys to see how many girls they could impregnate because they were never going to work anyway, Uncle Sam was going to pay for it all. There used to be talk of the “deserving poor”. Those who wanted to work, but because of a death in the family, major illness, factory closing down, etc. were in a tough spot and needed a hand. Most people would get behind that, but giving handouts to people just makes more people put their hand out.

    • Agree: Dystopian, Thomasina
    • Replies: @Bill
  68. geokat62 says:
    @HammerJack

    Whether we like it or not, the “differently abled” are with us to stay…

    HammerJack? You should change your screen name to FeatherJill.

  69. Maybe they want to normalize eugenics, in line with the Great Reset and the clear elite goal of transhumanism and life extension. So they target different market segments in different ways. It won’t take much to soften up the liberals for eugenics, that’s for sure, you just have to allow them to be, simultaneously, eugenicist while keeping their virtue signal flags flying. If you’re a deplorable who didn’t vaxx and voted Republican and live in Idaho the libs will be happy to fry your gonads and stop you from spreading your demon seed.

  70. Gapeseed says:
    @Sparkylyle92

    The photos you provide are of the same woman? I’ll keep an open mind but not convinced at all yet.

  71. History is a cycle of actions and reactive over-reactions. Science has taken quite a beating lately, but that is just growing pains, not the return to thoroughly debunked supernaturalism. We are on the journey out of our intellectual childhood, which began in the Renaissance and which now, half a millennium later, finds us at last on the threshold of adulthood, but caught up in the turbulent, half-mad dramas of late adolescence. Humans have not yet processed the shock of being dethroned from their imaginary former place of honor as “the crown of creation” so I expect also acknowledging genetic differences among us and the advisability of selective breeding might be a bit too much to handle just yet. As the pressure of exponentially increasing populations and diminishing resources intensifies, a radical new assessment of what is best for the species (or at least for its most aggressive members) is inevitable, providing we do not succumb to the ultimate misfortune of teen angst, the impulse to commit suicide.

  72. Rich says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Free will in no way “destroys the racist case”. An individual, and a group, have to choose how they are going to live. If an individual chooses to be a degenerate, he destroys himself, if a society chooses to worship degenerates, that society destroys itself.. Someone can have an 85 IQ but choose to go to church on Sunday, get up early for work on Monday and live a decent, moral life. Genetic intelligence doesn’t prevent someone from deciding whether to go to work or go to the track. IQ tells us whether someone should choose a career in engineering or sanitation, it doesn’t prevent any individual from choosing how he lives his life. What’s called “racism” is just the natural urge to want to live among one’s own people and to help one’s descendants have the opportunity to prosper. Normal human urges.

    • Agree: Montefrío
  73. geokat62 says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    … but how do you explain Bermuda – where black/white IQs are practically the same.

    Excerpt from, Black Bermudians:

    … the blacks, Irish, Native Americans, and some part of the white Anglos merged into a single demographic during the course of the Eighteenth Century which was known as coloured (anyone who was not entirely white).

    Intermarriage and extramarital relationships between the coloured and white populations continued to shift the ratio of coloured to white Bermudians as a child of a coloured and a white parent was generally considered coloured.

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

  74. Let’s just cut through all the crap and ask Prof. Harden and William Darity this simple question: “What do blacks do well enough such that someone–anyone–is willing to pay them to do it?”

    Sportsball, sing and dance, and…..complaining are what come to mind. And that’s it. Film had long noted and depicted blacks as champion whiners and complainers. Singing the blues; they excelled. Soros and Co. have harnessed black’s penchant for this to their ongoing campaign to destroy that which they themselves cannot do–create the masterpieces of Western civilization.

    Sure, let’s have an honest conversation about race.

    What do blacks do well enough such that someone is willing to pay them to do it? If they have nothing to sell, then how can they blame others for their failure to accrue wealth? Either they’re not trying or they’re just plain incompetent and can’t do anything that someone else can’t do better and cheaper. That’s really all there is to it.

    Whatever it is they’re selling, no one is willingly willing to buy–except the Chosenites, who use them as shock troops, as noted above.

  75. @Dually

    Some high IQ people are shysters. Doesn’t make IQ junk.

    • Replies: @Dually
  76. Leftist women say genetics don’t matter.

    But if they need to use a sperm back, they’re sure to only choose donors who are 6’2″ Princeton grads in perfect health.

    “Nature for me; nurture for thee.”

    • Replies: @Maddaugh
    , @KenH
  77. Logical deductive reasoning would inform even the biggest simpleton that genetics plays a decisive role in life outcomes.

    The fact that these obscenely paid “academics” are fumbling around try to reach and simultaneously avoid the same conclusion would be hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous.

  78. Emslander says:

    What’s sad is that Darity is most likely cutting his own throat. He may have achieved much by hard work and individually gifted talents, which are the only standards conservatives want relied upon.

  79. The problem with “professors” Darrity and Roberts is that they really aren’t professors but affirmative action heroes. If they and all the other blacks who are so called professors, the one thing they could do to show the world that they truly are qualified is to invent an alphabet for the African languages other than drawing animals on the wall. Talk is cheap egged on by the transgendered elite!

    • Agree: Bernie
  80. utu says:
    @James J O'Meara

    A lot of “Dissident Right” vaporings amount to LARPing as happy peasants, or advising others to do so, while still enjoying electricity, dentistry, air conditioning, etc.

    The happy peasants of the Right are not that happy recently. They are being terrorized with viruses which as every happy peasant knows do not exist.

  81. Emslander says:

    She’s a nice looking woman, apparently. I’m sure genetics has a lot to do with that.

    • Agree: ThreeCranes
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  82. Maddaugh says:
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    In other words they dont want the juice of a 6.4 Mandingo with an IQ of 10 and the looks of Floyd whose genes are polluted with drugs and criminal intent and half cured STD’s !

    Makes sense. But like you said. When they are spreading for the load in the Doctor’s office they speak out the right side of their mouth and in public out the left side.

  83. @TKK

    You can drill down even further and know that “success” is a geographical lottery. If we were born as females in Yemen to poor parents , our lives would be unbearable.

    “Unbearble” by “our” standards, perhaps, but not necessarily so for the Yemini woman who knows nothing of “our” standards and furthermore may well be uninterested in them. I’ve lived on four continents in town and country and over the decades have learned how “disadvantaged” folk are frequenty quite satisfied with lives in circumstances I’d have preferred not to live in but have come to conclude that de gustibus non est disputandum.

    The penultimate chapter of the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching, Wade-Giles transliteration) has an interesting point of view with respect to “localism”, well worth reading and pondering.

    “One man´s meat is another man’s poison”. Best not to judge or meddle in the affairs of others; best to be content with what is necessary to live and further the interests of one’s family.

    • Replies: @3g4me
    , @carroll price
  84. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s nothing progressive about so-called “progressives” who are just some armband wearing political commissars. They are actually supremacists of their own variety. Instead of the usual themes they believe themselves to inhabit the moral high ground and are thus the morally superior ones, the ones thus entitled to rule over others. They’re pretty much intimidating everyone these days.

  85. @mulga mumblebrain

    If the goal of life is “wealth” (as in material wealth), then intelligence gives one a head start, as does an inheritance. As for “rat cunning, amorality and insatiable greed”, well, they may give an advantage to the accumulators, but lives such as those do not generally acquire the “happiness” that can come with material wealth if the acquisition of said wealth was driven by any of the three “advantages” cited.

  86. Maddaugh says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    The more white that is injected into the black race the higher their IQ. Man is an animal like any other. If you breed a full blood stallion with a quarter horse and as generations pass continue doing the same the superior genes will become dominant. Training (an education, manners, speech, dress etc ) is also an important factor.

    I dont know about now but the education system in Bermuda and the Islands was very strict under colonial rule. When however, that ended and blacks took over the countries the whole system went to hell. Another interesting aspect is that kids who got caught mid way through their studies and fled their country around independence and came to the US/ UK/ Canada were star students for a while. Unfortunately, they then got caught up in the black thing and that with the poor system in the US they ended up as morons.

    Many of the Mulatto elite or even Black elite in Haiti for example, were intelligent and spoke beautiful French. A few years in the US soon fixed that. One other point I would like to make. A mixed individual no matter how fair will claim to be black in the US and will hang black, but back home will claim to be white and will as a general rule shun other blacks. Again, many black/ coloured West Indian families who would never let a jigga boo past their gate in the old country were initially stunned when their kids brought home a friend who looked and talked like an ape. As they died away and the next generation became more “accepting” their pedigree disappeared and they blended into the lower rungs of society far below what their ancestors were accustomed to.

    I dont know what the situation is like now in Bermuda but back in the day they had a very high quality of education for both black and white.

    Blacks all over need to stop all this white privilege rubbish and get on with improving themselves. They think the white man holds them back but we are much too busy to even pay them any heed. The people who put the reins, muzzle and blinders on them are their own race hustlers, BLM swindlers and grifters. Until they accept that fact they are doomed to be always at the bottom.

    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
  87. as a handsome, well-hung, mid-level tiered IQ Southeast Asian man who grew up in Philadelphia, PA, mostly dominated by Blacks until 15 years old before moving out to the suburbs, i’ve seen both worlds: Black & White.

    using my own 2 eyes & brain for observation, critical thought, and analysis: Blacks do seem to have low IQ/intelligence, are more violent/aggressive, and incapable of deep thought.

    anyone can put my layman observations to the test: simply take a stroll through any innercity & tell me what you see, how Blacks behave, how Blacks treat you.

    • Agree: Bernie
  88. Progressives are in reality communists, the mask is off of these communists.

    • Agree: Agent76
  89. Did they rename UT Austin after Jane Austen?

  90. Mr. Ed says:

    With Taylor it’s all IQ, all the time. Jews tend to have high IQs, therefore jews can’t be criticized.

    For a positivist like Taylor, there simply isn’t anything but ‘science’, so there is no good and no evil; ‘truth’ is just what the powerful happen to believe at a certain point in time. Tomorrow the same statement may be false.

    And yes, contra Taylor, Hitler WAS a very bad man.

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @HdC
  91. Well?
    Maybe the largest role here is playing the exposure to experience
    Mozart’s parents were both musicians. He was listening to music from cradle to death.
    Nobody denies that Mozart was genius. Did he have a genes Genius?
    I do not think so!

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  92. izzy says:

    At least as an ideal principle, we all stand equal before the law and in the eyes of god. Beyond that, the differences between individuals of all complexions are so large, obvious, and often inherited, that the reality should need no further proof. Which does not override the fact that we have serious social and economic problems. Even some of our geniuses have warped intentions, along with a greater ability to realize them.

  93. 3g4me says:
    @Realist

    @27 Realist: Then why do you and others continually answer it, and others like it, who have clearly proven – over and over and over again – that they are not serious thinkers and they are not arguing in good faith? Ah, but you’re all superior IQ ‘gentlemen’ with ‘principles’ and to dismiss such tendentious people wouldn’t be courteous. A plague on the Unz commentariat.

  94. If genetics don’t matter, donkeys would occasionally win the Triple Crown.

  95. 3g4me says:
    @Dually

    @36 Dually: So glad to see I’m not the only one who sees the resurgence in primitive bodily scarification as a symptom of White pathological altruism and guilt, So many healthy, attractive young Whites seem to feel the need to mar and cover up their lovely, White skin with truly ugly and meaningless tattoos. I never considered tattoos ‘lower class,’ I consider(ed) them primitive. Like putting a bone through one’s nose (or piercing it like a Mussulman).

    • Replies: @Sarah
  96. Agent76 says:

    “Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless.” Milton Friedman

    Jul 19, 2009 Responsibility to the Poor

    Milton Friedman 1978 From a lecture given at Stanford University

    Sep 14, 2012 Milton Friedman – Big Business, Big Government

    Milton Friedman on the dangers of big business influencing government.

  97. All potential human adaption to the environment (success in society if you will) has genetic limitations…………..height, bone structure, symmetry in looks or body shape and cognitive abilities have their potential and limitations in the genetic linage you inherit from the combination of your parents DNA sans any F1 mutations which in most cases are detrimental but occasionally a rare few give you an advantage.

    It would be most prudent to tell children they can be anything in life they want within their genetic potential and then explain what that means to them.

    An NFL offensive lineman will never make a jockey in the Kentucky Derby no matter what he does or vice a versa…………

  98. Treg says:

    An Equality of individual rights for all; Life, Liberty and Property for all is the only moral foundation that we have…. its time to get back to that Equality.

    • LOL: 3g4me
  99. @Jared Taylor

    Don’t get your hopes up. She may have installed a fire wall to filter-out toxic content. 👀

  100. Rambam says:

    Another Crypto selling the snake oil to the goyim.

    Her husband is some guy named Elliot Max Tucker-Drob (also Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin). Is UT-Austin another spook school that is good at football like Michigan before Harbaugh?

    Her father was a Navy officer (read Intelligence)

    Both she and her spouse are fellows at Jacobs Foundation.
    Both she and her spouse had the same Spook Doctoral Advisor: Eric Nathan Turkheimer, who graduated from Spook college – Haverford College in 1976.

    You are being intellectually and genetically played once again.


    Shalom

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @Dually
  101. 3g4me says:
    @Montefrío

    @83 Montefrio: While I totally agree with your main point, I wouldn’t consider it merely a matter of taste. The assumption that all other races and cultures would, if given a choice, obviously prefer to live a White man’s life is just another version of the equality fallacy – another version of George W. Bush’s idiocy, which I will paraphrase from memory, claiming “We all want the same things for our families.”

    No, obviously the Bedouin has very different hopes for his children’s futures than the Han, and there is NOT a White man inside every brown and yellow. Now if you offer a fallacious portrait of wealth and beauty and ease to every third-world peon, the way the ‘select’ western advertisers do, they will certainly take you up on it. Give them a sail foam and an inflatable dinghy and a promise of White women and endless gibmes and they’ll readily take you up on it. But most of their wives will still make a fire in the middle of the apartment floor and bathe in cow urine.

    • Replies: @carroll price
  102. @Zarathustra

    Well?
    I do know about famous case. There was a farmer couple. They did have a child a boy. the child did not learn to speak, and he never was capable to walk. The couple did put the child to live with pigs.
    The couple did not want to have more children. but by accident daughter was born. After she was able to eat, and crawl they did put her live with pigs like the first child.
    Then somebody did snitch on the farmer couple.
    The authorities took both children and placed them in the institution. After short year the younger child learned to walk and speak. The other child did not make any progress.
    I do know this is extreme case. But I do not know how to interpret it.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @Badger Down
  103. Edited
    don’t worry chelski chavs, it Roman ratownerwill use his shekels on MSM orange whornalists

    w/o hooknose u wouldn’t win Euro cup, you’d be in backstreetclapham pubs sucking off yourroyal fags – plsgive my geriatric c list dindu a job. iatethose Fenians me, thyr proud, wear trahzers, & av iq above66

    for you

    it’s a long way outta scumford
    itsalo g waydoon the stairs
    it’s a lon long wayout of scumford
    when urweari skirts & heels.

    chewski chewski were gonna make this a jue day.
    mind the stairs!!!!!

  104. @Emslander

    Agree. And, having the honesty to recognize her “privilege” of being born with good looks probably led her into this minefield.

  105. HdC says:
    @Mr. Ed

    …Hitler WAS a very bad man. …

    And you know this how??? Did you experience this? Did your grand parents experience this? Or did you arrive at this opinion via comic books, Hollywood, or MSM?

    Bear in mind that the victors write the history books, and court (paid) historians write what someone is willing to pay for and the establishment will accept.

    • Replies: @Nancy
  106. Jared Taylor is a pompous, arrogant ass, seemingly filled with contempt for almost everyone not holding his twisted attitudes toward humanity. What the hell is the purpose of giving the microphone to such a fool?

    It doesn’t matter if some of his opinions are right or wrong. A contemptible fool is still a contemptible fool.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @ThreeCranes
    , @Art
  107. Dually says:
    @Rambam

    If excellence in musical in ability doesn’t count as “intelligence” on your test – then YOU, and your test, are completely retarded.

  108. @obwandiyag

    If he has a large enough paying audience, he should be fine with a little supervision of his finances. I would always wish him well. I knew a similarly endowed prodigy level talented Latino jazz pianist from back in my gov’t work days. He was afflicted with severe alcoholism and would play in high dollar elite night clubs to large audiences until he passed out face down on his keyboard.

    But neither of the two pianists are/were intellectually and dispositionally qualified to be Secretary of “Defense”.

    • Replies: @Dually
  109. We see how easy leftist government lose control of city/states (Portland Oregon) by appeasing to CultMarx communist using Burn Loot Murder/Antifa thugs for their dirty work by ordering police to stand down. If occupying society and installing your own autonomous zones where you can rape, burn down infrastructure, shoot up the Latest opioid while being catered by “Feed the World” Hollywood radicals and supported by corporate sponsors is this easy, patriots will have no problem taking back control of every leftist city/state in the nation from these despicable rats.
    It’s time for the great culling to begin. .

  110. @obwandiyag

    But in effect are you not then agreeing with the ‘hereditary’ thesis?

  111. @Montefrío

    True. You can’t miss what you never had.

  112. There is nothing to be done with shitlibs except line them up against the wall. They are grifting jihadists, but instead of Allah they worship Equallah and want you to commit suicide, not them.

    Die for Equallah, White Man!

  113. eah says:

    This tweet from The New Yorker promoting the article makes it clear why she among the many academics (mostly men) pursuing this kind of work was chosen to be profiled (‘The geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is … dedicated to the development of a new moral framework for talking about genetics‘):

  114. Dually says:
    @Blackstone

    Some high IQ people are shysters. Doesn’t make IQ junk.

    Reread the comment. Lack of accounting for moral value (and creative talent, obviously) makes IQ testing junk – completely worthless as a guide to personal value. It is merely a way for socially awkward misfits to feel that they are “better’.

  115. Truth says:
    @Jared Taylor

    J.T. you seem a little angry. A little suggestion from a man who’s been in the game for a while, on how to negotiate this rapidly changing world.

    Just go out the country house for the weekend, have the little Ms. make you a nice pot of Matzo Ball Soup and open a bottle of Manischewitz and shut the internet off and relax for a few days. Maybe the Goldfarbs would like to come…

    https://worldstar.com/video.php?v=wshhd71nu2DtTFlRar63

  116. Dually says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    qualified to be Secretary of “Defense”.

    Neither is our current SOC, who was promoted by IQ no doubt.

  117. Dumbo says:
    @Zarathustra

    But I do not know how to interpret it.

    That perhaps, some people shouldn’t be parents?? And that people who do such things to children should be executed on the spot?

    Anyway, there are several historical cases of “wild children” who were not properly socialized or grew up with animals and never learn to talk or move properly afterwards. So it seems nurture (and parental relationship) is very important especially in early childhood. But it’s not necessarily related to intelligence or IQ, which is a different issue. Also, children who grow like that probably become mentally very problematic.

    • Thanks: Zarathustra
  118. Dumbo says:
    @Ayatollah Smith

    I think JT is probably what they call a “gatekeeper” or “controlled opposition”. Someone paid to voice specific “opinions” on race and other stuff, but with limits on what he can and cannot say. Who knows what he really believes, and does it matter? The whole “IQ” and “HBD” stuff is a smokescreen that doesn’t really mean much. It’s like “neoconservatism”. Anyway, I’m tired. Good bye.

  119. Dually says:
    @MEH 0910

    Take a look at her. Ask yourself if she’s doable. Would you really want to mate with such an insufferably high-IQ WASP shrew?

    • Troll: Raches
  120. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dually

    You both worship the moronic religion of science

    Ah, yes. Dat science sho nuff bees maroonish.

    So…when will you, Bigfoot, and the Easter Bunny launch your “sooper-dooper” paper airplanerocket to save the moon’s green cheese from space rats?

    Will Major Tom (https://tinyurl.com/wb7pmc7c) be joining you Luddites?

    • Replies: @Dually
  121. KenH says:

    Professor Harden is trying to thread the needle between American racial Lysenkoism and biological and genetic determinism. She wants to say that genetics are important but just not as much as the alt-right and “white supremacists” think and not in the same way. Yeah, right.

    This way she hopes not to lose her standing in far left wing dominated university system, progressive social circles and not be banished from the prog cocktail circuit. But the commissars of the equalitarian religion don’t suffer apostates even if it’s only partial apostasy.

    Professor Harden could find herself “out bad” amongst the left. Time will tell.

  122. Rich: “Free will in no way “destroys the racist case”. An individual, and a group, have to choose how they are going to live. … IQ tells us whether someone should choose a career in engineering or sanitation, it doesn’t prevent any individual from choosing how he lives his life. ”

    You seem to think IQ is the only thing involved here. It isn’t.

    Racists argue that a combination of genetics and environment determine ALL human behavior, just as it does in any other animal. This is supposed to be true at both individual and group levels. In that conception, there is just no room for a third factor called “free will”. “Free will” invalidates racism because if all are equally free, then all are equal in their potential behavior, period.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  123. Ram says:

    We watched tennis over the weekend. An 18 year old almost unknown girl had played for just over 10 hours over ten days to win the final prize money. A man on the other hand struggled for over 20 hours for the same privilege. The emasculated “men” in the West accept this in the name of equality.

  124. geokat62 says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Free will” invalidates racism because if all are equally free, then all are equal in their potential behavior, period.

    No it doesn’t. We exercise our free will within biologically-determined limits, period.

    • Replies: @3g4me
  125. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @jamie b.

    Africana studies?

    Yes! Courses focused on the Dark Continent’s feral mbutus. For example, field reports of melaninnies staring blankly at yams outside mudhuts, calmly ingesting neighbors’ buttocks (cooked slowly over dried-dung fires) while chiefs blame YT for the lack of rain.

  126. res says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    I discussed that in this comment.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-in-takis-for-whom-the-bell-curve-tolls/#comment-4891446

    Your failure to engage further there makes it clear to me that you are also not interested in finding out why. You just like having a datapoint that indicates relative equality.

    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
  127. Dually says:
    @Anonymous

    Like Jarod Taylor and his lisp, childhood can be a nightmare if you are different. You may have been picked on, and unable to fit in. Being good at math was your deliverance from all of those awful humans. Suddenly you had an excuse to make yourself feel “better” than them.

    So people like you created a test which prioritized only one set of values. Such tests can only measure quantitative, material value; and cannot test qualitative, immaterial or spiritual, value. One such immaterial value is the empathy with others that makes one socially adept, or a good mate or good family man, or good citizen, or good leader, or – you get what I mean – because IQ can’t measure what is “good” at all.

    But what is “good” is the most important question in human life, not how much money you can count in your bank account, or a two digit IQ test score.

    Anticipating your highly articulate response.

    PS. You DO realize that those NASA-type (3d not 2d) deep space videos are all CGI in fake colors, don’t you?

  128. Blubb says:
    @mulga mumblebrain

    Well, IQ and wealth dovetail to a certain extend, but to get truly rich, you also need to be a narcissist, preferably a narcissistic psychopath like Bill Gates, but also simple narcissism as you see in Steve Jobs or Donald Trump.

    Narcissism BTW also requires a genetic predisposition.

    Really, to make the world a better place, one needs to keep narcissists out of positions of power.

    • Replies: @Rufus Clyde
  129. Mevashir says:

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
    The ultimate claim of “The Genetic Lottery” is an extraordinarily ambitious act of moral entrepreneurialism. Harden argues that an appreciation of the role of simple genetic luck—alongside all the other arbitrary lotteries of birth—will make us, as a society, more inclined to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy lives of dignity and comfort. She writes, “I think we must dismantle the false distinction between ‘inequalities that society is responsible for addressing’ and ‘inequalities that are caused by differences in biology.’ ” She cites research showing that most people are much more willing to support redistributive policies if differences in opportunity are seen as arbitrarily unfair—and deeply pervasive.


    This sounds like authentic Christianity, which sees dignity in all people regardless of intelligence, wealth, or other advantages.

    • Disagree: Rich
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  130. @animalogic

    Eqality is not now, nor has it ever been the “main goal in America”. The author’s statement is absurd, and as ridiculous as the strawman positions he creates for the alleged “lefties”. If equality were the “main goal”, people like Bezos, Soros, the Waltons, everyone at Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffet, etc., would all be wearing boiler suits and cutting grass with scissors in reeducation camps.
    The entire identitarian scheme exists to keep that tiny elite, who without question believe themselves to be of superior stock to the rest of us, on top. The French, for all their ridiculous contradictions, at least posited three ideals that could underpin a civilized socity, that being the competing goals of equality and liberty, which would be moderated by the third ideal, fraternity. The US state and it’s owners have never operated with a sense of fraternity, nor have they ever pursued the goal of equality. They have bargained, scammed, bribed or murdered their way into maintaining their freedom to run the show. Identitarianism is absolutely not rooted in a pursuit of egalitarian socio-economic conditions. Quite the opposite.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @animalogic
  131. @Blubb

    Who but narcissists seek power? This is the hilarious aspect of Americans and other conservative westerners. The imperfect method of mitigating the pursuit of power was supposed to be provided by democratic institutions, but such institutions have almost never been democratic and in the brief instances when democracy manifests itself, it’s quickly subverted by the narcissitics and their conservative enablers.

    • Replies: @Anon
  132. Thomasina says:
    @DanGood

    “Impossible to read this after first few paragraphs.”

    That’s because you haven’t thought it through.

    Education: people used to be able to afford to pay for higher education by working at Safeway part-time. No debt. Plus, when the government stepped in and insured student loans, the banks went to town handing out money to anybody who could form an “X”. University should be only for the best and brightest.

    Health care: it used to be affordable to deliver a baby.

    Retirement: people used to save for retirement. They need to do this again, and then once they retire, their savings should not be inflated away to nothing (which is what is happening now).

    Child care: people used to be able to live with on one wage, leaving one parent at home to care for the children. No wonder so many kids are offing themselves; there’s nobody home, physically or emotionally.

    Gee, what happened? Government got involved (or looked the other way on monopolies), with a lot of help from the Federal Reserve. Together they have engineered and manufactured bubble after bubble.

    Too much cheap money chasing assets.

    Instead of wanting to throw more money at the above (which will just cause prices to further rise), how about thinking it through a little? Search for the cause, and once you find it, direct your anger there. It’s never how much money you earn; it’s what you can buy with the money you earn. Stable prices (not inflated prices) is actually one of the mandates of the Federal Reserve, a mandate they have been ignoring.

    Congress could put a stop to this if they wanted to. They just don’t want to.

  133. The lady uses scripture without wisdom. True charity does not involve doing evil to other people whilst appearing to do good to some favored person or group. The present pope does the same thing with his open doors policy that involves visiting suffering on others through his “charity” e.g. the wages of the poor are further depressed, communities broken up through “refugees” who not only do not share the values of their hosts but actively despise them. So it cannot be that it is simply a cynical ploy to flood the US with Latino Catholics because he encourages the same policies in Europe and what seems like the daily burning of Churches is not being done by Catholic “refugees”.

    This is not a black/white issue related only the US but part of a spiritual war in which the aggressor wills the destruction of the West and specifically Christianity. When Rabbi Ovadia Yosef died 10% of the population of Israel (800,000) turned out for his funeral. This was clearly a somebody.
    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172608

    This what the great Rabbi taught:

    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel..Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat..With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,”
    https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews/

    This is what Jesus taught when the Jews came looking for a way to kill him:

    You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies

    It is the father of lies who controls the media and that surely has been a most potent weapon in the war against the West and Christianity.

    • Agree: Rich
  134. @jamie b.

    Prompting me silently to wish him luck, almost posted it.

    She is attractive, clearly smart, and they seem to share some interests.

    From her twitter, but I couldn’t find the one I really like the first time I looked.

    a while ago I listed the top 3 things I learned from being raised by a military pilot:

    -everyone needs checklists
    -sleep is not optional
    -not deciding is deciding

    and now I’ll add a 4th:

    -you get the most flak when you’re over a high-value target

    and

    A few other things, in reaction to y’all’s reactions:

    why was I styled like Mr Rochester’s wife in the attic? I don’t know

    would a male scientist be styled the same way? almost definitely not

    was the whole shoot great fun? yes, 10/10 would do again

    Winner.

  135. annamaria says:
    @obwandiyag

    Would you select a politically correct doctor for your sick child or will you try to find the bestest one, even of “patriarchal” or “chink” variety?

    Everything boils down to meritocracy. The test/exams/admissions/appointments must be done on merit and not some “humanitarian” grounds as in the case of a saint Obama, 1%-approval Kamala Harris, and the “most victimized” holobiz opportunists.

    Justice must be blind. You don’t denounce the spectacular success of some black athletes, don’t you? They are fantastically gifted (genes?). It is interesting to know what Prof. Diruti can say about the extraordinary abilities of famous great black athletes.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  136. @Ayatollah Smith

    I like the way you took on his arguments head on and debunked them point by point.

  137. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:

    Birds, snakes, dogs, and all other species are not to be considered in the “progressive” world.
    The only world to describe these people is “IDIOTS”

  138. geokat62: “We exercise our free will within biologically-determined limits, period.”

    If anything limits “free” will, it isn’t free. That’s true by definition.

    Racists are determinists, and argue that human behavior, even down to each individual act of will, is the result of a combination of biological and environmental causes. “Free will” means the opposite, that each individual act of will isn’t produced as part of a causal chain. Nothing causes it; nothing forces it. In this it’s like God, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. There’s just no room for “free will” in a determinist view of reality. If an act of will is all it would take to make Tyrone into Einstein, the racist case collapses.

  139. 3g4me says:
    @geokat62

    @124 geokat62: “We exercise our free will within biologically-determined limits, period.”

    Well said. And those biologically-determined limits are, themselves, a product of God’s creation of human biology and reproduction. There is no equality in nature; there is hierarchy. There is hierarchy in Heaven; it was Satan’s attempt to upend said hierarchy that led to his fall. Denial of biology and denial of innate racial preferences is anti-God.

    • Thanks: geokat62
  140. Raches says:

    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

    Hail Tyche!

    My love is a paradox. It is counterintuitive:

    \[\frac{S_n}{\sqrt{2n\log\log n}} \ \xrightarrow{p}\ 0, \qquad \frac{S_n}{\sqrt{2n\log\log n}} \ \stackrel{a.s.}{\nrightarrow}\ 0, \qquad \text{as}\ \ n\to\infty.\]

    ——————————

    A. Unfortunate Premises

    Mr. Taylor opens by contemplating “a bad roll of the genetic dice.”

    Professor Harden relates “the genetic Powerball” to wealth; and she entitled her book, The Genetic Lottery.

    Although the publisher has not let him get a sneak peek at the yet-unreleased book, Mr. Taylor guesses from a cover blurb the moral conclusion that he predicts Professor Harden will draw from the science: “Since it’s all a matter of luck, the lucky few should be just as devoted as ever to succoring the unlucky many.”  Mr. Taylor then muses on the possibilities, and proceeds to ask: “But what if Prof. Harden is right and America is not so much a crime scene as a story of good luck and bad luck?”

    In winding up for his conclusion, Mr. Taylor says:  “I wish Prof. Harden every success with her book.”  To that, I will add, with all due irony:  Good luck!

    Mr. Taylor seems to agree with Professor Harden’s premises—or at least, he does not examine them, let alone repudiate them.

    Are genetics a matter of “luck”, the bare diktat of Tyche?

    Moreover:  Regardless of luck, do innate personal characteristics avoid moral judgment?

    ——————————

    B. “The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.” — Euripides (Phrixus, fragment 970.)

    Mandelian inheritance, and moreso genetic recombination, are a magnificent roll of the dice.  Besides differences in gametes, this is the principal reason why excepting identical twins, full siblings differ in their innate mental characteristics, and even in their physical appearances.

    However, this is not the only, or even the primary cause of genetic “good luck” or “bad luck”.  If it were, then the laws of heredity would not operate—and dog breeders, cat breeders, horse breeders, and cattle breeders would have been wasting their time for thousands of years.

    The best luck is wisdom in choosing one’s ancestors.  Those who make foolish choices about their ancestors suffer “bad luck” for their folly.  If you chose your ancestors wisely, then you are condignly blessed.

    Or otherwise stated:  The best luck is to have ancestors whose wise choices made you.  Your ancestors each made mating choices—including, in the first instances, the choice to reproduce at all.  Ancestors who make foolish choices have sinned against the gods:  Whereupon Tyche, the Goddess of Luck, will mostly defer to Nemesis, the Goddess of Retribution.

    The sins of the ancestors shall be visited upon the descendants.

    They who are damned by their own ancestors should wish that they had never been born.

    On the flipside, the gods reward wise ancestors with a flourishing posterity.  If your ancestors’ genetic virtues make you stronger, smarter, braver, healthier, faster, more diligent, and otherwise superior in personal quality, then the gods have blessed you with fitness for a happy life on this Earth.

    ——————————

    C. Paiging Dr. Nietzsche

    The New Yorker article, which lacks The Unz Review’s pinpoint “deep linking” anchors, quotes Robert making public statements with the sickening faux familiarity that is culturally endemic to America:

    He [Robert Plomin] added, “Good luck to Paige in convincing people who are engaged in the culture wars about this middle path she’s suggesting. . . . My view is it isn’t worth confronting people and arguing with them.”

    At least, he wished her good luck!

    Elsewhere, the article complains:

    The left’s decision to withdraw from conversations about genetics and social outcomes leaves a vacuum that the right has gaily filled.  The situation has been exploited as a “red pill” to expose liberal hypocrisy.

    Incidentally, this is remarkable:  I exploit the “red pill” to expose alt-right hypocrisy.  I must add that if a stereotypical black drug dealer offers you a choice of two pills, the smart answer is to refuse both!

    File the red pill and the blue pill under “False Dilemma”.  And never take pharmaceuticals peddled by rhymes with triggers, especially not when they wear sunglasses at night during a thunderstorm.  Only two types of “people” have such fashion sense:  Schizophrenics, and Hollywood portrayals of agents of the Federal Bureau of Intimidation.

    Today, Harden is at the forefront of an inchoate movement, sometimes referred to as the “hereditarian left,” dedicated to the development of a new moral framework for talking about genetics.

    Show of hands:  How many readers had a negative reaction to my moralizing in Section B supra?

    Of course, your ancestors are a moral issue.  Their dysgenic sins punish you by natural consequences—or else, their eugenic virtues reward you with a natural bounty.  These are just deserts—which Professor Harden dismisses as the outcomes of a “genetic lottery”.  Whereas your ancestors’ moral sins and moral virtues include not only their choices and their actions, but what they were—as recursively inherited by them.

    The most basic unexamined premise:  The liberal principle that only actions should be judged, not people.  Professor Harden stands on this unstated premise, and Mr. Taylor takes it without examination:

    There are two reasons for this. First, ragpickers and jailbirds were genetically unlucky, so degeneracy is no more their fault than if white silence really were violence; so they are just as deserving as ever. Second, lefty professors and soccer moms were genetically lucky. They have to give up the myth, as Prof. Harden says, that “those of us who have ‘succeeded’ in twenty-first century capitalism have done so primarily because of our own hard work and effort.”

    One of Dr. Nietzsche’s single most brilliant moral paradigm shifts was this:  The primary judgment must be judgment of the person, as a good person or a bad person.  Judgment of actions is secondary and consequential.  This moral princile is no more than a correction of causality.  Liberal moral causality is inverted.

    Good people tend to produce good actions.  This morality is consistent with genetics:  Those who are born with intellect and diligence tend to work hard, works smart, and succeed.  Don’t feel Christian guilt over it.  Hold your head high, be proud, and know that you got what you deserve as a good person.  Not you, but those who jealously hate you who are guilty.

    Bad people tend to produce bad actions.  A slacker fails primarily because he is a lazy person:  Lazy actions are a consequence of a lazy character, not vice versa.  An idiot fails primarily because he is stupid:  His stupid actions are caused by his stupid inner nature.  And for criminal tendencies, more oft than not, “the apple does not fall far from the tree.”  (Never mind race and crime.)

    Bad people tend to demand that only bad actions be judged.  It lets them escape personal condemnation, and also lets them occasionally fling “you too!” arguments at their betters.  Good people sometimes make mistakes, and bad people sometimes do good things:  It is therefore evil to judge a person’s character, with recognition that people occasionally, rarely act out of character.

    But the laws of genetics cannot be fooled.  A person with genetic predispositions to bad behavior, who manifests those dispositions (as is usually the case), is a bad person per se.  And why should good people pity the fates suffered by bad people?  The flipside of that question:  Why should good people feel guilty for being born stronger, smarter, braver, healthier—superior in personal quality?

    Both ways, good people should prefer to see people have befall them the natural consequences of their actions—which are largely the natural consequences of their innate characters—which, in turn, are partly (not wholly) predetermined by genetics.  If any moral law may be learned from genetics, it is only this:  That no fairytale divine judgments beyond the grave need to divide souls between Heaven and Hell.  The gods already condignly reward and punish people for the moral nature of their innermost essences—right here on Earth.

    Whereas I reserve my utmost condemnation in this matter for those who not only multiply badness, but increase it logarithmically.  Bleeding hearts who reject eugenics on egalitarian, Christian or liberal quasi-Christian grounds, and who thus condemn unborn future billions to untold, ever-increased suffering, are to me some of the most hateful, malefic of all possible people.

    ——————————

    My own morality is radical:

    Celebrate diversity:  Everybody is different.  All men are created unequal—and that’s a good thing! ®

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Raches
  141. Sean says:
    @Rufus Clyde

    Well yes, but people like myths.

    • Agree: Nancy
  142. Cultural Marxism – Not

    Cultural Marx-Brothersism – Yes

    • LOL: Truth
  143. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “…If anything limits “free” will, it isn’t free. That’s true by definition…”

    All qualities are by definition relative. “Free” is also a quality, therefore it is also relative. Absolute freedom is therefore a logical impossibility. There are differences in the degree of freedom, but they are always relative.

    Only the Absolute (“God”) could have absolute qualities, but only in (cosmic) isolation. As soon as the Absolute enters into relations with creation, its qualities become ipso facto relative. Thus even “God” has no absolute freedom in relation to His creation. For example He could not go against the laws He Himself has projected into creation, i.e. He has not the freedom to go against Himself.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  144. Physiology – heavily genetically determined.

    Mental acuity – heavily genetically determined.

    Psychology – not at all. Meditate, and your behaviour/morality can easily change. (Or drop shrooms).

    This goes with lay teachings in the Pali suttas – looks and smarts are part of a kammic path of a Self (hence only lay teaching), whilst intentional thought, speech, and action are entirely open to a person’s control.

    Doesn’t mean they are always in a state of being able to control intention, but if they are not, it is not because of genetics, but for the lack of an application of right effort.

    For example criminals do sometimes reform. But it requires effort, and a path, every time. (They don’t get any smarter though, if wiser).

    HBD concentrates on boring mental acuity, which is where leftie determinists want to exist really with their “equity”. Moral conservatives should want to discuss the malleability of human intention imo.

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  145. I, for one, look at what ‘you’ do [not what you say].

    And I don’t give a flying Wallenda about the ‘cover’ you come in with. I just read the ‘book’ and try to understand it.

  146. The original “social intervention” was the invention of race slavery in Virginia in the 1600s.

  147. KenH says:
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    But if they need to use a sperm back, they’re sure to only choose donors who are 6’2″ Princeton grads in perfect health.

    And they will likely select a man with Nordic physical characteristics. They are such hypocrites. Hardly any will choose the sperm of a 6’8 pavement ape.

    I was good friends with a liberal woman years ago and we’d argue about race because she was an equalitarian. But when her and her hubby were having trouble conceiving they looked in to adoption and their first choice was a white baby and their second choice was half white, half Hispanic since white babies are in such high demand.

    To her blacks were supposedly equal but when the rubber met the road she did not want a black baby.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @carroll price
  148. Franklin Ryckaert: “Absolute freedom is therefore a logical impossibility. … Only the Absolute (“God”) could have absolute qualities, but only in (cosmic) isolation.”

    This seems incoherent to me. You say absolute freedom is logically impossible, but nevertheless God has absolute freedom while acting in isolation? The first part could be a great argument against the existence of God, but it would seem to make his very existence logically impossible. It reminds me of the old “Can God make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” argument against his omnipotence.

    Franklin Ryckaert: “Thus even “God” has no absolute freedom in relation to His creation. For example He could not go against the laws He Himself has projected into creation, i.e. He has not the freedom to go against Himself. ”

    So you’re saying God can’t perform miracles? Heretic! LOL.

    Generally though, I’m not the one here arguing for “free will”. I’m both a racist and a determinist, so I don’t think “free will” actually exists, although I agree it seems to. I think the best explanation is to say its apparent existence is a mirage; a psychological misapprehension that arises from our lack of precise understanding of the causal chain that determines our thoughts and actions at any given moment.

  149. Let’s make a thought experiment. Suppose eugenics ceases to be frowned upon and becomes acceptable. Suppose however that it becomes acceptable only provided it is done in a racially blind way: dysfunctional people are discouraged from reproducing, no matter their race. Suppose also that another condition for the implementation of that program was that henceforth all manifestations of White or any other racially derived nationalism is forbidden.
    How many readers here would subscribe to that system?

  150. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    > “For example He could not go against the laws He Himself has projected into creation, i.e. He has not the freedom to go against Himself.”

    [Citation needed]. In Islam, the god perfectly can do just that. The god is good all the time because the god is the good by definition. Afaik, the rationalist separation of the god from the good is called mutazilism and is haram.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muʿtazila

    The Fable of Job – the god shat all over Job just for the lulz, and Job liked it.

  151. Nobody gets it. For me to be a good, decent, “moral” person…

    – Does not mean that I have to give half my stuff to someone just because he was born an idiot.
    – Does not mean that I have to pretend he’s a bright boy and hand over an advanced degree with cushy job.
    – Does not mean that I have to invite his entire tribe of congenital idiots and savages into my country so that they can overrun my neighborhood, rape my daughter, and vote themselves gibs because they supposedly now qualify as my “neighbor”.

    This is The Great Conflation that the left has hoodwinked white people with forever. It includes the vile but clever heresy of equality they smuggled into Christianity. Treating someone with respect should NOT be conflated with how much material wealth they’re entitled to, nor with what ‘should’ be their station in life regardless of their meager talents.

    If God Himself didn’t give them the genetic material for high IQ, long-range planning, and emotional control, then that’s tough shit. Everybody in life has some kind of cross to bear. Free will does NOT mean you’re entitled to an endless array of choices. It means you have personal responsibility for deciding to do the best you can with what you have, including whether or not you behave like a damn criminal. PERIOD.

    That people refuse to understand this, even when they hate religion, just proves how deep a sense of morality is embedded in the human psyche, and how easily it can be distorted by malevolent influences. It also proves how utterly lacking in self-awareness they really are.

  152. @animalogic

    Who cares what you think you see, or what you believe society is like in its distribution of material goods? The bottom line is that the people who control us continue to ram their Holy Narrative of Perfect Equality down our throats, and force us to worship at its bloody altar.

    • Replies: @Nancy
    , @animalogic
  153. “Equality has been the main goal in America for so long that people can’t imagine anything else. I can.”

    Here’s what bloody equality will get you..

    The Egalitarian Road to Hell:

    I believe in religious equality: ‘You will be like God, knowing good and evil.’
    I believe in material equality: Everyone’s reduced to the lowest common denominator.
    I don’t believe in nations: Obey what the New World Order tells you about Covid.
    I believe in racial equality: Races aren’t important, so eliminating whites is ok.
    I believe in sexual equality: Two male homosexuals can have a baby.
    I believe in gender equality: Transsexuals have a right to groom your children.
    I believe in age equality: It’s ok to have sex with children.

    You see, if you believe in equality, then all ideas are equal too, so there’s no logical way for you to say, “Go this far but no further.” When you believe in equality, you’re ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’.

  154. Skeptikal says:
    @Mevashir

    It is my dim recollection that Christianity emphasizes compassion for other human beings. (I guess Buddhism emphasizes compassion for all living beings.)

    Was it Jesus, or someone else, who said, “Have Faith, Hope, and Charity, and of these these the last is the most important.” Something like that.

    Sheer luck has always been a major driver of an individual’s destiny.

    Just think of primogeniture and the huge advantages enjoyed by those who are born first in a family—even now.

    When did modern humans start to think they could forget about the role of Fate.

    Genetic profile is a tiny portion of the total luck factor that influences our destinies.

    Surely this is the reason why compassion and charity is the most important commandment of Christianity. Most adults know that their own stupid decisions are the cause of a lot of their problems, but we only have one life to learn.

    So, charity and compassion for all are called for, regardless of who or what is ultimately responsible for the messes (most) people make of their lives.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  155. @Levtraro

    My Head Gardener has held the same opinion as you for 50 years now. The garden has gone to pot, figuratively speaking.

    But I think I see the error in your thinking. You posit two groups: the 1% “genetic lottery winners” vs the remaining 99%. And you say “Therefore we must have equality”.

    The polite eugenicist, however, might say “Encourage the top 10% to have children, prevent the bottom 10% from having children, and let the middle 80% do what they will.”

    • Replies: @Levtraro
  156. Skeptikal says:
    @Raches

    Oh, Gawd, not him/her again . . .

    • Troll: Raches
  157. Truth says:
    @KenH

    They are such hypocrites. Hardly any will choose the sperm of a 6’8 pavement ape.

    Well, not a in a lab sample from a turkey baster, anyway.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  158. @Zarathustra

    People who learn a second language as a child tend not to have a foreign accent. Adults tend to keep their original accent, so they still sound foreign after decades in the new country.

    • Thanks: Zarathustra
    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  159. @Sparkylyle92

    Her present-day photos do lend some credence to this hypothesis–there’s a plausible mannishness about her face which initially made me lean toward your idea. However this 2007 UVA essay boasts a photo of her which shows a much more persuasively girlish looking young person.

    https://news.virginia.edu/content/early-teen-sex-may-not-be-path-delinquency-study-shows

    Though the thesis she’s promoting in 2007 is that the earlier teenage girls start having sex the better adjusted in life they’ll be. Which is frankly such a demented notion that I would seriously suspect anyone of trafficking it to be a gay man or a tranny (cf. gay French director Francois Ozon’s Young and Beautiful, a gay man’s transparent wish fulfillment of being a nihilistic teenage whore). So make of it what you will. She’s certainly aged poorly, whatever else she may be.

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Sparkylyle92
  160. Mevashir says:
    @Skeptikal

    You make some beautiful observations. Thank you.

    Was it Jesus, or someone else, who said, “Have Faith, Hope, and Charity, and of these these the last is the most important.” Something like that.

    This was Saint Paul at the end of his famous chapter on love in 1 Corinthians 13. The word charity is sometimes translated as love. It expresses the idea of love as generosity towards others rather than selfishness towards oneself.

    The Hebrew word for love ahava comes from a root also meaning to give.

  161. Raches says:

    Lucky Portraits: Professoress Dr. Harden’s “Lottery Draw” of Assets

    If my recent >5,800-word anti-Anglin tirade is any indication, I am not inclined to pick on a woman for being a woman.  However, I can’t help but notice that Paige, Ph.D., a learned professoress of psychology, is trolling us with applied evolutionary psychology.

    If I step hereby beyond her explicit arguments, to such ad feminam observations as I would usually deem beneath intellectual discourse, it is only because she is asking for it.

    Look at Dr. Paige in the headline image at The New Yorker—in the image above an article laced with casual, familiar references to her as “Paige”.  She is loitering in a dirty, run-down bad neighborhood in an alluring dress.  I mean that description literally—and metaphorically, given what I infer to symbolize the bad neighborhood of eugenicists and “white supremacists”.  (Mr. Taylor, does this look anything like your home?)  She is also barefoot, and poised with body language and a facial expression that evoke sympathy.  A surrealist horror-painting sits with other junk in the background—no doubt an ikon of me, the radical eugenicist.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
    https://archive.fo/2021.09.09-141612/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters#selection-439.0-573.44

    Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?

    September 6, 2021

    Compare the following headline image of James Watson.  I choose this example, because on a ten-minute search just now, it is the first article that I found which had any headline image of Dr. Watson at all.  Yes, I first tried to find one from The New Yorker for a strict apples-to-apples comparison.  Well, how do you like them apples?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46856779
    https://archive.fo/2021.09.09-141612/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters#selection-439.0-573.44

    James Watson: Scientist loses titles after claims over race

    13 January 2019


    James Watson, seen here in 2009, apologised in 2007 after making similar remarks

    As I scrolled down to comment in a discussion I didn’t read, a comment also caught my eye with this image:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/12/kathryn-paige-harden-psychologist-genetics-education-school
    https://archive.fo/2021.09.12-083117/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/12/kathryn-paige-harden-psychologist-genetics-education-school#selection-799.0-939.25

    Kathryn Paige Harden: ‘Studies have found genetic variants that correlate with going further in school’

    The behaviour geneticist explains how biology could have an influence on academic attainment and why she takes an anti-eugenics approach


    ‘I want to use genetics to see what’s happening within our environments and social structures’: Kathryn Paige Harden. Photograph: Paige Newton

    Sun 12 Sep 2021 05.30 BST

    Those assets which Dr. Harden won in a so-called “genetic lottery” evoke sympathy from both male and, in a noncompetitive context, female readers.  The use thereof in a headline image biases readers in favor of what they are about to read—just as the above depiction of Dr. Watson evokes the opposite bias—just as Andrew Anglin’s context-free images of females in violent distress evoke hostility towards Mr. Anglin from mentally normal men and women.  Evo. Psych. 101!

    Does anyone seriously suggest that the learned professoress of psychology, headlined as a fetching “behaviour geneticist”, does not understand how this works?  To be clear:  As explained below, I am not against what I see her doing.  I just think that she should be honest about it.

    Mr. Taylor evidently understands…

    [MORE]

    At the top of this article, Mr. Taylor’s headline image is closer to a mere headshot of the individual whom he consistently identifies as “Prof. Harden”, with all due formal courtesy.  Her face evokes a bit of the same sympathy, but much less so than the New Yorker and Guardian/Observer photos; and it is reasonable to present this image with the headline, when the article examines Prof. Harden’s body of work:

    Taking the Fun Out of Being ‘Progressive’
    Jared Taylor • September 8, 2021 • 2,400 Words


    Kathryn Paige Harden

    Well, didn’t Mr. Taylor take some of the fun out of the strategic deployment of genetic assets!

    Continuing the above comparison, I find Mr. Taylor’s photo of Dr. Harden to be as suitable for this discussion as Wikipedia’s current headline portrait of Dr. Watson is for an article about him:

    James Watson
    KBE


    Watson in January 2012

    That is “a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia [] and is considered one of the finest images.”

    I don’t give the Wikipravda such great credit here.  Dr. Watson’s above portrait is consistent with the “Wikipravda:Biographies of living persons” policy; however, sometimes, Wikipravda has sometimes been known to play stupid propaganda games with portraits:

    https://archive.fo/2021.09.14-223442/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Goebbels&oldid=757927942#selection-209.0-221.29

    Joseph Goebbels


    Official portrait of Goebbels

    Eh.  The current revision is correct with the portrait—at least, with the portrait:

    Joseph Goebbels


    Portrait by Heinrich Hoffmann

    I would chalk up the literally-an-ass “official portrait” to vandalism—except that sometime before that, the Wikipravda regularly used for its headline portrait of Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels a photo which was popular with American war propaganda and psychological warfareand which so remains.  Protip:  If a mortal human being is photographed frequently in public for many years, then you will be able to find at least one unflattering image of him.

    Anyway, let’s check out Dr. Harden’s faculty profile page (archival pinpoint selection):

    Kathryn Paige Harden
    Faculty Scholar — Ph.D., University of Virginia
    Professor, Psychology

    For another comparison, the first male professor (archival pinpoint selection) on the current faculty list (archival pinpoint selection) for the same institution:

    Jason Abrevaya
    Faculty Scholar — Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Professor and Dept Chair, Department of Economics; Murray S. Johnson Chair in Economics

    I frankly admit that I push similar psychological buttons in various ways, when I point out that I may perhaps be female—well, maybe or maybe not; either way, I enjoy playing manipulative headgames with any readers who believe that that matters to the objective quality of my arguments.  Sometimes, in reply to males who toss ad feminam misogynistic insults at me, I make castration comments that would make a man wince:

    Now I’m just a simple minded country physician, but when I see your screen name I can only picture this:

    Busy whipping up another trifle.

    Awesome!  Literally awesome:  I inspire awe, in the sense of fear.  […]  I am imagined as a hot girl, with an allicient waist-to-hip hourglass signal that she yearns to be injected with good genes—i.e., not yours.

    She looks as if she is about to give you a real case of “penis envy”, as Revenge® for your invasion of her personal space.  The banana is symbolic.  It is a practical application of eugenics, but without Hitler’s mercy.

    If I can jab Miss Iris till she swallows her tongue, then I can needle you to eat your own prick.  ’Tis surely a trifle.

    Professoress Dr. Harden should be so honest about her use of applied evolutionary psychology. ®

    • Replies: @niceland
    , @Sparkylyle92
  162. Raches says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    Physiology – heavily genetically determined.

    Mental acuity – heavily genetically determined.

    Psychology – not at all. Meditate, and your behaviour/morality can easily change. (Or drop shrooms).

    1. You’re wrong.

    2. Stop pushing drugs.

    3. You won’t understand any of this, because you have literally made yourself crazy dropping shrooms. ®

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  163. That Kathryn Hardon is getting any professional traction at all in her genetic studies is proof positive of white female privilege, at least relative to that of white males. Are the moral concerns about her work any different than those that surrounded Charles Murray’s studies? The big difference is the science underlying IQ and genetics (more persuasive), but the statistics lead to similar conclusions. What if, say, Douglas Murray dispensed with his career as a public intellectual, got a Ph.D. in molecular biology, and tried to publish “The Genetic Lottery” today. Would the powers that be at The New Yorker give him magazine space and credibility? I doubt it. Any white woman of the west who imagines she’s oppressed by a male patriarchy should take a long, close look at the apparently flourishing career of Kathryn Hardon.

    • Agree: Alfred
  164. Anon[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist

    Intelligence is the result of picking the right mate. You can’t choose your own intelligence, but you have an honest shot at having smart kids if you pick the right mate.

    • Agree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Realist
  165. @KenH

    Virtue signaling has changed all that. Many childless white couples now prefer adopting a black baby for that reason. Plus, blacks adopted by whites are assured of having loads of white friends and lots of invitations to white weddings for the same reason.

    • Replies: @Truth
  166. Mike Tre says:
    @obwandiyag

    Well, in your case, knowing who your father is would be a good start.

  167. Mike Tre says:
    @obwandiyag

    “And you would begrudge hard-working people a couple food stamps?”

    Hard working people aren’t the ones getting food stamps. It’s the non working ones getting food stamps and using them to buy lotto tickets and Newports at the Circle K.

  168. Art says:
    @Dually

    IQ is junk, too; because it doesn’t account for moral value.

    That is 100% correct. Clearly America’s intellectual elite are dishonest. The upper 20% act as a political gang. They deceitfully pound their chests with righteous indignation, as the wealth of the lower 80% diminishes.

    Without question intelligence is no guaranty of morality. Society must be run by those with intellectual integrity and empathy. We need a MQ (moral quotient) as a gage to determining who leads society.

    Honesty and empathy are measurable attributes of the human mind. They function in different parts of the brain.

    The liberal left elite practice immoral brainstem politics.

  169. geokat62 says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    If an act of will is all it would take to make Tyrone into Einstein, the racist case collapses.

    Exactly!

  170. niceland says:

    Excuse me, I am new to this.

    I don’t understand the author of this article. Or rather I think he doesn’t understand Kathryn Paige Harden position, or perhaps he does indeed*. She seems to be bright and gifted scientist who is trying to break the spell put on this field of science long time ago for political reasons judging by the N.Y. article. I presume most of you know much more about the backstory than me.

    Skimming the far too long N.Y. article she seems to be on solid scientific ground, and that’s hardly newsworthy. Take a look around your neighborhood, or any neighborhood and you will notice inheritance (genes) has a lot to do with educational outcomes and success in life. Somehow America managed to create great ‘scientific’ doctrine that explains this simple truth away or rather, denies it. Meanwhile I guess hardy right wingers have protested all along for equal but opposite political reasons. But they don’t seem to count in current U.S. academia. The rest know and don’t care. Unfortunately much of this nonsense has been exported to the rest of the west from the U.S. but let’s leave it at that.

    So within the academia, sterilized of bad thought for decades, dissenters cancelled, and wrong-thinking outsiders frown upon. Absent great change in the political landscape – the only hope for change is from within the same academia, and only from anointed member discovering something extraordinary, and only when it’s no longer possible to keep a straight face while arguing for the aforementioned doctrine. The perfect alignment of the stars so to speak. None of this means when it finally happens the barer of the news won’t face fierce resistance.

    So Professor Harden is operating in snake infested waters. She has to align herself perfectly with the totally politically correct atmosphere in the academia to avoid being cancelled for wrong thinking. If she didn’t she would probably be isolated, ignored, and forgotten. It’s also necessary for her to condemn the wrong thinking outsiders (like Jared Taylor) because it’s unthinkable for elite academia to even consider such outsiders could have been right all a long.

    From far away I wonder if Prof. Harden is really a bleeding heart liberal or ‘progressive’. Has Jared Taylor considered the possibility she isn’t?

    As Prof. Harden, who became tenured in psychology at UT Austen at age 32, explains, “There is a middle ground between ‘let’s never talk about genes and pretend cognitive ability doesn’t exist’ and ‘let’s just ask some questions that pander to a virulent on-line community populated by racists with swastikas in their Twitter bios.’ ” There’s that phony dichotomy again. And who is enemy number one in this “virulent on-line community”? Your servant.

    If one is proposing the facts are on the ‘enemy side’ to her peers, what is the best way to go about it? Well if she stated Jared Taylor and his likes were right all a long – she would possibly have a lot of burger flipping in her future. Unlikely though because she seems very capable, but you get my drift, her carrier in academia would come to a halt.

    Prof. Harden was naïve enough to think that this sort of talk “was the vestige of a bygone era” and that “her critics might be reassured by updated information.” She sent them a study of polygenic scores (see here for what that means) that found genetic patterns that could partly explain individual differences in reading ability and years of schooling. “Hope that you find this interesting food for thought,” she wrote cheerily.”

    Who is naive here, Prof Harden or Mr Taylor? Has Mr Taylor ever tried to explain something unwelcome to hostile audience? It’s quite different than preaching to the quire.

    *Perhaps Jared Taylor has figured all this out and he sees a great ally in Prof Harding and is doing here position a favor by attacking her.

    • Agree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Ron Unz
  171. Nancy says:
    @Monotonous Languor

    Semantics – how are we defining ‘equality’ – before the law? of opportunity or outcome? ‘equity’, the new woke term, meaning absolute proportionality of outcome, among the ‘identity/victim’ groups. (Interesting how ‘they’ – ultimately the Termites – have to invent a new word – equity for equality, cases for infections, WMD for ABC weapons, hesitancy for resistance, applications for programs (took IT idiot me years to realize those were not two different things :), et al. ‘They’ hire the ‘best’ psych/sociologists.

  172. @Dually

    Morality is a man made concept. It is the biggest bullshit conceived since religion. Nature is amoral. We must follow nature. Nothing else.

    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Napoleon Wilson
  173. @3g4me

    The assumption that all other races and cultures would, if given a choice, obviously prefer to live a White man’s life is just another version of the equality fallacy –

    Growing up as a white boy in the rural South in the 1950s, a common expression among white people was; “if you could be black for one Saturday night, you’d never want to be white again.”

    • Replies: @Lucius Somesuch
  174. Truth says:
    @carroll price

    We all know that is a childless couple’s #1 priority in adopting children; the number of weddings he will be invited to in 2o years.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  175. Raches says:
    @Anon

    Intelligence is the result of picking the right mate. You can’t choose your own intelligence, but you have an honest shot at having smart kids if you pick the right mate.

    Agreed, with three qualifications as stated below.  And this is what puts the lie to the fallacy, commonplace in many alt-right “redpilled” places, that a woman’s intelligence is unimportant—that in a woman, all that counts is physical beauty.  It is an equal and opposite fallacy, the counterpart to liberal dismissals of physical beauty, health, athleticism, and other bodily virtues¹ as “shallow” or “skin-deep”.

    If you are a man with a high IQ, and you mate with airheaded bimbos, then—well, then, your sins shall be visited on your children.

    Qualifications:

    1. Stupid mating with smart is dysgenic.  At the extreme, cf. those whites during the era of American negro slavery who thought to improve their slaves’ genetic stock by breeding mulattoes.

    2. Generally, only women have a shot at mating with someone smarter than themselves.  Further qualification:  Only the subset of women who are more than ordinarily attractive in other ways.

    3. Having smart kids is not as simple a formula as stupid people may assume.  On the flipside of this fallacy, cf. liberals who blow regression to the mean out of proportion, so as to dismiss eugenic considerations altogether.

    The best advice, both genetically and otherwise:  Mate with someone like yourself—unless you are mentally retarded, or otherwise so irredeemably defective that you should never reproduce at all.  Average Joe types are best off with the average girl-next-door—not by pursuing someone they can’t get, who would make them miserable if they could. ®

    ——————————
    1. The liberals’ deprecation of beauty, health, athleticism, etc. as “shallow” is the cultural residue of Christian deprecation of the body for the soul.

    • Agree: niceland
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  176. Raches says:
    @niceland

    I don’t understand the author of this article. Or rather I think he doesn’t understand Kathryn Paige Harden position, or perhaps he does indeed*. She seems to be bright and gifted scientist who is trying to break the spell put on this field of science long time ago for political reasons judging by the N.Y. article. I presume most of you know much more about the backstory than me.

    […]

    So Professor Harden is operating in snake infested waters. She has to align herself perfectly with the totally politically correct atmosphere in the academia to avoid being cancelled for wrong thinking. If she didn’t she would probably be isolated, ignored, and forgotten. It’s also necessary for her to condemn the wrong thinking outsiders (like Jared Taylor) because it’s unthinkable for elite academia to even consider such outsiders could have been right all a long.

    […]

    From far away I wonder if Prof. Harden is really a bleeding heart liberal or ‘progressive’. Has Jared Taylor considered the possibility she isn’t?

    […]

    Who is naive here, Prof Harden or Mr Taylor? Has Mr Taylor ever tried to explain something unwelcome to hostile audience? It’s quite different than preaching to the quire.

    *Perhaps Jared Taylor has figured all this out and he sees a great ally in Prof Harding and is doing here position a favor by attacking her.

    Ssh.  I immediately thought of the same “conspiracy theory” about each of their respective motives.  Be that so, I’m game for playing along with it—by saying exactly what I want to say anyway.

    For the record, I don’t dislike Prof. Harden.  I barely know anything about her; therefore, I reserve judgment.  If I learn more, it’s a coin toss whether I will secretly admire her, or hate her guts about as much as people would expect her to hate me if, perchance, she ever were to read this thread.

    I note, without directing this at Prof. Harden personally, that distortion, misappropriation, and coöption of an idea are oftentimes more damaging thereto than outright censorship.  If liberals detect that their quasi-Lysenkoist position is about to implode, then I would expect for something like an “hereditarian left” to develop.  By comparison, observe how liberals have appropriated Darwinian evolution as their turf in public perceptions, even as they repudiate it worse than Young Earth Creationists!  Looking from science to philosophy, cf. also the distortions of Nietzsche—distortions made to neutralize his influence, often by mixing it with a religion totally contradictory of his principles, such as Buddhism.  I repeat that I am not accusing Prof. Harden of this:  I do not know enough about her position, in all of its subtleties and nuances, to pass judgment either way.

    Now, please don’t blow the cover on Bill Gates’ scheme to save the world from himself by superspreading super-scary conspiracy theories about himself. ®

    • Thanks: niceland
    • Replies: @niceland
  177. “And every single conservative who proudly embraced “judeochristianity” and every single liberal who preened about how he only judged people by the content of their character bears their share of the blame for walking down this road. Jesus Christ came to divide, not to unite, and there is absolutely no equality of any kind, not in Heaven and not in this world.

    If you are preaching unity, equality, tolerance, and inclusiveness, you are serving evil.”

    voxday.net – a few days ago

  178. niceland says:
    @Raches

    Does anyone seriously suggest that the learned professoress of psychology, headlined as a fetching “behaviour geneticist”, does not understand how this works? To be clear: As explained below, I am not against what I see her doing. I just think that she should be honest about it.

    Mr Raches: I am skating thin ice here because of my limited knowledge about U.S. politics, culture and academia.

    Question: Can she be honest about it?

    It seems to me she is playing the game quite well, she is jumping through the hoops she must, capitalizing on being a good looking woman and generally pushing the buttons needed to succeed in her ‘snake infested and toxic’ environment.
    ?

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  179. The Hitman and his colleagues were recruited from the rejects, the outcastes, the scum of the earth. And look what, with a lifetime of training, they became.

  180. @Lucius Somesuch

    Yes, I saw that picture too. And I saw that it is a very sophisticated deception. For example, the left side of the neck is hidden in shadow for which there is no cause. This gives a slender, feminine appearance to the neck whereas we know from other pictures that her neck is large and masculine. Also, the shoulders are cut off and out of focus, allowing the viewer to imagine them as feminine. The face and eyes are attractive, which supports the illusion. Many young men of certain looks can pull this off. As they age, however, it becomes less and less realistic, they just look creepy.
    The image is photo-shopped, particularly around the right jawline. See how the hair on the viewers left is blurry? This narrow a depth of focus is not realistic. Note the focus change from embroidery on right to hair on left; not possible. The reason for this is to allow editing the jaw line for a smaller chin.
    This image is quite good as these things go, but to an expert it has the opposite to desired effect. For reference, here it is, judge for yourself:

    • Troll: Raches
  181. niceland says:
    @Raches

    I note, without directing this at Prof. Harden personally, that distortion, misappropriation, and coöption of an idea are oftentimes more damaging thereto than outright censorship.

    Yes, at this point it’s very difficult to be sure what Prof. Harden is made of.

    Great comment, thanks!

  182. Art says:
    @Ayatollah Smith

    Jared Taylor is a pompous, arrogant ass, seemingly filled with contempt for almost everyone not holding his twisted attitudes toward humanity. What the hell is the purpose of giving the microphone to such a fool?

    What kind of a low life human being makes a living trashing those who are not so intellectually gifted as they?

    Telling people that they are stupid is mean – period.

    Charles Murry, Taylor, and Harden have done harm to people.

    p.s. Being moral is more important than being smart.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  183. Factorize says:

    The Genetic Singularity is approaching! A tsunami of genetic engineering is on the horizon that could completely upend human civilization. In the last few weeks a 3 million person GWAS for Educational Attainment has been reported. This brings the sample size up to 4 million for EA. There are now hundreds of IQ points of causal SNPs that have been identified. A rupture of the social fabric could occur even over the near term when this research is applied in reproductive clinics. Even a 1 SD increase in human intelligence would have a dramatic effect on technological progress.

    If the average person were to be highly selective in choosing a mate and carefully genetically selected among a number of embryos and perhaps took advantage of the already applied in humans CRISPR gene editing technology, then profound social change could occur rapidly. Large scale genetic libraries could offer population scale mate matching. Careful genetic selection of mates for shared common genetic strengths on specific chromosomes along with embryo selection would ensure that over a number of generations the entire genome would be engineered to produce extreme phenotypes (e.g., for intelligence etc.). In this vision of selection, raw IQ would be of less direct relevance than the pattern of IQ on the strands of chromosomes.

    Commentators on this thread do not seem to appreciate that the potential for such genetic uplift is present in those of any race or social background. This is a direct result of the highly polygenic nature of human traits. IIRC, when I used publicly available phased genotypes, even typical people had the latent potential to produce children with 150 IQs (this was without strong mating selection).

    Thus, the focus on racial differences related to genetics seems highly misplaced. It is not difficult to imagine in the near future that anyone of even the most minimal intelligence level would be able to reproduce offspring with what would now be considered genius level intelligence. The best policy is to now consider all of the newly born of any race or background to have such advantages. The goal posts of the left right political debate have been moved far upfield. The extreme right of the political spectrum is the new middle ground. With genetic uplift there is no obvious reason why anyone would have any use for government services. I can clearly imagine being able to create a future gene
    line that would never require medical care or any government service. How does the traditional left even have a future when genetic engineering will mean that the role for government is essentially non-existant?

    For me there is a certain dread in this approaching Singularity. As a species we have no understanding of what future we are designing: Simply creating a new species that lacks all medical or other problems might produce paradoxical results. Problems help to create the bonds that keep communities together. Without such problems there could be an endless exurban sprawl without anything to hold it together.

    My family has had to cope with various serious medical issues, though the struggle has probably made us stronger. However, when we look around at those at the top of our community who faced similar struggles, it is disappointing how less successful they were at providing needed care to their family. They seemed to be locked into a lifestyle based upon the appearance of success, yet when they had to actual care for their loved ones they had no idea how to respond. Apparently they had lost the ability to care for each other. This might be the counter-intuitive fate that our species is heading towards. Perhaps human evolution has added in some of the struggles in order that we develop a sense of compassion. In a perfectly eugenic world, it is possible that no one would have these skills. Everything might be perfectly rational and yet entirely unsustainable.

    I have already had a glimpse of such a future in my own genome. Essentially all of the medical and other problems that my extended family has encountered now have a definable genetic explanation.
    Most of the world’s hospitals could now close down because none of the future generations of my family will have any obvious need for medical care. When I noted this to our family doctor, the doctor was visibly angry. Medicine is almost entirely based upon genetic mutants. No mutants -> 95% reduced demand for medical care. With current reproductive technology (i.e., embryo selection) all of the significant medical risks could be selected out of our future gene lines.

    The frankenfuture of genetic engineering is also scary to me. There will be no longer any awe at the genius of an Einstein. All the magic will be completely explainable. There will be no doubt thousands of Einstein clones in the future. High IQs of 200, 250 and 300 will be commonplace. Those of previous generations (i.e., all of us) will have no obvious relevance for the economy or otherwise. Future generations will pay all of the taxes,create all of the wealth, require no medical or other services, while the unmodified consume vast quantities of resources.

    Even within my own genome sequence I can see how a super-success phenotype could easily be designed. My polygenic score for Income/Success was reported at the 98th percentile. However, this has not manifest as I have another genotype score in the high 90 that acts as a blocker. It is, however, easy to imagine that by simply unblocking the disadvantageous genotype through embryo selection, it would be possible to have a clear 98th percentile Income genotype. With such a genetic advantage I would expect that I could basically achieve escape velocity. I could achieve profound levels of success. There is overwhelming human potential that is lurking almost everywhere! All that needs to happen is for it to be unblocked and there could be pervasive levels of super-success. Once widespread full genome genotyping begins and people carefully select the genetic future for their offspring human civilization could this lift-off. Such potential is clearly present in my own genome — it is probably present in various ways in most people’s genomes. While this is extremely exciting, the approaching Genetic Singularity is likely to cause enormous social upheaval in ways that are not entirely obvious at this time.

  184. @Badger Down

    You are correct. I did learn two languages as a child. No accent!
    (Unfortunately I did learn English as my fifth language.)

  185. Ron Unz says:
    @niceland

    So Professor Harden is operating in snake infested waters. She has to align herself perfectly with the totally politically correct atmosphere in the academia to avoid being cancelled for wrong thinking…If one is proposing the facts are on the ‘enemy side’ to her peers, what is the best way to go about it?

    I haven’t read the long New Yorker profile, but I think you’re probably correct about the ideological strategy involved. Almost a decade ago, I successfully pulled off something similar, though it’s not clear whether it had any lasting impact.

    In 2012 I published a long article on Race/IQ, that presented some of the important underlying facts and also opened by emphasizing the total scientific fraud of Stephen Jay Gould, the most influential anti-IQist. The position I was taking was “Weak IQism,” which I happen to think is the factually correct one.

    However, the bulk of the article constituted an absolutely devastating attack on the foolish “Strong IQism” so popular in certain circles, possibly one of the most effective ever produced. As a consequence, the article was ferociously attacked by all the leading IQists but also very widely and favorably circulated by leftists and liberals, since it was obviously far superior to ridiculous arguments they tended to make on the subject. Thus, much of my important information reached individuals who otherwise probably never would have possibly encountered these facts.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/

    The huge Internet debate it sparked was continued in a long series of follow-up columns:

    https://www.unz.com/author/ron-unz/topic/race-iq/?ItemOrder=ASC

    Longtime New York Times science editor Nicholas Wade later cited my analysis in his important book a couple of years later, and it actually saved him when 139 prominent geneticists signed a letter demanding that he be purged:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/raceiq-should-scientists-bother-reading-the-books-they-denounce/

    I was really quite proud at this particularly effective implementation of what I sometimes call my “Diagonal Strategy.” But I honestly can’t say whether it had any lasting longterm impact on the IQ debate…

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @niceland
  186. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rufus Clyde

    What role does the left have?

  187. You can deny reality sure, you can try to deny the consequences of denying reality, but sure enough, reality will win every time. See South Africa. Blacks have been living on borrowed time. They’ve been looting an destroying their white inheritance for the last 35 years. Now it’s all coming apart, with social chaos, warlords, and death in the air.

    The US is well on its way to becoming SA.

    • Agree: acementhead
  188. @Raches

    https://scholar.google.ru/scholar?q=psilocybin+study+depression&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

    And I’ve only done it once. It seems to slow the brain using strongly reinforced synaptic pathways whilst generating growth in less reinforced pathways. But I won’t debate this with a categorical person – do your own research!

    (Props to you for being concise! 😉 )

    • Replies: @Raches
  189. SafeNow says:

    “…intelligence and other personality traits…” – first sentence of the essay

    And that’s it for “personality”…on to the IQ gap. The genetic propensity for impetuous, violent behavior deserved some attention. Because, in general, people do not want to be punched in the face. Twin and and family studies, and polygenic analysis, have proven that personality traits, including psychopathology, are moderately heritable. The heritability of the relevant psychopathology has not been extensively studied, because that would be a career-ending. Safer to study the heritability of, oh, depression. Maybe the fact that the heritability of violence has not been well studied is why the essay does not deal with it.

  190. Raches says:
    @niceland

    Mr Raches: I am skating thin ice here because of my limited knowledge about U.S. politics, culture and academia.

    Question: Can she be honest about it?

    It seems to me she is playing the game quite well, she is jumping through the hoops she must, capitalizing on being a good looking woman and generally pushing the buttons needed to succeed in her ‘snake infested and toxic’ environment.

    To your question:  Probably, no, she cannot.  I say “probably” because I don’t know enough about her and her circumstances to be sure.  Based on generalities, not specific to her:  In America, to admit to using looks to get ahead can be damaging to a woman’s career—with damage coming from both the right and the mainstream left.  She can do this, but she must not say it—not unless she wants to typecast herself like some far-left, highly provocative public intellectuals whom I don’t want to name, to avoid coming off as trying to group her with them for no reason.  I believe that Iceland, as many parts of Continental Europe, is different in this regard; even the U.K. is not this bad.

    If you ever wonder why I am so negative on America—there are many reasons…  This hereby comment is worded carefully, as was the prior one, because I am on not only an American site, but an American site frequented by Anglin fans.

    I actually had in the back of my mind this book, which I will avoid Amazon-embedding because… you will understand in a moment.  I have not read it; I saw it make a splash on some intellectual blogs some years ago, whereupon it floated down my reading list into the category of “interesting, but seems obvious and maybe distorted”.

    My comment had several purposes:

    1. I made a valid point.  Half thereof was deliberately hidden below the fold.  As much as it was about Prof. Harden, my point was also, and more importantly, about (a) Mr. Taylor’s good choice of image for his article (dignified, presenting the subject in a good light so as not to make it a hit-piece photo, but not having the same charm-factor as the other photos), and (b) how the left-wing media manipulates people’s images—whether positively in a way that is irrelevant to the substance of the article, or negatively as with Dr. Watson.  If the media were to decide that they hate Prof. Harden, they would portray her similarly as they portrayed Dr. Watson:  Run headlines with the worst photos they could find, photos that make her look silly or stupid or crazy.

    Absent a valid point, I would not have had the opportunity to do this:

    2. I was trolling the manosphere types around here, and sort of trying to preëmpt them.  Since I had not yet read the comments, or even significantly skimmed them, I did not know that others were already discussing Prof. Harden’s appearance in much more adverse terms.  But I predicted it.

    On some sites where I have spent too much time, it is impossible for a woman (especially an intellectual woman) to be mentioned without these two reactions: (a) “She’s ugly,” and (b) “it’s a tranny.”  It does not help that there are nowadays many cases meeting one or both of these criteria—nor is that entirely relevant to some of these people:  In some venues, you could toss out a photo of a perfect-10 supermodel, and evoke those same reactions.  Some just want to jump to negative conclusions.  Some things are extremely degrading to claim and, when tossed recklessly off the cuff as you see here, unjustifiably so.

    I know that most of those types do not read the mini-essays that I write.  Sometimes, as in this comment, I deliberately increase the verbosity to deter them; and I may drop a little link into the middle without flashy embeds, as I did above.  Of course, when I embed eye-catching photos above the fold, I expect for that to attract more popular attention than my usual comments.  And for those who wish to discuss Prof. Harden’s appearance, it is best to do it as I did.  N.b. that I was slightly provocative, but not degrading or insulting to her—I didn’t say anything that I would take as an insult, per se, if it were directed at me or one of my friends.

    Most importantly, in my own opinion, I did not accuse her of only having eye-catching photos—obviously not, if I had already seen fit to address a 1,500-word comment to her intellectual position, and to Mr. Taylor’s substantial analysis thereof.  I said that she was pushing people’s buttons to gain a favorable bias, which she obviously is—and I don’t think that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.  I tend to file that under “facts of life”.

    3. I was trolling Prof. Harden.  Not in a terribly unfriendly way—but not in a friendly way, either.  If the other theory that we are discussing were to turn out to be correct, I could always make up for it; I am good at that.  On the other hand, I know that she probably disagrees with me philosophically; and if she has bad intentions, then I don’t mind saying a few things that she would probably dislike, around the edges of making point #1 above. ®

    • Thanks: niceland
  191. @Truth

    Truth, you’re the expert, is she a tranny?

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  192. ohh boy

    you really don’t get it. the problem is that she is white and that whites especially on any issue whites of all stripes have been complicit is using data, especially stats in social science s to advance an agenda that advances and they have as routine abused statistical data poorly designed and misrepresented the same to advance some better than thou agenda against blacks. that such practice among white scholars or whites in general is so pervasive and persistent that whites simply cannot be trusted by definition to always have as their agenda — white good b;lack bad.

    it is so ingrained in whites that whites simply cannot be trusted. they know that biology matters. they also know that whites have abused the matter and in their view the best way to counter is simply treat whites as puveyors of academic falsehood across the board.

    it is not as if the charge has no merit

    • Troll: 3g4me
    • Replies: @Raches
  193. Raches says:
    @RJ Macready

    Morality is a man made concept. It is the biggest bullshit conceived since religion. Nature is amoral. We must follow nature. Nothing else.

    Morality is indeed man-made.  So are organized society, civilization, and high culture—none of which can exist without morality.  If you want none of these things—if you want only the law of the jungle—then you should go live with the apes, by which I mean rhymes with triggers.

    To repudiate morality because it does not exist in nature is the equal and opposite error as to attempting to construct morality from the “Enlightenment” notion of “natural law”—nonsense that arose from the cultural residues of a dying Christian deity, to prop up the abomination of a “universal” morality.  To repudiate morality is also impossible—a contradiction in terms:  That, itself, is a moral choice.  Even Nietzsche only declared himself an “amoralist” so as to free himself, step beyond good and evil, and then construct a superior morality which echoes the morals of classical antiquity:  A resurrection of the greatness destroyed by Christianity, made with eyes set forwards towards a future Superman, not back to a dead past.

    Do you idealize some Rousseauistic hallucination of a “noble savage”?  Or are you merely a nihilist?  Either way, and whether intentionally or not, you have categorically repudiated not only leftist anti-hereditarian morality, but also the foundation of eugenics.  For blind Nature recks aught of whether humans wreck themselves.  Eugenics requires a moral judgment that people should conserve their posterity, and prevent boundless future suffering, by artificially applying to the animals called “human” the same natural principles as applied by dog breeders, cat breeders, horse breeders, and cattle breeders.

    Insofar as Nature is concerned, humans are quite welcome to remove from themselves the natural selective pressures of the jungle, and then breed themselves into an abyss of degeneration.  In the long term, that will inevitably cause a horror of ever-worse suffering—Hell on Earth; it is happening already, but this is only the beginning.  In the very long term, perhaps it may even lead to human extinction.  Nature does not care—Nature cannot care—n.b. the pathetic fallacy. ®

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Zarathustra
  194. Raches says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    With Darwinism and legal abortion? Jews love those. Do you?

    What kind of an argument is that?  For an index of how far wide it is of the mark, Professor Revilo P. Oliver’s racial outlook, including his fierce opposition to the Jews, was based on biological evolution; and he was annoyed by the attempts of the salesmen of Yahweh & Son, Inc. to restrict abortions.  After all, he was not fond of the fecundity of downbred, racially inferior, or otherwise useless creatures who eat and excrete on productive Aryans.  Does that sound Jewish to you?

    For my part:

    Darwinian evolution, and more broadly, the overall theory of evolution, is a scientific fact.  It has been misappropriated, coöpted, and distorted by the liberals, so that they can subvert it.  The theory of evolution, and also the science of genetics, flatly contradict the Judensau hogwash which I call the slightly less ridiculous Western counterpart of Lysenkoism.  When contemplating the several species called “human”, liberals repudiate Darwin even worse than Young Earth Creationists.

    Christians sometimes accuse Darwinian evolution of being racist.  It is racist, perforce—if the theory is followed to its logical conclusions—and that’s a good thing!  Liberals evade all logic, with typical liberal slipperiness.

    As for abortion, I myself think that the government should give abortions away for free—on condition that any woman who wants one, must also simultaneously get a tubal ligation.  Women who get abortions have a defective maternal instinct—a trait, or combination of traits that I reasonably suspect must have significant hereditary factors.  Moreover, how can women who would kill their own offspring in the womb be trusted to raise any offspring they birth?  While they may or may not be fine people otherwise, women who choose to have electively induced abortions should never reproduce—ever.

    I say this based in part on my observations of some ultra-liberal women, who supported abortion politically—but who admitted in private that they could never bear to have abortions themselves—not in any circumstance whatsoever, no matter how desperate they were or what adversity they faced.  Their emotional ferocity in defending their nonexistent hypothetical fetuses was remarkable.  They were fit to reproduce, and they probably made good mothers.  Motherhood is, after all, an inner calling that is both actuated and primarily guided by instinct—the essential basis for what women usually call “intuition”.  No one should ever become a mother (or a father) unless willing to fight for it like an animal.

    Furthermore, I myself would donate money to build more abortion mills in every “inner city” type of environment—if you know what I mean, and I think you do.  Those who think that that’s horribly racist, or who fear that Jesus ben Yahweh will want to spank me because he loves the souls of every little pickanniny, are promoting Jewish interests whether they know it or not. ®

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
    , @Reg Cæsar
  195. Yes, the lefties are blinkered. But so is Jared Taylor:

    the relentless levelling of the last century

    This is twaddle, Jared. Income inequality in the US has hit a record high, and the combined net worth of the 50 richest American families is now \$1.2 trillion according to a recent report on visualcapitalist.com. These families own the country. Their political contributions, and the lobbyists and political contributions of the corporations they control, determine most election results, and the lobbyists write much of the legislation passed by Congress.

    There has been some “levelling” by the so-called progressives, but it has mostly affected middle and lower income groups. Real inequality – the billionaire class – has continued to grow.

  196. Levtraro says:
    @Badger Down

    Widening the numbers (90% vs. 10% instead of 99% vs. 1%) just narrows a bit the equalization but still the equalization is enormous (meaning it is necessary to have a system that helps the poor, say the 40% poorest, in the hope of them spawning a good number of genetic lottery winners). Also since the lowest 10% are so many, you may prevent a lot of talent being born by preventing them from having children.

  197. geokat62 says:
    @Art

    p.s. Being moral is more important than being smart.

    p.s. Being smart and moral is more important than being moral.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  198. Wokechoke says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    Isolated case on an island. Also its possible the clever blacks have been able to stick around. Also, there’s a Chinese and Indian admixture in the blacks on the older British Islands.

    Also, exactly how many whites live in Bermuda? What counts as a white Bermudan? A miltimillionaire or a guy with a Scuba shop? It’s quite difficult to become Baijan believe it or not. Even if wealthy.

  199. Wokechoke says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    There are 70,000 people living on Bermuda half are classified as Black. They did not import slaves and discouraged anyone who had them to stop bring them in. Anyone with slaves was told to sell them off island. Most of the blacks there are mulatto or high yellow according to all the surveys i have seen. It’s a very carefully curated selection of blacks who are quite distinct from anything on many of these islands. The founding blsck population were Spanish blacks who were christianized and feeborn and settled there. Then came pirates and the English who dumbed rebellious royalists and Irish there. Founding population might be a fluke.

    • Replies: @Truth
  200. @RJ Macready

    “Morality is a man made concept. It is the biggest bullshit conceived since religion. Nature is amoral. We must follow nature. Nothing else.”

    As a huge fan of John Carpenter, it pains me to say that your position is utter garbage, so bad that I suspect you may be mocking some other psycho’s viewpoint. You wouldn’t mind then if we all acted like the rest of the carnivorous animal kingdom and cannibalized different races? “Hey,” said the guy from China, “it’s in my nature to kill and feast on Caucasian women. You can’t argue with nature, so relax.” Manmade laws are essentially expressions of manmade morality. You want to live in a perilous jungle devoid of laws? Move to Baltimore.

  201. Realist says:
    @Anon

    My comment was tongue in cheek.

  202. Raches says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    You may have noticed that in one of the other threads, I criticized pharmaceutical researcher Derek Lowe, who develops psychiatric drugs:  He is a fine organic chemist who a microscope to gaze at the stars, in my opinion.  I wondered if some of the anti-vaxxers who distrust Big Pharma would agree with me about that, but fail to apply the same principles consistently.

    I consistently disdain the whole idea of dumping powerful psychotropic chemicals into your brain to “improve” it, with drastically altered mental states that alter one’s perceptions of reality.  And no, I don’t find it overly relevant if the chemicals are so-called “all natural”, as is your psilocybin—or as is Amanita muscaria, one of the major historical causes of irrational religiosity—or as is marijuana.  Hemlock is also 100% all natural.

    (Props to you for being concise! 😉 )

    I tried to be so, when my offhand remark seemed so very far off-topic. ®

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  203. Bill says:
    @DanGood

    Issues like universal health care have nothing to do with genetics or equality; they have to do with public good. Is a country better off with a healthy population or not?

    WTF is a “country?” WTF is a “public?”

    *Something* has to determine which group of people I count as my in-group. What color passport they happen to have in their hands right this minute isn’t a particularly appealing answer, especially given developed-world immigration policy.

    These issues have nothing to do with genetics. Genetics is like LGBT-type issues: they are convenient red herrings for those who do not want higher taxes.

    Is it? I don’t notice white nationalists, for example, being especially reticent about generous social benefits for their in-group. What you say may be our masters’ intent, but it is not so clear they will be able to make things play out just that way.

  204. @geokat62

    In comment #162 under the ‘more’ tag Reaches refers to himself as “a simple minded country physician” repeating same from his comment on another thread. That’s what I thought. Hints of the old wolf changing his clothes from an anti-racist and anti-Nazi into this, but still pro-feminist (or I should say “pro-woman” to avoid having to read some verbose comment on why he is actually not “pro-feminist” because … blah, blah, blah).

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  205. Bill says:
    @Rich

    Is it possible that people can be against handouts to both the rich and the poor?

    No. Rich people are going to get handouts. The only question is whether anyone else is going to get handouts. The only function of “economic conservatism” is to get rubes to advocate against anyone else getting them.

    The Tea Party did not start when Wall St got bailed out. It started when it looked like a few crumbs might fall from Wall St’s table into the hands of normal people.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Truth
  206. Raches says:
    @Commentator Mike

    You misquoted me from the internal quotation of the idiot who misogynistically insinuated that I just belong in the kitchen to whom I replied in the psychiatric tradition of Dr. Hannibal Lecter.  (I hate rude people.)  I have not claimed to be a physician, “simpleminded country” or otherwise—not even sarcastically.

    That is obvious to anyone who reads my comment #162 here to the end, below the “more” tag.  Indeed, it is so obvious that I suspect that you may be doing this intentionally, to mislead people who don’t look at the other comment or its original context.  I doubt that even you are stupid enough to misread it that badly; and I know that deliberate misquotations are popular tactic with some others around here. ®

  207. @Rufus Clyde

    Absolutely.
    “Equality” has been a very handy tool in the Elite’s arsenal. Saying that, meritocracy has had its ups & downs in US history (meritocracy is or should be intrinsic to real egalitarianism.)

  208. 8th Man says:

    Obviously people (and races) vary physically. Brains are physical structures. Therefore brains could vary in function by race. Simply put, some brains work better than others. Whether that’s genetics or luck, add to that “head start” good parents and you’ll generally get good results. Add bad parents to it and you’ll get mixed results.

    Combine a weak brain with bad parents and you’ll get bad results.

  209. Raches says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Truth, you’re the expert, is she a tranny?

    Lovely:

    • “Commentator Mike”, who takes seriously “the theory that all leading Nazis, or most of them, were Jews, including Hitler a Rothschild one quarter”, who hysterically giggles as uncontrollably as a grinning idiot and laughing maniac in reaction to my criticisms against Andrew Anglin, and who is so very much obsessed with conspiracy theories about me myself that he egregiously misquotes me to support them, is asking this question of…

    • …“Truth”, a Flu Hoaxer who claims that Covid does not exist—“there is no disease, above the common, yearly flu”.

    “Truth” is an expert at shifting the goalposts.  Protip:  If you can’t prove that she’s a tranny, then just say that she’s ugly, and speculate that maybe she is secretly a lesbian, too.  (New conspiracy theory:  Raches is suspiciously thrilled by Aeolic stanzas.)  Then, if people don’t reply to you, it means that you won the argument! ®

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
    , @Truth
  210. @Monotonous Languor

    Do they indeed?
    I suggest you get up off your knees & spit — or better yet, laugh in their general direction.

  211. Nancy says:
    @HdC

    See Ron Unz’ piece on David Irving, for an account of what happens to historians that are not paid by the court.

  212. Rich says:
    @Bill

    You are mistaken. Conservatives favor small government, low taxes and no welfare, corporate or social. You’re confusing a few moderate to left leaning Republicans with conservatives. Common mistake in a poorly educated era.

    • Replies: @Bill
  213. Raches says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    ohh boy

    you really don’t get it. the problem is that she is white and that whites especially on any issue whites of all stripes have been complicit is using data, especially stats in social science s to advance an agenda that advances and they have as routine abused statistical data poorly designed and misrepresented the same to advance some better than thou agenda against blacks. that such practice among white scholars or whites in general is so pervasive and persistent that whites simply cannot be trusted by definition to always have as their agenda — white good b;lack bad.

    it is so ingrained in whites that whites simply cannot be trusted.

    There is a flaw in your conspiracy theory:  If all white people are motivated by racism against blacks, then why don’t they whip the blacks back into slavery—or better yet, deport them all en masse to Africa?  Why would whites play academic games, rather than crushing blacks by violent force under the authority of a racist, whites-only government?

    American blacks would still be slaves—if whites had not attacked other whites in an insane holy war which started as worship of a scrap of paper, and concluded in an orgy of negrophilia.  Thereafter, blacks would still be legally segregated throughout the American South, if fluffy white sheep had not stopped that, too.  Ovine-American whites have a long history of destroying themselves and other white people, for the benefit of blacks.

    As I have observed before, white people—or more properly excluding other Caucasoids, Aryans are by nature race-blind xenophiles.  I myself consider that to be a genetic flaw; Aryans are, for the most part, eine minderwertige Rasse.  Their behavior towards their own kind makes them lower and more disgusting than rhymes with triggers.  Nevertheless, I patiently attempt to conserve my Aryans, in the manner that Dr. Dian Fossey strove to conserve her gorillas.

    Thus, the problem is the opposite of what you state:  Why should anyone trust that Prof. Harden is not just trying to rationalize away a contradiction between her science and her ideology?  Science is perforce racist.  The science of genetics cannot be studied without observing racial realities.  Prof. Harden’s anti-racist ideology places her, as a scientist, in a terrible predicament.  For one of my favorite similes about this, her problem is tantamount to rationalizing a belief that the ocean is made of maple syrup.  It will be interesting to observe how she resolves it—call this a case study. ®

  214. @Raches

    I can’t help laughing at whatever experiment you’re conducting here, or on yourself, as you don’t quite seem sincere and convincing. But don’t let me detract you, just keep at it as it seems to give you great pleasure acting all smug and superior with the rest of the commentariat. If it’s not a put-on and you’re serious, then my apologies for mistaking you for another prig who at least used to dispense useful dietary advice.

    • Replies: @Lucius Somesuch
  215. @Truth

    I bring up the wedding invitation thing because white weddings are no longer acceptable without one or more Negroes being present.

  216. Truth says:
    @Raches

    Morality is indeed man-made. So are organized society, civilization, and high culture—none of which can exist without morality. If you want none of these things—if you want only the law of the jungle—then you should go live with the apes, by which I mean rhymes with triggers.

    Bro. You said a mouthful there!

    I try to explain to city folk all the time, they just don’t understand how fortunate they are…

  217. Truth says:
    @Wokechoke

    Most of the blacks there are mulatto or high yellow according to all the surveys i have seen.

    LOL!

    • Agree: Mevashir
  218. Truth says:
    @Raches

    What about Michelle Obama, Tranny or Double-x’er?

    Anyway, Ratched, I’m glad you’re starting to quoute genuine intellectuals.

  219. @Raches

    Irrational religiosity is directly unverifiable religiosity (that axiomatically a-priori speculation – metaphysics), which Dhamma is quite very not (and the scientific method too, before it got its trademark!).

    Medicine, drug, poison. The distinction lies somewhere in intention and dosage. I agree that naturally working through problems is best, but for example on a physiological condition, my mother got to 125kg at 1.73cm, sleep apnea and all, so in the end she got the docs to cut out 90% of her stomach. I was very critical about it, saying that she should just have self control, but in reality had she not gone under the knife, she would have likely died.

    It’s not so black and white with meds of the mind either, but were I ever to get truly clinically depressed, I’d prefer a magic mushroom potion every six months (that’s how long studies show the anti-depressant properties last), rather than some big pharma pill daily.

    Not categorically of course, and a meditation chamber may work better for some, and maybe one day big pharma will outdo the natural remedy!

    (Here’s a fun one – the Omega-3 in your salmon is synthesised into endocannabinoids. Not the mind altering THC, but they run along the same bodily network as it. So something like CBD which is not psychoactive, might just complement that salmon intake!)

  220. @Raches

    Nature is moral. Lion kills only to satisfy his hunger.

    • Disagree: Raches
  221. Raches says:
    @Mevashir

    Meta-Troll.  (And I just ran myself out of rate-limited “Troll” reactions, for the moment.)

    More messages does not necessarily equal getting more attention; oft as not, it invokes the contrary result.  It assuredly will, if the messages are not of the same quality as Mr. Taylor’s.

    Tuchas offen tisch, “Mevashir”:  “Welcome to the Internet.”  Are you trying to undermine and cancel out Mr. Taylor’s undoubtedly polite and thoughtful message to “the lady” with a bunch of random trash?

    There is a reason why I snipped out contact information—even though I linked to one of the same pages, which is completely public, and which anyone with motivation and initiative could find in three seconds.

    One of those anecdotal “datapoints”:  Once upon a time, I made fast friends with a white liberal intellectual lady who was called out on some stereotypical alt-right site—in her case, for no particular reason.  She publicly expressed her shock at what landed in her inbox.  I emailed her to express my sincere sympathy, and to advise her just to ignore it.  We got to talking about politics, history, philosophy, art, literature, culture…  She was unavoidably much more shocked by me than she was by the trolls, whom she easily ignored once I pointed out that they are merely basement-dwelling losers.

    She had some courage and intellectual honesty.  She took the cognitive dissonance as a challenge.  We agreed that we don’t like to isolate ourselves in ideological echo chambers.  Thus did we develop a cordially antagonistic rapport, based on respecting each other personally while mutually, categorically, quite candidly hating each other’s worldviews.  Unfortunately, her curiosity did not extend to reading the books that I offered her:  Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.  (Nowadays, I would start with Mr. Unz’s American Pravda articles—three in particular, by way of introduction (first, second, third), before turning to the history of white racialism in America, among other topics.)  But she had nothing to offer me that I had not seen a thousand times.  We were mismatched, insofar as I grew up with her worldview:  I knew all about it, and the alleged reasons for it.  Whereas she admittedly knew nothing about mine, beyond hostile caricatures that obviously did not fit me.  Beyond a certain point in our discussions, she preferred the bliss of ignorance to the formidable task of proving me wrong—or worse for her, risking a discovery that I may be right.

    Prof. Harden must have nerves of steel, to approach the hereditarian issue in the first instance; and as a professor of psychology, she must have significant professional experience in dealing with nutcases.  I doubt that her equanimity will be perturbed by any troll-mail:  She will not be shocked.  I hope that she is not only honest enough to acknowledge to herself that it has nothing to do with Mr. Taylor, but also, sufficiently astute to realize that if someone wanted intentionally to undermine Mr. Taylor, sending rude or thoughtless emails to Prof. Harden would be a nice way to go about it. ®

    • LOL: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  222. @Raches

    I do have to disagree with you.
    You are not taking into consideration that women are very easily brainwashed.
    Or you are probably a women. In that case you are forgiven.

    • Replies: @Raches
  223. Mevashir says:
    @Raches

    Prof. Harden must have nerves of steel, to approach the hereditarian issue in the first instance; and as a professor of psychology, she must have significant professional experience in dealing with nutcases. I doubt that her equanimity will be perturbed by any troll-mail: She will not be shocked. I hope that she is not only honest enough to acknowledge to herself that it has nothing to do with Mr. Taylor, but also, sufficiently astute to realize that if someone wanted intentionally to undermine Mr. Taylor, sending rude or thoughtless emails to Prof. Harden would be a nice way to go about it.

    Why would I assume anyone on this thread would send her troll email? I was just providing a community service to help the Whit(less) Supremacists here. I’m not so sure they would be able to round up some of the information I so thoughtfully provided. (For example the Columbia email address of the New Yorker author was a bit of a challenge.)

    Mr. Taylor is very polite. I enjoy watching him. He is astute, thoughtful, articulate, and decent. I admire him, although I suspect if he ever attained political power I — along with most other American Jews — would be on high on his sh*t list (like the 80% of German Jews who voted for Hitler in the 1933 election only to be betrayed by the Hitler-Himmler psychopath team).

    I myself have not written to the Professor. However I have a relative who wants to study psychology and is from the evangelical far-right Christian community and I have forwarded to her the contact info and encouraged her to communicate with the professor. I hope this meets your approval O Big Shot Censor.

    In Hebrew Rosh = Head, Ra’ash = Noise.
    In English we have Roaches and Rashes

    Which of the above are you O Holy Gatekeeper???

    [The only flaw in Taylor’s approach, along with all the White Whiners over loss of Influence Affluence and Prestige, is the failure to admit that WHITES brought the African miscreants here in the first place as slaves or whatever. They imported the very worst of African society: prisoners of war, underclass menschen, tribal outcasts, losers, etc. Then they miscegenated with the voluptuous African females creating an army of half breeds. I think history will confirm the all the worst troublemakers in the Black community are half breeds, with just enough white DNA to give them boldness confidence and intelligence to grind their ax. Witness Frederick Douglas and Malcolm X for example. Both clearly have white physiognomy. Witness Mariah Carey and Beyonce, also with very apparent white features. Witness Obama, Colin Powell, and probably Denzel Washington. All black superstars have white DNA I would be willing to wager. So let’s stop whining over a past that cannot be altered. Let’s admit that the lazy southern plantation whites and their Sefardic Jewish slave traders ruined American civilization from the get-go by importing miscreants. And then let’s man up and deal with the present and future.]

    • Replies: @Art
  224. Anonymous[211] • Disclaimer says:

    I disagree with the conclusion. Those who wish to push collective moralisms will simply shift from an old idea to a new one in the effort to collect a new source of funding. Society is really a four letter word despite the actual letter count so long as collective moralisms predominate.

    It is far safer to drop any moral association with the word society and shift to a strictly utilitarian approach. Those who prosper from particular associations should support them and those who do not should avoid them. Along the fault lines of these distinctions armed borders should be established and instead of words bullets should be the currency. Being nice or being nasty is a personal decision and the consequences pertaining thereto should be similarly apportioned.

    I suggest that as bullets create great expense in wounds received there will be much less contact among the various parties in such a regime. Let 1000 societies bloom. Everyone will stay on their side of the borders so drawn for it should be clear what will happen if they do not. The silence of those who would bark words into the mouths of cannon should be a great relief.

  225. kliebs says:
    @Sparkylyle92

    She mentioned having children. I think she bore them.

    • Replies: @Raches
  226. “There is a flaw in your conspiracy theory: If all white people are motivated by racism against blacks, then why don’t they whip the blacks back into slavery—or better yet, deport them all en masse to Africa? Why would whites play academic games, rather than crushing blacks by violent force under the authority of a racist, whites-only government?”

    First, I don’t make any claims tat all whites are racists or are motivated by the same. As for your suggestion, I suspect that many whites if they could would love that option –african americans back to slavery and deport them. I think they found it too expensive and more importantly, they would have had to upend the Constitution as opposed to subverting it. It’s the founders who made the claim –“all men created equal” as a philosophy. And by that they meant — equal under the law or under providence” not equal in relation to biology.

    Second, Because even in Africa whites played games with statistical models to justify their treatment of blacks. Whites attempted to crush the black population — and to some extent they were successful. Though the crushing was to the obvious purpose of cheap labor.

    [MORE]

    Third, they found that blacks outnumbered them and more importantly would neither be crushed not marginalized willingly.

    Fourth, Laughing in one and the same breath you call my comment a conspiracy and them proceed to ask questions answered by the historical record in which whites had attempted to do what you posit as inquiries.

    Fifth, it became immediately apparent that not only were blacks superior in number, they existed in societies that had laws and expectations, that exceeded their own in terms of organization and operation, etc. Furthermore as it turns out, those pesky blacks could learn english, and math, and writing and could and did engage in problem solving —

    say what? say it ain’t so — it ain’t so

    black civilizations and empires . . . pre- white meeting — no way. they loved and lost. fought. won, lost, moved about mated, some were not so bright and others exceedingly so. What separated most of southern africa —- even more than desert was time. Time barred the “normal” exchange between civilizations that sparks most innovation and as such, technological development was not as advanced as the northern civilizations. But as the french, english, Italians discovered, given said exposure blacks populations responded in kind — black mathematicians, composers, architects, thinkers . . . littered Europe. So whites knew that as human beings go — the black population did as populations under said environments do — develop. And by golly gee wow —- some blacks developed or faired better in x than some other blacks — imagine that.

    Hence, so to codify the notion of superior status — let the games and even the tech power dynamics begin. Afterall, black populations were very useful in the wars of Europe and nearly a million died in WWl in front for the british and the french, the italians — and they did so using the same technological weapons . . .

    holy moly you mean blacks knew hw to load modern machine guns and springfield rifles . . . artilleries . . . ha — who knew?

    But we certainly cannot allow those billion blacks in on the exchange and self realization among nations — they would dominate us — so we must by and by crook, engage in gamesmanship to ensure they see themselves as inferior and by jove — if we have lie about God — we had better do that as well. Afterall those blacks have the same color as monkeys and must therefore be closer in family . . .

    Good grief — get a clue.

    One need not be an apologist for crt, or anything black on the agenda to put together the scenarios of what’s what.

    Shhhhh . . . don’t tell anyone, but I hear tell that whites in SA, Rhodesia and elsewhere established whites only government. In the US they did the same, but cloaked it in all kinds of rhetorical devices — not as honest as their African white counter parts.

    I have no idea if the african americans would be slaves. The wrongness of the idea was challenged before the colonies engaged in a revolution, during the revolution and afterwards — however white solidarity around nationhood and economy prevailed — so slavery prevailed. It’s the sword that killed the idea of the very founding based on the equality of all men. Killed it dead from the start. White superiority apparently no stranger to hypocrisy.

    Segregation — not an issue. Separate but equal. Small problem — it wasn’t equal. Do tell — whites seem to have a real problem with general honesty, especially where african americans are concerned. Better keep churning out those stats to keep them in line and justify their treatment.

    I mean the genius of enslaving several million people and then not ensuring they received an education and socialization beyond slavery — as slaves — genius. Ohh wait a minute we can’t educate them – l’est they apply what they know to be treated as equals — what to to what to do — aha . . . statistics, money, power and God — that will keep them in line. Even now the police, and the criminal justice system serve as the whip. And yet despite all the barriers, the black population produced teachers, scientists, physicians, writers, composers and conductors (even of classical music), politicians, intellectuals . . . entrepreneurs — we just don’t highlight them because they counter the narrative and the agenda. That’s why so many whites are having a hissy fit, those pesky blacks are everywhere, not just on the football field, the Cosby’s are everywhere. They even engage in the same political; tactics as whites — tribal affiliation to color politics — darn it who let the cat out of the bag — that skin color was a dog whistle in place of actual politics. Darn it.

    despite the use of the term by police to describe black males, african americans are not gorrilla’s, apes, or anything other than a human being as are you. And each vary’s in ability as do other humans with a different hue. Some are honest, nice, etc and some are not — just like whites. Though I have found that a trait that is interesting — the african american is extremely tolerant and forgiving — a kid who shoots up their church and kills people, the police take the kid to Mcdonald’s for a bite to eat and low and behold — the church forgives. Pres Nelson Mandella’s first order of business in SA — reconciliation and forgiveness. Blacks don’t riot when whites move into their neighborhoods.

    Ohhh good grief, Dr. Harden is no predicament. She’s making a case tat genetics matters. No kidding. Her dance is to make that case without inviting the historical tendency to justify color hierarchies. She remains atop one of the most privilged populations in the country — a white women, who could send any black, especially a black male to the gallows for merely looking at her if she so chooses. But now I am treading in very fertile soil of why whites engage in gamesmanship — preserving the white genetic gene pool. Which if anyone with a tooth of sense knows — doesn’t exist. The purity of the whiteness went out the window many millennia ago.

    You might want to actually read her interview where she dances between genetics and environment to explicate difference.

    Ok I am all tuckered out, it took me all day to respond to this. excuse the delay. I am not a very bright person. But some things are obvious and told by a gaze through history of real life as opposed to an agenda to justify one’s superiority.

    Though admittedly, I find the good Doctor, very attractive. age poverty and bad looks remain my curse — ohh and having a

    very very very low IQ

    need to go rest my brain. any apses in grammar or thought are my own and I take full responsibility. very tired out — appreciated the opportunity to respond.

    note : african americans find me as annoying as you do. we conservatives don’t wear well anywhere.

    • Replies: @Corrupt
  227. Art says:
    @Mevashir

    Let’s admit that the lazy southern plantation whites and their Sefardic Jewish slave traders ruined American civilization from the get-go by importing miscreants. And then let’s man up and deal with the present and future.]

    Let us admit that Zionism is the fly in the ointment of American racial healing. Both Jew Zionism and Christian Zionism do not want racial harmony. On the other hand, most US Christians (white and black) are more than ready for a benign race future.

    Zionism’s grip on the US MSM is the killer of racial peace in our country.

    Zionism Occupies America!

    • Agree: Zarathustra
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  228. Mevashir says:

    Zionism’s grip on the US MSM is the killer of racial peace in our country.

    Please explain.

  229. AReply says:

    Ten fingers and ten toes? Your genes!
    Two eyes and two ears? Your genes!
    Coughing fits and sour after taste? Your genes!
    Gout and adenoidal inflammation? Well you get the idea.

    The fair question is: What about any life-form is not determined by its genes?!

    Anything? Anything? … Bueller?

    Who will give the white man’s genes their proper due? Who will stand up for the righteous white man genes, if not God?

    Geniuses at work…

    White-Shiite Bigots and Imbeciles Continue to Succumb to God’s Genetic Laws
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/anti-vaxx-radio-host-dies-covid-b1919896.html

    The Good Lord is once again discovered to indifferent to the plight of white christians genetic makeup. It’s almost as if God hates white mens genes!

    The family of a Milo T. Dickwad pleads to country to repent before it’s too late: “Don’t join Satan in hell and be sure to watch yer Fox!” Also do not take any other of the satanic elixirs doctors offer in their Covidz inner sanctum — …except for Ivermectin! God issues a pass on horse ingesting dewormers and other compounds in no way medically indicated for the disease at hand.

  230. @carroll price

    This is indicative only of how longstanding the problem of Southern White cuckery has been–same as their (this is my people’s) Judeophilia.

    I for one question whether blacks really ever “live” at all.

  231. @Commentator Mike

    An amusing diagnosis! Yes these theatrically contorted verbal gymnastics are very odd–and oddly entertaining at the same time.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  232. Raches says:
    @kliebs

    “Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.” — Nietzsche

    I was trying not to drag the woman’s family into a pointless argument—for the benefit of mental retards who didn’t read the article, who obviously have zero experience with real-life, three-dimensional women and with families, and who assume that a well-established professoress is “young” despite some of these Internet sleuths digging up her student work midway through grad school 14 years agostill without reading the article, which also revealed that she comes from a conservative, working-class Southern family background.  Fer Chrissake, her Pentacostal parents sent her to a former Baptist college after she aced the SATs.  It’s in the article, to which Mr. Taylor linked for your convenience.

    (Obviously, she has diverged from how she grew up.  Though she is still in Texas.)

    Protip:  Not all women look like the fetching young models on Pornhub/Onlyfans, which must be the entire basis of Sparkylyle92’s experience with women.  Especially not after they’ve had kids.  (Although I knew this one woman, who instantly snapped back into shape like an elastic band—in every way, almost as if she were establishing a new dogma of virginitas perpetua, post partum… never mind.)  For her age and life experience, Prof. Harden looks good enough that I have been making a detailed comparison of her to Ann Coulter.  Hey, she is asking for it with those headline photos! ®

    • Replies: @Sparkylyle92
  233. @Raches

    Darwinism and legal abortion? Jews love those. Do you?

    What kind of an argument is that?

    If those things aren’t to our detriment, why do Jews fight so hard to preserve them? You sound like you think the ACLU is benign.

    My points fit your arguments better than most. So why reject them? That is suspicious in itself.

    • Replies: @Raches
  234. @Raches

    If you can’t tell she’s a tranny after someone points it out to you, then you must be very gullible. She isn’t even particularly convincing. Please look at the neck in your second image. You think a woman has a neck like that? And the hands in your first image! Other than her forehead, there is literally no feature of this person that comes down on the female side of the distribution. Just because she has long hair and earings doesn’t make her a female. You should open your eyes and observe the world around you more, it’s enlightening.

    • Troll: Raches
  235. @Raches

    What has Ann Coulter, another famous tranny, got to do with Harden? Are you attracted to these individuals? Whatever floats your boat, consenting adults, etc. My only interest is the light it shines on Harden’s agenda. Her and her handlers are mocking us.

    • Replies: @Raches
  236. niceland says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, for what it’s worth – it made a lasting impact on me. Few years later I still remember some of the examples you used, like the one about Irish immigrants gaining something like 10 IQ points over few decades after arriving in America. Great article! Thanks.

  237. Raches says:
    @Sparkylyle92

    Since you ran me out of “Troll” tags for now (thus, also “LOL” tags), I will reply to this:

    What has Ann Coulter, another famous tranny, got to do with Harden?

    I win the Internet.  It seems that I have a special talent for making lunatics out themselves, and irreparably discredit themselves.  And if Prof. Harden ever reads this, at least she got a laugh here.

    In another thread, I recently published another comment that should really make you go bonkers.  Re Miss Coulter—mentions Prof. Harden.  You can’t yet see it—moderation on the Sailer Blog is slow—but I published it 29 minutes before your comment here.  As it sits in the moderation queue, you can go ahead and slobber all over AOC; she seems to be your type. ®

  238. @Lucius Somesuch

    Indeed. How not to laugh at “rhymes with triggers”. LOL!

    • Replies: @Raches
  239. geokat62 says:

    Comment posted by Andrew Torba on Gab:

    Recently the German government has been coming at Gab hard to try and force us to comply with their draconian online censorship laws. We have obviously refused to do so and now they are coming after us with fines of tens of thousands of dollars and other legal action. Our lawyers informed us that we have three options:

    1) Obey German censorship laws and start censoring content that the German Govt doesn’t like (not going to happen)
    2) Disobey German censorship laws and pick a fight with the nation state of Germany (l wouldn’t ever be able to leave the US again, they would come at us from every possible angle through state-sponsored deplatforming, and Lord knows what else.)
    3) Cease providing this service in Germany by blocking German IPs.

    So obviously a very difficult decision, but one that must be made very soon. I wanted to share with you all to be fully transparent with what is going on.

    https://gab.com/a/posts/106936538508805894

  240. Sarah says:
    @3g4me

    I’m not the only one who sees the resurgence in primitive bodily scarification as a symptom of White pathological altruism and guilt, So many healthy, attractive young Whites seem to feel the need to mar and cover up their lovely, White skin with truly ugly and meaningless tattoos. I never considered tattoos ‘lower class,’ I consider(ed) them primitive.

    I agree with you; you are far from being alone!

    Except for one thing: most tattooed people are really low class or they are people with psychological problems.

  241. An interesting and well written article but we have seen this before.

    A leftist or liberal tries to take one step away from the orthodoxy and while for a short period receives attention the establishment returns to its delusions.

    Once you allow for individual differences you put left on a path of destruction. So individual differences affect outcomes but all traits are distributed equally? How is that possible?

    If racial differences are indeed at least partly responsible for inequality then the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. The left is indeed built entirely on sand. It was the decision of Marxists to launch a race war against Whites instead of trying to find a middle ground on race and proletarian economics. That is the mistake they made and they have no choice but to continue their full scale war not only against Whites but reality and rational thinking.

    But the main problem is that most professors already know the whole thing is a lie. Harden isn’t some revolutionary that is making new discoveries. The academic world is aware that race matters which is why they want to get rid of it. The plan has long been to dilute Whites and turn the place into Brazil.

    Most professors are not like Darity who is clearly in over his head. He seems to think his side is at least half true and everyone else is a Nazi. He has clearly bought into egalitarian narratives created by Whites who know they are lying. The typical professor is fully aware that the left lies and that professors like Harden should not be engaged at all. Nothing good will come of it.

    But with all that said I do believe that a lot of liberals want a way out. They know that their side lies and have to live with this burden of pretending to study race while only allowing environmental explanations (blame Whites). Liberal Whites that live near Blacks also know that liberalism simply doesn’t work. It doesn’t turn Africans into Europeans. All it does is try to suppress people that observe reality.

  242. People are people. And I, personally, evaluate people I meet on an individual basis.

    Do I judge everyone I come across in modern, multiracial, multicultural life and society in broad-brushstroke stereotype? Well, no, what’d be the point? It’s a globalised world, like it or not. I have neither the time nor inclination to make estimations of, often quite ethnically mixed people, based on that viewpoint. And from a work/business point of view it’d often be counterproductive and pointless approaching things otherwise.

    Establishing a relationship with other people is often an extremely personal and subjective thing.

    There are certain engrained perceived racial/cultural prejudices that have, and still, hold sway, and I understand that. Can you make generalisations? Sure we all do, and I’m sure I do that too.

    But class politics is what we need to get back too. Distracting us from this is the really devious thing.

    With most of us (probably close to 99% of us) class, and the inbuilt privilege that brings about, is what truly divides us very much more than anything else.

    • Replies: @niceland
  243. @Art

    On the other hand, most US Christians (white and black) are more than ready for a benign race future.

    Most Christians don’t want race to exist. Numerous denominations have bought into liberal theory of White racism being the problem and they wrap that into a narrative of naughty Whites ruining what would have been an equal world created by God. That is a very unhealthy message for White children. You come from the group that ruined everything.

    Even when mainstream Christians don’t explicitly blame Whites they run into the same problem of why does the third world exist?

    I once toured the warehouse of a mega Christian charity. All these White teenage volunteers were sorting donated goods that were bound for the third world. It was a pretty impressive operation but I couldn’t help but wonder if those teenagers should be doing something else like chasing girls and working a job at the mall instead of following the White man’s burden.

    Of course Christian charity is better than liberalism but at end of the day it is still Whites trying to “fix” the third world using their own time and resources.

    I support charity but I see a major problem here. White people seem prone to thinking they can fix the world and without regard for why inequality exists in the first place. But I suppose we need to focus on liberalism before dealing with that problem

    • Agree: Sarah
  244. RD says:

    “We may still lather Quanisha and Juan Pablo with preferences, but the frenzy to make them into doctors and jet pilots may cool.”

    And this is why most people don’t take Jared Taylor or Amren seriously. Why ruin a perfectly reasoned argument with an idiotic, racist remark? On the one hand, you want to say “we’re not racists, this research just states facts” (which is the right attitude) and on the other hand you can’t conceal your disdain for the people you claim you’re not trying to belittle.

  245. Raches says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    How does your rejection of Darwin’s scientific theory on the basis that “Jews and the ACLU ‘love’ it” differ from the far-left anti-racist argument, “white supremacists and Jared Taylor love genetics, so genetics can’t be true”?  (Protip:  It doesn’t.)

    The above article is all about how from the left, Prof. Harden is fighting against exactly the same misological epistemology as, from the far-right, you apply to Darwin:

    Darwinism and legal abortion? Jews love those. Do you?

    What kind of an argument is that?

    If those things aren’t to our detriment, why do Jews fight so hard to preserve them?

    First of all, you are applying the philosophy of Philo Judaeus:  Conviction precedes the apprehension of truth (ἀλήθεια).  (Any academic scholars in the audience will appreciate that link.)  “Falsehood and truth in Philo are predominantly ethical notions.” (Knight 1993; see link.)  You have an ethical conviction that Darwinian science must not be true; therefore, it “is” not true.  That is Jewish philosophy, which you probably absorbed from the cultural influence of the first and greatest Jewish controlled-opposition movement:  Christianity.  I have Greek thinking:  Truth must first be apprehended; thereupon, I form my convictions.

    Second of all, your same Judaized thought process is exactly what makes the left reject the science of genetics as it pertains to race.  You decide that a scientific fact cannot be a scientific fact, because you dislike what you perceive to be the political and social implications.  See the question that I placed at the top.  It is a rhetorical question.

    A scientific fact is either true or false.  In evaluating the fact, it does not matter who likes it, who dislikes it, or what the political, social, or economic consequences may be.  How one decides to handle the fact can only be determined after the fact itself.  If you disagree with this principle, then stop reading right here:  I have nothing to discuss with you.

    ——————————

    In the above, I consider only Darwin—and only the question of Darwin’s science, as further developed and corrected; I myself do not agree with Darwin’s philosophy as such.  I do not reach the question of abortion, which is a philosophical question of ethics and politics, not a scientific question.  The epistemological question, i.e. whether or not facts are determined by “I don’t like it, my enemies like it, so it can’t be true”, must be settled before ethical and political questions—and also before explaining, yet again, how cunning deceivers can misappropriate and distort a scientific fact to deny its logical implications.  I merely reïterate that the political left, as led by Jewish pseudoscientific ideologues, has misappropriated Darwin so as to neutralize the unavoidably racist implications of Darwinian science.

    You sound like you think the ACLU is benign.

    That is an attempt at guilt by association, wrapped up in a nicely-hedged strawman.  I have not expressed any opinions at all about the ACLU.

    Jews do the same thing:  “You sound like you think that Jared Taylor, the racist fascist white supremacist neo-Nazi, is benign.  It is ‘suspicious’ that you support genetics:  Are you a closeted racist crypto-Nazi, trying to fool us with Nazi propaganda?”

    My points fit your arguments better than most. So why reject them? That is suspicious in itself.

    Better than most?  How?  You make a bare assertion without backing it up—whereas I have stated arguments that are adverse to the Jewish strategy:  Extreme racialism and eugenics.

    “Suspicious”?  I don’t care what you think, and I am not subject to your little political litmus tests.  Surely, the Federal Bureau of Intimidation, the Defamation League, and the Shin Bet also must find me “suspicious”. ®

    • Thanks: Sarah
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Reg Cæsar
  246. Corrupt says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “I suspect that many whites if they could would love that option –african americans back to slavery and deport them. I think they found it too expensive”

    A one way trip to Africa is pretty inexpensive compared to welfare, babysitting (schooling) and maintaining prisons and prisoners.

    • LOL: Sarah
  247. Raches says:
    @Jared Taylor

    I respectfully suggest that you update your article, to add a link to the learned professoress’ website—in substance at this time, altogether a promotional website for her forthcoming book.  The site seems obscure, as yet; most people probably just haven’t seen it.

    https://www.kpharden.com/

    [Snapshot at the time hereby quoted:]

    Kathryn Paige Harden

    [Book cover image: The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality.]

    Reclaiming genetic science from the legacy of eugenics, this groundbreaking book offers a bold new vision of society where everyone thrives, regardless of how one fares in the genetic lottery.

    Available September 21, 2021 [Seems delayed; it previously and recently said September 7, 2021. —Raches.]

    The leftist doublespeak about “reclaiming” is a standard propaganda ploy, for the type of misappropriation, distortion, and coöption that I fear.  If she wants to do to modern genetics what the left did culturally to Darwin, this is what it would look like.  If that were to occur, then in the future, idiots of the right-wing will reject genetics as “left-wing Jewish propaganda”—just as they do with Darwin, who is allegedly owned by the Jews of the ACLU (!).  So as for “reclaiming”.  Cf. Karl Marx’s pretense of “atheism”, which he used to construct one of the most irrational mysticisms ever conceived; twentieth-century anti-Communists got trapped tying themselves to Christianity, in their fight against “atheistic Bolshevism”.  In turn, Prof. Oliver, an absolute atheist, was bitter about how this rhetoric drove many educated, intelligent atheists, agnostics, deists, antiquarian religionists, and other non-Christians to the left by default; tying anti-Communism to Christianity was a spectacular strategic error.

    On the other hand, I almost feel sorry for her:  It’s sad, the way that she had to ring-fence herself with bold denunciations against evil eugenicists such as myself.  I hope that the two-week slip in the release date does not indicate cold feet on the publisher’s part.  Well, I will not spread too many conspiracy theories about her so as to suit my own wishful thinking.

    Inter alia, the site has an overview of Prof. Harden’s scientific work (which I already briefly perused on Scholia and Sci-Hub), and a page of media quotes of Prof. Harden’s opinions.  Some of those quite validate my first impression of her; e.g.:

    ”If people with progressive political values … abdicate their responsibility to engage with the science of human abilities and the genetics of human behavior, the field will come to be dominated by those who do not share those values.

    Vox

    That Vox link is to a 2017 opinion co-authored by Prof. Harden, which directly takes aim against Charles Murray; the boldface above is supplied by Raches, to show what Prof. Harden, et al. explicitly say they are motivated to stop.  The lead author, Eric Turkheimer, was Prof. Harden’s doctoral adviser at U.Va.  The occasion for this anti-Murray piece was Sam Harris’ favorable treatment of Dr. Murray.  Dr. Harris explicitly described Prof. Harden, et al. opinion as “a disingenuous hit piece”:

    Needless to say, I knew that having a friendly conversation with Murray might draw some fire my way.  But that was, in part, the point.  Given the viciousness with which he continues to be scapegoated—and, indeed, my own careful avoidance of him up to that moment—I felt a moral imperative to provide him some cover.

    In the aftermath of our conversation, many people have sought to paint me as a racist—but few have tried quite so hard as Ezra Klein, Editor-at-Large of Vox.  In response to my podcast, Klein published a disingenuous hit piece that pretended to represent the scientific consensus on human intelligence while vilifying me as, at best, Murray’s dupe.  More likely, readers unfamiliar with my work came away believing that I’m a racist pseudoscientist in my own right.

    By the by, I myself have never read or paid attention to Dr.  Harris’ work.  Maybe I should sometime; but the little bit that I have seen of “New Atheism”, especially of Harris/Hitchens ethical fluff, seems laced with Christian cultural residues and fallacious rationalizations thereof.  I have not even read Dawkins; perhaps I someday should, but there is so much old philosophy to read without any “New Atheism”!

    ——————————

    Prof. Harden’s website is as yet small, but it is interesting.  Now, if only we could get all articles about Jared Taylor to provide a link to American Renaissance—and all articles about Ron Unz to provide a link to The Unz Review—and…  Well, liberals are not so courteous. ®

    • Thanks: niceland
    • Replies: @niceland
  248. @res

    Thanks for your comment. I still don’t think the Bermuda issue has been adequately explained. Whether it’s initial founding stock, multi-generational eugenic uplift, British law and customs and education, or whatever … we’re still no closer to finding out.

  249. Prof Harden is a Jewish girl. And she is also the Raches (Rachel) who is posting here.
    (for the low velocity minds.)

    • LOL: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Raches
  250. @Raches

    How does your rejection of Darwin’s scientific theory

    I’m not rejecting it as a theory, I’m pointing out its destructive effects in practice. What does it matter what you teach your children if you have no grandchildren?

    That is an attempt at guilt by association, wrapped up in a nicely-hedged strawman. I have not expressed any opinions at all about the ACLU.

    They’re a primarily Jewish organization. So if they are promoting Darwinism, it has to be asked, “Why?”

    You have said nothing about the ACLU, but I’m not addressing your arguments specifically but the general assertions here. If there is a “Jewish strategy”, their stances on education and abortion must be part of that. Please explain.

    I take no stand on either natural history or Jewish intentions. I merely examine others’ stands.

    • Replies: @Raches
  251. geokat62 says:

    Germany is a lost cause…

    Merkel: “Our Society Needs Cultural & Religious Diversity”

    https://odysee.com/@ZionistReport:6/merkel-our-society-needs-cultural:2

  252. Raches says:
    @Zarathustra

    I do have to disagree with you.
    You are not taking into consideration that women are very easily brainwashed.
    Or you are probably a women. In that case you are forgiven.

    Let’s put it this way:  My thesis about feminism, following Anthony Ludovici, is that men created feminism, and women followed whither they were led.  Therefore, feminism is all men’s fault—and men need to take responsibility for that.

    My being so sexist reveals nothing about my sex, just as my being a racist does not reveal my race.  If what I say seems sexist against men, I remind you that both Nietzsche and Ludovici were men who blamed men for feminism.  If what I say seems sexist against women, perpend that some women say what most men would never dare; e.g., the single most controversial line that Nietzsche ever wrote about women was suggested to him by one of his smart lady friends:  “‘Du gehst zu Frauen?  Vergiß die Peitsche nicht!’”

    ——————————

    Nevertheless, I recognize that the most basic reproductive instincts can be overridden by “brainwashing”—except in defective specimens.  The availability of medically induced abortion is a new selective pressure, which selects against women who have the mental characteristics that make them seek abortions.  In the long run, it is a self-solving problem.  To deny that species must adapt or die is to repudiate the theory of evolution.

    If you wish to learn from Nature (and do better than you did), observe the implacable violence with which the female defends her young, in most higher animals—especially in k-selected higher mammals—and the way that healthy wild animals of both sexes will sacrifice food, risk danger, and otherwise impair their own individual survival for an opportunity to reproduce.  “Brainwashing”?  Any creature whose reproductive instinct can be overridden by “brainwashing” is maladapted, scientifically unfit for life, and morally unworthy of life.

    I apply similar princiles to men, mutatis mutandis.  I said that women who choose to have abortions (I add: without medical justification, such as genetic defects of fetal deformities) should be given tubal ligations.  Men who pressure or coerce their wives or girlfriends to have (medically unjustifiable) abortions should be made eunuchs, and sold into slavery. ®

    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Anon
  253. @Raches

    You have an ethical conviction that Darwinian science must not be true; therefore, it “is” not true.

    I do not. I have an empirical suspicion that it has negative effects on human populations.

    I don’t buy the arguments that Jews (other than a few head cases) are trying to kill us off. Just asking those who do, why exempt Darwinism and abortion from this charge?

    Why the waiver?

  254. niceland says:
    @Know Your Enemy

    But class politics is what we need to get back too. Distracting us from this is the really devious thing.

    The internet disrupted the media, it’s difficult to survive doing ‘traditional’ journalism today (if such thing ever existed). What remains is MSM with powerful financial backing – most if not all of that money comes from the 0.1%.

    The question is, how come the MSM is considered “left” in America? Why would the 0.1% finance “left” media? Casually reading the MSM the traditional ‘class politics’ are nowhere to be seen or heard. Instead of class wars we now have cultural wars, or race wars.

    Billionaire Jeff Bezos the founder and owner of Amazon, owns the Washington Post. His company, Amazon, employing hundreds of thousands of people is on record for brutal working conditions and harsh measures to press down wages. Is such a guy likely to own a “leftist” paper?

    I guess it depends on the definition of the word “left”. In traditional sense from the North (Scandinavia) and elsewhere the left supported the working class. In some cases it was the working class. In this sense the Washington Post isn’t left at all – it’s something else entirely.

    Now – my knowledge of the U.S. is limited but it seems to me that while the billionaire class has considerable influence in U.S. politics via donations and such it has to tread lightly around the cultural and educational elite. Even in the U.S. you can’t buy everything — yet. Thankfully for people like Bezos said elite isn’t too worried about poor people in general but more worried about it’s own self image and expressing it’s own self righteousness. So it seems Bezos and this elite are engaged in mutually beneficial (silent) agreement. His WaPo is as woke as it get’s, it supports minorities and the rest of it while staying silent about the plight of American workers. Win win situation. Perhaps the correct designation is the “new left”?

    In the meantime the lower class workers in America are thrown under the bus and nobody cares, they have no voice after all. Methinks this has very little to do with Mr Bezos being Jewish.

    Now, if someone mentions class the American right goes bunkers and in a blink of an eye the discussion is all about the communists in Russia slaughtering the middle and upper class. We don’t want that – obviously – case closed.

    Currently featured here on the Unz Review is a weird article; Marx Got It Right: Mass Immigration Wrecks Wages. Why Won’t America’s Resurgent Communists Admit It?

    I am not sure why anyone who wanted to make the point; Immigration drives down wages – would frame it in this way. More specifically if one is writing for the American right? It this some kind of trolling? Reading the comment section it seems there is little agreement as to what words like “left” or “communism” even mean

    Yeah well, if you define Communism as “upper class movement for billionnaires” then I guess it does look that way. The trouble is, that is not a part of any actual definition of Communism that I’m aware of.

    That’s why definitions matter: you can’t have sensible conversation about anything when you use the same words to mean completely different things.

    When language has lost it’s meaning – how is it possible to have meaningful discussion?

    You mentioned distractions – I tend to agree.

    • Thanks: Sarah
    • Replies: @Know Your Enemy
    , @Anon
    , @Raches
  255. Raches says:
    @Zarathustra

    Race spotting is a lost art.  Especially for low-velocity minds.  And you do not even realize that if Prof. Harden ever perchance sees your comment, she will “LOL” at the propaganda win for herself.

    At first impression, Prof. Harden doesn’t look Jewish to me.  That is not determinative; there are so many crypto-Mischlinge.  She could be a little bit Jewish.  But in the absence of clear evidence, I don’t think it’s an overly important question in this discussion:  I can meet her arguments objectively, without speculating ad hominem about her ancestry.  Why make a fool of yourself with weak, losing arguments, instead of sticking to strong, winning arguments?

    She is obviously up to her eyeballs in Jewry and Judaized culture—as was I, for a long time, with the difference being that I was associated with right-wing ultra-Zionists.  (Imagine some apikoros secular-nationalist versions of Kahane, and you will begin to get the idea of how Zionist.)  I had Jewish friends, I had intimate relationships with Jews, and I acquired plenty of Jewish acculturation—plus a finely-tuned Jewdar.  I suspect many of the commentators here of Jewishness, based on observed behavior that you probably miss; but for the aforestated reasons, I don’t pick on that as an issue unless it is a relevant issue—or unless one of them inadvertently outs himself in a pecularly disgusting way. ®

  256. Raches says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    @kph3k Kathryn Paige Harden, how would you handle this one?  You must get this all the time:

    I’m not rejecting it as a theory, I’m pointing out its destructive effects in practice. What does it matter what you teach your children if you have no grandchildren?

    I’m not rejecting genetics as a theory, I’m pointing out its destructive effects in practice.  What does it matter what you teach your children, if you have no grandchildren because your children get involuntarily sterilized as genetically unfit by eugenicists?

    Furthermore, what does it matter what your children believe about science, if they grow up in a world of hate, bigotry, and social injustice, where the underprivileged suffer oppression proportionate to their intersecting disadvantaged social and political identities?

    I think that Paige is being very shortsighted, opening the door to extremist white supremacist neo-Nazis like Jared Taylor.

    Or for the more nuanced, non-hostile version:

    It’s truly noble for Paige to make the case for why we might think of biological differences as similar to socially constructed differences, but you’re bumping into a great deal of historical, economic, political, and philosophical momentum—and it’s dangerous, no matter how noble her intentions are, because once the ideas are out there they’re going to get digested the way they’re going to get digested,” he said.  “The playing board has been set for some time.”

    ——————————

    Of course, there is one important difference across this parallel.

    The leftist anti-hereditarians arguing against Prof. Harden are right.  When taken from the realm of science to ethics and politics, the laws of heredity practically require eugenics—plus a racialist worldview.  No matter how she may try, Prof. Harden will never be able to escape this ineluctable logic.  “—and that’s a good thing!”

    Whereas it is manifestly preposterous to blame Darwin for declining white birthrates.  The connection is so illogical that I cannot even guess what your unstated argument may be.  Maybe that’s why you have not bothered to state it.

    If you want to fix this problem…

    …the following is a simple and simplified demographic equation.  Given my interest in endangered species conservation, I call it the back-of-the-envelope equation for Aryan extinction:

    \[P_t = P_{t=0}e^{\pm\lambda t}\]

    • $P =$ population after time $t$ has elapsed.
    • If I need to explain $e$, then you need to stop bothering me.  Go away and watch some videos.
    • $\lambda =$ population growth factor, negative when a population is in decline.  Must include only births exclusively descended from reasonably pure Aryan stock. Mixed babies are out here, as are all of their babies, and their babies’ babies, etc.  For the record, Jews are not Aryans.  Data are vexed, unreliable, and buried in political correctness by governmental counters of anthropoids.

    Plug in some numbers, mess around—the equation is sufficiently simple that you can easily use it to get a feel for the future.  From what I understand (and I do not claim expertise in this area), more precise scientific predictions would require much more complicated equations, with many more variables; however, most or all of those complications would result in predictions even more adverse to a species that is going extinct.  The above equation will err, and it will probably err to the side of optimism.

    …then I suggest that you should start by stopping invasive species encroachment on Aryan habitats, genetic pollution, and the crushing taxation imposed on decent Aryan families so that they can’t afford to have more children—money that is extracted as blood from their veins, and used to pay for the hideous fecundity of degenerate, dysgenic “welfare whites”, rhymes with triggers, impoverished nonwhite “refugees” and other immigrants, and, through “foreign aid”, the catastrophic overpopulation of Africa.

    This alone would eugenically increase the white birthrate:  Stop all domestic welfare to able-bodied unproductive people, and all “foreign aid”—just stop it, cold turkey—and accordingly cut taxes on the working class and middle class.  Let farmhands and factory machinists pay on a single-earner wage for five kids and a stay-at-home mother again, as they used to do!

    Also, give some positive encouragement to good women.  This was a stroke of genius:

    The Mutterkreuz in Gold was awarded to married German women of good character and racial purity who bore at least eight children. Fewer children merited lower grades of the Mutterkreuz.

    It is a feminine counterpart to a manly soldier’s medal, but tasteful and classy—not girly Kitsch.  Adapt the general idea to your culture (don’t just copy the German one), and award it to genetically sound women who have lots of babies.  This is positive eugenics.  We need more positive eugenics, especially for high-quality women.

    Don’t forget to combine the positive symbols with positive substance, e.g.:  Subsidies to young families of good genetic quality, where the hardworking man has just not yet had time to establish a career that can support a rapidly-growing family.  I wouldn’t mind being taxed for that.

    —So, there.  I have laid out in broad outlines a positive plan to raise the Aryan birthrate.  And it has nothing to do with whether or not Darwin is taught in the public schools.

    As for abortion, besides frankly declaring that I want to give as many abortions as possible to rhymes with triggers, my answer is threefold:

    1. Quality is more important than quantity.  As a eugenicist, I abhor the unqualified “everyone have more babies!” type of message.  White retards, white schizophrenics, and white cripples are detrimental to the overall health of the white race.  They need more abortions—and sterilizations.  I say this not from spite, but to the contrary:  I have seen up close the immense suffering that is caused by hereditary diseases and defects.  I must repeat what I said upthread:

    Whereas I reserve my utmost condemnation in this matter for those who not only multiply badness, but increase it logarithmically.  Bleeding hearts who reject eugenics on egalitarian, Christian or liberal quasi-Christian grounds, and who thus condemn unborn future billions to untold, ever-increased suffering, are to me some of the most hateful, malefic of all possible people.

    2. High-quality women need positive encouragement to have more children.  Indeed, I will go much farther than the Germans did; for instance:  When “high-IQ mother” is socially validated as an excellent career choice, the effect will be eugenic.  I have known educated, academically-oriented women who quit their intellectual careers, at least temporarily, to raise kids while indulging their enjoyment of arts and literature.  Staying at home to raise kids is sort of the ultimate “sabbatical”, in that aspect.  We need more of that, it needs to be more organized—and we also need to stop the unreasonable level of bias against women who return to their intellectual careers with long gaps in their résumés.  (Those who have ever had any experience in grappling with these issues will know whereof I speak.)

    3. As I said before, women who choose to abort healthy pregnancies of healthy fetuses are ipso facto defective.  And yes, I will shame them for it!  Not without qualification—I have known some women who had abortions, who were otherwise decent generally.  But they are definitely not fit for motherhood.  The reproductive drive, and the instinct to protect offspring, is one of the strongest and most important traits of all higher mammals.  If a woman’s instincts are so weak in this aspect, let her do other fun and interesting things with her life—without inflicting her genes on posterity!

    Furthermore and overall:  Copy and adapt parts of the Jewish strategy as are good for your own race.  The Jews are the most vital of all races.  Their culture is obviously a winning strategy for them; and some parts of it are adaptable to others.  I agree with Dr. MacDonald’s argument that Hitler did this.  If it’s good enough for Hitler, it’s good enough for you.

    ——————————

    [Re the ACLU:] They’re a primarily Jewish organization. So if they are promoting Darwinism, it has to be asked, “Why?”

    Consistently with what I have said many times in this overall thread, my answer is:  To misappropriate, distort, and coöpt it.  You are helping them.  Full acceptance of Darwinian evolution perforce requires extreme racism.  Follow social and political implications of the theory to their logical conclusions, instead of being brainwashed by the liberals to the exact evasion that you are committing.

    You have said nothing about the ACLU, but I’m not addressing your arguments specifically but the general assertions here. If there is a “Jewish strategy”, their stances on education and abortion must be part of that. Please explain.

    In this adversarial context, this is what I mean by a “Jewish strategy”.  I gave you that link before.  You have evidently never read it; if you had, you would not be so hung up on the ACLU as the big issue.  You are fixated on one twisted tree in a large, dark forest.

    I dislike the ACLU.  I think that they twist things.  But I recognize that sometimes sincerely, and sometimes for what I believe to be ulterior motives, they sometimes get things right.  Your argument that “the ACLU likes it, so it’s bad” would be equally applicable to the ACLU’s past defenses of the freedom of speech of white racialists.  Are you categorically opposed to that, too?

    I take no stand on either natural history or Jewish intentions. I merely examine others’ stands.

    I take the stand that natural history must be determined by, and only by objective science—and in general, I am strongly opposed to Jewish intentions. ®

    • Thanks: Tony massey
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  257. niceland says:
    @Raches

    So as for “reclaiming”. Cf. Karl Marx’s pretense of “atheism”, which he used to construct one of the most irrational mysticisms ever conceived; twentieth-century anti-Communists got trapped tying themselves to Christianity, in their fight against “atheistic Bolshevism”. In turn, Prof. Oliver, an absolute atheist, was bitter about how this rhetoric drove many educated, intelligent atheists, agnostics, deists, antiquarian religionists, and other non-Christians to the left by default; tying anti-Communism to Christianity was a spectacular strategic error.

    Indeed. One of the reasons I have never taken the “right” seriously is because of this. It’s amusing to see the right wingers here praising Christianity as the foundation of western civilization while cursing the Jews.

    Being atheist, more and more I like Nordic Paganism or rather Nordic philosophy that rhymes better with me than Christianity; Icelanders – who came from Norway – more or less- and inhabited all of Iceland in about two centuries had to adopt Christianity demanded by Norse King Olaf. They did so reluctantly in the year 1000 AD.

    Christianity introduced writing to Icelanders who proceeded to write down their sagas, bloodlines and the old religion and philosophy early on. Before writing, their religion and the rest of it was kept verbally, mostly in poems.

    Writing (thanks Christians) created a treasure trove about these people and their ideas and religion. Much of it survives to modern day even if some parts of it – written on calf skin – were literally eaten during the worst crisis, like skaftáreldar volcanic eruption that wiped out 20% of the population and caused famine in Europe and down to Asia in 1773. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki#Consequences_in_Iceland

    The gist of it? Christianity didn’t bring morality to these people, they weren’t savages, far from it. What remains in western societies about: honor, decency, telling the truth, be brave and so forth they had in spades.
    In short: all the good stuff already existed before Christianity.

    One sample here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetic_Edda

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  258. Raches says:
    @Raches

    Mea culpa:

    Nevertheless, I recognize that the most basic reproductive instincts can be overridden by “brainwashing”—except in defective specimens.

    That was the result of sloppy editing, in my haste to scrunch down that comment to a reasonable length and publish it to support a longer comment (which is in moderation at the time of this writing).  How did it come out so wrongly?  Read that as:

    Women are subject to significant influence from men’s leadership.  Nevertheless, I recognize that the most basic reproductive instincts cannot be so easily overridden by “brainwashing”—except in defective specimens.

    • Agree: Tony massey
  259. @niceland

    An intelligent commentary.

    My broad view is that the politics of identity is one great establishmentarian diversion. And obviously and deliberately so.

    I replied on the Marx article, too.

    Again, let us get back to the politics of class. This is the true divider.

    But if only the impressionable young really understood this simple fact.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  260. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @niceland

    What was WaPo before Bezos bought it? What is WaPo now? Is WaPo different than other papers?

  261. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @Raches

    Who is men (…men created feminism…)?

  262. Raches says:
    @niceland

    Communism and Capitalism are two sides of the same coin.  Communism is indubitably a deceptive strategy by various plutocrats, both Jewish and Gentile, to swindle the lower classes into sticking their own necks into a noose.

    I have begun to address this in the other thread that you referenced, q.v.  I intend to follow up more there, later.  Or if you’re in a hurry, simply ponder for now just why Jewish Wall Street banker Jacob Schiff spent out of pocket approximately the present-day equivalent of \$2 billion to support the Communist revolutionary overthrow of the Czar.

    ——————————

    I guess it depends on the definition of the word “left”.  In traditional sense from the North (Scandinavia) and elsewhere the left supported the working class.  In some cases it was the working class. In this sense the Washington Post isn’t left at all – it’s something else entirely.

    That Scandanavian socialism is more or less meritorious to the extent that it focuses on in-group altruism, and corrupted to the extent that it is influenced by Marxism.  Nota bene that Marxism is also called “Internationalism”, and is the ideology primarily identified by that word.  By the by, did you ever wonder why the Communist anthem is entitled, “The Internationale”?  It is named after the First International, at which Karl Marx established his dominance in the Socialist movement.

    https://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/f/i.htm#first-international

    “In the International, Marx saw a great historic opportunity, and seized it. Indeed, it is questionable whether the organization would have survived, or would have had any meaning, without him. His steely will and impassioned commitment to the idea of the revolutionary role of the world proletariat prevented the International from passing into the same oblivion as had other dreams of squabbly radicals, confused in their philosophy and at cross-purposes in their aims.”

    The First International later fell apart from the acrimonious split between Marx and Bakunin, and was reformed as the Second International—then the Third International, a.k.a. Communist International, or “Comintern” for short.

    Of course, the aforestated “in-group altruism” logically implies some form of national socialism de facto.  If you reasonably protect the real interests of your working class, boost your national economy, strictly limit or forbid the power of international banks and other international corporations, and shut out “refugees”, “migrants”, and needy foreigners in need of “foreign aid”, then just from all that alone, you are practically a new Hitler!  Well, Hitler did name his ideology “National Socialism” to identify it as being in opposition to “International Socialism”, i.e., Marxism.  And there is a reason why the German-Japanese alliance was called “the Anti-Comintern Pact”.

    Whoops.  Scandinavian countries don’t really always do all those in-group altruistic things, now do they?

    [Iceland Monitor, July 24, 2015.]

    Man claims not to have known he was HIV positive

    The man arrested yesterday on the suspicion of having infected numerous young women with the HIV virus claims that he did not know that he was HIV positive. The man is an asylum seeker in Iceland.

    This has been confirmed by his lawyer Guðmundína Ragnarsdóttir who is appealing a verdict of a four-week long custody.

    Ragnarsdóttir cannot confirm at this time whether or not the man underwent the neccessary medical examinations required by asylum seekers. Another lawyer is processing his asylum application.

    Two women have been confirmed to have been infected with the virus and nearly twenty more are awaiting test results.

    According to Kristín Völundardóttir at the Directorate of Immigration, an asylum seeker has between 1 to 5 days after he has sought asylum in Iceland until he is summoned for a medical examination.

    [Reuters, January 25, 2017.]

    REYKJAVIK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Valgerour Halla came into the world under unusual circumstances. The four-month-old was born in Reykjavik to Syrian asylum seekers who were so thankful they gave her an Icelandic name.

    “One of our closest friends here, an Icelandic friend, is called Valgerour Halla,” said her 36-year-old father Wael, who comes from western Syria. “She’s helped us a lot, like all Icelandic people, so this was our way of saying ‘thank you’.”

    [UNHCR website, January 29, 2021.]


    [UNHCR’s IBelong Campaign to End Statelessness © UNHCR]

    UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, welcomes Iceland’s accession to the United Nations Statelessness Conventions, key international treaties to counter statelessness.

    ——————————

    In the meantime the lower class workers in America are thrown under the bus and nobody cares, they have no voice after all.  Methinks this has very little to do with Mr Bezos being Jewish.

    Is he?  I have wondered about this, for obvious reasons; but I do not know of any evidence that he is, and he does not look patently Jewish.

    Unless you have evidence of which I am unaware, I respectfully urge you to be more cautious of such claims.  Spurious “he’s a Jew!” accusations are commonplace on the “antisemitic” right—especially in the really moronic parts thereof; and that can be an excellent way to make a fool of oneself.

    According to Wikipravda, which I do not trust in such matters, Jeff “Bezos” is essentially of Scandinavian/​Anglo extraction—not only Aryan, but Nordic!  His birth name was Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen.  But he grew up in a broken family, with a race-mixing mother, maiden name Jacklyn Gise (an Anglo-Norman/​Norman-French/​Germanic surname), and an immigrant Cuban stepfather—whence the Hispanic name “Bezos”.  If either or both of his parents were Jews, they were crypto-Jews or Mischlinge with very Aryan names.

    His childhood explains plenty, even if he has zero Jewish blood.  Not everything is a matter of genetics:  The broken home environment and the race-mixing parental influence surely inculcated him with an implicit leftism.  And his family background is especially consistent with how he dumped his wife, ex-Mrs. MacKenzie ex-Bezos née-and-again Scott, for a mestiza named Sánchez:  He did as mother did. ®

    • Replies: @niceland
  263. Raches says:
    @Zarathustra

    P.S., which of us dropped your toast butter-side down?  Prof. Harden, or me?

    You worship the Jews.  I don’t.  Was Hitler a Jew, too, according to you?

    Quoting myself, August 11, 2021 at 4:45 am GMT:

    Ironically, stereotypical “antisemites” see Jews as a race of gods—as evil gods, but as gods nevertheless.  Jews are diabolically omniscient beings, with perfectly infallible plans carried through by praeternatural cunning; the Jews master every situation, and they never make any mistakes.

    The “antisemitic” worldview is thus a mirror image of the philojudaic gentile’s worldview—of, nowadays, the mainstream worldview, which dovetails with the almost unanimous Jewish ethnic self-image.  The following description of both sides is a rhetorical caricature—one that should embarrass almost all non-Jews in the West, especially in America.

    To one side, a Jew can do no wrong.  The Jews’ word is unquestionable as divine writ.  Criticism of the Jews is blasphemy—worst of all, criticism of the Jews as Jews.  In any context but hagiography, Jews must not even be identified as Jews.  Those terrifically wise, infinitely benevolent Jewish people, the Chosen People, are an almighty force for Good.

    To the other side, a Jew can do no right.  If dropped toast lands butter-side down, the misfortune was obviously caused by a Jewish scheme that was ordered by a centralized cabal, managed through a vast secret conspiracy, and perfectly executed as if by a Hidden Hand.  If you deny this, then you must be either a dupe or a conspirator.  Those terribly cunning, infinitely malevolent Jews are the Synagogue of Satan, an almighty force for Evil.

    I am immune to the Jewish spell.  The Jews have many racial strengths, and I see them as formidable enemies.  But they are Earthly mortal creatures—animals, primates, and all too human.  If you prick them, they do bleed!  And to be human is to err.

    On that note, it is all the more ironic that you name yourself after the prophet of Zoroastrianism.  You obviously aren’t a Nietzschean—the only other plausible explanation for calling yourself “Zarathustra”.  Although I am not a Nietzschean per se, much of what I have said, which you argue against, echoes or amplifies Also sprach Zarathustra.  Was Nietzsche also a Jew, according to you? ®

    Let man fear woman when she loveth: then maketh she every sacrifice, and everything else she regardeth as worthless.

    Let man fear woman when she hateth: for man in his innermost soul is merely evil; woman, however, is mean.

    [Thus Spake Zarathustra.]

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  264. Modern Liberal America is a crime against Darwin. It’s whole ethos violates natural law, no society that goes against nature can survive against others that don’t. America is on a path to being conquered by Chinese, Islamic, and Russian tanks in another generation or so. These fatherless bastards and 24/7 “black” cretins inheriting the once great republic that put a man on the moon will not be able to do the most basic maintenance on our nuclear arsenal if the woke elites don’t simply give it away in an act of suicide. Nope, what’s left of normal America must realize the old ways are over and we either assume power the way the Myanmar Military doesn’t let their country be controlled by a popularity contest for that woman who is a front for the globalists. We need to unapologetically run things without the input from these cretins or the hostile elites who hijacked us in the 60s. How that is done is the big question, but if it isn’t no doubt Chinese Tanks will roll through the cities and clean up the ghettos and homeless camps in ways the current white liberal chumps can’t even fathom in their utopian addled minds. Just watch, the dress rehearsal will be when China and it’s allies take over South Africa under the pretense of restoring order. Will the BLM Thunderdome of Floyd the fatherless bastards are creating here then be next? Is the CCP funding BLM, Antifa, and the democrats in DC doing seemingly insane things on purpose to hasten our fall? Did someone whisper to Hunter, who then whispered to his dad to abandon Afghanistan to us or well spill the beans on your corruption?

  265. @Raches

    I am sorry. I do beg for your indulgence. I am slightly indisposed at the moment so I cannot give you coherent answer this time.
    (Maybe later.)

  266. MEH 0910 says:

    • Thanks: Raches
  267. Ocko says:

    There is no causality between genes and IQ. It is simply that they are symptoms which are behind both.

    Race and IQ are based on what is behind both

    In my opinion it isn’t even material, like genes. IQ is not material so how could genes make the IQ? How would matter influence what is not matter?

    In Russia there are people with amputations of the brain. Some even have the total brain removed. It didn’t have any effect on their intellectual capacities.

    Well, we all know that magnets have a field, the same is with electricity.

    Also plants have fields, animals have fields and humans have fields.

    Fields are not matter. Obviously the connection between matter and field exists, my thinking is that IQ belongs to the field, not to matter/genetics.

    .

    With humans we call that field soul.

    It is the soul which determines the IQ.

    The soul learns through the existing in a body. So more it learns in entering bodies and then leaves, digests what it learns there and go back through reincarnation and so many times.

    Of course the soul looks for environments where it can learn and which is available.

    So smarter souls will go for environs where it can improve. That is nowadays White People

  268. This comment,

    “A one way trip to Africa is pretty inexpensive compared to welfare, babysitting (schooling) and maintaining prisons and prisoners.”

    is nonresponsive. However, you will first have to demonstrate a justification for denying black citizens there rights as citizens before carting them off. You will also have to demonstrate that whites on welfare, in prison, maintained in prison, and provided schooling should not suffer the same fate. That is the point of the

    being equal it’s not to ability but to treatment under the law. After as a practical matter it’s a much better savings to remove by volume those , you claim are a drain on the system, as such, by volume whites are the biggest drain. That includes the use of programs such as affirmative action. In all aspects the largest drain on the system is held by blacks by several magnitudes.

    So if your contention is that those on such programs are a drain, one would as a practical remove whites first and foremost on the programs you identify. Largest volume, not proportional but by tonnage.

    One is further going to have to decipher who qualifies as a white or black person, one drop, five drops, ten drops . . . 150 drops . . .

    But clearly, if your contention is to reduce drain, well the whites that comprise 42% of your references or higher is a far better deal than merely carting away 28%.

    If we include affirmative action recipients those numbers are about 75% or higher.

    This is going to be a substantial debate among whites about who goes and who stays. It will be interesting.

    One way tickets all.

    [MORE]

    ————————————————–

    Now considering what population has caused the greatest damage to the ethos and understanding of being a US citizen as well as actual damages. Even that doesn’t bode well for whites. Everywhere whites have gone it will be a toss up whether they have been a benefit or detriment overall. Since 1973 whites instituted murdering children as some manner of good. That’s nearly one million children a year, whites instituted that genocide in the US. Whites ended prayer in school. Whites invited the issue of segregation by lying about separate but equal — things were separate which is fine, but not at all equal. Whites decided not to ensure that blacks as slaves and then as citizens were denied access to what would enable them to be effective citizens. One could go on and on and on about what a weight whites are one everyone around them even as whites claim to be benefit.

    The economic policies that tossed millions into poverty of any color – designed and implemented by whites. The whites who planned Afghanistan and Iraq laughed at the one black guy they had on their team. No whites are laughing now, save those in the democratic party. We have finally come around to acknowledging those two policy failures. Yet, on Fox News, and the major announcers who promoted the matter defended the matter called those with a different view names . . . are still defending the failures and still on the air. I am unclear what anyone thought the withdrawal from Afghanistan would look like. So instead of investing trillions of dollars in the US, whites, who run things spent it trillons of foreigners. As congress and the financial industry tossed millions out of hearth and home — including white people.

    I am a pretty hard core capitalist, and despite my low IQ, even I know that what is on display is not capitalism. Good greif the state of Texas is building homes for illegal immigrants . . . odd they never made that investment in blacks. Ohh wait, we consider mexicans whites — got it. Well, the mexicans running Mexico are white that’s for sure.

    At the end of the day, if it’s money and resources we want to save — as well as a national identity, I think shipping out whites sounds like a better option. We can mange those 28% african american citizens.

    ——————————-

    None of which tackles the matter of IQ which may be constricted by genetics to some extent, but the overwhelming data says that environment outweighs or at least can outweigh, and if one reads Dr. Harden’s commentary and interviews carefully — she all but admits they have no definitive answer about the depth of impact of environment on IQ as well as other nontangibles of human existence. She avoids or isn’t aware of the Twin studies that wholly contradict her position. Studies in which Twins raised in different environments develop differently in a myriad of ways despite IQ. Those studies upend the basic premise that genetics is the sole or even predominant factor in human development.

    Now I have a fairly low IQ, but in my experience and education — if poverty prison, welfare, etc are dead weight, volume outweighs proportion of the whole. But to be fair by your standing and every bit keeping in line with our founding principles — the choice must be whites and blacks in x category must be shipped out together — one way of course.

    I have no doubts that genetics matter. But when we leave extreme data sets, that variable becomes far less visible as a sole or distinct factor alone.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  269. @EliteCommInc.

    Note: we know the impacts of genetics on biology — because in most cases biology is static. That simply is not the case with IQ, EQ or other minding traits in the human animal.

  270. @Raches

    Consistently with what I have said many times in this overall thread, my answer is: To misappropriate, distort, and coöpt it.

    Do you write for The New Yorker?

  271. @Know Your Enemy

    Again, let us get back to the politics of class. This is the true divider.

    Only to an intellectual who spends little time on the street. Thorstein Veblen lived on a lake on a tiny island in Lake Michigan.

  272. niceland says:
    @Raches

    I pretty much agree with you regarding Scandinavian socialism as far as I know it. You are also very good at connecting some dots I haven’t considered.

    Here in Iceland the communist circles could never agree to work together and this movement split up again and again. Our left wing has always been split up – and still is. On the other hand we had people who were indeed very impressed with Hitler and strangely enough this group ended up (quietly) in our big conservative party who has been leading most governments since WW2. This party is also home to the Icelandic right wing. So we have conservative right wing with some small portion of national socialism on board – ruling Iceland for all this time. Now after getting independence from Denmark during WW2 with help from the U.S. the conservative party was like a hand in Uncle Sam’s glove. Still is.

    We know for a fact, members of the conservative party spied on the Icelandic left for the U.S. embassy. Same party ruled the police and used it against communists. So some of the closest allies to the U.S. in Iceland were ex Nazis including the head of our “secret police”. Ironic.

    Unless you have evidence of which I am unaware, I respectfully urge you to be more cautious of such claims. Spurious “he’s a Jew!” accusations are commonplace on the “antisemitic” right—especially in the really moronic parts thereof; and that can be an excellent way to make a fool of oneself.

    Point taken. I don’t know why I was so sure Bezos is Jewish. Doesn’t matter really – I have no evidence at all. Sloppy! Thanks for the correction!

  273. There are two types of species. Hunter species and hunted species. Changes in species do happen when those changes help to survive the species. They could be initiated by environment or by randomness,
    In every case survivor of the fittest was the rule, here is an example of humans.
    In the battles in the hunting the length of the legs was critical for man. So man wanted to have a children with long legs.This transformed women who wanted to marry successful man to show that they have long legs. That inherited trend remained to this day, that is why females are wearing skirts short all the way to their vaginas to show how long their legs are.

    • Disagree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  274. @niceland

    The gist of it? Christianity didn’t bring morality to these people, they weren’t savages, far from it. What remains in western societies about: honor, decency, telling the truth, be brave and so forth they had in spades.
    In short: all the good stuff already existed before Christianity.

    You left out:
    Raping and pillaging.
    Slavery.
    Extremely cruel punishments for minor crimes.
    Exposure (though you could at least argue this made Europeans heartier).

    I have plenty of criticisms of Christianity but it is a modern anti-Christian take to believe that the Nordic countries didn’t have any problems or were all based on morality and honor.

    Christianity tamed the worst aspects of Europe but in many cases it went too far.

    What we need to find is a balance. The problem with taking away Christianity is that you don’t end up with some pre-Christian Nordic belief system. Whites simply adopt liberalism as their religion. That’s not merely my opinion and this has been true since the 1920s. Secular Whites are consistently left-wing in their political outlook. The take adopt the belief that Bad Whites ruined what would have been Eden and that nature is egalitarian. None of that makes any sense but self-described secular Whites will banish you for life if you question that belief. You can lose your career for simply asking why all groups would be equal at all things if they were separated for 70k years under different environments.

    Taking away Christianity doesn’t result in a secular society. What happens is that the religion of liberalism takes over. Most Whites can’t handle the reality of natural inequality and without Christianity turn to liberalism. I don’t even believe in secularism to be honest. I have been around too many Whites that called themselves atheists or agnostic yet followed liberalism like cultists.

    • Disagree: Raches
    • Replies: @niceland
    , @Raches
  275. @Raches

    If you are a man with a high IQ, and you mate with airheaded bimbos, then—well, then, your sins shall be visited on your children.

    Sure but society tells highly intelligent men from birth that genes really don’t matter for traits outside athletics. If anything intelligent Whites are more vulnerable to group think than average Whites. As the joke goes it takes a really smart person to believe that intelligence doesn’t exist. Someone trolled Gould a long time ago by asking him how smart a person would have to be to write a book about how genes for intelligence don’t exist.

    The liberals’ deprecation of beauty, health, athleticism, etc. as “shallow” is the cultural residue of Christian deprecation of the body for the soul.

    The problem I have with this viewpoint is that statist egalitarianism actually pre-dates Christianity. So does emphasizing the soul over the body. Liberalism in many ways inherits from Christianity but White idealism and egalitarianism have caused problems for the West well before the Romans had invaded Judea.

    Europeans have long been a two sided people in that can they be both very idealist and very brutal. When they get too idealistic they become vulnerable to their enemies. But too much brutality also comes with problems obviously.

    The Greeks and Romans went over some these philosophical problems well before Christ walked the earth.

    Plato concluded that since life is inherently unequal the only way to have an ideal society is to create a system of lies for the masses. Only an elite sect would be allowed to know the truth.

    This plan he describes in The Republic is required reading in elite colleges (IE our leaders know his take on this). Plato believed that honorable traits can only exist in individuals if society tells some basic lies to help smooth over harsh realities. Liberals at the top have a corresponding belief that Whites will just be nasty racist meanies to everyone if we tell them the truth. In their minds the lie is the only way which is what Plato concluded. I’ve even had liberals privately admit that we have to lie because the truth is awful. After a few drinks most liberals will admit to all kinds of things. So even without Christianity there would be millions upon millions of Whites that believe in lying. This is why democracy causes problems for us. We are surrounded by “do-gooder” Whites that would vote for lies even if it means our ultimate destruction. I have even seen liberals admit that the US could end up a third world country over race denial and that’s just fine. Better that than admitting the truth.

    • Disagree: Raches
  276. Raches says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Busting Rhymes for the Record

    I will address this here, rather than in the other thread, because it invokes a story that should be interesting to academic intellectuals—especially those who are interested in psychology.  Spoiler:  In the middle hereof, I discuss why I rarely use the forbidden “n-word” in my comments; and by the end of this long comment, I explain how and why my usage of the word “nigger” was first incited by a right-wing Israeli—to help get me into Zionism.

    TL;DR:  My “rhymes” are a literary mindhack for poetic justice.  I want to get the Big Tech censors #triggered about racism against rhymes.  I don’t care if you hate me, “Commentator Mike”.  Indulge my proclivities as an “evil” artist of the written word, my fondness of double, triple, and dodecuple entendres, and my worship of the goddess Nemesis.  If you think I’m too verbose, skim down to the boldface stuff below; and just play along with my Revenge-rhymes, OK? ®👌®


    [Those who are racist against rhymes call this “TNB”.]


    [Busta Rhymes.]

    ——————————

    Commentator Mike:

    Indeed. How not to laugh at “rhymes with triggers”. LOL!

    I am planting a seed.  If you watch my comments carefully, you will observe that I sometimes shorten “rhyme with a trigger”/“rhymes with triggers” simply to “rhyme(s)”.

    You love it.  Much though you hate me, you love this.  You and others will spread my usage onto social media.  It has been my plan all along.


    [A top search hit on “gangster rap”.  Wikimedia Commons description of image:  “He was a member of Ice-T’s collective Rhyme Syndicate…”]

    For the record:  This is my usage, original to me.  Note for etymologists:  My first-ever public usage of this was on August 7, 2021.

    I invite others to copy and share it.  I expect credit and anti-Rachesian Defamation when Big Tech Trust and Safety Teams need to censor the word “rhyme(s)” as the new black the new “nigger”.  As a philological hate-speech intellectual terrorist, I claim responsibility!  Flash me a racist hand-sign if that’s OK with you. 👌®

    For you see, I am a Catullus-loving literary hyper-troll with a grudge against At-Sign Jack the Bird-Brained Twit, Mark “they ‘trust me’, dumb f—ks” Zuckerberg, and all of the nice anthropoids of what I condemn and contemn as Silly-Con Valley®.  I make my “rhymes” for poetic justice—and for the highbrow intellectual lulz.  And maybe I can even troll the rhymes themselves into getting infected with my meme, so that they rap about doze bad muthaf⸺ gangsta niggas dat be rhymes wit triggas goin bang bang, bling bling in da hood.

    Yo, homies and bitches, that will make it extra-juicy when “liberal intellectuals” get #triggered to apply Critical Theory to the ABAB CDCD EFEF GG “rhyme scheme” of Shakespearean sonnets, thus to deconstruct micoaggressive racist subtexts in the subcultural patriarchialist theory and the pretextual paradigm of context in the substructuralist narrative.  All rhyming is racist!  Only rhymes are allowed to rhyme!  Shakespeare was a white man, and therefore evilHis statues must be torn down.  It is not OK to be white. 👌®

    ——————————

    I usually use the word “nigger” itself, in published writing and in quotidian speech.  It is not unprecedented.  Professor Oliver graced the pages of Liberty Bell with his masterful English prose—peppered with phrases in Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian, and Spanish, and the words “nigger”, “Yid”, “Sheeny”, and “kike”, inter alia.  (He was more respectful of the Japanese, at least in his later writings—and of high-caste Hindus, whose sacred Sanskrit he had taught himself as a teenager.)

    See Liberty Bell, May 1992, n. 1 at pp. 1f. for the great professor’s pedantic explanation of why he used the word “nigger”.  I will save my own didactic lecture on “nigger” for another time.

    Please nota bene, moderators:  I do not use the word “nigger” here at The Unz Reviewexcept when, as hereby, the context makes the word itself directly relevant.  I understand that some venues, including some all-out racialist venues, have a moderation policy designed to protect discussions from being degraded by idiots who know only how to toss about random racial slurs.  If commenting, I obey the moderation policy.  And I do not necessarily disagree with it; I have seen what happens in forums that openly invite the unevolved simian masses to use the word “nigger”.

    ——————————

    On Jews, my whilom Zionism, and the word “nigger”:

    I first started this usage when, once upon a time, I was befriended by a right-wing Israeli.  He astutely detected and actively encouraged my ill-repressed latent racism.  It felt liberating to me that I could tell someone honestly how I had always really felt about niggers, and use the word “nigger” to say so.

    Thereupon, he pitched Zionism to me partly on the basis that, according to him, “Palestinians are worse than niggers.”  Quote-unquote.  (Cf. note 2 at the bottom here.)  I had never met a Palestinian, and he grew up around Palestinians.  I thought he was my friend.  I believed him.

    The leftist accusations that “Zionism is racism” never bothered me—not any more than “you’re a racist!” accusations bother me now.  I relished my racism.  And I never realized how much Jewish privilege I was granted by proxy, until I later tried being overtly racist without implicit Jewish protection.  Back then, I could be as racist as I wanted to be—just as long as I loved Jews (except for Gush Shalom and Meretz traitors), hated Palestinians as “worse than niggers”—and most importantly, accepted that German Nazi Germans were the worst of all:  Innately evil people who were worse than Palestinians, who were worse than niggers.  To my Jewish mentor, the words “German” and “Nazi” were indistinguishable and interchangeable—in all contexts, past, present, and future.  He frankly averred to me his wish that “not one German should have been left alive”, and that the Germans should be “burned”.

    I have been intending to write a longer comment about this in an appropriate thread, and maybe even to offer an article about it.  It is an exemplary anecdote in the public interest:  How, from the one side, an especially manipulative Jew exploited and perverted my natural, healthy racist and nationalist instincts to make of me a fanatical Zionist.  —How, from the other side, he also brainwashed me with the alleged “Holocaust” until I was personally dripping with Holocaust guilt; I felt that my Zionism was a way for me, personally, to atone to Am Yisrael, collectively.  How from that point, I got in so deep with the Jews that I was literally in bed with them; I wanted to marry a Jew and move to Israel.  This possibility was left open, as a sort of an official way to join the club.

    He was perceptive.  He was a treacherous liar; he was using and abusing me all along—but he was perceptive.  He also “warned” me, as if to avoid a path to perdition that I should fear, that I needed to obey the Jews—because if I ever disobeyed the Jews, I would flip straight to Adolf Hitler.  Well, Heil Hitler!

    The logic is ineluctable. ®

  277. Ron Unz says:
    @Raches

    My “rhymes” are a literary mindhack for poetic justice…For the record: This is my usage, original to me. Note for etymologists: My first-ever public usage of this was on August 7, 2021…All rhyming is racist! Only rhymes are allowed to rhyme!

    I can say with absolute confidence that there has never, ever been a commenter even remotely like you on this website.

    If you are who I think you might be, then all those old stories floating around on the Internet are absolutely correct…

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @curious_lurker
  278. Whites are more vulnerable to group think than average Whites.
    You are moron!

  279. @Raches

    Concerning Hitler.
    According to German Laws Hitler was Jewish
    According to Jewish Laws Hitler was German.

    • Disagree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  280. @Raches

    Thanks for explaining the evolution of your present views regarding certain matters. And I don’t hate you man. BTW I don’t use social media so won’t be spreading your “rhymes” but others who do are welcome to spread the word.

  281. Raches says:
    @Zarathustra

    You are repeating a Jewish lie.  In fact, Hitler was 0% Jewish by blood.

    The Jews have claimed that Hitler was a Jew, Dr. Goebbels was a Jew, Heydrich was a Jew, Himmler was a Jew—that practically all of the leading “Nazis” were Jews, especially in the SS—they are all Jews, Jews, Jews!  It is Jewish disinformation targeted at irrational, paranoid “antisemites”, who anyway always see Jews in their cornflakes. ®

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
    , @Zarathustra
  282. @Raches

    I am always correct! In every case!

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Truth
  283. Bill says:
    @Rich

    What “conservatives” say they favor is completely irrelevant. They serve the exact function I described.

    • Agree: Truth
  284. niceland says:
    @John Johnson

    You left out:
    Raping and pillaging.
    Slavery.
    Extremely cruel punishments for minor crimes.
    Exposure (though you could at least argue this made Europeans heartier).

    I have plenty of criticisms of Christianity but it is a modern anti-Christian take to believe that the Nordic countries didn’t have any problems or were all based on morality and honor.

    Christianity tamed the worst aspects of Europe but in many cases it went too far.

    As a young boy I was told as much, today I beg to differ. Aside from the obvious: Slavery, raping and pillaging or cruel punishments didn’t vanish with Norse Paganism. European Christians were perfectly capable of extreme cruelty, and savagery.

    Keep in mind, it’s the winner that writes history. And most of the litterateur that survived was written with either christian kings or the church breathing down the neck of the writer. It’s hardly surprising concurred paganism (the old religion; false religion) came out as amoral and cruel barbarism.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  285. @Raches

    Silly Girl! You know that Hitlers father was never legally established?

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  286. @Zarathustra

    Do you know that Hitler rhymes with Cobbler. (hint hint hint)

    • Troll: Raches
  287. Truth says:
    @Zarathustra

    Welcome, Bro. You dont’t know how wonderful it is to find a kindred spirit amongst one’s peers.

    • Thanks: Zarathustra
    • Troll: Raches
  288. Truth says:
    @Bill

    Ok, now we’re getting somewhere.

  289. Raches says:
    @Zarathustra

    Popularization can give sociobiology and evolutionary psychology any science a bad name.  I hope that Prof. Harden is aware of the dangers of popular treatments—and that she has sufficient intellectual honesty to avoid improperly exploiting them, in her arguments about morality.

    In the battles in the hunting the length of the legs was critical for man. So man wanted to have a children with long legs.

    An inference of conscious intentions that amounts to a false teleology.

    This transformed women who wanted to marry successful man to show that they have long legs. That inherited trend remained to this day, that is why females are wearing skirts short all the way to their vaginas to show how long their legs are.

    Crude reductionism, and obviously not scientifically rigorous.  But your theory has a redeeming value:  It suggests that rationally, women should just go nude. ®

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  290. @niceland

    Keep in mind, it’s the winner that writes history. And most of the litterateur that survived was written with either christian kings or the church breathing down the neck of the writer. It’s hardly surprising concurred paganism (the old religion; false religion) came out as amoral and cruel barbarism.

    Vikings raided churches since they were easy pickings and no historian believes that the clergy were just making up stories about bloody raids where young girls were dragged off to be slaves.

    If you don’t trust the written accounts there is genealogical evidence whereby we can see that their female population was heavily Gaelic:
    https://www.history.com/news/viking-slavery-raids-evidence

    The Brits today even talk about how they don’t have as many good looking women because the Vikings would take the prettiest girls.

    So Christianity did end some of the worst aspects of that period which included kidnapping and leaving unwanted children in the woods (exposure).

    Christianity of course comes with its own problems which is why I said there needs to be a balance. It’s not like there can be a return to pre-Christian Europe. It’s either going to be secular liberalism or some form of Christianity. Most Whites don’t do well with secularism and become ensnared by liberalism which exploits their natural idealism. Just spend time around self-described secular Whites. Very few can see through liberalism and most believe the lie that it is “the science” combined with morality. I’ve spent time around Europeans and it was unnerving as to how many had fallen for US based egalitarian propaganda.

    • Replies: @niceland
  291. Raches says:
    @John Johnson

    [niceland said:] In short: all the good stuff already existed before Christianity.

    You left out:
    Raping and pillaging.
    Slavery.
    Extremely cruel punishments for minor crimes.
    Exposure (though you could at least argue this made Europeans heartier).

    You left out:

    • Christian holy wars.  E.g., the Thirty Years’ War, which exterminated a large proportion of the German population as Aryans massacred each other, for the greater glory of the Christ and the profit of the Jews.  In the Thirty Years’ War, and more generally in the European Wars of Religion, both Catholics and Protestants habitually committed against each other the largest-scale mass wartime atrocities that Aryans had ever committed against each other in all of history—before the English and the Americans, with their thoroughly Christianized Weltanschauung, took up carpet-bombing their devil’s cities with incendiaries and high explosives in the Twentieth Century.

    • Christian torture to extract confessions from skeptics, heretics, and witches.

    • Christian disposal of skeptics, heretics, and witches in holy bonfires.

    • Christian lies and Christian forgeries.  Christianity is from start to finish pretty much just one big hoax; and it is the exemplary precedent for the Holohoax.  There is a well-studied reason why Professor Oliver frequently remarked, “Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise in piety.”  And I hate liars worst of all.

    • Christian destruction of infinitely superior cultures and civilizations.  Most of Graeco-Roman antiquity is lost forever:  Contrary to popular perceptions (including those of a few academics hereabouts), all that we have left of antiquity is a painstaking reconstruction from almost nothing.  And so much of the destruction was deliberate—intentional, malicious!  Books were burnt.  Temples and their artworks were destroyed—the tearing down of statues is a Christian habit, an indubitable fact that I tactfully avoided mentioning in the recent thread about General Lee’s statue (although it was definitely on my mind).  I still recall the shock, outrage, disgust, and sheer hatred that I felt when I first learned what a palimpsest is.  This list could be much continued…

    • A Christian mob lovingly murdering Hypatia by stripping her naked, and scooping her flesh out of her body with oyster shells—because Christianity is the religion of hate.

    • If you think that slavery is a bad thing—a premise that you presume, which I would question, to put the matter delicately—then you need to reread your Bible.  Slavery is explicitly authorized by the New Testament, which commands:  “Slaves, obey your masters.”  Unlike the King James English word “servants”, the Greek is unambiguous:  It means slaves, not hired servants.  (See also Liberty Bell, March 1988, pp.&nbsp3f.)  Of course, New England Abolitionist preachers lied to their stupid ovine followers about this, so as to justify a war of aggression against the South.  (See above:  “Lying for the Lord…”)

    • Ending infant exposure.  I see that you hedged there.  I am on record as supporting infanticide—and liberals will have a hard time arguing this one with me, for they shall find themselves in exactly the position that they tear down when Christians oppose abortion.  The Christians are obviously right when they point out that a legally abortable fetus is a baby—complete with cute little fingers and toes, and a brain that has begun to function.  Of course, there must be some nuances here; it would be insane to suggest a totally unlimited “right” for people to kill their babies, at any time, for any reason or no reason, whether before or after birth.  But when I say that abortion should not be restricted to suit Christian whims, I am logically consistent.

    • Lying to Icelanders to obtain their conversion.  My link in the above-linked comment alludes to this.  Under the threat of a Christian jihad to effectuate conversion by the Christian theologian’s most persuasive arguments, i.e. fire and sword, the Christians promised the Icelanders that they could keep in private some limited freedom of traditional (so-called “pagan”) worship, their dietary habits that conflicted with Christian taboos, and—the Icelandic practice of infant exposure, which was not only wise, but necessary for a small population in a harsh environment.  An agreement was made, the Icelanders accepted Christianity, and then, once firmly in power, the Christians reneged their promises.

    And by its systematic destruction of all that is good, noble, and superior, Christianity has ultimately had this effect:

    Christianity tamed the worst aspects of Europe but in many cases it went too far.

    Christianity turned Aryans into domesticated animals—mere livestock for their Jewish owners—what I justly contemn as eine minderwertige Rasse.

    ——————————

    I sometimes advise people never to trust a Jew—on racial grounds, irrespective of religion.  I only came provisionally to trust in Mr. Unz’s honesty, after with an extremely negative bias, I scrutinized his writings so carefully that I caught him in a self-contradiction between two statements made twenty years apart (!).  By both abstract logic and empirical evidence, that warning about Jews applies even more to willful believers in a religion which started as Jews Jewing other Jews—and which only became worse when it was resold to Gentiles, as the first and greatest Jewish controlled-opposition movement:  Never trust a Christian. ®

    • Thanks: niceland
  292. @Raches

    You are being ridiculous.There are many factors influencing human behavior. there is never only
    one , although one could be prevalent for certain period of time.
    Naturally food, weather, environment, and surrounding society are dominant factors.

  293. @Raches

    Very nice! But please point out what are you try to prove, ant prove in one paragraphs at the time.
    Otherwise your comments are only incoherent blabbing.

  294. niceland says:
    @Raches

    Many thanks Mr Raches, I was going to write longer answer to Mr John Johnson but I was cut short by the arrival of a good friend and just hit the ‘publish’ button; grammatical errors, nonsense and all. I was indeed lucky because you made the point much better than I could have.

    As to the point the ‘good stuff already existed before Christianity’ It’s perhaps worth mentioning the Icelandic Chiefs, argued adopting Christianity in the ‘oldest surviving parliament’ Alþing established 930 where they settled their disputes according to the law. So these ‘barbarians’ had laws?!

    And BTW:
    Christianity was thrust up on Icelanders by the King of Norway, first he sent a priest and he managed to turn some of the Chiefs but only few. Returning back to Norway the priest told the King he was very pessimistic Icelanders would turn to Christianity. The King was enraged and threatened to harm or even kill Norwegian relatives of Icelanders. This lead to a split in the group of ruling Chiefs and on the brink of war a compromise was made after great speeches and arguments were put forth and deliberated. A political compromise was made. Not bad for ‘barbarians’. Indeed they were anything but.

    The question is why was the king of Norway so interested in bringing Christianity to Iceland:
    I haven’t done the research to be sure, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think it was about taxation and increased power over Icelanders. However if memory serves me, around 1600 over half of land (farmland) in Iceland belonged to the Church. So the church was the money-grabbing Wall Street in Iceland for centuries. Many horrible centuries. A VERY dark place.

    Ps;
    The greatest achievement of my ancestors was, they survived in this cold and terribly poor, and horribly managed hellhole that Iceland was from 1300-1800. The little Ice age, the Church, the corrupt ‘elite’ under foreign king, natural disasters and all.

    • Thanks: Raches
  295. @Ron Unz

    If you are who I think you might be, then all those old stories floating around on the Internet are absolutely correct…

    Which stories?

    This may sound a little odd but I’ve bookmarked your “comments” page (i.e., the page with comments filtered for “Ron Unz”) some time ago and I’ve essentially read all your comments since then. I did this because I find the comments to be almost invariably insightful and frequently funny, but also as a way for me to find articles to read – in other words, if an article was interesting enough for you to comment on, then it may be the case that I would also find it interesting myself. Because of this, I’ve followed the different Unz-Raches exchanges with curiosity, and I’ve eventually bookmarked Raches’ comments page too for similar reasons – I can’t however claim to read his comments as assiduously as yours (he really is quite prolific). I remember the following comment of yours from last month:

    Thinking it over, your style, content, and ideological orientation strongly brought to mind someone from long ago, who used to occasionally comment on Steve Sailer’s old blog as well as a few other places around the Internet. It took me a little effort to recall the names, but I think about a dozen or more years ago you used to go by the names “Wintermute” and “Colin Laney.”

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/covid-to-vaxx-or-not-to-vaxx/?showcomments#comment-4848865

    Have you changed your mind? A dozen or more years ago I had no interest in these topics (I wasn’t even aware of them), so I really have no idea of what you’re referring to. I googled a little and found some comments by an user at isteve with the handle “Colin Laney”, but I didn’t find the styles to be very similar. I’ve also noticed that “Colin Laney” and “Raches” seem to use different styles of ellipses and em dashes, with different spacing choices. I would assume that if they were the same person this would be consistent.

    I should probably add that another reason for me to “follow” your comments is because I have a profound admiration for your American Pravda articles. I remember the Summer of 2018 – when you were publishing such articles every week – with particular fondness. I’ve since tried to share several of your articles – I call them “Unz Pills” – with close friends but unfortunately with very little success. Nonetheless, your articles have radically changed my view of the world, and made me equally reconsider the mainstream narrative of certain other events in my own country. A very sincere appreciation for your work and for this website, Mr. Unz.

    • Thanks: Raches
  296. niceland says:
    @John Johnson

    Thanks for the reply Mr Johnson.
    Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusions my ancestors were far from perfect in modern sense. Every time I take a piss I am reminded where some part of my genes came from. Case in point:

    Ireland has the highest number of red-haired people per capita in the world with the percentage of those with red hair at around 10%.

    So it looks like some of my genes were stolen from the British isles.

    The Brits today even talk about how they don’t have as many good looking women because the Vikings would take the prettiest girls.

    Genetic research by Icelandic company, DeCode Genetics, support the whining English. My ancestors did indeed raid the British Isles and took slaves. In their position I would be inclined to take the pretty girls too. Sadly the Vikings didn’t manage to conquer the English so we are stuck with current situation. /sarcasm.

    It’s not like there can be a return to pre-Christian Europe. It’s either going to be secular liberalism or some form of Christianity.

    Sure, we can’t return to pre-Christian Europe. And why would we really want that? We have learned so much since. I only look back at these times with curiosity searching for our roots and to put history and culture in perspective. Not for solutions to anything.

    I think -more or less- Christianity in Europe is doomed. Here in Iceland it really is and the situation in Scandinavia is similar. I don’t expect Christianity to last, even in eastern Europe or elsewhere. Secular liberalism has already won – if you want to put it that way. But perhaps Secular doesn’t necessarily mean liberal. Difficult to say.

    I am no expert but if the idea is to use religion to suppress liberalism we have wonderful experiment going on, it’s called Islam. Ok, I am on thin ice here, but what I mean is hard line Islam. Perhaps the Taliban in Afghanistan are on similar page as Christianity was few hundred years ago. It took centuries in Europe to put Christianity in it’s place. From burning Giordano Bruno at the stake to become totally irrelevant in countries like mine 400 years later. Islam hasn’t gone through the same washing machine yet and is still alive and kicking. Is it viable solution for the future of mankind? No thanks!

    The idea to use religion, any religion, to form our modern societies is terrible. Secularism is the only way forward. Liberal or not.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  297. @Raches

    Don’t waste your time assuming I am here to put Christianity on a moral pedestal. I have plenty of my own complaints that you can read in my history.

    I simply don’t care for what is often a secular or neopagan view that Europe was some land of unity and honor before Christianity came along.

    Ending infant exposure. I see that you hedged there.

    No I didn’t hedge, just stating historical facts. In pre-Christian Europe perfectly healthy babies would be left in the woods if they weren’t wanted. Children were also sacrificed in rituals. So I take issue with this myth that there was a pre-Christian time when Europeans valued their own blood. Killing your own children is the antithesis of that.

    Christian holy wars. E.g., the Thirty Years’ War, which exterminated a large proportion of the German population as Aryans massacred each other, for the greater glory of the Christ and the profit of the Jews.

    Christianity turned Aryans into domesticated animals—mere livestock for their Jewish owners—what I justly contemn as eine minderwertige Rasse.

    So you list all these cases where Christians are blood thirsty and then end with the conclusion that Christianity turns Aryans into domesticated animals. Rather contradictory don’t you think?

    If the Jews truly held the reins of Aryans through Christianity then why have so many anti-Christians been Jewish? Pick an anti-Christian movie from Hollywood and you will find a Jewish director or writer. Pop culture scientists like Gould that have used evolution to mock Christianity while leaving racial equality a sacred cow have been nearly entirely Jewish.

    Hungary is currently the ire of globalists and yet they are far more Christian than Iceland or Sweden. In fact Sweden is one of the most secular countries in Europe and has “hate speech” laws where a judge can just toss you in jail for pointing out that most rape is committed by Muslims.

    So no I don’t buy into this idea that Christianity is the tool of Jews. But if you want to try and bring back the Norse gods then be my guest. However the data has been very consistent in that Whites latch on to liberalism and socialism when they leave Christianity. This has been going on since the 1920s. Since that time secular left-Wing Jews have been unanimous in their opposition to Christianity. The early Soviet union was heavily Jewish and while Orthodox priests were slaughtered the Muslim countries were given a pass. In fact you can find images of old Soviet posters where they describe Islam as compatible with Communism even though Marx explicitly said to destroy them all. Socialists both Jewish and Anglo have long viewed Christianity as a central enemy for being the religion of Whites. You can find plenty of articles by Marxists where they specifically call to destroy Christianity while leaving primitive people and their beliefs alone.

    • Agree: Yevardian
    • Disagree: Raches
  298. @niceland

    The idea to use religion, any religion, to form our modern societies is terrible. Secularism is the only way forward. Liberal or not.

    Too idealistic.

    Without religion most Whites buy into liberalism and have few to no children and unknowingly promote dysgenics. Then globalists call to bring in immigrants for labor and in comes in religion anyways. Secular idealism becomes smashed by Islam or age old tribalism.

    Liberalism and secularism are inexorably entwined. Most secular Whites are completely incapable of even conversing as we have in this thread. They have no idea that they are fulfilling egalitarian ideology. If they don’t have answers to basic questions about race and culture then that means nothing to them. In their minds the science is settled and you are some crazy person for bringing this up..

    They could read this entire thread and not understand it at all. Not a word.

    Most Whites are simply not capable of secular thought and this is especially true for the women. I believe egalitarianism is in their genes and without a religion they have too hard of a time with racial inequality. I have been around a lot of secular college educated Whites and they have a very hard time with all of this. It breaks their brains and they just default to liberalism. I would say around 5% at the most could even comprehend this conversation.

    I think -more or less- Christianity in Europe is doomed. Here in Iceland it really is and the situation in Scandinavia is similar.

    If Scandinavia is the model then we are doomed. We can’t have a country if the smartest Whites have the fewest kids and guilt ridden egalitarians call for third world immigrants as the solution.

    • Disagree: Raches
  299. Raches says:
    @Raches

    Kathryn Paige Harden’s book is scheduled imminently for release:  September 21, 2021.

    I don’t do the Amazon pre-order thing; and I am not sure when I will obtain a copy.  But I am keenly interested in analyzing Prof. Harden’s arguments.

    ——————————

    @John Johnson, thanks for your various replies on the subject of Christianity.  I strongly disagree, and I should like to take that up further.

    The reason why I raised that subject in this thread was not to derail the topic, but rather, because Prof. Harden’s leftist, egalitarian ideology is a cultural residue of Christianity.  I do not know whether or not Prof. Harden still considers herself to be a Christian—and it really doesn’t matter.  Her Weltanschauung is fundamentally Christian.  It is even practically Calvinist, insofar as the very title of her book ascribes natural elements of biological determinism, which are internal to the organism, to some quasi-mystical external force:  Luck, quasi-divine predetermination by a cosmic “lottery”.

    I sometimes go off-topic; but outside of those anti-vaxxer threads, I try to keep my commentary somehow relevant.  Here, in a thread about Prof. Harden, I have been motivated to make comments that I should wish for her to see—if ever she were to read this thread.  I don’t play the stupid alt-right “optics” game.  I present my position sincerely—not to antagonize her, but because I am prepared to propound arguments that challenge her position in its premises.  I have probably said some things here that would utterly horrify her; I intentionally do not hold that back.

    I am not hostile towards her, personally, although I obviously don’t trust her.  In my personal life, I have a history of candid debates with liberals who were willing to rise to the challenge.  At the very least, I should wish to present the learned scholar some food for thought:  There does exist out there a worldview so completely different from hers, it challenges even the unstated assumptions which she probably believes to command some sort of a universal agreement.

    Mr. Johnson, that law of cultural residues is the point at which I rebut your remarks on “liberal secularism”.  You don’t know any “secularists”, in the sense of people who have fully renounced Christianity in all of its implications—even in their deepest, usually-unexamined premises.  You have probably never met one.  Modern “liberalism” and “progressivism” are the Sermon on the Mount without Jesus.

    My observations as such are essentially Oliverian, even in my terminology; but I take this in my own direction.  Much though he deserves credit for some of the insights that I state, Professor Oliver cannot very well be blamed for any errors that I may make.

    I will seek to take this up with you sometime soon.  (This and related points also address Yevardian, who quite misunderstood me in the other thread.)

    ——————————

    Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

    Hail Tyche!

    My love is a paradox. It is counterintuitive:

    \[\frac{S_n}{\sqrt{2n\log\log n}} \ \xrightarrow{p}\ 0, \qquad \frac{S_n}{\sqrt{2n\log\log n}} \ \stackrel{a.s.}{\nrightarrow}\ 0, \qquad \text{as}\ \ n\to\infty.\]

    Not to ruin a good joke, but the Holy Writ of mathematics thereby reveals that even Tyche, the goddess of luck, has rules—and her rules are difficult for mere mortals to understand.

    Whatever roles luck may or may not play in this discussion, ’twould be hubris to attempt imposing a liberal morality on Tyche. ®

  300. Mr. Johnson, that law of cultural residues is the point at which I rebut your remarks on “liberal secularism”. You don’t know any “secularists”, in the sense of people who have fully renounced Christianity in all of its implications—even in their deepest, usually-unexamined premises. You have probably never met one. Modern “liberalism” and “progressivism” are the Sermon on the Mount without Jesus.

    I have known a few secular Whites but they worked in the hard sciences. A few as in two or three. I was able to de-convert some of their remaining liberal beliefs but they still had a tendency to avoid thinking about those areas.

    But yes we seem to agree that secularism in the West isn’t actually secular. Where we disagree is the motive and the prescription.

    I don’t think Ms. Harden is motivated by residue Christianity. I think it is much deeper than that.

    If Christianity was the problem then Eastern Germany would not have reverted to liberalism. Eastern Germany was at one time the most secular country in Europe and was shielded from Western influence. They have had Germans born and raise as atheists but after unification there was still a reversion to the Western status quo which is liberal egalitarianism and race denial along with a small opposition of polite conservatism.

    I support the theory that most Europeans are born with egalitarian genes from living in tribes where cooperation was vital. Liberalism basically infects those genes like a virus. The world becomes the group and Whites feel the need to submit and sacrifice themselves for a global ideal. If what you call residue Christianity was the problem then liberalism should have gone into decline in countries that went secular in the 70s and 80s. That hasn’t happened. In fact the Nordic countries have gone further left in trying to erase the concept of race by controlling speech.

    Meanwhile there are Orthodox and Christian slavs that have no problem talking about race and in fact see race as part of their national identity. In fact there are secular Western liberals that want to sanction countries like Hungary for not submitting to globalism. So no I don’t see Christianity as the problem when there are secular Whites calling for Christian Eastern European countries to open their borders and abandon the concept of race.

    • Disagree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  301. MEH 0910 says:

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  302. @MEH 0910

    Well there you have it Harden, the establishment has rejected your book.

    Liberal professors aren’t as naïve as you assume.

    Did you really think they would entertain the idea that genetics can cause inequality between individuals but not groups??? What are groups made of then? An equal distribution of individuals? How would that be possible? You would be forcing them to answer these questions.

    I’ll let you in on a little secret: The academic left is aware that race exists.

    They aren’t going to move an inch because they know that will just be one inch closer to having to admit they have been lying this entire time. Entire departments are based on this lie which means careers and prestige are at risk. You might as well ask Hollywood directors to admit that race exists and give back any awards from movies that didn’t accurately represent this reality.

    You only have two options:
    1. Enjoy your mainstream life and keep lying for the establishment.
    2. Work outside the system.

    Don’t waste your time with anymore of these middle ground books or theories. There is no middle ground for the left. Once you allow racial differences it all falls apart. These professors will have to explain why they were paid 6 figure salaries when they were lying to the public the entire time.

    Left-wing professors do not want to give up those salaries. A valiant effort but the system is biased and is well aware of it.

    • Agree: Raches
  303. Raches says:
    @John Johnson

    The Christian Cultural Legacy:  Puritans and Unitarian Universalists—Pentecostals and Progressives

    I don’t think Ms. Harden is motivated by residue Christianity. I think it is much deeper than that.

    I do not limit what I said to Prof. Harden’s strict Christian upbringing and Pentecostal antecedents, which were disclosed in the New Yorker article.  Nor was I even referring to this amusing WWJD? type of moment therefrom:

    She [Kathryn Paige Harden] believed that the left’s standard-issue response was unhelpful.  “This is a very Christian thing I’m about to say, but it reminds me of the episode where Jesus is tempted by Satan in the desert,” she told me, in Bozeman.  “There’s just enough truth in Murray that if you say, ‘This is all wrong,’ you paint yourself into a corner where you say intellectually dishonest things.  Jesus has to say, ‘This part is true, and this part is false.’”  She stopped herself.  “Don’t write that I’m comparing Murray to Satan,” she said, and then continued…

    …nor even this:

    Her experiences as an apprentice scientist were only part of the reason that she grew disillusioned with evangelicalism:  “There was this incredible post-9/11 nationalism—flags on the altar next to crosses—that infected my church to a point that felt immoral and gross.  Sometimes I feel like I sat through eleven years of Christian school and absorbed all the things they didn’t intend for me to absorb.  I thought we were following a social-justice ethos in which the meek shall inherit the earth, and I must’ve missed the track that was the run-up to the Iraq War.”  [Her doctoral adviser, Professor Eric] Turkheimer recommended a local psychoanalyst, who, Harden said, took her on as a “charity case.”

    My primary point was less about Prof. Harden herself, and more about America—a Christian country, with a more Biblically Christian culture than even mediaeval Catholic Europe had.  That point was a little bit better made in a long comment that I withheld yesterday; it went way too far off-topic.  (I will be looking to take this up elsewhere soon.)

    To the extent that my argument relates to Prof. Harden’s own very Christian acculturation, past and present, I posit that she is exemplary in miniature of a general phenomenon.

    Far away from Prof. Harden’s Southern antecedents and her current home in Texas, consider the case of New England—most of all, of Massachusetts.  The Boston area was settled by various sects of the most extreme Biblical Christian fundamentalists who, at that time, had needed to leave the England whom their bretheren of the faith would soon throw to the throes of Cromwellian mass-destruction.  (N.b. that some of those ultra-Christian revolutionaries called themselves “Levellers”—egalitarians par excellence in name and deed; n.b. that one of the major Leveller leaders was a Puritan fanatic who later, with perfect logic, became a Quaker.  Nota bene…)

    The Pilgrims and the Puritans were such extreme Christians that they banned Christmas:  They correctly identified traditional European Christmas traditions as “pagan”, un-Biblical, and un-Christian.  They demanded and decreed that Christmas must be celebrated only with somber prayer and reading of the Bible.  This was the first American “War on Christmas”, a spillover from the same culture war in Europe; and by cultural residues, it was the antecedent to liberal attacks on Christmas trees and carrolling today.

    It is no accident that the descendants of these extreme fundamentalist Christians became Boston liberals, Unitarians, Abolitionists—and nowadays, Unitarian Universalists, whose hippie religion seems mostly to worship queers.  They have become true Christians of the Second Century.  This statement will not make sense, unless you study the various Jesus-cults of that era:  Proletarian agitators, kooky cults with Antifa-like political behavior, including at least one Jesus-cult that did actually practice religious homosexuality.

    The verbal trick by which the “Fathers of the Church” later declared their competitors “heretical”, and many of them “gnostics”, does not alter the fact that all these sects together were the first historical Christians.  The sect which became “orthodox”, and thus gained the power to extirpate “heresy”, was merely the one Christian sect which later gained power over the Roman apparatus of state, and forcibly monopolized the new salvation-business.  To an unbeliever with an objective view of history, that one sect had no superior or exclusive claim to Jesus early on.

    What Mr. Unz calls a “datapoint”:  I once knew a Boston-liberal type, an old-stock American with ancestry going back to the seventeenth-century Pilgrims and Puritans, who was a bit of a prude.  Prim and proper, personally.  Politically, a proud Progressive with a capital P.  She once admitted to me that she felt guilty that she didn’t enjoy receiving anal sex:  She secretly feared that this meant that she was “homophobic”.  Also, she felt ashamed that she wasn’t slutty enough.  She just didn’t like to have one-night stands; this made her feel unsophisticated, and even feel as if she were intolerant of those who enjoyed such a lifestyle.  She half-jokingly blamed her Puritanical ancestry; I half-jokingly had to remind her that genetics don’t mean anything, right?

    Her ancestors were assuredly Bible-banging Jesus-freaks.  I say so with extreme irony, and with no irony at all.

    She and I were great friends—until her brain finally melted over an especially vehement remark that I made about the Jews.  I note all of the foregoing respectfully, and with her privacy protected by leaving her totally anonymous.  She was a classy lady, highly educated.  Before I got into her intimate secrets, we bonded over poetry, fine art, fine wines, and cordially antagonistic debates not unrelated to her college minor in so-called “cultural anthropology” (!).  Alas for me, her cultivated taste in wines far outshone me; but I held my own in all other subjects.  Alack for her, she had never studied psychology.

    I think that if Prof. Harden were to look deeply into her own experiences and the culture she sees around her, she will realize that Pentecostalism and Progressivism are only rival sects of the same creed.  Of course, rival sects fight most bitterly.  She will understand this, if she perpends the murderous intra-religious rage of rival Christians in the Thirty Years’ War.  To her, seventeenth-century Catholics must look almost indistinguishable from seventeenth-century Lutherans—what were they even fighting about!?  She will thus understand how I view the various sects of the Religion of Equality:  A dogma that entered Western culture via the Sermon on the Mount, with what she identifies as “a social-justice ethos in which the meek shall inherit the earth”—a dogma which, as she is discovering scientifically, is totally contrary to nature, and which, as she is discovering in practical politics, is inimical to the conditions of life on Earth.

    I do hope to discuss this, and perhaps debate it with Prof. Harden someday.  Of course, that will need to be after I obtain and read her book.  I don’t dislike her, and I really want to like her.  My evaluation mostly depends on whether I think she is sincere in her motives, or she is attempting, by coöption, to establish herself as some moralistic high priestess of genetics—all the better to burn at the stake such heretics as Murray, et al.

    You said it, Prof. Harden:

    She stopped herself.  “Don’t write that I’m comparing Murray to Satan,” she said, and then continued…

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    ——————————

    Mr. Johnson:

    If what you call residue Christianity was the problem then liberalism should have gone into decline in countries that went secular in the 70s and 80s.  That hasn’t happened.  In fact the Nordic countries have gone further left in trying to erase the concept of race by controlling speech.

    You are at least two centuries too late.

    I am categorically antimodern, culturally.  I love science and technology, and I have expertise in some fields thereof; culturally, I am antimodern and antidemocratic.

    I am advocating the thesis that the French Revolution was not a rejection of Christianity, but rather, a reversion of Christian culture to its primitive proletarian roots.  A Revolution of Equality, Égalité, brought a bloodbath in the name of Fraternité—the Christian lovingkindness of Brotherhood, which hateful mobs preached even as they murdered Christians.  The French Revolutionists built an alleged “Temple of Reason”—which was, in fact, a temple of irrationality.  In rejecting Christianity, they brought their own Christian culture to its logical conclusions:  They were the prophets of modernity, democracy, liberalism, progressivism.

    Most failures to understand what is happening in the world are caused by historical myopia.  To look back only fifty years in analyzing modern “secularism” is like analyzing feminism by looking only back to the 1950s–60s.  Speak you of the “70s and 80s”?  What about the 1770s and 1780s?

    (My thesis hereby is essentially Oliverian,¹ with some adjustments and extensions of my own.  In some of my other grounds for condemning Christianity, my theses are entirely original to me, and were developed by me before I ever even read either of Oliver or Nietzsche.  Given that I first rejected Christianity as a young child, before I had ever even heard the word “atheist”, I have been examining this problem for a long time, in many different ways.)

    ——————————

    Mr. Johnson:

    I support the theory that most Europeans are born with egalitarian genes from living in tribes where cooperation was vital. Liberalism basically infects those genes like a virus.

    I do think that the Aryan race is genetically flawed, in this aspect:  Too Aryan.  Perhaps predestined by genetics to downfall, to become an inferior race.

    I was disheartened when I first read Prof. Oliver’s translation of the Mṛcchakaṭikā (which he did when he was a graduate student).  In the denouement thereof, the protagonist, a holy Brāhmana, is asked to pass judgment on the low-caste parvenu who had attempted to murder his mistress (who became his polygamous second wife), and who had attempted to frame him for the crime so as to get him executed.  Naturally, the audience must expect that the hero will condemn his villainous enemy to death—probably by some painful means.  Spoiler:  He orders that the criminal be set free, without harm.

    The Jews, the most vengeful of all races, will surely agree with me that this is cultural evidence of racial inferiority:

    [Mṛcchakaṭikā, translated from the Sanskrit by R. P. Oliver, Illinois Language and Literature, Vol. XXIII (1938), p. 206.]

    Sarvilaka.  Come, take him away!  Worthy Chārudatta, tell us: what shall we do with this scoundrel?

    Chārudatta.  Will you do as I say?

    Sarvilaka.  Of course.

    Chārudatta.  Certainly?

    Sarvilaka.  Certainly!

    Chārudatta.  In that case, lose no time in—

    Sarvilaka.  Executing him?

    Chārudatta.  No, no!—in releasing him.

    Sarvilaka.  What?  But why?

    Chārudatta.  When an enemy, however malevolent he may have been, throws himself at your feet and implores your protection, you should not put him to the sword,—

    Sarvilaka.  Oh, very well,—we’ll have him eaten by the dogs.

    Chārudatta.  No, no!
            —for the punishment that he deserves is kindness.

    When I first read it, I found that conclusion nauseating.  It was, for me, a miserable end to a beautiful, otherwise exquisitely non-Christian story that I had thoroughly enjoyed.  What the hell is wrong with Aryans?  No wonder they went for that “turn the other cheek” liberalism.

    Nevertheless, my conclusion on this topic cannot be distorted by cherry-picking the stupidest exemplars of Aryan lovingkindness.  That comment that I withheld as too far off-topic had some Iliad references, etc.—myths which I believe show Aryan spirit at its finest, which are completely irreconcilable with Christianity.  I wanted to raise that in reply to what you said about Vikings, Mr. Johnson.  Not all Aryans are so revoltingly, self-destructively kind as the mythical Chārudatta!

    Aryans must have a genetic vulnerability, which Christianity uses to infect them with the disease best exemplified in the Beatitudes, in parables that amount to worship of the poor and the sick, in the anti-racial, universalist, egalitarian dogma of all being one in the Body of Christ, et cetera, ad maximam nauseam.  However, a predisposition to weakness, such as an hereditary predisposition to alcoholism and drug addiction, does not equal the manifestation of the weakness itself. ®

    ——————————

    1. Cf.:

    The other apostates I have mentioned and many that are now forgotten, together with almost all of the anti-Christians of recent centuries, exemplify the operation of what may be called the law of cultural residues. […]

    They laugh at the silly story about Adam and his spare rib, but they continue to believe in a “human race” descended from a single pair of ancestors and hence in a “brotherhood of man.”  They speak of “all mankind,” giving to the term an unctuous and mystic meaning with which they do not invest corresponding terms, such as “all marsupials” or “all ungulates.”  […]

    They do not believe that one-third of a god became incarnate in the most squalid region on earth to associate with illiterate peasants, harangue the rabble of a barbarian race, and magically exalt the ignorant and uncouth to “make folly of the wisdom of this world,” so that “the last shall be first”—that they do not believe, but they cling to the morbid hatred of superiority that make Christians dote on whatever is lowly, inferior, irrational, debased, delormed, and degenerate.

    They gabble about the “sanctity of human life”—especially the vilest forms of it—without reflecting that it takes a god to make something sacred.  And they frantically agitate for a universal “equality” that can be attained only by reducing all human beings to the level of the lowest…

    [Großprofessor Revilo Oliver זצ״ל]

    ——————————

    I plan soon to continue this, including with my answer to some of the other points that Mr. Johnson raised, somewhere that it is not so far off-topic…  If/when I do, I will cross-link it from here.

    • Thanks: niceland
  304. Animals do have instincts These instincts are present in animals from the births. Baby animals do not need to learn them from their mothers. Wild cats for example have different instincts than domestic cats. So transmission of instincts must be written in the DNA,
    Something similar must be happening with humans also. Some amount of life experience must be written in DNA.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  305. @Zarathustra

    This could be researched by taking sperm samples from individuals at young age and compare the DNA with samples taken 10 or 20 years later.

  306. geokat62 says:

    I noticed that all of Loup-Bouc/Anachronis/Raches comments on this thread now have a yellow background.

    This suggests he has officially become a contributor on TUR. If so does someone have a link to his most recent contribution?

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  307. ‘ “Slaves, obey your masters.” Unlike the King James English word “servants”, the Greek is unambiguous: It means slaves, not hired servants. (See also Liberty Bell, March 1988, pp.&nbsp3f.) Of course, New England Abolitionist preachers lied to their stupid ovine followers about this, so as to justify a war of aggression against the South. (See above: “Lying for the Lord…”)’

    the ignorance regarding slavery and faith and practice never ceases, especially on the issue o slavery. christanity does not endorse or su[port slavery. it tolerates the matter. and the prescription tpo obey is followed by two caveates that the is comment ognores

    1. seek your freedom and obtain if possible

    2. masters treat your slaves/servants as brothers in the lord.

    hardly reflective of the practices of the southern slavery. -=- good grief.

    ——————-

    there was no northern aggression of the south. the south made war against the union — period and as such invited a similar response. but none of that explains the south’s bizarre choice to make war — pres lincoln had no plans or intentions of freeing slaves.

    tiresome false compliant.
    ———————

    as ridiculous as calling the beatitudes some kind of mamby milk-toast near akin to worship of the sick and the poor — what tripe and totally unsupportable.

    becoming more civilized is not akin to becoming less manly — more nonsense. laughing

  308. Let’s eschew the the debate over who is Aryan and where they came from. Let it suffice today that generally when the term aryan is used it is meant in the vain of

    Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s, whites who are not jewish — though its a step forward that one acknowledges that the Jews of the west are predominantly white.

    So the writers says as paraphrased by me,

    christianity defanged the aryan masculine trait

    here’s the commenter’s specific reference,

    “Christianity turned Aryans into domesticated animals—mere livestock for their Jewish owners—what I justly contemn as eine minderwertige Rasse.”

    This comment is made immediately after describing centuries of christian warfare and mayhem — aryans against other aryans —– hardly sounds like christianity domesticated or defanged whites of any brand. i will also eschew whether said conduct as is written is actually an indication of christian ethos.

    ———————-

    Special note to the convoluted series of posts regarding whites, christianity and impact is this rarely used reference. When the roman centurion came to Christ to seek the healing of his “servant”/”slave” hired or not, jesus did not demand that the soldier abandon his military roman service — he simply states,

    “your faith has made the servant well.”

    I rarely feel the need to comment in defense of the faith and practice of christ. But in this case given the supposed veracity of presentation, I thought it worthwhile. Apparently “cherry picking” to distort meaning/context is non-unique.

    ————————

    Apparently christianity has not prevented whites/aryans from wholesale slaughter of each other or others. WWI, WWII, Crimea, Napoleanic Wars . . . domesticated aryans — hardly.

    If anything is deconstructing masculine existence, its the advent of women’s studies and practices into every area of life as led by

    white women or should I say demanded by white women.

    good greif

  309. Raches says:
    @geokat62

    Since you asked so nicely:

    https://www.unz.com/proems/hello-world/

    I am still learning to use WordPress.  It is not easy to use, like a Unix shell tool or a programmer’s REPL.  I will eventually get the hang of making blog posts without almost breaking everything; and then, I will learn how to work the moderation system, so that I can enable comments where appropriate.  Obviously, as an admirer of Reichsminster Dr. Goebbels, I love censorship!

    Anachronis

    Because you call me an anachronism, I embedded a salutary Easter egg for your benefit:  A hyperlink showing that if my usage of words is unique to me, then I must be over 400 years old!  —Seriously, I did come up with “condemn and contemn” myself; and I am almost sure that I have used that phrase somewhere other than The Unz Review, as part of my long, proud habit of condemning and contemning.  I found the Chapman usage, and many others, on a search that I made to counter-troll you.  I copied (and not infrequently copy) “desire and desiderate” from Prof. Oliver; that turn of phrase is peculiarly irresistible to me, and it requires finesse to apply sensibly given the subtle difference of meaning between the two words. ®

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  310. MEH 0910 says:


  311. Anonymous[261] • Disclaimer says:
    @Raches

    I saw your new threads about earthly immortality and other subjects about ancestors and reproduction, etc, etc.

    Curious as to why you seem so attracted to figures that were pretty bad at that game; Hitler had no kids, neither did Nietzche. Goebbels had kids but killed them all. Did this Prof. Oliver guy have any kids? Did you get married and have kids?

    Wondering because if you don’t, how can anyone take your words seriously other than some abstraction along the lines of fiction? Especially if you keep citing people that were bad at the game. Do you have influences from white people that were successful at the game of reproduction?

  312. Tom T says:

    BLM = blacks lack mentality

    BLM = blacks love mayhem

    Blacks can have the sweat off my white ass for their reparations.

  313. Tom T says:

    BLM = blacks lack mentality

    BLM = blacks love mayhem

    Blacks are physically superior to whites and yellows but are intellectually inferior to whites and yellows. They well know this but will never admit to the latter.

Current Commenter
says:

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
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Jared Taylor Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.