The reason people who are Euro nationalist focus on IQ is that its all they have to show for biological differences now that Darwinian theory is dead. But of course there is no gene in the body that have been found that determines the IQ a person has. But that's all they have.Of course that is not why people like myself discuss - not "focus on" - IQ. Nationalism has no necessary connection with human biological differences. If I had to reduce to pithiness the reasons for discussing IQ, other than from purely scientific interest, it is because I live in a multiracial society whose leaders demonize whites for the failures of non-whites. (Note that whites get no credit for the success of some non-white groups, notably Asians.) Mohamed has, I assume, the luxury of living in a monoracial society.
The problem is that these Nationalist don't know how to promote their ethnic identity without some form of superiority. Ethnic nationalism exist all over the world. But rarely do you see any attempt to focus on IQ. Chinese and orientals have ON AVERAGE higher IQs that Europeans. But when is the last time you hears Chinese talk about such things?Every ethnic group has historical and religious myths that confer legitimacy and pride on that group. However, in the case of "Euro nationalists", in my opinion an objective observer would have to conclude that European civilization, broadly construed, has been the wonder of the world. Nevertheless, the Euro nationalist case does not rest on objective superiority, any more than a Ghanaian or Pakistani nationalist need base his case on superiority. Europeans and their descendants can be justifiably proud of the achievements of their ancestors, and this lies in the realm of historical and national myths; not myths in the sense of being fictional, but in the sense of stories that people tell themselves. Ghanaians and Pakistanis have stories that they tell themselves too, and I've never heard of a Euro nationalist who wants to deprive them of their stories or their nationalism.
Objectively, we can talk about superiority and inferiority. Reality doesn't care what we think. Subjectively, nationalism requires that individuals consider themselves part of a larger group, usually united by a common language, ancestry, and geography, but usually with the added element of some form of superiority, a sort of national positive self-talk.
Ethnic identity and similar features and cultures are normal. But supremacy is not.As noted, national myths usually involve some form of why the members of the nation are superior in some way, whether in valor, or having a correct view of the world, or even the greatness of their literature. That they are superior in their own eyes speaks to the justice of deserving their own nation. But it's normally difficult to convince others of the superiority of a nation to which they don't belong. Hence the confusion about supremacy.
Muhameds claims are simply false.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all the Chinese and Asians in general spend gobs of time talking about their superiority to white people, and seem to genuinely believe it, in a firm, unshakeable way that no amount of evidence or reality will disturb. It is almost an axiom with them, an assumption that doesn't depend on any relation to the world of facts, but can simply be complacently assumed no matter what.
This attitude has both charmed and exasperated Westerners dealing with China since contacts between the two cultures first began.
That it is irrational, and even worse, profoundly ignorant about the world to the point of self-destructiveness, is not the point.
The point is that the Chinese attitude of complacent, unquestioned superiority, tenaciously clung to even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is basically the default position of all peoples around the world who have not developed the Western ability to criticize their own civilization and developed perspectives on it based on that criticism.
Basically it is the default position of all people with an unsophisticated mentality who lack the ability to think in abstract terms, and who have yet to subdue the unruly emotions.
I've spent my 20s traveling all over the world, Thailand, Ethiopia, Peru, Egypt, most of Asia, Turkey, and more, and have lived in some Asian countries, and no matter how fffff'd the country is, they will find some way to consider themselves superior to the entire rest of the world.
Is your country poor and technically backward? Why then, you are morally purer than the Westerners, or your language is uniquely expressive and pure and melodic, or more usually your group is somehow in some indefinable way better than all others.
It isn't possible for humans to be nationalist without thinking themselves to be, somehow, in some often indefinable way, even while readily acknowledging faults and shortcoming, nevertheless somehow BETTER than everyone else.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the case of "Euro nationalists", in my opinion an objective observer would have to conclude that European civilization, broadly construed, has been the wonder of the world.
What criteria would you use?
There seems to be a certain cyclicity to these things, with a civilization arising, producing an efflorescence and then falling into decay. Some of that decay seems due to all the deadwood that arrives to take advantage of the splendour that each civilization produces ...
So, in some sense, Europeon Civilization is par for the course.
How weird is it to hate your own civ? Mohamed is just piling on with all the West-haters, which adds up to a freak show.
ReplyDeleteIf our nation is a family, most of these people hate their own family if:
--they lock the doors
--they don't let strangers in and clean out the fridge and make a trashy mess of the house
--they keep an eye out on their children when playing outside
--they put up a "No Solicitors" sign
--etc. you get the idea
Actually, any sane civilization that is willing to become successful has to see itself as the inheritor of the world and it's legitimate ruler, EVEN IF IT'S NOT THE CASE. Look at the Florentines in 1400s who saw themselves as immortal gods.
ReplyDeleteGreg, any healthy society believes what you described in your post. Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.
I commend Dennis for his well-reasoned defence of nationalism, a concept that was once considered basic to human nature but the global spread of liberal memes and globalisation itself are enough to erode its appeal.We see many elites condeming it as a dangerous idea. Only conservatives and moderate liberals seem willing to defend it.Ironically, the least liberal countries, often despotically ruled, will have the strongest nationalism.
ReplyDeleteWhile I hate to be repetitive, the 1998 book called An Empire Wilderness by Robert Kaplan is an unusual exploration of the idea of America and its perilous existence in a global economy.Kaplan travels throughout the West but begins by an up-close-and-personal study of Mexico and its history. Ironically he finds the educated, wealthy class encased in fortress security that includes guard dogs in nearly every estate. Here is a teetering narco-state loaded with crime unloading its poorest citizens on Obama's America. Could there be a worse scenario?
With the EU system European nations have grounds for rebellion, but their individual states seem culturally more united than Americans. Can we find the kind of social and cultural glue that makes Germans favor Germans over all others? America's divisions are manifold and deeper. Uniting us in an age of liberal memes and subversion of white history and culture will be nearly impossible. The army of illiterate Mestizos and they enablers want to conquer our Southwest silently. The idea of nationhood amidst this invasion and cultural division is seemingly unfeasible.
The great futurist Jacques Attlai predicted in 1991 that the world would be nomadic by our time. It wouuld see others replace America as the greatest economic power. Technology moves ahead despite the political incompetence seen around the globe, leaving some, like Africa, far, far behind. The ultimate value will be money and the rich will be enormously rich.Yet Attali warned us that it is illusary to believe in endlessly reinventing ourselves and dismissing religion as superstition. "To reject the sacred is to reject our own limits. It is also to reject the idea of evil."
Nations have good reason not to relinquish their sovereignty. To submit to international authority could be the end of the idea of nationhood, but cooperation is the key to solving problems that are fully global in scope. Somehow we need to overcome Kaplan's pessimism and prevent the Hispanization of our country from becoming extreme.We must persist as a nation standing for the traditions, language, and customs of our nation and not the world's. To indulge in everything is not believe strongly in anything.Liberalism, in other words, must be defeated.
Rebbellious - not so at all. The problem is that being delusional about your own superiority is extremely dangerous, as China shows very clearly.
ReplyDeleteChina was utterly delusional about its own superiority, it was living in a complete fantasy world that it refused to give up, and that set the stage for a century of Chinese humiliation and living under the boot of the West.
There is nothing good about having delusional fantasies of your own superiority - not only is it infantile, shows poor emotional control, and is irrational, it is potentially dangerous, as the example of China so clearly shows.
An inability to see oneself objectively and a a tendency to indulge your emotions is also a sign of a lower civilization and a less sophisticated, less mature mindset - the reason the West is so much more successful than Asia is precisely because of this ability to discipline the emotions and achieve a greater civilizations maturity and sophistication.
Of course it is a good thing to be love yourself and your civilization, but one must have a healthy sense of self-criticism as well, or you will fail spectacularly.
I don't take lessons about the evils of "supremacy" from Muhammedans. The entire Islamic religion is based on violent Arab-Islamic global supremacy. Apart from that, I agree with what is said above: I don't have problems finding examples of what could be described as "bigotry" in European history, but frankly, I would claim that "bigotry" is the normal behavior of mankind. Virtually every single ethnic group I can think of likes to imagine itself as the best of people. Bigotry doesn't require an explanation since it comes natural to most human beings. What does require an explanation is the unusual curiosity and level of appreciation Europeans have sometimes shown for other cultures. That is rare, and it one of the reasons why we invented archaeology and comparative linguistics. We could go further and say that the higher level of objectivity that comes natural to our culture was a necessary precondition for the creation of modern science.
ReplyDeleteIt is a simple fact that Europeans have higher average IQs than Middle Easterners. In his book Understanding Human History, which should be considered required reading for all those who frequent this blog, Michael H. Hart explains the much higher rate of scientific accomplishments among European peoples compared to Muslims with their substantially higher mean IQ. Others prefer a cultural explanation and blame the backwardness on Islam. I personally define culture as "genes plus ideas" and is consequently willing to accept both of these explanations as true.
If you want to explain why the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions took place in Europe then IQ will explain most of it, except the case of Northeast Asia. I am perfectly willing to accept that Northeast Asians have at least the same, possibly higher mean IQ, than Europeans, even northern Europeans. IQ does not explain everything, no, but it's arguably the single most important factor.
However, it is true, as the Baron of Gates of Vienna points out, that high-IQ Westerners, both white Gentiles and Ashkenazi Jews, make some remarkably stupid choices right now. Unlike some people here I don't think you can give a genetic explanation for this. Genes matter a great deal, but ideas matter, too.
Chinese and orientals have ON AVERAGE higher IQs that Europeans. But when is the last time you hears (sic) Chinese talk about such things?
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese may not talk of these things, however to believe that they are not nationalist in outlook is naive. One may obtain a copy somewhere of the CCTV Chinese New Year television special (any year will do) to find out. Also, the Chinese are a very homogeneous nation (that's why they call it China). There is no "we are the world" feel goodism within Chinese politics or foreign policy. Hang with some "American Chinese" and you will notice the strong love of China, first and foremost. Obviously the writer never spent time in China, studied much Chinese history, nor do I suspect he knows many Chinese.
The reason people who are Euro nationalist focus on IQ is that its all they have to show for biological differences now that Darwinian theory is dead. But of course there is no gene in the body that have been found that determines the IQ a person has. But that's all they have.
ReplyDeleteTo address the point directly, most experts on g believe that hundreds or thousands of genes may determine the intelligence of an individual. Each gene has only a impact on g that is difficult to separate from statistical noise.
Given the importance of g, a wide but shallow distribution of genes determining intelligence makes sense. Deleterious mutations, genetic drift, and plain old luck might erode gains quickly.
In the same way, only a small percentage of cancer risk known to be hereditary can be explained by specific genes at this time.
Unfortunately for the denialists, genetic analysis will improve dramatically coming years. This will allow variations in large sets of genes to be analyzed at once, in large populations, and cheaply. Once this occurs, the portion of the genome controlling both things like hereditary cancer risk and g will be laid bare. The politically correct will have nowhere to hide. Maybe they'll become creationists or Luddites at that point. ;-)
Nationalism need not even be associated with any sense of superiority. Merely an association of those I regard as my own, as in my own people. It is just family writ large. There is no need for me to think my own children are superior to anyone else's for me to love them more than all others. It is quite the same for larger groups.
ReplyDeleteThe more Others are admitted to the U.S., the less it feels like an actual country with a shared people and language and values. It feels more like an economy of competing interest groups.
There once was an American People, back when it was still in fashion to think that the melting pot was a grand success. Euro-peoples could come here and are largely assimilate.
Admitting other races made it not a melting pot, but something else, thus losing a sense of national identity.
Anyway, in my view, a healthy people need not necessarily feel themselves objectively superior, they just need to value their own above all others, just as the various Euro-tribes did throughout the ages until the 60s, and just as Blacks and Mestizos still do to this day.
"Chinese and orientals have ON AVERAGE higher IQs that Europeans. But when is the last time you hears Chinese talk about such things?"
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the stupidest things I have read on the internet for some time. My experience with Chinese/Asian people (a lot) is that they are very aware of this.
No need to ponder anything else Mohammed has to say.
Greg: As I have shown in my food theory of culture, there are certain minerals and vitamins that are necessary to sustain life. However, it is also possible to get too much of them. Theoretically speaking, you can die from drinking too much water; just because drinking a couple of liters of it per day is healthy does not mean that drinking twenty times as much of it is twenty times as healthy. You could argue that the modern West suffers from a form of cultural malnutrition; we are being force-fed a steady diet of cultural junk food which systematically deprives us of minerals vital to our mental health while we are becoming fat and lazy. At the same time, we digest far too much of some ingredients that can be beneficial in smaller amounts, above all self-criticism and altruism.
ReplyDeleteThe most common flaw in many cultures is a total lack of self-criticism or appreciation of "the Other." Islamic culture constitutes an extreme case of this problem. Muslims will NEVER concede, either individually or as a group, any flaws of their own. It’s always the fault of the Jews, the Hindus, the Crusaders, the Americans etc. This blame game is deeply unhealthy in the long run because it prevents real progress. One of the beneficial aspects of Christianity is that it states that all human beings are sinners. Because of this it is not necessarily shameful to admit that you are flawed since all human beings are so by definition. Admitting the possibility that you could be wrong means that you can address your flaws and work to reduce or perhaps remove them. This will be impossible as long as you consistently project all of your flaws unto others, as Muslims and many Africans in particular often do.
A culture that never admits its flaws can survive for a long time, yet its progress will be seriously impeded. In contrast, a society that considers itself just one big flaw will not survive for long as it will be unable to defend itself. This is where the white West is today. Our self-criticism, which runs deep in our psyche, is a virtue provided that it is counterbalanced by a healthy dose of self-confidence. If you remove the latter ingredient then the first one, which used to be a virtue, suddenly becomes a vice. Again, the key word is “balance,” not first and foremost the individual ingredients, although that matters, too. Self-confidence is like vitamin C, which means that we currently suffer from a potentially fatal case of cultural scurvy.
"However, in the case of "Euro nationalists", in my opinion an objective observer would have to conclude that European civilization, broadly construed, has been the wonder of the world. "
ReplyDeleteAll the other pondering is inconsequential in light of this statement.
This doesn't rationally imbue anyone with pride (I'm not prideful about stuff my brother accomplishes), but it should imbue any Westerner with a sense of belonging to the highest success in human history.
To speak of superiority in the abstract devoid of any context does not really tell us anything. A group or individual has to be superior in some regard, thus a group can be superior in one way while simultaneously inferior in another. These issues can be objectively analyzed and as was pointed out, reality does not care what we think. Modesty requires us to be honest about both are strengths and weaknesses. Of course it is probably difficult to sustain any sense of pride or belonging if people believe their country, race, or whatever, has no positive aspects. This is the reason the Left tells us we are a nation founded on genocide and built on slavery.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of our actual strengths and weaknesses, our sense of patriotism should arise from a sense of something being our own and not necessarily from a sense of superiority. Much like parents raise their children because they are their children (and I would argue have the obligation to), we should defend our own cultures and traditions because they are our own.
The reason people who are Euro nationalist focus on IQ is that its all they have to show for biological differences now that Darwinian theory is dead.
ReplyDeleteWhere was I when Darwinian theory died? I wonder if liberals hate Islamic creationists as much as they hate Christian ones?
@Mangans
ReplyDeleteI always found it an odd argument from cleaver liberals and anti-westerners that western nationalism is stupid because Asian are intellectual superior. What people do not understand about nationalism is that it is never truly based on one culture being superior than another culture. As you have astutely pointed out there are always justifications for cultural preservation on the basis of superiority in any culture, without it really being based on achievement. What a lot of these people do not understand also that for one an IQ average is an average. It just means East Asians attend to be smarter than Whites, but not that all Asians are smarter than the average white person. Also most of the high IQ in East Asians is non-verbal, which limits them in literature and other language dependent areas. In addition to that fact, Richard Lynn pointed out in his book "Race Differences in Intelligence", that the East Asian propensity toward conformity limits creative thinking among East Asians (page number 239). Lastly East Asians are simply not very aggressive or risk taking, which limits creative thought also, and willingness to expand territoriality and culturally around the world. East Asians have a lot of inferiorities compared to Westerns. I am not attacking East Asians, but this argument of the racial superiority of East Asians based on IQ is getting old. IQ is simply not everything.
A discussion here for those who don't believe that Asians can be "supremacists":
ReplyDeleteThe Asian Work Ethic
Curious that Mohamed chose to cite the higher AVERAGE IQs of Asians, rather than those of Ashkenazi Jews. And, for that matter, when is the last time you hear Jews talks of such things?
ReplyDeleteFjordman - that's a really interesting insight, thanks for sharing it. It makes a great deal of sense and is definitely food for thought. I like the light it sheds on the issue.
ReplyDeleteOne of the distinctive features of Western civilization is its peculiar obsession with novelty and the relentless drive to take ideas to their limits - it seems to me an expression of the desire for personal distinction in the intellectual realm, as each new generation of thinkers wants to outdo the last one by developing old ideas in more extreme ways.
From that perspective, once the West developed the idea of objective criticism, it was almost bound to happen that each new generation of thinkers would push that idea further and further, ultimately to the point of destructive absurdity, as has happened last century. Different dimensions of Western culture, when they interacted, were working against each other.
I'm not sure that is correct, but it is perhaps one element of this complex brew we call decadence. I still place great weight on the genetic element, though, and think much fruitful information can come from research in that area.
For Average Joe:
ReplyDeleteYour astute comment about liberal hypocrisy is on target. Liberals seem unusually quiet in general about Muslim atrocities as witnessed by MSM diffidence.When books about "abusing science" are written they take an automatic position against creationists, which is OK but for their neglect of Islam, the premier religion of creationism plus a few other disturbing ideas and practices. Liberalism's complicit silence is absolutely contradictory because liberals are raucous and mean about Christianity's defects.Good thinking!
Must liberalism win? Its history is spotty and full of rather bad results, but utopian dreams die hard. The very idea of inverting hierarchies so that the oppressed become the oppressors is romantically attractive.Post-modern thinking in liberalism allows the "narratives" of the losers to become the triumphs of today. Cultural constructivism is perfectly suited for personal and racial fabrication of a new image.Pandering by well-meaning liberals adds heavily to this self-delusion.
Since we are finding Darwin right on all aspects of human nature the myth of equality must be exposed but reformulated as a moral imperative. It is that simple. College basketball will continue as a black sport while academics will persist as a white sport.
Cultural and racial pluralism is an intractable problem for nations while a Finland or China thrives on homogeneity. Given cultural and ethnic diversity that becomes excessively conflicting, the liberal "solution" is moral and cultural relativism that amounts to spineless pandering.Such infinite tolerance must end in disaster as we see Muslims raping Swedish women amidst a somnambulent population.In America many are hypnotised by PC threats and allow 20 odd million invaders from Mexico to divest us slowly of our own country.The disease is killing us and its name is liberalism.
Greg, the obsession for novelty and the desire for intellectual distinction can work both ways.
ReplyDeleteThe current and the future generation could as easily, given the right inputs to reverse the direction.
In Italy, during the current elections round (local stuff, regions and provinces) the Lega Nord party (League North) won big time. In Veneto, LN is now the bigger party, larger than Berlusconi's PDL. The left (PD) was defeated. The LN made large gains in Lombardy and Piedmont, and large inroads in Tuscany, Ligury, Emilia Romagna and other leftist Regions of Central Italy.
There, now, LN is the third or fourth party by size.
Things are changing, in Italy like in Netherland and in other places of Europe.
The only doubts I have is what will happen when Berlusconi will retire/die. I suppose the LN will take the electors of PDL. What will happen when Bossi die/retire is unknow. The party could collapse or could be strong enough to continue. When Bossi had the stroke, they showed they were able to stay united and do a good work.
With the new strenght, I would see what the LN will be able to accomplish against illegal immigrants and illegality.
greg, I believe that my father is the most awesome father in the world, even though he is flawed(honestly). This supremacy thing is the same and obviously it has to go to some rational extent, I didn't mean it as believing that our ethnic group is flawless. For example, I love my country in an irrational way and I get teary eyes when I watch certain parts of it's history, even though economically it's an unmitigated shithole and demographically will become so too, sadly. This doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the US, which is a country that I love because of the ideals it was founded on. I also love the British because I find their Britishness cute. Obviously some degree of objectivity is needed in order to improve your country in a rational way. The supremacy thing was meant in the way that a nation has to view it's way as the normative rule in it's own land and it's superiority inside that space.
ReplyDeleteFjordman, Asians aren't smarter than Europeans. North East Asians are, but then you compare their smartest part of their racial group to the average of our racial group. If I recall right, Germanic people have a higher IQ than NE Asians. Talking about bigotry, Romanians have an IQ of 96 on average and we see ourselves as really bright people. The thing is that we have really brilliant people and really dumb people. Sadly, the former is emigrating like crazy and was also probably hurt by freezing and starvation which was the norm for the average person in my country pre 1989. Still, I find it quite amusing when people rave about how smart we are. That link to the Asian blog was funny. I love people like him who believe their way is the right way because they're fun to talk to. Oh, and they really do talk in their native languages around you if they don't want you to understand them. But again, I do that too and would do it if I moved to the US. It would be quite funny because we do have a knack for making fun of other ethnicities.
John D, I wish 1950s America still existed. I would have dedicated the next decade of my life to become a citizen and I would have loved my new country(I love America until the 20th century anyway, it's actually sad when I teach Americans what being an American is supposed to mean and how I know more about the history and constitution of the US). But again, I like history.
The problem is that these Nationalist don't know how to promote their ethnic identity without some form of superiority. Ethnic nationalism exist all over the world. But rarely do you see any attempt to focus on IQ.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that the fact that White people seek to understand IQ, and promote its relevance to civilisation is further proof, in and of itself, that White people are intelligent, and that is why they seek intelligence and to understand its derivation.
That Mo and his cohorts find it irrelevant speaks to their lack thereof. They come from a culture born of revelation only. We come from a culture born of revelation and reason.
Our Bible cannot be understood as revelatory only. At least that is the way it was taken. Christian fundamentalists now place the Bible as no better than the Koran, when they argue from a position based on the Bible only, in the modern understanding of sola scriptura. Which is something without wit or ken and holds no place for the human interaction between God and His creation. Which, further, is not the position of great men like the White Martin Luther.
All Western civilisation is a struggle between revelation and reason.
The rest of the misbegotten world is a struggle between revelation and unbelief and your minstrel like interlocutor, if he can at least be called that, is an example of the animal intelligence upon which Darwinian theory proves itself.
Ethnic identity and similar features and cultures are normal. But supremacy is not.
How does one have an ethnic identity without a differentiator? Ethnicity doesn't exist without something to compare it with. We ask for proof and he makes revelatory statements that exist solely in and of themselves. That is the differentiator with the West as it was and the rest as they are.
That we are supreme in some aspects and they are supreme in others is the point of all intelligent discussion on race, culture and civilisation. But when you throw intelligence to the wolves we get this flat world where ideology reigns and people like Mo don't have the intelligence to recognise it as such since they are bereft of it, reason and its coexisting intelligence.
Whites are supreme at making White babies. Everybody else fails miserably at that.
ReplyDeleteIf a country that had lots of US dollars wanted to cause problems it could spend some of those dollars supporting Equity Feminist groups and minority rights groups to expand workplace equality legislation to companies and organizations with 10 or more employees and to all areas of the company or organization.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine if engineering, marketing, and the executive must have equal numbers of males and females and have minority representation proportional to their presence in the greater population.
I imagine that engineering productivity would precipitously decrease ...
@Black Sea
ReplyDeleteI think the name Mohammed explains why he would not admit Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual superiority. A Muslim dude with a beef against the West is not going to go around saying that Ashkenazi Jews are intellectual supermen.Personally I would mention Ashkenazi Jews, since Ashkenazi Jews have actually produce great minds like Steve Pinker and Michael Hart, unlike East Asians. Also a country like Israel developing nuclear weapons with few resources, is more proof of Ashkenazi Jewish superiority over puny white goys like me.
Whites are supreme at making White babies. Everybody else fails miserably at that.
ReplyDeleteThese days whitey ain't so good at that, either!
I too have often wondered why nationalists can't seem to avoid denigrating other peoples, cultures, and countries. Mexico, for instance, is a decent place to live with decent people, but to listen to some you'd think it was on the border of Hell itself, filled with shifty-eyed imps just waiting to drag you off somewhere.
ReplyDeletea country like Israel developing nuclear weapons with few resources
ReplyDeleteThey had a lot of help from the Frogs.
NutUP:
ReplyDeleteYou are too enamoured of Ashkenazis. Of course they have numerous accomplishments that Yuri Slezkine trumpeted in his The Jewish Century, but Jews have been notorious criminals of which Madoff is only the latest. The Russian Mafia is Jewish, as was the 19th century mafia in Odessa described by Isaac Babel. I saw the Warren Beatty movie "Bugsy" a few nights ago. Siegel was a major Jewish criminal in the 30's. Believe me, Jews make formidable criminals quite the opposite of blacks, as one would readily expect.A ruthless but high IQ person with lots of contacts makes a most formidable enemy of any society.
Question is, Cornelius, are Jews criminal (or violent, genocidal, sadistic) at a higher rate than non-Jews?
ReplyDeleteIf they are not, but are intelligent at a higher rate, then it seems reasonable to have a positive view of them on the whole.
a country like Israel developing nuclear weapons with few resources, is more proof of Ashkenazi Jewish superiority over puny white goys like me.
ReplyDeleteI was foolish enough to try to understand that, and now my head hurts.
Your illogic aside, you do illustrate one of the problems facing the West - the belief in Jewish Supermen.
@Troost
ReplyDeleteThat is true Troost. Ashkenazi Jews have a propensity to be successful criminals. I thought your reply to my comment like always was very enlightening. I love the fact that you reference books in your comments. I feel that people underestimate the value of a well researched and good book these days. I find it hard to achieve a balance in talking about Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi Jews have done so many bad and good things for Western society. On one hand you can become an irrational philosemite who worships Israel as the greatest nation on Earth that can do no wrong. On the other hand, you can become an irrational antisemite, who absolutely hates Ashkenazi Jews. I have noticed that even very smart people have this problem.
@Anonymous
If you are so smart, actually elaborate why my comment was so stupid. I respect Troost, because he provided a real rebuttal to what I said about Ashkenazi Jews. Why not actually take the time to write a real comment, instead of giving some tangential commentary about how stupid my comment was without giving a reason why it is stupid in the first place. If I was to give grades for both your comment and Troost's comment. I would give Troost an A, and you a F.
NutUp, my country almost got a nuke when we were communist and we didn't have other countries give us handouts. Getting a nuke isn't that impressive.
ReplyDeleteHeck, North Korea has a few.
@rebelliousvanilla
ReplyDeleteActually that is a good point.
Heck, North Korea has a few.
ReplyDeleteAgain, they had lots of foreign help, and still they can't quite get it right.
The main problem, IMHO, to develop a nuclear weapon or any other complex technology is economic.
ReplyDeleteNot a problem of wealth, be clear, but a problem of division of the labor and specialization.
North Korea or Iran or Iraq have/had this problem. They need to do it all in-home to be able to prevent other to stop them. For every work to do you need a man doing a dedicated job. Without enough men you are not able to do so. And the men with the right skill are not in unlimited supply. It is not only the share of high IQ men, but also the absolute number of high IQ men.
In places like North Korea or Iran, high IQ people gravitate around political power, not engineering or scientific research. USSR had the same problem, but with a larger population, greater resources and a big help from spies and intelligence they were able to replicate the western technology to an extent.
But the economic problem is also the fact that, totalitarian government will prevent the free market to work freely, so they prevent the allocation of resources in the right way. Human resources and material resources are wasted in a way unknown in western "consumerist" society.
There seems to be a certain cyclicity to these things, with a civilization arising, producing an efflorescence and then falling into decay. Some of that decay seems due to all the deadwood that arrives to take advantage of the splendour that each civilization produces ...
ReplyDeleteSo, in some sense, Europeon Civilization is par for the course.
Yeah; in the sense that the evolutionary jump from apelike ancestor to man was par for the course (after all, it depended on a previous jump, from one-celled organism to another one-celled organism). LOL.
This sort of feigned obtuseness is frustrating, on one hand. But on another, it's gratifying to know your opposition is composed (by necessity?) in the main of inveterate liars.
If you are so smart, actually elaborate why my comment was so stupid.
ReplyDeleteBecause the proposition that "Country X was able to develop nuclear weapons, therefore ethnicity X is superior to mine" is patently false. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Do you believe that this makes Pakistanis superior to stupid "goys" like you? Iran will have the bomb in the not too distant future. Does this make Persians genetically better than you?
Never mind the fact that the US has nuclear weapons also.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou have earned my respect, Anonymous. That is a good counter argument to my comment. I can see your point that nuclear weapons are not good indicator of intellect prowess. That many nations who have lower IQ averages than the U.S. can develop nuclear weapons. I was wrong , you were right Anonymous. Thank you for your reply.