Hanania, Richard. 2015. “Does Apologizing Work? An Empirical Test of the Conventional Wisdom.” (h/t Emil)
Politicians and other public figures often apologize after making controversial statements. While it is assumed that they are wise to do so, this proposition has yet to be tested empirically. There are reasons to believe that apologizing makes public figures appear weak and risk averse, which may make them less attractive as people and lead members of the public to want to punish them. This paper presents the results of an experiment where respondents were given two versions of two real-life controversies involving comments made by public figures. Approximately half of the participants read a story that made it appear as if the person had apologized, while the rest were led to believe that the individual stood firm. In the first experiment, involving Rand Paul and his comments on the Civil Rights Act, hearing that he was apologetic did not change whether respondents were less likely to vote for him. When presented with two versions of the controversy surrounding Larry Summers and his comments about women scientists and engineers, however, liberals and females were much more likely to say that he definitely or probably should have faced negative consequences for his statement when presented with his apology. The effects on other groups were smaller or neutral. Overall, the evidence suggests that when a prominent figure apologizes for a controversial statement, the public is either unaffected or becomes more likely to desire that the individual be punished.
Basically there is no reason to apologize regardless of the situation.
While the scandal may wreck your reputation or not as the case may be, you might as well avoid the self-abasement. Since it’s not going to do you any good anyway.
Not to mention that apologizing when you did nothing wrong is the action of a contemptible worm.
Women and liberals – by nature – favor the strong horse.
The evidence presented here suggests that seeing a public figure apologize either increases the desire to punish him or her, or has no effect at all. If this is the case, we may wonder why politicians do in fact so often ask for forgiveness in the face of controversy. It is possible that politicians apologize in order to receive better coverage from the media or even make a story go away. Political punditry can apparently affect voters’ preferences. In one experiment, individuals judging performances in a presidential debate were influenced by the nature of commentary they watched after the fact, when compared to a control group not exposed to the opinions of pundits (Fridkin et al. 2007). Likewise, if an individual apologizes for a comment that the media finds offensive, future coverage of that individual may be better than it otherwise would be. Such an argument requires the assumption that while members of the public are hostile or indifferent to those who apologize, members of the media will provide better coverage of an individual who shows repentance. Yet there is no reason to assume that this is the case, especially since most of the media leans to the left (Groseclose 2011: Groseclose and Milyo 2005), and liberals in this study appear to be those most likely to want to punish individuals for apologizing.
Nor does it seem that apologizing buys sympathy from the media.
Take a cue from Donald Trump, who at least has this down pat. Go on the attack. Flip the script. Agree and amplify. Basically do anything but apologize, because apologizing signals weakness, and weakness invites further attack.
Public apologies can be a nett gain in Japan, different culture, in the West it’s just blood in the water.
Depends on what the goal is.
For career advancement sake, definitely not in PC instances, like being seen as bigoted against certain groups, or outing hokey aspects of some who’ve been pretty much shielded.
Sorry, I’d rather prefer not to agree upon this one.
(This sounds quite nicely, doesn’t it? – Le style, c’est L’homme. – And having style is something, which is not least proven by getting away with controversial stuff. – It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, what women say, as long as they are charming (Oscar Wilde)).
Never cuck.
Steve King apologized for defending western civilization.
Imagine.
And the GOP kicked him off every assignment.
Tucker never apologizes and his power level just keeps increasing.
Don’t apologize for opinions – period. That does make you look weak. Its pure giving in. Just surrender.
But do apologize for genuine mistakes (like a major military debacle on your watch). Not doing so makes you look weak.
And depending on the severity of the debacle maybe commit seppuku.
But there are clearly situations where not apologizing makes you look weak.
Japanese are not in the midst of a civil war. Apologizing to the enemy side in a culture war is mere surrender, no more no less.
Japanese apologize for genuine mistakes and screw ups to their own constituency – not the other side. When they do apologize for controversial opinions, it is also interpreted as surrender. The only time apologizing for opinions is appropriate if it offends your own side, and its a reaffirmation that you accept your sides positions and affirm your identity.
The question is when surrender or appeasement is good strategy. Answer, when you are genuinely weak and powerless and wish to merely avoid destruction.
I suspect cucking is often a good career choice, but, on the other hand, it is not something that you can potentially pass down six generations in the same family, like wine or chocolate making.
Interesting quote coming from Wilde.
In sales situations where a mistake is made, I have noticed that no matter which lower level employee made the mistake, almost all customers respond favorably if any lower level salesperson is willing to give a straight-forward, regretful apology, assuming they can offer the customer some kind of consolation, like a discount on a future purchase, etc.
It has to be a sincere apology, though, not dancing around the issue to cover up the severity. It could be a little mistake in your eyes, but the customer always knows best.
If it’s one of those rare situations where a customer is intentionally trying to get one over, managers get involved, and they are much less likeky to apologize in a grovelling way. They will try to make amends in a less emotional, more detached way, and they have more options to do so.
But there’s something about the psychology of a verbal apology from a lower level employee v/s an apology by an authority figure. Successful apologies are definitely done with a different tone by people with different social roles. In a store, it’s good when the apologetic salesperson can ask the manager for a customer consolation, delivering the news that way to solidify the verbal apology.
The reason might be the reflexive accusatory element, the need to accurately pin the blame.
A wronged customer feels a kind of obligation to state her grievances to an authority figure in a certain way, communicating the issue more aggressively in the name of better service, whereas the salesperson is regarded as an underling with less control.
If the lower level employee is properly empathetic, with the manager intervening only from a distance, there is less drama, and the apology sticks more easily.
To a large extent, the civilizational cycle, the JQ and all other issues dear to right-wing dissidents boil down to feminine and lesser beta behavior – sneaky, wordy, legalistic end-runs around power backed by physical force, versus traditional respect among Europeans for beneficent authority backed by force. That is why Game is actually central to the dissident movement, and sexual politics go hand and glove with racial and class politics.
Therefore, be mindful of CH’s 6th commandment: “You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry’s” for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.”
And outside of relationships, even that’s probably two too many.
True. Mistakes are not only about power (who will give in), they are also an opportunity to learn something. It makes society as a whole (and life) better if people are willing to admit mistakes so that this kind of societal progress can happen.
Schopenhauer pointed out that the subject of learning by admitting to mistakes is indeed one loaded with deeply rooted energies, which to handle well asks for the highest competencies of our civilization.
One of these competencies for sure is to understand the social fact, that there is a hierarchy at play here (as is always, as long as we speak about our type of Judeo-Christian societies). And it makes perfect sense, to approach the hierarchical aspect of the problem of learning from mistakes in an economic context as in your example demonstrated: By making use of the existing hierarchies in a company.
Trump, like a lot of Manhattan/Wall. Street business alphas, is a big fan of Sun Tzu‘s The Art of War (in his success books it is always recommended).
Trump should’ve spent some of his time studying Baltasar Gracian’s The Art of Worldly Wisdom and he wouldn’t have started so many unnecessary battles and created so much unnecessary hostility toward him. But I admire his style and fortitude nonetheless. I know I couldn’t survive one day with even one-thousandth of the level of crap he deals with day in and day out.
https://youtu.be/-TLCaDbBv_s
Very good point.
Dysfunctional societies are characterized by an inability to admit mistakes. In many poor countries I’ve been to its known that people will see it as a massive “loss of face” to admit mistakes and will never do so. This “hardness” is actually brittle fragility.
Admitting mistakes is a huge asset both for an individual and culture.
Without it people become risk-averse, timid, fearful.
All successful individuals do not fear making mistakes and make them regularly, own them, and learn from them.
The Israeli military cultivated a culture of ruthless mistake admitting and mistake analysis – the Arab countries avoided “loss of face”.
However, here we are talking about a different kind of apology – admitting to an adversary in a culture war that their positions are correct. That is merely surrender.
Surrender has its place in strategy – but let us call it by its name.
Another situation where it’s ok to apologize is when you know that your opponent seeks compromise – because he is disinclined to fight. Apologizing to an opponent whose will to fight is greater than yours – known as appeasement – always results in intensified aggression.
Unfortunately, when you are faced by an opponent whose will to fight is greater than yours is precisely when appeasement is most attractive.
145
“Hide your wounded finger, or you will bump it on everything. Never complain about it. Malice always zeroes in on what hurts or weakens us. Look discouraged and you will only encourage others to make fun of you. Evil intent is always looking for ways to get a rise out of you. It uses insinuation to discover where you hurt, and knows a thousand stratagems to probe your wounds. If you are wise, you will ignore malicious hints, and conceal your troubles, either personal or inherited, for even Fortune sometimes likes to hit you where it hurts. It always goes straight for raw flesh. Be careful not to reveal what mortifies and what vivifies you, lest the former last and the latter end.”
(The Art of Worldly Wisdom: A Pocket Oracle by Baltasar Gracian, S.J., transl. Christopher Maurer)
George H.W. Bush, one month after the US Navy shot down Iran Air 655 killing all 290 people on board:
“I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever, I don’t care what the facts are . . .”
Every culture valorizes the form of aggression it specializes in and disdains that of its enemies.
Traditionally, Jews disdained the physical violence of gentiles as “animal like”, but admired cunning and deceit.
Northern Europeans disdain cunning and deceit as “dishonorable and ignoble” while valorizing physical aggression.
The ancient Greeks valorized both physical aggression and deceit – lying was not shameful among them. And Alcibiades is perhaps the first portrait of an opportunistic psychopath we have.
Renaissance Italians of course also relied heavily on treachery and deceit as tools of aggression.
However, the British practiced deceit and treachery as much as any other culture in their great days, and I’m quite sure all northern Europeans did despite their “knightly” culture during their great period.
Because cunning is as essential for war as is physical aggression, and the culture that forgets this will lose.
Viewing non-physical forms of aggression as “beta” is mere sentimentality and can quickly get you killed or defeated.
If aggression is acceptable at all, then only a fool distinguishes between its different forms. All are useful and have their time and place.
We see today that having victim status can be sharpened into an excellent tool of aggression in the right hands. And we see that the “strong” and masculine can be defeated in war by the weak, the feminine, and the “beta.” This is a truth Taoism and the Chinese recognized long ago.
Not recognizing this is mere stupidity. Being too rigid, too “string”, is weakness. As is being too one sided.
Of course, there is the moral realm, but that is something else.
Fully agree with this. I would just add that the non-apology should use “positive framing” rather than “negative framing” (see this and this link for examples).
Don’t say: “I won’t apologize, because …”
Say: “I was right, and here’s why …”
I don’t fundamentally disagree with anything you wrote, and even I must admit that the war-war/jaw-jaw spectrum is more continuous than discrete.
However, current norms are based on complete misunderstadings of the spectrum, for instance that women and womanish men in power can long be tolerated without resulting in a return to barbarism.
Politics is like diet: it is best to eat about what your ancestors over the last thousand years or so ate. Therefore, a Sioux should go very lightly on the carbs, a Sicilian lightly on the meat, and a Nord somewhere in between.
Though perfidious Albion in its latter stages might suggest otherwise, the Northern European mind changed a great deal as it emerged from our clannish Germanic and Celtic past, and if the change did not frankly begin in England, it arrived there almost simultaneously with the Rhineland: through outbreeding, we developed by far the highest-trust civilization that has existed. Of course that is a set-up for parasitic mimicry by an inbred group with low trust of outsiders. We need to return to the political and metapolitical diet of roughly 700 years ago, when Jews were distrusted throughout the West.
The way our Judeo-Christian hierarchy is constructed allows not only to bow one’s head in guilt and admit a mistake without having to fear to be totally destructed but also to keep the hierarchy still alive while doing so because to bow down or lower oneself is built into this Christian hierarchy.
Our culture does have its structural advantages – not least over Islam.
As a matter of fact, this cultural advantage of Christianity over Islam has been noticed explicitly in the Rolandslied des Pfaffen Konrad in the twelfth century – a German version of the French Chanson de Roland about Karl’s the Geat victory over the Muselmans in the Valley of Roncesvalles in the Pyrenées, at 778.
Thought I’d hit the ‘Reply’ button but seems not: my #18 is a reply to your #16.
Cuckold refers to men whose wife or girlfriend chooses to sleep with other men.
Needless to say, it has no relation ( literally or figuratively) to people apologizing or not apologizing after encountering disapproval for expressing unusual political views in public.
Not saying this specifically to you songbird.
But use of this kind of village language? Let’s be honest, it’s either a sign of stupid muddlehead village people, or (more embarrassingly) of intelligent people mimicking a discourse of stupid people.
Whether we think differences of “IQ test scores” are significant or not – at least the good externality of promoting IQ tests, should be to improve quality of peoples’ vocabulary, so they can express what they actually mean, and not be such a muddled mind who uses images of wives sleeping with other men, to refer to stubbornness of someone in public expression of political views.
Also evident when various cuck politicians apologize for the so-called misdeeds of their ancestors.
If that’s the case then people should simply want white Sharia.
“Overall, the evidence suggests that when a prominent figure apologizes for a controversial statement, the public is either unaffected or becomes more likely to desire that the individual be punished.” Yes, that is correct as far as it goes.
But missing the main point, which is: the public be damned!
These apologies by politicians, in general, are NOT aimed at the general public. They are aimed at wealthy donors and power centers. By groveling in public they demonstrate they they don’t really mean it and that they will not threaten the status quo. Like if a dog is disciplined and whines and licks his master’s hand begging for forgiveness…
I kind of admire barnyard language sometimes, since I think it is more honest. But I wasn’t clear in my example of passing down the family career. What I was thinking of was politicians and the demographic changes which they cause by cucking, which limit the political opportunities of their children and grandchildren and so on. Though, it probably applies to a wider field of people in high positions.
As for the word “cuck”: sometimes there is an unavoidable sexual subtext as regards the situation, such as “man and wife welcome Somali refugee” and the husband is sitting on the other side of the room, while the wife is close to the African and smiling. Or else, there is some disgusting crone is welcoming a young African man, with obvious ulterior motives.
This is unfortunate because I disdain sexual language in politics. There’s something very bizarre and unseemly about it. Examples I would give would be Ian Paisley, or the prominent Youtuber “Black Pigeon Speaks.”
But, honestly, I rather generally think of cuck in another way, more towards its origin. Like The Midwich Cuckoos, (1957) which is not my favorite John Wyndham story (which would be Day of the Triffids), but is nevertheless a great psychological idea. I highly encourage anyone not familiar with the idea it is based on, to look up photos of “brood parasitism.”
There are species of birds that have an evolutionary strategy to lay their eggs in the nests of other bird species. The eggs often hatch early, and kill the mother’s real nestlings, so they will get more food. The “mother” bird continues to feed this intruder nestling, sometimes even as it grows to monstrous size – larger than the “mother.” There is something about its open maw which cuts right to the instinct of the “mother” bird, almost as if it were hypnotized.
Brood parasitism is really what I think of, since I think it is more applicable. GR was talking about white conservatives adopting black babies, and I think it sort of applies in that situation. It is sometimes very much like a mothering instinct gone awry. I grant some poet license with the grammar, since for me, it evokes such powerful imagery.
I definitely agree with you that we have to return to previous approaches. When it’s obvious you’ve taken the wrong path, the only intelligent thing to do is go back to that fork in the road.
But my personal take is that this is not the result of outbreeding or a genetic thing. Timelines too short. In the 18th century Europeans were violent, racist, treacherous, and conquering.
Rather, it is a result of scientific thinking. This reduces the passions and desires (disconnects one from the thymotic side of man).
Also, I think it’s a mistake of the first order to characterize the Western attitude as altruistic. It is self-hate, and it is love of the non-Eutopean.
A contributing factor is the perverse incentives created by desiring to portray oneself as scientifically objective (and thus signal prestige) – the best way to signal scientific objectivity is to show that one has suppressed the natural egoistic desire to love oneself.
Another contributing factor is “costly signalling” – whites are so powerful and dominant that they can afford to handicap themselves relative to others.
My personal view is that the largest cobtr8byting factor is that disconnection from the thymotic part of man led to growing dissatisfaction and disgust with life, and a search for vitality and emotion in the foreign.
Very interesting. I did know that early.
But Machiavelli got condemned as a servant of the devil for his amoral treatise, which implies that the Italians of the past were conscious that their common behaviour was improper.
Qui s’excuse, s’accuse.
Cuck does not mean the same thing as cuckold.
Cuck is etymologically related to ‘cuckold’, and is certainly meant to evoke the image of a man who would endure being cuckolded, but it’s not what the word cuck means.
Cuckold itself is etymologically directly derived from Old French cucualt which is a composite word cucu (‘cuckoo’) plus a generally-pejorative ending.
When you look at it etymologically, that’s weird – since a man who is a cuckold is himself not the nest-invader… he’s the victim.
It’s more accurate as a verb – to cuckold is to be the betrayer, not the betrayed.
So a man who has been cuckolded has been betrayed, which weirdly makes him a cuckold. Inconsistent!
Calling someone a cuck has the added connotation of them being the cuckoo in the nest – nominally part of the group (e.g., men) but actively working against the interests of the group, and a primary vector for attacks on the group.
Saying someone is cucking, or is cucked… means that they are on their way to betraying their group. Consistent.
Plus, it’s like one of the offspring of ‘fuck’ and ‘cunt’ (cuck and funt… I guess the other two would be fucu and cknt).
And, it’s also evocative of a cock that’s fucked up.
It’s actually a really good neologism.
Plus, it rhymes with fuck so it has that Saxon short-vowel/hard-consonant-sibilant quality that makes for perfect invective. Shit; piss; tit; cock; cunt; fuck; … CUCK.
HAIL KEK!!!
Well you’re not supposed to admit it. Jews don’t run around admitting they rely heavily on deceit either.
Italy was nominally Christian, and had to keep up appearances.
One of the most astonishing but entertaining chapters in Burckhardts 19th century classic on the Renaissance is the one on the states fighting each other. GoT is boy scout stuff compared this.
And even today, Italians are more prone to be corrupt and use deceit than Scandinavians.
Correspondingly, Italians are not very skilled in military matters (though individually courageous and strong). A culture specializes in some tools of aggression at the expense of others.
I suspect the northern European disdain for “low cunning” is nothing more than a consequences of their incredible skill in organized military might, which made them specialize in this field.
But I think your general point is valid.
“Official” culture often has very little relation to actual practice, and what people say very little to what they do.
That’s why TV and film is not a clear guide to the culture that produces them – it does reveal a lot about the culture but it needs context to be interpreted.
Brood parasite hosts is also accurate and perhaps less vulgar terminology (although a bit long-winded to say ex. “fake conservative brood parasite host”), however, the purpose of the insult is to provoke a visceral reaction in the target.
The target attempts to receive favourable social signals through conceding to pressure, “cuck” accusations is intended to disrupt this process.
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/brazil-elections-analysis/#comment-2568581
THAT’S JUST LOCKER ROOM TALK
please don’t perpetute this judeo-christian garbage
jews are 2% of the population and their holy book says Christ is boiling in excrement and Mary is a whore. there is no judeo-christian society, its just an attempt by the 2% to insinuate themselves into your history, your culture, etc
what would jews in israel say if the few christians there attempted to claim it was a Christo-Judaic society?
they would spit on them and worse
I don’t really have an opinion on this, but I find it interesting that the older traditionalist generations of the martial nationalities of Chechens and Pashtuns similarly pride themselves on their strict codes of honour (Nokhchallah and Pashtunwali, respectively).
We have in fact discovered one of the darkest facts about the universe.
The universe belongs to conquerors and never pacifists. Wolves always win and sheep always lose.
I would like to translate what you wrote into plain English and make the ideas more explicit.
In the Law of Nature there are no such thing as rights. The strong, defined as the ones skilled at robbing others and defending themselves, do what they can. The weak, defined as the ones unskilled at robbing others and defending themselves, suffer what they must.
The basis of male power is male ability to commit violence. Robbery, murder, assault and rape..these are literally the basis of male power without which a large part of the planet especially Sub-Saharan Africa would have been filled with matriarchies. In fact in these humid and tropical societies women did most of the work. Without male violence and male threat to commit violence the fate of men there would have been similar to that of drones in bees, that is, other than as breeders they are good for nothing and should be kicked out as soon as they become too old to provide quality sperm.
What you said essentially means: “Peaceful workers and merchants don’t deserve to retain what they earn because they aren’t robbers or murderers and don’t threaten to commit such crimes. Treachery is by definition obtaining what murderers, robbers and those who threaten to commit such crimes are entitled to without actually commiting that much murder and robbery if at all, hence it is fraudulent and evil.”
Yes due to virtue signalling but his ideas were not lost.
Intellectuals devastating pro-social myths can be very harmful to preservation of shared pro-social norms. That’s because once enough people realize that these myths are myths they tend to become less pro-social. Such a loss of pro-sociality is often irreversible. Within a society it tends to lead to widespread loss of social trust. Within a civilization consisting of multiple states it often causes warfare to evolve from ceremonial wars to total wars.
I have predicted what the end game of the current global round of removal of pro-social myths will be: Widespread genocides using WMDs and maybe even human extinction. It takes only a few people such as Cixin Liu to bring the very idea of preemptive genocide into people’s minds. Once that meme spreads it will never go away no matter how anti-human it is. The next step is of course Ethnoglobe which is merely application of Liu’s idea to this planet. It spreads among multiple races and ethnic groups. The last step is near Omnicide.
While knowledge about nature is helpful to both an individual and a society, certain knowledge about human societies is often helpful to the individuals who have it and harmful to social unity as it encourages people to defect against others and enables them to do so effectively.
However the amount of these two types of knowledge a person has are generally positively correlated.
I’m actually serious when I wrote “near omnicide”. Previous war taboos were violated in similar manners. Once norm violation could no longer be successfully punished everybody began to defect until almost no norm remained. Once untraceable ethnobioweapons and other untraceable WMD become feasible due to newer tech it will probably happen because preemptive genocide as a concept will not go away no matter how much it is condemned.
Right, it does not surprise me. My theory is that people specialize, and that carries an opportunity cost.
Developing militarily not only pulls the focus away from cunning, but probably too much cunning interferes with military effectiveness.
The Japanese also present a contrast to the Chinese in this respect in the exact same way.
My personal predilection is for military honor, and I have an instinct to despise “low cunning”, but then I always check myself – by what right? Why despise one form of aggression over another? And by what right do I refuse other people the use of the tools that are available to them in the struggle for life? What if some one born weak – should he not use what he can?
And as in all things, I now think a dynamic balance is optimum. And even heavily militarized societies like northern Europe and Japan did not at all neglect cunning in their great days (Pearl Harbor, the British, etc).
It’s disappointing that ‘cuck’ has become a synonym for capitulation, bending the knee, or what have you.
‘Cucking’ ought to have been reserved for situations involving supporting others’ genetic interests.
I had good success, before the word ‘cuck’ came to prominence, with the ‘cuckoo’ analogy.
As for not apologising, I have given this advice many times, long before Trump. I was often pooh-poohed for suggesting politicians would be better off not apologising, which shows how poor many people’s instincts are.
The meaning has been expanded to include anything that cucks do. But you are correct in that the original meaning is supporting others’ genetic interests. Though in a way, apologizing for not being sufficiently anti-white is a good example of supporting others’ genetic interests, i.e. cucking. Because it sure as hell doesn’t support your own genetic interests.
That’s what I always thought after seeing many many examples of people losing their livelihoods no matter how much they were groveling and apologizing. So apologizing just doesn’t make sense, even from a purely selfish point of view. It won’t save you anyway, so why not keep your dignity instead?
Since we are on the theme of deceitful Italians, I will recommend the novel Prince of Foxes (1947) by Samuel Shellabarger, for anyone who likes swashbuckling.
There was also a movie. It has a lot of great location shots, but I wouldn’t recommend it as much because one of the characters was made very hammy, and certain other changes. Plus, it is black and white, which seems like an odd choice.
TRS meme production has really dropped off since the heady days of the echo, which got most of blue check twitter into a tizzi.
Thanks, will check it out.
HBD is cuckery. It supports the genetic interests of Jews and Asians. And in some ways, also blacks.
But it is “objectively true”, you will reply. It is only “rational”.
Is it?
Remember how until Ron Unz did the numbers and pointed out that Jewish IQ cannot possibly account for their overrepresentation in important areas HBD proponents insisted it was because of IQ?
Anyone who did not have the instincts of a cuck would have done the numbers themselves – would have been motivated to find a discrepancy by a desire to support his own genetic interests.
If no discrepancy could be found, so be it. But as it turns out, multiple discrepancies could easily be found. They were not looked for. Yet they were low hanging fruit.
Perhaps its time to recognize that cuckery often hides behind “objective rationality” – a desire to support ones genetic interests should mean is partial, not objective.
I thought the darkest fact of the universe is that it has far more gravity than the detectable matter in it,thus the assumption of large quantities of dark matter.
Let me answer from a strictly German basis if you please: My paternal Grandfather spoke Yiddish – not much but hid speak the language and he liked it. My maternal Grandfather knew and liked lots of jews in person, in the Czechoslovakian Hinterlands of Sudetia. He liked them (many musicians among them), and he spoke often times about them, after he had – together with his family, to flee from there – barely alive, because after the war, the Russians put him into the Auschwitz camp (when he was allowed set free, he weighed in at 38 Kilograms – while being 1,75 m tall).
Then there are Heinrich Heine, the Mendelsons, Marx, Erich Fromm, Ernst Bloch, Siegmund Freud, Arthur Koestler… It’s literally impossible to separate the German culture I grew up in from those minds and writers: This is a Judeo-Christian tradition.
Plus, and this is so simple, that I can barely mention it: No Christianity without Judaism.
But not just any poet, and not just any imagery. NLP.
A big part of the problem is people trying to be profound before they’ve mastered English. A key to mastering English is differentiating between the parts of speech. Poet is a noun, but “poetic” is the adjective you should have used.
I don’t know about “cuck,” but I certainly don’t and will not use it. Some words are ugly, vague, but popular with semi-educated parrots of the type who use “fail” (verb) in place of “failure” (noun), and I think “cuck” falls into that class of popular, current, trending words incorrectly used by popular ignoramuses, which then spread like the plague among other ignoramuses trying to be cool, current, and trending!
“Cuck” does not appear in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition. According to that reference, “cuckold” derives from “cuckoo” a species of bird that practices nest parasitism by laying its eggs in another bird’s nest so that the unsuspecting parent birds raise the cuckoo chick, which has the instinct to heave other eggs from the nest. Uh oh.
In my view, “cuck” is another neologism coined to make men feel insecure, and to give them another pejorative to insult each other.
“Cuck” resides in the minds and patois of the insecure.
“Self abasement” I think is the root here.
Yep. Because humans (and animals, AI, aliens) are much nastier than what we think.
If we actually focus on what humans do we can observe some really nasty stuff that seems to have been written into the fabric of the universe. It’s really not humans’ fault. It is the universe’s.
Aaron,
HBD is an area of research, not an ideology. It encompasses people who hold different beliefs and come to different conclusions. Like you, I cringe when people say something is “scientifically true.” Science is an ongoing debate, and nothing is settled beyond all doubt. That’s my position, and I’m supposedly an HBD writer.
Are Ashkenazi Jews more intelligent on average than other human groups? I was initially more intrigued than convinced when this debate began with the publication of “Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence” in 2006. I was especially intrigued to learn that the four leading genetic illnesses of Ashkenazi Jews —Tay-Sachs, Gaucher, Niemann-Pick, and mucolipidosis type IV (MLIV) —affect the same metabolic pathway, i.e., the capacity to store sphingolipid compounds that promote the growth and branching of axons in the brain. That cannot be coincidence. The most likely explanation is strong selection for intelligence over a relatively short span of time. The rest of their argument was less convincing. Yes, Ashkenazi Jews have an impressive record in all areas of intellectual activity, but that might be due to cultural factors.
Today, I’m convinced. We now have two separate studies that show that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher percentage of alleles associated with high educational attainment. In the case of the difference between Africans and non-Africans, one might argue that Africans have a different basket of alleles that could boost intelligence. But I don’t see how one can credibly use that argument in this case. European Jews and non-Jews aren’t that different genetically. Any allele that boosts intelligence would be available to either group.
I suspect you’re not convinced. Please tell me why.
Obviously, it was a typo. It is an English phrase, as far as I know. Though I don’t claim a great knowledge of the poetry of other tongues – English is a more poetic language, when it comes to scope.
I don’t know if I would call it a popular word. It is very anti-establishment. I don’t think there are a lot of women using it; I doubt they use it on TV.
It is a neologism. Just because it is not in the dictionary doesn’t mean that it is being used incorrectly. You have to accept that there are new ideas, not well articulated by old words. Imagine if we were still speaking PIE and didn’t have any words for farming because they weren’t in the PIE dictionary.
Also, since it evokes evolutionary biology, I think it is kind of a smear to attribute it to the stupid. That is what Leftists do – try to turn it into a meme (another useful neologism) of cross-eyed, bucktoothed whites wearing it on T-shirts. In no way is that a good rebuttal.
Which current trends make you feel secure?
Minimally advanced life? Hell it even underpins viruses. Wherever there are autonomous agents which include robots there is violence.
Well, it can actually operate. These merchants are just regularly killed and beaten simply for not being able to threaten violence.
But what can you say when you are talking about the Theory of Gravity to a flat Earther? I mean, I get that it’s technically not even true (due to the General Theory of Relativity superseding it), but we’re basically talking about some very vague generalities here. In practice, it’s pretty unlikely for the Flat Earth “Theory” to be true, while it’s pretty damn likely that something closely resembling (at least under “normal,” i.e. everyday, circumstances) Newton’s gravity does exist. Why should laypeople qualify their every sentence when talking about reality?
Of course, what we know about genetics influencing behavior, personality traits, intelligence, etc., it’s inconceivable that selection hasn’t affected it. (In fact, it’s the only scientific explanation we have of why we are intelligent at all.) Given that intelligence has different costs and benefits in different environments, not to mention the different selective landscape of different populations due to drift or admixture with different populations (like Neanderthals outside Africa) etc., it’s pretty damn unlikely for all populations not to be significantly different on many or all of these traits. (We can debate the intelligence of Nepalese etc. ad nauseam, and I wouldn’t want to go into such details, but again, we’re not talking about such details.)
It’s nice for scholars like yourself to qualify your statements, though. Laypeople are freer not to do so.
Quite frankly, sir, this is a simply false statement.
You seem to conflate pre-Christian Judaism with post-Christian Judaism. These are two very different things, in a purely historical sense.
Modern Judaism is not remotely the same thing as pre-Christian Judaism. Pre-Christian Judaism was (generally) governed by the Torah; post-Christian Judaism, as it emerged several centuries after Jesus, is governed by the Talmud.*
Modern, Talmudic Judaism is, in a certain sense, a reactionary religion. It is nothing other than a reaction against the historical event of Jesus Christ. Hence why its greatest rabbi, Moses Maimonides, dreams of a Jesus boiling in excrement.
Jesus is, by traditional Christian understanding, the fulfillment of the Torah. By rejecting this, no matter what it claims, modern Judaism sets itself up as a reaction against the original Judaism of the Hebrews. This is the truth.
Heck, even Ron Unz had a whole series of posts about this here on the site: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/
*There are a few small sects who don’t follow the Talmud, and who claim to follow the Torah, but, again, they are a tiny minority.
Sadly, the Catholic Church’s hierarchical decline prevents the West from having its original awareness of the nature of the Jewish and Christian religions.
Uh…what do you think Hillel, Shammai etc were about? There was already Rabbinical Judaism (in the form of Pharisees) before Christianity.
The Talmud is not solely a reaction to Christianity even though that’s certainly a part of it. As far as I know it is a very boring collection along the lines of “Rabbi A said about X, Rabbi B said about Y, Rabbi Z commented on what Rabbi A said about X…..” where the logic is often not even clear. So it is basically a bunch of nonsense.
Let’s take one of the anti-Christian verses as an example since it is something we at Unz tend to be familiar with.
What is this? How is whether a person should be executed related to his name at all?!
It is a happy coincidence that the word is a almost a homophone with “cluck.”
That’s dark but not in my sense.
There are “rabbis” in that sense in Christianity and Islam, too. But the praxis of pre-diaspora Judaism has pretty much entirely disappeared.
A good source on Jewish history: https://archive.org/details/dissolvingviews00schigoog/page/n9
On Yohanan ben Zaccai:
But sheep can be dark too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_sheep
” The most likely explanation is strong selection for intelligence over a relatively short span of time.”
What, I wonder, was the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews in Europe in 1932?
But you’re misunderstanding Aaron’s point: he’s not saying that Ashkenazi Jews shouldn’t be over-represented, but that they shouldn’t be over-represented to anything like the degree they are given the difference in numbers.
I’m English and a couple of years ago I calculated that, in the UK, for every Jew with a high IQ there would be 25 to 50 indigenes, depending obviously on where you set the threshold for high IQ.
Since you touched on political leaders apologizing, I will bring up leaders apologizing for events in the distant past to which they had no connection. I think it is a very interesting phenomenon which deserves more scrutiny.
I have previously mentioned Willy Brandt’s Kniefall aus Warsau:
It would be interesting if they redid the survey, while also separating it out into ethnic groups and East vs. West.
Then there is the curious case of Japan, which is often the target for demands to apologize, but has a long history of apologizing, while remaining ethnocentric.
That’s possible, but how does that invalidate HBD? What does it even have to do with HBD?
HBD is not a political ideology.
I did not claim Jews do not have higher average intelligence. I accept they do.
I said Jewish dominance in America cannot be explained primarily by their higher average IQ.
The numbers were there for everyone to see. But no white HBDer was motivated enough to crunch the numbers and challenge that conclusion. Every white HBDer was actively pushing the conclusion that Jewish dominance was primarily a function if IQ.
I think John Derbyshire and Steve Sailer still are, to this day.
It took a Jew who had soured on his own people – Ron Unz – to challenge that conclusion.
Ironically, a Jew was more motivated to attack his people than whites were to defend their own people.
I kept my point exceedingly brief for the sake of clarity – this is the tip of the iceberg, and the case is similar with Asians and blacks.
There is nothing surprising about whites self-abasing themselves for no reason at this point in the development of Western civilization. What is unusual about white HBDers is that they cast themselves as promoters of white interests, pretend to mock those whites who “cuck”, and portray themselves as offering something different from the mainstream narrative.
I have no objection to HBD theory. Biological differences clearly exist between groups. However, theory is one thing, practice another. In the hands of what can only be called the “white HBD movement”, HBD is without question a branch of mainstream white self-abasement.
Not least, also, for its overemphasizing the genetic component well beyond the evidence – which creates fatalism and despair.
“Unforced” fatalism being another feature of late European civilization decline.
It really doesn’t matter if you or Reiner Tor or Sailer or Derb are just more expressions of late European civilization decline. It’s a pretty big club at this point. And it’s obvious you guys are not interested in becoming healthy again.
But it is important to define what’s going on.
I love the term “cuck” and I use it all the time.
I like the sound of it.
I like the way it so accurately describes what the nose is doing to our people.
Oddly, many people don’t really understand what “cuck” means.
They call Ben Shapiro a “cuck,” for instance. Then I have to explain,
“No….Ben can’t be a cuck. Ben’s tribe is causing (funding) the cucking.”
Examples of infamous cucks, Paul Ryan and John McCain come to mind.
Cuck just means shabbos goy. It’s a new improved version of shabbos goy.
So….Ted Kennedy didn’t even know he was a cuck.
Did Kevin B. MacDonald actively push the conclusion? Given some of his recent remarks, it’s unclear if even Greg Cochran would make that assertion. (BTW there’s no clear distinction between something being “primarily a function of IQ” and just simply being “a function of IQ,” so it’s a little weasely. Jewish dominance clearly wouldn’t work without IQ. It also wouldn’t work without a lot of ethnocentrism on their part.)
Yeah, I don’t like that either.
So Peter Frost – every other group is busy glorifying itself – white HBDers are busy being “objective” and “scientific” about itself.
And the “objective” picture white HBDers have arrived at is that whites are less capable than Jews and Asians in the intellectual realm and less capable than blacks in the physical realm. And moreover, these differences, if they exist, are not temporary, perhaps cultural, but unalterable.
Really exciting to belong to such a group, isn’t it. Young white men will surely be galvanised to rise up against the current paradigm with such an inspiring vision of their potential and future destiny.
Isn’t it how funny how this “objective” picture cherry picks data and glosses over facts to arrive at a conclusion that just happens to take the wind out if the sails of white people, and bears no relation to their past greatness?
One should not be objective with regard to one’s own group. One should be decidedly partial.
So the very fact that white HBDers claim they are being objective invalidates their claim that they are promoters of white genetic interests.
Either you are objective, or you are interested in promoting the interests of your own people.
And best way to demonstrate objectivity is to show you do not favor your group. This creates the incentive to show your group in an unflattering light.
So objectivity is necessarily a kind of bias – to signal objectivity, you gave to demonstrate negative bias against your self.
Your original sin is that you even think being objective about your group is desirable. No other group thinks that.
And this is my other point. One discovers truths by being motivated. Of course, one must stick to logic and facts, but one digs and digs deeper because one is passionately motivated. One is not satisfied with unflattering conclusions unless one has truly exhausted all other options – and yet, that is the opposite of what white HBDers have done.
If that is true, why are there countless more sheep than wolves?
What about expressions of regret? This doesn’t apply to individuals so much, though I could see a political candidate being put into such a position, but it regularly applies to political entities.
When the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade Clinton apologised, but when two years later an American spy plane and a Chinese plane collided the US only issued a formal expression of regret. IIRC some terrorist groups in N Ireland would occasionally acknowledge mistakes – eg. killing the wrong person – by expressing regret, thus signalling to the community that they are not common murderers, but they would not apologise outright as that would signal weakness and no stomach for the fight.
Yes, Kevin D was. Don’t know about now. Also Chocran.
That was the pre-Ron narrative you ethnocentric whites came up with. Don’t know how dramatic an impact Ron’s corrections made, if any.
The narrative was/is simple – Jewish dominance is a function of their genetically higher IQ. The implication is unmistakable. Jewish overlordship is therefore legitimate and meritocratic.
At best, one can beg them to favor whites, like Sailer does. Pretty please.
Look, Tor, if there is nothing in you that instinctively revolts at this, that makes you want to dig deeper and exhaust all options before agreeing, then that is who you are.
And the situation is maybe even worse with Asians and Blacks.
And yet dig deeper is scarcely the correct term – the narrative was actively invented by glossing over facts. The first thing to do was check the math. Literally the first thing.
You guys didn’t do it.
With ethnocentric whites like these, I’d almost rather have the unabashedly self-hating left.
What?
Can you separate facts from desires? Or reality from the pro-social image you want to project to the world? To me these are separate.
We have to acknowledge the facts and desires guide us to change them. In order to change them we first need to know what they currently are..
Because they are lower in the food chain. Sheep suck. Wolves rule.
Several years ago I was actively following Kevin B. MacDonald’s writings. I read his commentary on Elena Kagan’s appointment. He and his authors wrote a plethora of articles on how mediocre Kagan was, merely a case of ethnic nepotism. Ron Unz’s article came out a year or two after Kagan was confirmed by the Senate.
Anyway it’s absurd to write that if Jewish dominance was rooted in their superior ability then their dominance would be morally justified. KMac explicitly made the case that they are a hostile elite intent on destroying whites, and therefore their dominance is highly undesirable. He even praised (or at least described in a relatively positive tone) a certain Central European movement and government and their leader, who managed to unseat Jewish power in a spectacular way.
Have you read Frank Salter’s comparison (from maybe 2009) about Jews having many times larger ethnic power than white gentiles? (Because even powerful gentile whites don’t represent their own ethnic interests due to the “anti-racist” ideology. Certainly no one could have believed that there are many times more smart Jews than white gentiles.)
Good retorts. I concede some of these neologisms make me peevish. Communication is challenging enough without new words and their trains of camp followers transfixed even energized by the novel concept to the point where it becomes their raison d’être. Sometimes, familiar words take on new meanings, further adding to the babble.
NLP may be a pseudo-science, but as far as I can tell, it works.
Now the thing is, since the word cuck derives from cuckoo, shouldn’t it be pronounced to rhyme with kook? Or maybe it is, what do I know? Since we’ve already got kooks, I suppose cuck is pronounced to rhyme with suck, which everyone likes to accuse everyone else of doing.
Tough crowd, we humans.
Incidentally, even though most bird species form pair bonds for mating, not all songbirds are entirely monogamous and songbird promiscuity is more common than thought. As George Goble said famously: “Well, I’ll be a dirty bird!”
It seems the early bird gets not only the worm, but a little extra on the side. No doubt that trick flies both ways.
Well, I do apologize for perhaps beating up on you too much about “cuck” and “poet,” but you know what they don’t say:
If you can’t join ’em, beat ’em, but at least be nice about it.
Reality is a constraint. Logic and facts create limits.
But motivation determines the direction of your search. The determination to accept an unflattering self image of your self or to dig deeper.
Or worse – selecting some facts out of a conflicting data set to craft an “unforced” negative narrative.
That is what reveals where a mans true heart lies.
Approaching a subject with a particular motivation does not mean you have to sacrifice facts. You can search intensively out of a desire to vindicate certain theories while accepting the constraints of facts.
Motivation of this kind often results in great discoveries. Watson discovered the double helix because he wanted to disprove religion. He was highly partisan and motivated.
So no one should approach the study of his own group with “neutrality” – he should be passionately interested in presenting his group in a flattering light while accepting the constraints of facts.
Approaching the study of group differences with “neutrality” already suggests decadence. And again – partiality does not mean dishonesty.
But in reality what we have here is negativity posing as neutrality, and genuine neutrality is perhaps possible only in theory.
Truth emerges from the interplay of motivated partisan parties fighting for their side but willing to accept me constraint of facts.
And with regard to HBD, the one plain fact is that groups rise and fall – barbarians become civilized, the civilized become decadent. And motivation affects group performance and cannot be assessed or quantified. So the constraint of facts is particularly wide here.
And finally, what you call pro social myths are challenges for future performance – Jews would never have engaged in the practices that elevated their intelligence over the centuries if they did not believe they were chosen people destined to rule the world.
What you call a myth is more of a declaration of intent, a personal challenge – they express a feeling about oneself and how one wishes to be.
I can see you are quite the romantic, but seriously, if wolves rule, then why were they in danger of going extinct before they were artificially protected?
What is success?
-life expectancy Clams>turtles>sheep>wolves
Of course we stipulate that the sheep and wolf are representative of greater truths
I think it just depends on one’s values. It takes all types to make the world go round.
FWIW, I like to be a lone wolf
Objectively much darker.
I’ve never claimed that Jewish overrepresentation is due only to merit. Ethnic networking is also a factor, as I wrote in a column … right here, at the Unz Review, almost five years ago:
http://www.unz.com/pfrost/2014/12/
WASPs have made a god out of individualism and meritocracy. That kind of system works only when everyone plays fair, and most people on this planet do not play fair. My objection to the antisemites at the Unz Review is their strange belief that Jewish Americans are alone in not playing “fair.” Why are Catholics overrepresented on the Supreme Court? Isn’t that also networking? Hasn’t social welfare become a spoils system where certain groups get much more than their fair share? Do poor whites get their fair share of public housing?
And the fun is only starting. In a majority-minority U.S., fair play will have little to do with getting ahead in life. If you’re a rugged individualist, life will be very tough for you.
This will be a huge loss. Individualism is genuinely wonderful. This is a crucial reason why individualistic Germanic cultures need to be protected. It was very hard for at least one region on this planet to become fairly free from amoral familism. Why shall it become amoral familist again so that the entire world can be uniformly infected by this ideology?
Germans are not individualistic on average, but probably the most collectivist population, more even than a Russian public. For a population like Germans and Japanese, being so easy to manage into a herd has positive and negatives (it makes daily life easy, but at the extreme end, the herd mentality can go very wrong politically).
The most extreme example of a “person supporting others’ genetic interests”, would be a fireman, who climbs into a burning house, to rescue a baby; or a soldier, who sacrifices themselves at age 18 in a battlefield (i.e. a selfless person, who is eliminated from the gene pool to save others); or a rescue worker who swims into a dangerous river to rescue a drowning child.
The most extreme example of a “person supporting their own genetic interests”, would be a sperm or egg donor.
Of course, “supporting genetic interests”, does not really exist, because the interest of genes is to spread wherever they can – while it gives the person whose genes they are no benefit (beyond the money which you might receive as a sperm or egg donor).
As for people who believe in principles, or who speak the truth (or at least their unpopular opinion) after they are condemned for it in society. These people are usually admired to the extent they are perceived as doing action “selflessly”.
We admire these principled people precisely (whether are Socrates or Antigone) because they are dignified by a selfless belief in principles, and don’t just follow their animal self-interest.
So it seems in this internet discourse, that people who do “selfless” actions, are being called “not cucks” (someone whose wife doesn’t sleep with another man). But person who does selfish action (like conforming to society’s views), is “cuck”.
In other words, the language is clownery, and the average teenager who has been inhaling solvents and drinking bath lotion, sounds more intelligent.
is a metaphysical illusion, surely? Just like any other kind of “interest”?
Okay, kidding.
Good point.
There can be a sexual element in modern politics, to the extent that officials like Igor Sechin can steal enough money to buy $150 million yacht, and with the stolen money, to get a glamorous 21 year old wife who he named the yacht after (before she ran away with another boyfriend).
Needless to say, nothing of this, has any relation to a person apologizing or not apologizing, after unpopular comments in public. The political officials who become the most rich, are those selected for being the most conformist people. And the reason Sechin was a “cuck”, was more to do with the fact he is ugly, old and boring. And to laugh at him for being a cuck, would be quite ironic as well, as even after the young wife left him, he still lives better than 99,99% of the population who he stole his money from.
Third-world immigrants want an easy life if they go to a wealthy welfare state, and perhaps (if they are Muslim) to spread their uncivilized religion, as any brainwashed cultist does.
The bird story is interesting to know about, but there is not any esoteric relation between birds and immigrants. The bird behaviour is interesting, but it sounds like material for writing a gothic horror story, than for why an African would prefer to live in Sweden, than in Somalia or Sudan.
Immigrants are acting selfishly, like most people are. The question whether they carry more costs or more benefits. And even if they were beneficial, whether there couldn’t be better quality people to replace them with. And if they have an unpleasant ideology like Muslim, whether they should not be sent on the boat back to the country where their ideology is normal, and where we can already see the unattractive society it has created.
Complex objects are a metaphysical illusion
“Basically there is no reason to apologize regardless of the situation.”
This forces me to reject the overall advance.
There are reasons on occasion to apologize and to do so publicly. The one example probably does not reflect the differences in the situational dynamics.
Dr. Summers did not need to apologize for his views regarding the dynamic of women in sciences and math.
The female academics who had conniption fits of tears and teeth gnashing ought to apologize for using emotional appeals of sympathy for what required a scholarly response if any. many of you have totally gummed up the issues. The demographic doing the most to shift value analysis, and rhetoric to something less objective is women, especially white women — always has been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. One can keep squawking about blacks, because you are afraid of women, especially white women —
But the 60 million adult white women impacting education and the workplace out number blacks in total by roughly 50%. Apologizing is not a request it’s demand and I would remind that Pres Trump apologized more than once.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/trumps-rare-apology/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/19/turkey-trump-erdogan-apology-washington
I think he even apologized for the “bloody” comments as I recall and he shouldn’t have. I have heard the reference among business people all the time or even among other scenarios —
“I wouldn’t go in there just yet — it’s pretty bloody.”
In theory I agree here. But a blanket no apology ethos — improper on its face.
You need to read “The Culture of Critique.”
You omit HUGE parts of the story in terms of the jewish subversion of western culture
that goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond simple ethnic networking,
and into the realm of diabolical sabotage.
I know who you are at the moment I see the loaded term “anti-semite.”
If you wrong someone even unintentionally — apologies are prudent and warranted. And making it right (if possible) is not an unreasoned expectation.
“Of course, “supporting genetic interests”, does not really exist, because the interest of genes is to spread wherever they can – while it gives the person whose genes they are no benefit (beyond the money which you might receive as a sperm or egg donor).”
Excuse me — it’s called,
Family . . . and there’s a reason generations matter, all due respect to Mr. Sailor’s tongue and cheek.
In Spanish, the word for cuck is “cabrón” and it is used quite liberally within male group conversations. This usage even extends into the upper classes, though one is more likely to hear it on the street in conversations among the lower classes because they are generally more rambunctiously audible and have less vocabulary with which to vary their communication.
While its literal meaning is along the lines of old (male) goat, its original application was/is to refer to a man whose woman sleeps around on him and he lacks agency (balls–huevos) to do anything about it. However, in the majority of conversations, it is simply employed as an all round contemptuous invective much in the same way we Gringos might call some guy a dickhead or an ass-wipe. It’s usage may or may not constitute fighting words depending on context and the relation between the parties.
Apologies are for people who will appreciate it. Like friends and family. Your political enemies just want to humiliate you.
The best succinct comment yet on this article.
The alleles that altogether can explain merely 3.9% of educational attainment variance?
Judeo-Christian is a cuck (*) term invented to dilute Christianity and appropriate achievements of Western Civilization by Jews. Already in antiquity Jews were plagiarizing when they wre not satirizing Greek text.
All achievements of Western Civilization were done in opposition to Judaism. That there were westernized Jews (like Heine or Proust) who contributed to these achievements does not justify the prefix Judeo-. Contributions of Marx, Freud and Fromm and Frankfurt School can be viewed as very negative motivated by typically Jewish anti-Christian animus.
Only cucks use the term Judeo-Christian. Perhaps we should popularize the term Judeo-Islam which would make a lot of sense in light of the role of Jews on Iberian peninsula before and during Reconquista and the role of Jews as slave traders of Europeans for Muslims in Middle Ages and of the role of Mossad in inspiring and engineering the terrorist attacks by Muslim radicals in more recent times.
(*) Somebody here wrote that cuck=shabbos goy.
This is often humorously true, but I separate it from rhetorical technique, which seems to make an unseemly appeal to the audience.
Depends on the context. The outward antiwhite political dynamic in the West extends inward, organizationally into workplaces. If one apologizes to SJWs, feminists, or lesbians, or any other members of the anti-white coalition, then one could fairly be said to be cucking.
A lot of native birds have been displaced by foreign birds, just like people. Those that sing do so largely to delineate their territory and resources. (like immigrants and their loud music) If you merely record a bird singing and play it back it will fly at you, looking to attack the intruder.
Birds also provide the most appealing and translatable (to people) illustration of parasitism. Sure, we could show a dog laden with ticks, or a worm coming out of someone’s nose, but that sort of things turns people’s stomachs. With birds, you can have bird against bird parasitism, which seems more polite than making comparisons using lower order animals like worms.
A lot of people have a hard time extrapolating and understanding a trendline on a population chart – that is math and abstract. Meanwhile, an illustration of brood parasitism is like a nature show, while at the same time being future-orientated by showing two generations.
That’s a very good point.
When people want to apply HBD to politics and economics it becomes a political ideology. And most HBDers very much want to apply HBD to politics and economics. When people want to use HBD as a political weapon it becomes a political ideology. And most HBDers very much want to use HBD as a political weapon.
Darwinism was science. Social Darwinism was political ideology.
No such thing. Please shut up.
(What next? “Islamo-Hindu”? “Satano-Calvinist”?)
Utu,
Imagine a bowl of jellybeans. Some of them are red, others are green, and others are black. Is it necessary to count most of them to estimate the proportion of each color? No. It’s enough to take a small random sample. The same principle applies to alleles associated with high or low educational attainment. Each allele is like a weathervane that tells us the direction and intensity of natural selection.
When these alleles first caught the interest of Davide Piffer six years ago, he was able to collect data from various human populations on only ten of them. For each population he estimated its genetic capacity for intelligence by calculating a “polygenic score,” i.e., the number of alleles associated with high educational attainment, out of a maximum of ten. The score correlated with population IQ (r=0.90) and PISA scores (r=0.84), being highest in East Asians and lowest in sub-Saharan Africans. Over the following years, as other researchers discovered additional alleles associated with educational attainment, he repeated his study with ever-larger datasets. His latest study uses 2,411 alleles, and the polygenic score correlates even higher with population IQ (r=0.98). The geographic pattern is the same. If this pattern is due to chance, why do we keep getting the same one?
Polygenic score is not a perfect yardstick of the genetic capacity for intelligence. For some reason, it seems to underestimate the mean IQ of African Americans. I suspect that higher intelligence in sub-Saharan Africa is due, to some degree, to alleles that are specific to sub-Saharan Africa, i.e., higher intelligence is caused by a somewhat different basket of alleles.
Robert Dolan,
I’ve read the “The Culture of Critique.” I agree with perhaps 60 – 70% of it. Jewish lobbying was a factor in the shift to global immigration, but it was not the only factor or even the most important one. The most important factor was the context of the Cold War. The Western bloc, like the Eastern bloc, was trying to win the hearts and minds of people in the newly independent countries of Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. We were under increasing pressure from those countries and from our own foreign affairs departments to eliminate racial discrimination from our immigration policies.
In my own country (Canada), the shift to global immgration began in 1962 with the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker. At that time, there were almost no Jewish Canadians in the Progressive Conservative Party. They either voted Liberal or New Democrat:
https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-regulations-order-in-council-pc-1962-86-1962
In the United States, ethnic lobbying was also a factor, but lobbying by Irish Americans was just as crucial as lobbying by Jewish Americans. In both cases, historical grudges were the underlying reasons. By the 1960s, there no longer were large numbers of Jewish or Irish people clamoring to immigrate to the U.S.
In the 1970s and thereafter, Jewish lobbying was a factor, but it was only one of many factors. Increasingly, the most important one was the business community, particularly agribusiness and, later, the construction industry and slaughterhouses.
I agree that there is a taboo against mentioning Jewish influence on immigration policy, but it’s only one of many influences.
EastKekistani,
Germans, like northwest Europeans in general, are ideological collectivists. In these populations, ideology has replaced kinship as the main organizing principle of social complexity. For a long time, that ideology was “Christianity.” Now, it’s a weird kind of post-Christianity.
An analogy for humans, might be a drunk woman who gives her children to an orphanage – where they will be adopted by an adequate family with the ability to look after children.
But for such behaviour (orphanages, adoptions, etc), it is not an evolved strategy like it is for some species of birds, and it is a result of personal choice, irresponsibility, disorganization or laziness.
Nationalities like Africans leave their failed and poor countries, to live in wealthy and successful countries.
It could be like birds, which live in a barren forest, will fly to the better forest.
But birds are probably not responsible for the state of their forest, while the African nationalities are – at least in terms of the culture, lifestyle or politics they had inherited – partly responsible for the problems of their countries.
That’s already very different from amoral familism. You can join a religion or believe in an ideology. On the other hand you can’t change your parents.
Again this is a different way of organizing a society which may be similar to a variant of Islam without kinship at all, for better or worse.
Because they threatened humans. It is basically just another episode of the eternal High-Low Coalition. When monopoly of power happens the elites (humans as apex predators) will ally with the lowest (non-threatening animals) against almost-elite species (big cats, wolves, etc).
Without human High-Low Coalition there would have been no wolf extinction or tiger extinction until maybe the next natural extinction event.
Maybe. However if you choose a life of leisure and happiness you are essentially choosing a SE Asian lifestyle. That’s not good for you. Look at how poor the region is.
From an individualistic POV we should use “sexual success” instead lol because the having a lot of kids does not “personally” benefit an animal. Sure.
How is that a perk? Species head count mean nothing to members of a species. There are only 10 million Ashkenazi Jews and more than a billion Negroids. Which group have more powerful average members?
Yeppo.
Right. I think pacifism leads to stagnancy and then destruction while adventure is wholesome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctica_islandica
Wow!
Well the lifespan of wolves is only slightly shorter than the lifespan of sheep both in the wild and in captivity.
Same thing. Though I’m more like a lone tiger lol.
Yes, KMac definitely gives a lot of attention to the ethnic nepotism angle, to his credit.
But have you read his chapter in the critique book on Jewish intelligence? It is the usual dismal HBD story – superhumanly intelligent Jews whose dominance is inevitable in any meritocratic system (when the overwhelming majority of the cognitively gifted are white).
He also develops an alternative history where Jewish dominance isn’t a recent thing and at least as much dependent on white apathy as Jewish ability, but actually a longstanding and permanent feature of Western society.
And this is another thing I don’t get about you people – the obvious thing to do is factor in things like apathy and demotivation when discussing relative group performance, yet you prefer to see it as genetic.
Its like you want to see yourselves as losers rather than people who are having a temporary setback, like all civilizations do in the normal cycle of things. You will reject obvious and plausible explanations that are more flattering.
And that is why you are cucks at heart.
The cumulative effect of KMacs theories is to act as a spirit crushing millstone around the neck of whites, even though he did make some notable contributions.
And that is what is insidious about you people also – am you are sugar laced with strychnine.
It’s an absurd narrative that has no relation to the historical reality of European intellectual achievement and the fact that whites make up the overwhelming majority of smart people in the West.
Yes, you are quite correct that this does not entirely imply the moral right to rule – but half the right to rule at least is based on merit. And in our society, perhaps more, enamored as we are of our “meritocracy “.
This is why naifs like Steve Sailer do not challenge Jewish rule, but bend the knee in humble petition for greater royal favor. As a good Wesrerner, merit is nine tenths of the right to rule in his eyes.
Davide Piffer’s correlations remains spurious until proven otherwise. The polygenic scores he used can explain very small fraction (3.9%) of variance within a population. It does not follow that it can explain large fraction of variance between populations. This is a bad science. To explain 10% one needs 10’s of 1000’s of SNPs (see Hsu). Nobody succeeded of finding SNPs to explain more than that. Piffer’s correlation pf r=0.88 which is 77% of variance is spurious.
No Spam for you.
That’s certainly good that you acknowledge ethnic nepotism, but there are many factors involved – perhaps the biggest being white apathy and demotivation that accompanied loss of religion.
This growing world weariness is amply documented in European literature starting in the 19th century – yet no HBDer wants to touch this. Its gotta be all genetics. And yet growing pessimism is the most striking feature of 19th century European culture. It’s the elephant in the room.
Its like you guys don’t want the explanation to be cultural – and hence reversible.
But even though when challenged, you will make a strategic retreat and admit things like ethnic nepotism, the weight of your argument falls on IQ.
The rest of your comment is sensible and I agree.
Its not just that Jews are not alone in not playing fair, its that seen with a dispassionate eye, Jewish behavior is no different than predatory European behavior to the rest of the world, or indeed the common behavior of other countries in any part of the world.
Its just a chapter in the unending human story of group aggression – there is nothing special or unique about it except that the tools of aggression are adapted to special circumstances.
Opposing Jewish influence is sensible – but the narrative of the uniquely evil Jew is pure childishness, generally delivered by someone whose ancestors conquered half the world a century ago.
But only a clear -eyed elite can resist demonizing the enemy, recognize him as similar to oneself, and still fight him with all your might. Common people need demons.
Europeans offered other groups the chance to compete “fair” – i.e on terms defined by Europeans. And they are surprised their offer was declined?
What’s more, Europeans didn’t even bother to consider other groups might reject, but just assumed it was such a fantastic offer that no one could refuse.
And we are surprised Jews declined the offer and continued to compete in their age-old manner, and privately thanked Europeans for lowering their defenses?
Finally, individualism is not a “stand alone” thing – it is part of a “cultural package”, a suite of ideas that have a common root and are bound together.
If we give up individualism, I think you will be surprised at what we also will have to give up along with it – or the things we will have to return to.
I would also doubt that the presence of Catholics on the US Supreme Court is due to ethnic networking. While that exists, it is mostly Irish and to a much lesser extent within other ethnicities. There is, for example, no network of black Catholics that got Clarence Thomas on the court. Given that all the court nominations have been made by Protestants, it is interesting that mostly Catholics and Jews have been picked in recent years.
More study is needed.
The Deep State in Canada was and still is British globalist (Protestant).
The Rise of the Round Table Movement and the Sad Case of Canada (1864-1945).
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
He should indeed have used the adjective poetic rather than the noun poet, but not because of grammar. Noun adjuncts are actually very common in English, especially in American English, and they are a staple in all purebred Germanic languages. Contrast spring season (noun + noun) with vernal season (adj + noun), sailing boat (Br.) with sailboat (Am.), and cookery book (Br.) with cookbook (Am. and Br.). Aside from being unidiomatic, I think poet license sounds wrong here since the noun + noun construction lends the word too much solidity, suggesting that it’s an actual thing rather than an abstract concept.
Nor does it have an entry in Merriam-Webster yet, but it’s already in the ODE
This definition isn’t far off, but I think it can be bettered by stressing that the weakness lies in the man’s failure to stand up for his beliefs or his own people (however defined). Incidentally, the corresponding Swedish word, hanrej (borrowed into Swedish from Low German), is related to capon (a castrated rooster).
Germans, like Swedes, are selectively collectivist. Just as Russians are, for that matter. These concepts are only useful if we lower the level of aggregation.
“Never cuck.”
Even though Trump is influenced by Jews?
“Steve King apologized for defending western civilization.”
So how are YOU defending it other than lamenting on a blog? Does not the situation become even more dire by the day? Yet, you seem to wait for the right time to “chimp put”?
Why is that?
imo that definition is misleading…as I understand it “cuck” is short for “cuckservative” after all, that’s how it became a political term.
It’s not surprising when “progressives” are in favour of “antiracism”, open borders etc., they’re just true to their utopian beliefs, calling them “cucks” would be pointless.
Cucks imo are centrists, social conservatives, Christian Democrats etc., the kind of people who pretend to be “conservative” on secondary matters (e.g. homos, trannies, “religious” liberty issues, or who bash left-wingers on economic issues in an anachronistic Cold war-style), but who are completely useless on the crucial national question, in fact do their best to promote mass immigration and prevent any opposition to it (“immigrants are natural conservatives”, “It’s part of our Christian values to welcome the stranger” etc.).
Calling them “cucks” is shorthand for “Your conservatism doesn’t conserve anything at all. It’s fake, you’re a contemptible worm, your values nothing but mindless conformism. You are in fact a traitor.”
“Poet license” is not an English noun phrase; however, “I grant some poet license”, meaning that to some poet I allow a degree of license, is perfectly good English.
Despite this I suspect a mere typo here.
You did not address my question concerning your statements about Jews and their IQ which you seem to connect to polygenic score. I asked you to show the papers. I will show you one. Probably the most recent. Let’s look at paper by the four cargo science cultist: Dunkel, Woodley of Menie, Pallesen, Kirkegaard:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-03287-001
They got a sample of 4630 Christians and 53 Jews with their education attainment or IQ and polygenic scores. Are the samples representative? That’s another issue. But look how they present their data. First histograms which on the first glance are very persuasive:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/2lxyx3t.jpg
But these are just two data points in (IQ, PGS) plane that happens to show what the authors want that the increase of polygenic score means increase in IQ and that Jews happen to have both the polygenic score and IQ higher in this particular sample.
People in the grip of cargo science cult following their confirmation bias epistemology of Richard Lynn like yourself end up being persuaded. That this result is meaningful. But Woodley of Meeny, Miny, Moe and his co-authros are not stupid. Yet they publish this shit for suckers like you. Why? Because they want to manipulate and misinform in order to push the meme of IQism and as it happens here of Jewish superiority that perhaps is the chief purpose.
Fortunately Pallesen in his supplementary notes shows also a plot of all 4630+53 points from the sample:
http://oi63.tinypic.com/330e0d2.jpg
Clearly you can see that the polygenic score has practically zero predictive power of IQ in the sample. You notice also that that there are 40 Christians (≈1%) who have not lower IQ than the smartest Jew in the sample. What if you made a histograms for IQ and polygenic score for these 40 Christians. I am sure the authors could produce nice and smooth histograms of n=40 sample if they did it for n=53 sample. The mean polygenic score still would be smaller than Jewish polygenic score yet the histogram of IQ would to the right of Jewish histogram of IQ. We would have two sets of histograms meaning that we would have two points on the (IQ, PGS) plane but this time the straight line you could draw through the points would have a slightly negative slope. Which would give you the opposite of what you in the grip of the confirmation bias wanted.
Get hold of yourself, man. Take a cold shower. Get drunk. Get laid or jerk off. Snap out of this cargo science cult behavior. You are not stupid but you are worse than stupid because you are gullible.
“Nationalities like Africans leave their failed and poor countries, to live in wealthy and successful countries.”
Similar to Europeans who had left their nation for a host of reasons, like religious persecution and poverty, to colonize areas to take their wealth in order to be successful.
Sounds more like human nature rather than a specific racial or ethnic phenomenon.
Thanks for the cordial back and forth. 🙂
Why don’t you tell us your ethno-racial background?
That is true… but have you ever heard a politican described as ‘Castiglionian’?
Obviously, it’s normal for people to want to move to a better country, if they live in a worse country. Africans are not different in this topic than any other nationalities. Having higher or lower melanin in your skin, does not change human nature.
The question is whether, and in what conditions, it is rational for the better country to accept the people, from the worse country.
If I will find a poor person in the street, and say “can I give you part of my inheritance?”. The fact they will say yes, is not interesting or surprising. The more significant question, is only how crazy, or under what unusual conditions, I would want to give my resources to a poor person.
In the case of immigrants coming to the country, it is sensible to accept them only if they both benefit the country (i.e. country which needs immediately certain workers for development of desired industries), and are higher quality human capital than alternative immigrants.
That is, only if they benefit country which receives them, and are a higher quality demographic than alternative options.
On the other hand, you want to help random poor losers of foreign countries, because you feel sorry for them? That is fine, but it is something you can do in private – it should not be a concern of authorities, who were elected to represent only exiting population of the country which funds them, not foreign population.
Finally, there should be a temporary process to give a safe place for real refugees, where they can escape from a physical danger to their lives, and be returned after the situation becomes safe again.
Sure. I am white. My ethnic background is German, Polish, and Dutch.
You?
“The question is whether, and in what conditions, it is rational for the better country to accept the people, from the worse country.”
Absolutely.
“In the case of immigrants coming to the country, it is sensible to accept them only if they both benefit the country (i.e. country which needs immediately certain workers for development of desired industries), and are higher quality human capital than alternative immigrants.”
Depends on how one defines and quantifies “higher quality human capital”.
“On the other hand, you want to help random poor losers of foreign countries, because you feel sorry for them?”
Not I. Actually, I am in favor of limiting immigrants to the States.
“Finally, there should be a temporary process to give a safe place for real refugees, where they can escape from a physical danger to their lives, and be returned after the situation becomes safe again.”
Sounds reasonable.
Scandinavian. Not an American though.
The Yellow Peril literature that was so immensely popular from the late 19th to the mid-20th century provides a fascinating glimpse into European pessimism as expressed in pop culture. If you actually read the most famous Yellow Peril stories, Sax Rohmer’s Fu Manchu stories, it’s obvious that Dr Fu Manchu is a deadly threat because he represents a culture that is more intelligent, more disciplined and more focused than European civilisation. Maybe even ethically superior – enormous stress is laid upon Fu Manchu’s highly developed sense of honour and his absolute honesty and personal integrity. The Fu Manchu novels express a fear that European civilisation was going to be overtaken by superior Asian civilisation.
Already a century ago the dominant mood in the West was cultural pessimism, verging on cultural defeatism.
Very interesting. I did not know that about the Fu Manchu novels, but it fits with the general trend in European culture towards loss of confidence in their own civilization.
The emerging trend was to see primitive peoples as possessing a vigor and traditional wisdom lost to Europeans, and more sophisticated civilizations as posing a threat on those grounds.
Curiously, this exactly mirrors the HBD narrative today – which makes even clearer that HBD is merely recycling mainstream declinist tropes that emerged in the 19th century and does not represent fresh optimism or support Western recovery.
However, I was thinking more of pessimistic writers like Schopenhauer and Baudelaire, who were weary and disgusted with European civilization itself. But decline takes many forms and you bring up a good point.
Its also worth pointing out that the picture is complex – many Europeans also did not find primitive peoples at all attractive or appealing and many thought Asian civilization was distinctly inferior to Western.
Lord Macauly wanted to create a new education system for India on an entirely English basis – he thought traditional Indian wisdom was useless – and the popular line “better fifty years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay” expresses widespread contempt for China.
Also, despite widespread exposure to Asians, Westerners did not seem to notice Asian intellectual superiority. The special threat posed by Asians was thought to be in their enormous numbers and especially in their capacity to be satisfied with extremely harsh conditions – to “underlive ” Europeans who were thought to require much higher standards of comfort.
This willingness to accept harsher conditions was seen as their main economic advantage (and I would argue remains so today). Indeed the Japanese thought Americans wouldn’t be up to the rigors of war because they had grown too soft.
But it’s worth painting out that 19th century European culture was complex – the pessimistic trend, while extremely influential among the intellectual elite, had not yet come to dominate the whole culture as it did after WW2. WW1 was a strong accelerant.
But the pessimistic trend was clearly growing in prevalence and had tremendous momentum behind it – rooted as it was in loss of religion and sense of meaning, factors which only increased in time.
The weird thing is there is a vast literature of decline, from Nietzsche to Spengler, that is somehow completely ignored by the HBDers.
Its as if factors like pessimism, apathy, and fatigue have no relevance to understanding relative group performance, and that the normal cyclical changes in motivation that civilizations undergo should not be considered when assessing potential.
Its striking, when you really think about it.
Its like they developed tunnel vision – they cannot see the full relevant data set, but only a small section. Its like someone with partial color blindness who can on my see yellow.
I cannot get over it, it seems so weird to me.
Davide Piffer’s correlations remains spurious until proven otherwise. The polygenic scores he used can explain very small fraction (3.9%) of variance within a population. It does not follow that it can explain large fraction of variance between populations.
We come back to my example of the bowl of jellybeans. Is it necessary to count most of the jellybeans to estimate how many are blue, how many are green, and how many are black? Do you understand the concept of “sampling”?
And where do you get that figure of 3.9%? How can you calculate that figure when no one yet knows the total number of genes associated with educational attainment? In his latest study, Piffer used 2411 of these genes (SNPs). Are you saying that over 61,000 genes are associated with educational attainment? Is that physically possible?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
You did not address my question concerning your statements about Jews and their IQ which you seem to connect to polygenic score. I asked you to show the papers.
The best and most recent study is Piffer’s:
Piffer, D. Evidence for recent polygenic selection on educational attainment and intelligence inferred from Gwas hits: A replication of previous findings using recent data. Psych 2019, 1, 55-75, doi:10.3390/Psychology1010005
Clearly you can see that the polygenic score has practically zero predictive power of IQ in the sample. You notice also that that there are 40 Christians (≈1%) who have not lower IQ than the smartest Jew in the sample.
I am talking to someone who doesn’t understand the concept of “statistical difference.” Yes, many non-Jews are smarter than many Jews, just as many women are taller than many men. My IQ is supposed to be 133, so I guess I’m smarter than most Jews, East Asians, Igbo, Parsees, and so on. Nonetheless, certain human groups are — on average — smarter than other human groups.
I have no objection to HBD theory. Biological differences clearly exist between groups. However, theory is one thing, practice another. In the hands of what can only be called the “white HBD movement”, HBD is without question a branch of mainstream white self-abasement. … Not least, also, for its overemphasizing the genetic component well beyond the evidence – which creates fatalism and despair.
Aaron,
HBD isn’t a movement. And I see far more fatalism and despair among people who know nothing about HBD or human evolution. In order to know what you can do, you must first understand what you cannot do. Otherwise you’ll end up fighting one losing battle after another.
The polygenic scores he used can explain very small fraction (3.9%) of variance within a population.
OK, I found the reference to that figure of 3.9%. It’s from an earlier study. In the latest study, the polygenic score explains 11-13% of the variance in IQ within a population. This figure will increase as we discover more and more genes associated with educational attainment. In any case, if we’re talking about variance between populations, the reliability of this measure is much higher. The polygenic score has a 98% correlation with mean population IQ.
I should also point out that the geographic pattern in human cognitive ability hasn’t changed as we discover more and more genes associated with educational attainment. When the polygenic score was based on only 10 SNPs, the results were pretty much the same as they are now — with 2,422 SNPs.
Good point. As I remember it, cuck — as applied to politicians — came first and the portmanteau cuckservative was coined later on, but it might have been the other way around.
I agree that it’s best reserved for self-styled “conservative” people, but we seem to differ on what exactly makes one a cuck. The way I see it, a conservative only qualifies as a cuck if he takes a public stance that goes against what he truly believes. If that same conservative does believe in the wonders of mass immigration, he is a fool, but he is not, to my mind, a cuck.
It’s not idiomatic English, true, but my point was that there is nothing wrong with the noun + noun construction itself. That is, “poet license” only sounds off because it sounds unfamiliar.
We might compare this with the modern use of “woman” as a modifier (e.g. saying “woman president” instead of “female president”). To my ears, this usage sounds very odd, but most English speakers seem fine with it.
I haven’t delved into what exactly PGS stands for, but it seems to me that you fail to address utu’s main criticism, which is that this scatter plot hardly suggests any relationship at all between IQ and PGS. Indeed, if we look only at Christians with an IQ above 125, as utu suggests, the relationship, such as it is, looks random, or maybe even slightly negative.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/330e0d2.jpg
It follows from this, I think, although utu doesn’t write it out, that presenting those two density plots side by side is misleading, since it gives the reader the impression that the two plots are related, when we can see from the scatter plot that any relationship is extremely weak at best.
You’re asking whether this statistical difference is significant. Two studies have looked into that question, and both found a significant difference.
Dunkel et al. (2019) looked at a small sample of Ashkenazi Jews (n=53) in the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study and found that the mean polygenic score was significantly higher in Jews than in non-Jews.
Dunkel, C. S., Woodley of Menie, M. A., Pallesen, J., & Kirkegaard, E. O. W. (2019). Polygenic scores mediate the Jewish phenotypic advantage in educational attainment and cognitive ability compared with Catholics and Lutherans. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000158
Piffer (2019) looked at a larger sample of Ashkenazi Jews (n= 145) in the Genome Aggregation Database. Again, Ashkenazi Jews had the highest polygenic score, and this score was significantly higher than the scores of other European groups. Finns and Estonians also scored significantly higher:
Piffer, D. (2019). Evidence for recent polygenic selection on educational attainment and intelligence inferred from Gwas hits: A replication of previous findings using recent data. Psych 1, 55-75, doi:10.3390/Psychology1010005
PGS is the polygenic score. It is a measure of the genetic capacity for intelligence, i.e., the extent to which a population has genetic variants (SNPs) that are associated with high educational attainment. The latest study used 2411 SNPs.
As I have tried to show, HBD is not impartial science, but an attempt to provide a basis for political policies as well as a philosophy of life. As such, it is a movement.
Moreover, quite aside from its status as a valid science, I am suggesting it’s practitioners are motivated by biases – the same unconscious biases that infect many other Leftist “impartial sciences” – and that the end product is merely a form of cuckery.
Sure, it’s important to understand ones current limitations – it is also important to understand that one can change and develop new abilities.
The Japanese were a primitive feudal society in the 19th century. What if they would have had an HBD like ideology that this is simply their “essence” and they cannot develop into a modern country?
Germany was the land of “poets and thinkers” in the early 19th century. What if they “knew” they could never become a great military power.
Everyone “knew” that Jews were physically weak and cowardly and incapable of physical labor. Well, apparently not “knowing” what they could do, the Zionists lost battle after battle.
The point is that performance and character is a function of ability plus motivation. You literally do not know what anyone can do until they are motivated. It is a simple equation.
HBD ignores motivation – the element of personal will – and 1) tries to portray current outcomes as stable (rather than the historical norm of flux). It tries to “freeze” the current moment in time as representing the Platonic form for that group 2) portrays current outcomes as entirely a product of only one half of the equation.
This is pure fatalism.
Of course, the situation is even more complex – environment and recent history play a dramatic role. But I have kept it simple for the sake of clarity.
Finally, HBD does not paint a picture of group ability that is consistent either with history or its own data set (!). (Much less acknowledge historical flux and the role of motivation and environment)
KMac’s picture of inevitable Jewish dominance in a meritocratic system ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of gifted people are white and is inconsistent with the historical intellectual achievements of Europeans.
Use the blockquote tag.
We discussed this before, late Tokugawa Japan was for a non-European power, very advanced.
Not as if Germans weren’t known for martialism before the 19th century, aren’t you aware of Voltaire’s quip about Prussia?
But you are misunderstanding the connection between Germanic thought and power, they are not opposed, but rather, linked.
The Jewish-Christian Heinrich Heine (1834):
Even today, Israelis practice generally capital-heavy agriculture. It is not that Jews are incapable of honest work, but rather that they disdain it and prefer to exploit others (ex. the infamous Polish latifundia and alcohol sales in the Russian Empire), which is why they were so hated by gentile European peasants. But violence as exhibited by Jewish gangs in Europe and America is also different from labour (although I would not brag about defeating Arabs).
http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Crime_and_Criminals
Good comments. “Poetic license” is a familiar term and concept to most literate people, along with “artistic license,” although one usually takes artistic license with art and poetic license with poetry. Still, some writers may at times take poetic license of sorts with their prose, if not their facts.
I had already mentioned in passing the (unlikely) possibility that ‘songbird’ had used “poet” as an indirect object, but ‘songbird’ claimed it was a typo.
As for “cuck,” I never encountered the word until I began reading at Unz, but I see that there is an almost giddy fascination with certain buzzwords, and “cuck” as a concept looms large in the minds of no small number of commenters here even though clearly it means different things to different people, but all of it entirely negative as far as I can tell, as if there weren’t enough trembling white guys already.
It is easy enough to play on male fears and insecurities. Mix in some mumbo jumbo, stir in a few lies, and you’ve got a good recipe for war.
Don’t let the Fear of Cuck trash your spirits, dudes, or harsh your mellow.
So what if the Japanese HBDers of the time “knew” that Japan would always remain a very advanced pre-modern country. That was simply their genetic limit.
In hindsight, you say well they were advanced for a pre-modern country. Had Japan not successfully modernized, HBDers would say of course, Japan’s genetic potential was limited to being an advanced pre-modern society.
And in fact, at the time many Japanese did say similar things – I posted a while back a quote from a 19th century Japanese saying they could never become as rich as the West because they were too contented and happy to strive.
The point is not that you are engaging in ex facto rationalization – my primary objection isn’t that you are engaging in rationalization, a relatively common and innocuous intellectual sin – but that you engage in rationalizations that don’t flatter yourself, which is a character defect.
Now, what you are saying is that 1) popular stereotypes at the time can be disproved by looking at a more complete data set 2) somehow, this does not apply to today’s popular stereotypes.
What’s more, you do not understand that what you are saying disproves HBD. If the Germans are violent in the distant past, but pacific in the recent past, and then violent again – this proves group malleability, not group stability. Flux, not permanence. Environment, not genes.
Get it?
You are precisely demonstrating that environment defines the character of a nation, not genes. By helpfully finding examples from a more distant past of group behaviors that foreshadow current behavior, after an intervening period, you are doing my work for me.
If in 100 years Asians turn away from STEM towards literature, you will say, well of course, they used to be a literary culture. Obviously. But then that means environment and motivation define character.
Anyways, look – I am not interested in having you fight me strenuously, engaging in all sorts of rationalizations and selective reasoning, in order to prove whites are mediocre.
I am merely pointing out that you are a motivated reasoner in the same manner as the mainstream Left, and a cuck.
Don’t worry – no white person today can escape being a cuck. All these oppositional white movements are just the same poison in different bottles.
Its not you, you’re not bad (see how I discount genes lol), it’s the fate if anyone who accepts the modern paradigm without discrimination. I am beginning to see traces of this in the Chinese.
Thanks for the links. What I hoped to suggest was that the presence of statistically significant differences in group means (as found by Dunkel et al., 2019) need not mean that there is a meaningful relationship (or correlation, if you prefer) between the relevant polygenic scores and IQ. For one thing, the relationship could be spurious. I would argue that the scatter plot is therefore the more reliable plot here, since it shows us how the two variables interplay. And the present scatter plot, even if it does seem to show a slight positive relationship (depending on how the observations are distributed in that dense cloud in the middle), is noisy to the point of randomness.
So you see, Hyp, I am not ascribing yours and Peter Frosts cuckery to bad genes, but to your acceptance of the modern paradigm.
You cannot escape from the current malaise from within the modern paradigm. It always ends in cuckery. HBD is a good demonstration of this.
Probably because aspiring to be “scientifically objective” leads to “neutrality”, which is a gateway drug to pure cuckery, as the non-cuck attitude is defined by passionate partisan taking sides with oneself.
Which does not mean one should abandon scientific objectivity – but see it as an operational constraint, not as a starting point for ones explorations.
The starting point must be pure bias – wanting to vindicate a position, wanting something to be true. The starting point must be pure partisan side taking.
Then one accepts objective facts and data as operational constraints – but it can serve as the starting point. That leads to cuckery.
Even “pure” scientists like Einstein or Watson were passionately biased in favor of their world view and wanted to vindicate it. And Copernicus saw the sun as a divinity, and wanted to vindicate his God. (This is fact).
So bias again is the only non-cuck starting point for intellectual explorations, and scientific objectivity is only a negative constraint. That’s it’s proper role .
But when this is reversed, and scientific objectivity becomes the basis and not the constraint, the center and not the mere boundary, then one inevitably becomes s cuck. And also loses the ability to make genuine discoveries.
The way back to non-cuckery starts with rehabilitating bias and giving it its proper and honored place in our intellectual economy.
(Lol, dynamic interplay of opposites again.)
Yes, these words are basically variations on the age-old call to “man up.” And they work in the equally age-old tradition of defining masculinity against femininity — masculine is that which is not feminine. I happen to think these are good and healthy instincts, but we all know what happens when they are taken too far.
So the task I give you, Hyp, as a deracinated white Scandinavian living in China, is to develop biases in favor of yourself because right now you are “neutral”.
Perhaps I am too harsh when I say you are a cuck – you do not quite hate whites like true cucks, you see them as mediocre. Not evil, but not exceptional. This is to be “neutral” towards whites and oneself.
The HBD position is at best then a “middle ground” between pure cuckery and healthy self-love, and this is reflected in its selective reasoning and data mining in order to craft a narrative of white mediocrity. Not white evil like the true leftist cucks, and not white exceptionalism like the old healthy whites.
But I wonder – is actual self hate preferable to this lukewarm neutrality? Self hate betrays a desire to love, at least, a thwarted desire that has turned poisonous.
I am not arguing so much about your general theory, which is comprehensive (whether HBD is more probable than not or vice versa is not so relevant since I aim to formulate fascist, romantic nationalist and authoritarian lines on I believe the world should be ordered), but when you engage in historical examples you should either be more accurate or, more charitably, formulate your statements with higher clarity.
See, that’s the problem with being deracinated, it’s hard to love anything.
Well, this seems an extraordinary statement to make, when given the data presented above.
That it is
is an entirely different statement, and apparently true.
Well, okay, but how significant, exactly is statistical significance in this case? The entire concept is worth discussion: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9
The thing here is that there seems to be so much we don’t yet know that to make emphatic pronouncements like It is a measure of the genetic capacity for intelligence
seems unjustified, which is not to say that future research in this area is not worth pursuing.
Swedish Family’s reply seems accurate.
It didn’t really had little to do with “civilization”; its essentially a variation of a fairly common storytelling tropes being that it was after all, pulp fiction.
1) Fu Manchu is invincible for the same reason that most dark lords are nigh invincible; he represents a singular antagonistic force to contrast against the the heroes that must thwart him through cooperation and coordination, a typical moral of togetherness. Insofar as there’s any specific indication of civilization development, it is the suggestion that the East developed a hive-like “workers and masters” mentality, while the West is more fair and individualistic.
2) Hilariously, any notion of the West being weak is oddly Game-like. Women in the story suggest that they wish to be enslaved or forced and the West is too gentlemanly for it. Its not too far from the most extreme viewpoints at the time, possibly more extreme and misogynistic than even Bonaparte.
3)Fu Manchu is never seen as primitive. He is alien. He could be replaced by a Martian and the stories would adequately function. A common notion is that he finds Western methods primitive and crude, e.g. would refuse to use a gun if he could instead use poison. His ethics and honor are mostly warped but consistent in an alien fashion. He consistently refuses to use mechanical means of harm if he could use biological or occultist means.
4)There is one consistent commonality of ethics between him and the white protagonists, in that they obsessively follow their personal word of honor regardless of its larger consequences. As such, the protagonists spare Fu Manchu even if it means the doom of their race, and vice versa. This was seen as masculine and fundamentally good.
5) This entire notion of weakness and strength is a bit strange. The fundamental notion is that Western mores are familiar and good, regardless of whether it is strong or even survivable. Something can be weaker and yet good in Sax Rohmer’s work; it really isn’t Nietzschean.
I read some Fu Manchu years ago, after having read some Mr. Moto (which was written by a Pulitzer prize winner).
IMHO, it was kind of a disappointment because the writing is often quite pulpish (in the sense of rushed), though I do appreciate the non-PC aspect of it. Mr. Moto himself was kind of an interesting character – essentially good – but alien and hyperviolent.
The writing of the era is interesting both in how free and imaginative it is, and often how poor the quality is – quite understandable since a lot of them were under pressure to produce by the bulk to make the next meal. For me, it also enhanced my appreciation of Howard’s Conan for the incredible detail and craftsmanship that he put in.
Although I respect dfordoom’s comments in general, I did feel this wasn’t the best example.
But I really don’t know because I never read the novels. Should I?
Sure, all ethical codes are like that, and I pointed out – I think it was on this thread – that “strength” is a much more complex and interesting concept than commonly realized, and the “weak” frequently defeat the “strong “.
I don’t think it’s quite well put to describe this as the good being preferred without regard to whether it promotes survival, but rather that what truly promotes survival in the long run may require short term sacrifice, yielding, bending, surrender (“weakness “), and in a “higher economy of strength “, weakness has its place, paradoxically.
The Taoists recognized this, and it was a major theme in traditional Chinese culture – is it still, I wonder?
But the human good is always associated with survival and self -interest – religion and spirituality is not an exception to this. Sacrifice on earth means eternal life, or in the Eastern conception, one is encouraged to view oneself as One with everyone else, thus extending the circle of one’s ego to include all, and thus benefiting another us benefiting oneself.
I don’t think it is logically possible to escape considerations of self interest when formulating the human good – our task is to develop the most sophisticated and correct account of what is truly good for us, and reject short term and proximate benefits for higher ones.
But you did not understand my point. My point was not to show that Jews suddenly sprouted the ability to be violent out of thin air, or that the Germans did, thus demonstrating that genes play no role.
My point was that those abilities are latent within all of us. So by showing me that both Jews and Germans had previous periods of violence merely proves my point – that at any given time, the characteristics of a group should not be taken as essential, but as circumstantial. Stereotypes have time-limits on them. They expire.
So the HBD project to define current group characteristics as essential is ahistorical. Indeed profoundly stupid.
Yes. Agree. Love of others starts with love of oneself. You cannot love if you don’t love yourself.
Ok, but go too far in this and you run into problems again.
Also, they are attempts to solve the problem of modernity from within the modern paradigm.
I was reading Hitler the other day on the web and it seemed to me that he was already a cuck and a decadent. His German ideal was too idealistic and remote from the struggles of everyday life. He seems to have been shocked and scandalized that Jews were willing to get rough and dirty in the struggle for life, and seemed to favor a kind of “pure nobility ” that refuses to dirty itself by actual competition.
This is already a ridiculously over-refined position and not how this world works – and reminiscent of the Rights refusal to “fight dirty” and the attitude of Westerners in general today.
Being bitterly disappointed in his impossible idealism, he became a monster. Had he been more realistic he might have remained sane. And this is a “European” problem in general. The need to come down to earth.
Hitler was enamored of Wagner, who was deeply influenced by Schopenhauerian pessimism, which was basically rejection of the world because of an impossible idealism that cannot accept the struggle for life.
Hitler was another manifestation of modern Western pessimism and life-rejection and not at all a life affirmative phenomenon.
“Woman X” is apparently attested quite far back, but it is grating. It’s better than “troop” for a single soldier (which is of course an unrelated issue).
With “poetic license” another thing to take into consideration is that this is an established phrase with a meaning that is not the only meaning that could possibly be read into it by an analysis of its component words; you could make an analogy to the nonexistent “fish license”, which could mean any number of things, and the real “fishing license”.
Not entirely unrelated, apparently:
There were Europeans who welcomed the First World War because they thought it would somehow restore Europe’s vigour. Enthusiasm for the war was also driven by a desperate search for something to live for. If they couldn’t find something to live for they thought they could at least find something to die for. Patriotism was the first of the many substitute secular religions that Europeans tried out and then abandoned.
Relevant:
But all this stuff is secondary:
From a different poem:
What I hoped to suggest was that the presence of statistically significant differences in group means (as found by Dunkel et al., 2019) need not mean that there is a meaningful relationship (or correlation, if you prefer) between the relevant polygenic scores and IQ. For one thing, the relationship could be spurious.
The polygenic score correlates with IQ in all of the studies to date. The correlation is low in the Dunkel et al study (r= 0.2) because the score is based on a small number of genes. The correlation is higher in the latest sudy by Piffer (r=0.33-0.36) because many more genes are used to calculate the polygenic score. This correlation will increase as we discover more genes associated with educational attainment. I would be surprised, however, if we could increase the correlation beyond r=0.5. For one thing, IQ itself is only partly genetic. For another thing, there are probably interactions and other nonlinear effects in the genetic component of IQ.
If you feel that this correlation is “spurious,” different studies with different datasets would produce different results. Yet the picture of geographic variation in human intelligence has remained the same from one study to the next. Why?
I thought we were talking about polygenic variation? They may be correlated, but it is sloppy to move from one to the other.
In which case the PGS is not the best model for describing the genetic influence, though it may(?) be the best easily computable.
The Dunkel et al study shows remarkably little at all.
It’s possible that the Piffer study may show more, but it’s 2AM here, so I won’t find out.
No offence, but opponents of modernity don’t exactly have a great track record.
While I can sympathise with reactionaries, it doesn’t fill me with confidence when even the most proclaimed stalwart ones are forced,
consciously or unconsciously, to acknowledge the might wielded by modernity and are shaped by her.
So what would “sane” Hitler have looked like?
If I remember correctly, Hitler went to war with Schopenhauer’s The World As Will and Representation in his backpack during the Great War.
I thought we were talking about polygenic variation? They may be correlated, but it is sloppy to move from one to the other.
Polygenic variation is simply the tool. If we look at genes associated with educational attainment, we find variants associated with lower attainment and variants associated with higher attainment. If a population has more of the latter, it has a higher polygenic score.
We use this tool to understand geographic variation within the human species. Some human populations have higher polygenic scores than others.
The Dunkel et al study shows remarkably little at all.
Dunkel et al found a significant difference in mean polygenic score between Jews and non-Jews. That result was replicated by Piffer’s study, which used a larger number of genes and a different Jewish sample.
Again, I seem to be having trouble explaining the concept of “sampling.” It’s not necessary to get data on all of the genes associated with educational attainment. Or most of them. Once you have a large enough sample you can estimate the direction and strength of selection for intelligence.
Piffer’s paper is here:
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5
I’m not a reactionary. I think there’s a lot of good in modernity that should be kept.
But which reactionary had a bad record? Hitler for instance was a modernist.
I just think the vocabulary of modernism – scientific objectivity, materialism, abstraction, rationality – while good and valid to some extent – are insufficient.
So all attempts to fix things only from within this perspective will subtly perpetuate the problem. We need to step out if the paradigm.
So we should abandon use of the most effective and enduring meme that the dissident right has produced in probably the last 20 years because a definitional sperg (generously) half-understands it?
Spoken like a true cuck.
For a sane Hitler, Jews wouldn’t have been the repository of all evil just because they used the tools available to them in the struggle for life. Nor would their behavior be considered essential.
A sane Hitler would have worked to limit Jewish influence in German life without demonizing them, and worked to improve Germany’s international position without thinking the impossible nobility of the Aryan demanded world domination.
Ultimately, all dualistic eschatalogies are world rejecting – they reject important aspects of reality.
Hitler, by rejecting the rough and dirty in the struggle for life, ended up becoming worse in this respect than anyone. That’s natures revenge for spurning her. You reject a side of her, she forces you to become worse in that area than you ever could have imagined.
Maybe modern culture is so irrational precisely because we’ve attempted to suppress the irrational.
Anyways, just speculations.
For example, the 19th and early 20th century supporters of the feudal order and way of life and many religious fundamentalists contemporarily.
Defeat by modernity does not necessarily have to lead to eradication of the pre-modern subject, but can also follow from absorbing its essence to the point where the subject ceases to be pre-modern any more.
As for Germany (although of course they compromised and did not embrace modernity as wholeheartedly as the Italian Futurists) :
https://monoskop.org/images/2/26/Herf_Jeffrey_Reactionary_Modernism_Technology_Culture_and_Politics_in_Weimar_and_the_Third_Reich.pdf
Or simply look at their songs:
That’s not my smiley, just misreading.
The Jewish problem in Europe could only be solved by the disappearance of European Jewry. Hitler went further than most Europeans, but his actions were ultimately merely the result of an intensification of an existing acknowledgement present within the minds of most.
Theodor Herzl intially wished for European Jews to mass-baptise themselves before he became a Zionist and proposed the mass emigration of Jews in Europe to a new land. In this regard, he was not so different from de Lagarde, who wished for Jews to either convert or be expelled from Europe by the continental German empire.
As to the second point, German suzerainty of the East and of Europe was perceived as ultimately necessary by German nationalists if Germany was to have any hope at all of being an independent country when faced with rivals who were able to draw upon the resources of continental empires (and don’t forget that Germany nearly achieved it the first time).
Yes, Hitler added unnecessary megalomania and tactical errors, but fundamentally, the foundation of his foreign policy aims were sensible and consistent (if a radicalised version of) with German nationalist beliefs for the last two or three generations before.
Well, I suppose this is a rather original interpretation.
The Jews did not become a problem in Europe until the Enlightenment and its dissolution of ethnic identity among whites, and it’s erasing of distinctions and attempt to create a universal brotherhood of man.
A normal society would have recognized and accepted Jews as a distinct nation within their borders – and thus subject to the universal laws of national competition. Jews would have been limited in public and professional life, but would have been allowed to contribute to national economic output and even culture in a very minor way. (This applies to Jews who did not assimilate of course but remained a distinct nation.)
This sort of arrangement is not unusual and has certain benefits. For instance, Jewish specialization in finance, and a general willingness to do the “dirty work ” of an economy and find money and competitive advantage in strange nooks and crannies, could have been cautiously utilized as an asset.
For instance, in Buddhist Japan killing for food and the like is an essential task, but few are willing to specialize in it. Those who were performed an important service but were socially held at arm’s length.
As for Herzl and his plan of mass baptism, that would never have worked as they would have kept their distinct identity. A better plan would have allowed a certain number of Jews who wanted to convert each year, only enough as would not form a distinct group.
And crucially, there would have to be a long waiting period and a grueling period of trial and education – this is exactly how conversion to Judaism works. No simple and easy baptisms where you get all the benefits with no sacrifice. You have to demonstrate skin in the game. There is a long and difficult process, with mildly humiliating elements. And once you join, there are severe alterations to your life and all sorts of restrictions religious Jews to live with.
Simple and easy mass baptisms which involve no sacrifice – useless. Typical of enlightenment thinking.
So an intelligent and complex system that did not depend on enlightenment principles and utilized the principle of skin in the game.
And of course, Jews who were not happy with this arrangement could go to Israel – where a similar arrangement actually exists with regard to Arabs and non -Jews, although more informal and unofficial as befits a “democracy “.
Ok, but conquering Russia? What was that? And France? He wanted total dominion, an empire.
Not necessarily wrong in principle, but all empires need a comprehensive moral vision and civilized principle of organization, like Rome and Britain, that actually makes the conquered populations accept your rule and at least in some ways benefit from it. Hitler merely envisioned a purely selfish war of conquest and enslavement. That’s more Ghengis Khan than the “civilizing mission” of Britain or the Pax Ronana of Rome, despite its obvious hypocrisy.
You must blend opposites – empire as pure selfish conquest always fails, as it mobilizes everyone against you. Empire as selfishness blended with beneficence is the correct successful balance.
Even Jews blend selfishness with a vision of beneficence towards the world.
Ok, there were genuine reactionaries, and as you say, their ideas did not catch fire.
They have many valuable insights which should be integrated with modernity to create a higher synthesis.
Being reactionary is just another extreme.
The error in attacking the USSR was not taking proper advantage of all the nationalities who hated the Bolsheviks and instead alienating a lot of them, even if only to stab them in the back after victory (assuming the fog of war killings theory doesn’t apply).
As for France, as far as I am aware, it was Britain and France who chose to declare war on Germany.
To be honest, this sounds more like a normative value judgement than a positive statement.
It is not that “their ideas did not catch fire”, if is that fundamental changes to society made the previous structure either obsolete or diluted.
Well, okay, the great difference you’re focusing on is between Jews and non-Jews.
This is not a geographic variation.
I’m not sure why you think that.
Will read paper when I have time.
Its an assessment of an historical pattern. Based on my analysis of history,empires that combine selfishness with beneficence, that are not “mere” rapine, endure and are successful, and all rulership needs a moral basis as well as brute strength to be accepted. It may be hypocrtitical or spurious, and certainly contains a tremendous element of selfishness on the part of the imperial nation or class, but there must be some truth to it as well.
Or do you mean that Hitlers desired empire was similar to Rome and Britain in this respect? Well, again, my assessment is different. But that is a long argument.
Ok, that’s fine. I agree that purely reactionary ideas are not workable. But they do have insights that can be integrated.
“Reaction” is nothing than LARP and play acting, and had been since the beginning. Look at the pathetic farce of Restoration in France, at time when people still remembered the “old order” and there were still royals and nobles of “pure blood”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration
It does not matter whether you want to bring back Soviet Union like sovoks, Nazi Germany like alt-right, medieval Europe like Catholic integralists, Viking or Celtic times like neopagans or ancient Egypt like “hoteps”. What is dead, is dead, and is not coming back.
It never comes back in the same form, but it always comes back in a new form, integrated in a new way with new elements.
For instance, elements of feudalism and slavery are returning in our time, in a new way, and integrated into our system in different ways.
Thats because nothing is ever truly dead – it just mutates, or gets suppressed for a while.
And I expect religion to make a dramatic return, in fact its already doing so – but its looking quite different from traditional religions.
You are so right генеральный Karlin, it is an ebonic world, neva, neva admit you are Long!
But the Jewish Enlightenment arose because the Jews were already a problem among Jews. How do you solve that problem, which does not much involve the rest of Europe at all?
The Jewish Enlightenment was a derivative of the European Enlightenment. The true critique of the negative way Jews had developed in the diaspora was Zionism, and while it managed to cure those Jews who actually returned to Israel, it has only slightly affected the Jews who chose to remain in the diaspora who retain many of their old negative traits. But even diaspora Jews have been positively benefited by the Zionist critique.
My thoughts whenever I see someone with Jacobite nonsense in their twitter profile.
I’m sure everyone here knows that even small samples often reflect the population from which they are drawn very well. But this seems to me an argument against your conclusions.
If these samples do reflect the population of genetic loci “associated with higher attainment,” these polygenic scores are already reasonably accurate, which means that the relationship between IQ and PGS is not only weak in these studies but — crucially — will go on being weak even if we add further genetic loci (since the sample is already representative of the population). My guess — as a total layman when it comes to genetics — is that these are not accurate polygenic scores and that this is either because sampling is not the right approach here (e.g. the interaction effects are so strong that you need “the full picture”) or because the model is faulty.
Never seen “troop” used in the singular, but yes, that’s just awful.
I have been reading your comments and rants in last several weeks. I haven’t been responding. Because it is a mixed bags. Some thoughts of your I would agree with and some not. I think you are still morphing to find a voice in new incarnation that would gain more traction here. You are a Zelig chameleon who keeps transforming.
Few days ago on another thread somebody directed me to the link of L. Fry book “Waters Flowing Eastwards” which I have not known before. The book includes large fragments of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As browsing through it it occurred to me that you were channeling the Protocols. Like for example your rants about materialism and Darwinism (which are also my rants) in their descriptive part about the processes taking place in 19 century that for some people were clearly visible while the masses were blinded by the so called progress and they did not see it the essence of what was happening.
Whoever wrote the Protocols or concocted them form older sources had a really good grasp of psychology, sociology, social engineering… that was very rare for late 19 century.
Very interesting.
I regard the Protocols as primarily observational – their cleverness resides in clearly perceiving how harmful current trends would be in the long term if allowed to continue.
By framing it as a Jewish plot, this may have been a literary device – to show how the rationalistic culture created by Europeans was so self-destructive that one might almost view it as an enemy plot.
I can easily see it written by a nationalistic European using a literary device to warn his contemporaries of the dangers of their folly.
On the other hand, I can easily see it written by a Jew as well – but even so, the trends it describes were well beyond the scope of Jewish power to enact, and so it can be seen as an opportunistic promotion of preexisting trends that the author clearly perceived would be destructive of European ethical and social life. (As you know, that is how I see the Jewish role in European decline – opportunistic, not fundamental.)
Whether apocalyptic warning from a concerned gentile European, or opportunistic advice on how Jews could help Europeans destroy themselves, its basic psychology is indeed extremely impressive.
I have never seriously read the work, and if my own opinions on what makes a culture strong or weak resemble that found in the book, it is because a thoughtful person not blinded by “scientific objectivity ” is likely to think along these lines.
Its what the Romantics were saying in a poetic and unsystematic manner.
Well, a constant theme of my writing has been to suggest that flexibility and the ability to transform are fundamental to human nature, rather than the human being having a “stable” and immutable character view promoted by genetic HBDers.
So in that sense, I’ve been quite constant 🙂
Another point to consider is that Jewish behavior towards their competitors flows unconsciously from the assumptions embedded in their culture and upbringing – a fully conscious “plan” not only wouldn’t have to be spelled out, but would be decidedly inferior. The conscious mind is clumsier and more error prone that flexible reactions based on embedded assumptions.
However, consciously spelled out plans are characteristic of Enlightenment thinking.
I think Jews would have been far less effective had they really had such a plan rather than reacting in an almost organic fashion to developments, based on unconscious assumptions. That’s much more flexible and adaptive, and does not require logistics and coordination.
The invasion of France could be seen as being essentially a defensive move. The French and the British were after all the ones who started the war. It was obvious that the French and the British were determined to thwart what Hitler considered to be absolutely necessary foreign policy objectives in central Europe. They opposed even those German objectives that most Germans, even non-Nazis, considered to be reasonable – the Sudetenland, Danzig, etc.
So the British and the French had to be defeated. Hitler thought he could beat the French but no-one expected them to collapse so completely, so the occupation of part of France was in some ways an unexpected consequence of an an unexpectedly total victory. And Hitler had expected that the British would behave reasonably and agree to peace after the defeat of the French. The last thing he expected or wanted was for the war with Britain to continue.
Trying to conquer Russia was of course insanity. Turning potential allies in the East into enemies was madness.
Hitler’s foreign policy was a bizarre mixture of shrewdness, madness, caution and recklessness. But Germany’s strategic position was pretty much impossible – being stuck between two hostile Great Powers was bad enough but without any guaranteed access to vital resources it was hopeless.
A sane Hitler would have consolidated after absorbing Czechoslovakia. Concentrate on gradually building up Germany’s industrial might. But the problem is that Stalin was unlikely to stand idly by while he did that, and in the long term the United States was not going to allow Germany to become a superpower. It was always likely that Stalin would provoke war and that the U.S. would back Stalin.
The plans have been spelled out in Talmud and Kabbalah which have been worked on for several centuries after the fall of the 2nd Temple. There is an esoteric knowledge only for the initiated in Kabbalah. The exoteric part is used for acculturation and creation of group cohesion that all Jews are aware of to some extent but some find it limiting and suffocating so they defect but they are never free of it. The most committed and fanatical remain. But even the defectors like Sabbateans in Ottoman Empire who became Dönmeh or Frankists in Poland who became Catholic gentry or Marranos in Spain maintained crypto Judaism for generations and practiced endogamy. Frankists and Sabbateans chose the path of antinomianism of Kabbalah believing in kind of a bizarro world in which doing things that were forbidden by Orthodox Judaism would actually accelerate the coming of Messiah., so a sin became a virtue.
The general plan was formed once Jews became dispersed and living as Diaspora. Before it happened they fought very hard against Romans, Greeks and Christians and were really ruthless to their enemies committing massacres until they lost. And the loss in their minds was connected to Christianity and so Rabinical Judaism was developed partly in reaction to Christianity. This explains their obsession with Christianity while other religions like Buddhism or Hindusim or even Islam do not rile them up that much. So there is an animus that leads to a consistent and concerted actions which are anti-Christian and anti-Western. They are the destroyers. They want to destroy and then to rebuild the world in which they will become the incontestable top dog. The Light onto Nations. The Messiah will rule the world form Jerusalem and all over nations will pay him a tribute And these are not just fantasies of some crazy Hassidic rabbis but it is internalized on some level among all Jews including the ones who are the most active SJWs. David Ben-Gurion did not appear to be a deeply religious man yet in 1962 he spoke like an Old Testament prophet:
Are Jews more flexible? In some ways they are but they are also zealots and suicidal assassins who would kill their all families (still in Medial Europe) so they would not fall in the hand of Christians (one famous case was in Austria during Hussite wars).
The strength of Jews comes from absolutist nature of their religion which is less about God but more about them. The Jews are the religion and the only world there is. Everything else that happens to be on this Earth was placed there by their God to serve them, to test them, to punish them or to annoy them but everything is about them. They are not one of many. They are a separate category that has attributes of absolute and transcendence. This Uber-narcissism gives strength. That’s where the chutzpah comes from. That’s why there is no shame or embarrassment among Jews. Only an abstract guilt of which one can be absolved once a year or pragmatic rationalization whether it is good or bad for Jews. Does operational intelligence comes into the equation? Obviously but it is just to fulfill the necessary condition but not a sufficient one. As we know there are tens of millions more intelligent goys (however one measure the intelligence) in the world than there are all Jews in the world.
the relationship between IQ and PGS is not only weak in these studies but — crucially — will go on being weak even if we add further genetic loci “associated with higher attainment,”
No. The relationship has become stronger as we add further genetic loci. The correlation was low in the Dunkel et al study (r= 0.2) because the score was based on a small number of loci. The correlation is higher in the latest study by Piffer (r=0.33-0.36) because the number of loci has greatly increased.
Keep in mind that the value of “r” will always be less than 1.0 because IQ is only partly genetic. Even if we develop a polygenic score that perfectly models the genetic component of intelligence, it will not perfectly correlate with IQ, since IQ is a very imperfect measure of this component.
the great difference you’re focusing on is between Jews and non-Jews. This is not a geographic variation.
The greatest difference is between Africans and non-Africans (or rather the descendants of northern Eurasians). You may want to read my latest paper: “The Original Industrial Revolution. Did Cold Winters Select for Cognitive Ability?”
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/12
The discussion focused on Ashkenazi Jews because you guys love to talk about Jews. In any case, the Ashkenazim used to be geographically circumscribed, their homeland being the lands of the old Polish commonwealth and parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Which study? The one with circa 2000 SNPs? r=0.33 not possible with that few SNPs on a large sample.
Interesting. You say many correct things.
I am not aware that the Talmud has any specifically outlined plans similar to the Protocols. Most of those tactics only make sense in the context of the Enlightenment and Jewish emancipation.
I know less of the Kabbalah, but I would be very surprised if it had detailed plans with specific psychological instructions that could only be implemented if Europeans reorganize their societies in dramatic ways.
What the Talmud and Kabbalah do have is a generally negative attitude towards non-Jews and a strong conquering ideology.
You are quite correct that the idea that Jews will rule the world is one of the basic themes of all Jewish religious writing. This need not be controversial. As far back as genesis, Abraham is promised that his descendents will outnumber the sands and the stars.
One might quibble over whether Jews have a sinister and nefarious plot to undermine the goyim, and consider that anti-Semitic, but there ought to be no controversy at all over the fact that Jewish eschatology envisions their ultimate fate as having the other nations bow to them.
I am not aware of a single religious Jew who would deny this, and my Jewish friends frequently make comments about this.
Judaism is a conquering religion, like Islam, like Christianity (with its proselytizing).
I consider this innocent – every nation wants to be top dog. Its no different than the Romans, Alexander the Great, the Persian empire, the Assyrians, the British, the Chinese, the Spanish – really every single people.
Its human nature.
You are also quite correct about the fanaticism, zealotry, and uber narcissism. But again, this is the common currency of all conquering ideologues. Nothing gets accomplished without zeal or self-confidence.
Jewish chutzpah and shamelessness comes from the fact that they do not see themselves as part of your society, despite looking like you and dressing like you – they are ashamed among themselves, just not before you. That’s normal.
Everyone has less shame before the “outgroup”.
The unusual feature about the Jewish will to power – what distinguishes it from that of Rome or Britain, for instance – is simply that once they lost their physical base they continued as a nation within other nations, and that required developing different weapons involving deception and psychology and specializing in finance (a neglected and despised form of power in Europe at the time, where the elite focused on physical or intellectual power)
One imagines the Romans wounds have done the same thing, or the British.
The modern European Enlightenment project of a universal brotherhood of man and an end to all wars seems like an alternative in theory – in practice, it became the basis of two interesting phenomena 1) a desire to conquer the world and spread the ideology (America, colonialism, etc,), so will to power once again 2) a pretext for elite whites to transfer their allegiance to non-white groups, as their desire for group allegiance was blocked with regard to their own group.
In the end, utu, human nature us human nature.
The Jewish attitude may be somewhat extreme, but it is far from unusual – it is the common currency of mankind.
And the task for whites today is to redevelop some of this narcissism and zeal on behalf of oneself.
Interestingly, a people suffers a collapse in its will to power after it achieves it, like Rome or Britain.
So I expect in the next decades we will be seeing a collapse in the Jewish will to power after the 20th century dominance.
Especially now that they have once again a physical base in Israel.
Already there is massive intermarriage among secular Jews – will Zuck’s children be Jewish? – and as Ron documented, precipitous decline in performance – since their innate ability hasn’t changed, this can only mean a dramatic drop in zeal and will to power.
Right, that makes sense.
Strategy is tough in general. I think k Hitler’s eschatology just complicated matters.
I agreed except for “And the task for whites today is to redevelop some of this narcissism and zeal on behalf of oneself.” Because at the end of this road is genocide.
Spanish is highly regional. It rarely takes that connotation in Mexico, more in South America.
My compliments to Mr Karlin. In this thread and even the open thread, he manages to attract a raft of careful thinkers. I mention some names here but there are more; I may not agree fully with any of them but that’s not critical. My main point is that Mr Karlin is clearly doing a good job and I’ll make a point of trying to read more of what he writes–and elicits.
@Peter Frost
@AaronB
@Daniel Chieh
@Thorfinnsson
@reiner Tor
@Swedish Family
@LondonBob
@Hyperborean
Nowhere does he write “superhumanly.” He keeps emphasizing that Jews are smarter than gentiles on average, but that the smartest gentile whites are just as smart as the smartest Jews (or maybe more so, due to greater numbers).
But I’m surprised that you, who keep writing about nonlinear effects etc. don’t get this very simple point. So let me restate it for you, because apparently you have difficulty believing that if Jews are, say, 10 or 20% of people above 130 IQ (I just made up the number without checking, but the exact percentage matters very little here) could, in principle, and up dominating whites (with 90 or 80% of the same) in a completely meritocratic system (thereby breaking down and ending the meritocratic system in question).
So, imagine you have a completely meritocratic system, where 130 IQ determines if someone gets into the elite (for simplicity’s sake, imagine that it’s only about IQ; while, of course, HBD doesn’t say that it’s only IQ and nothing else; but let’s just keep it simple), so within a generation or so Jews end up being 10 or 20% of the elite.
But the story doesn’t end here. It’s just the beginning. Because Jews won’t play fair and square: they will practice ethnic nepotism. So it’s basically a group competing against individualists. Basically white gentiles won’t consider emancipated Jews to be an outgroup. More accurately, gentile white elites, on average, considered Jews less of an outgroup than vice versa; and so they discriminated against them less than vice versa. So the idealistic model of whites being meritocratic (no discrimination against Jews) while Jews being ethnically nepotistic (so some discrimination against gentiles) holds.
There’s also the question that a 10 or 20% minority – we’re still talking about the elite, so 10 or 20% of the elite – will find it way easier to discriminate in favor of co-ethnics than the majority, for a number of reasons. First, it’s more salient. Jews will meet gentiles all the times. Gentiles will only meet Jews occasionally. So they won’t be thinking all the time in terms of “us vs. them.” Also, secularized Jews will be more difficult to detect. Believe it or not, at high school I didn’t realize that a few of my classmates were Jewish. (Or half-Jewish. I’m still not very sure.) In a relatively large city (not Budapest) in Hungary (with very few Jews), secularized Jews just weren’t very salient. I’m pretty sure they had a much better J-dar. Then there’s the question that people are not very good with intuitive statistics. So, for example, if a Jew employs 30% other Jews and 70% gentiles, no one will think there’s any problem: after all, he employs mostly gentiles. Similarly, even an anti-Semitic gentile might employ a few Jews. It’s merely 10 or 20%% of his employees, and boy, they are really smart. Oh, 10 or 20% is what you’d expect, so he doesn’t even discriminate against anyone, but he thinks he’s tough enough on Jews. Also, if a Jew is on a job interview with another Jew, his chances might grow five- or tenfold. If a gentile is with another gentile, even if he’s an anti-Semite, his chances grew, what, 10, 20, 25%?
Now, ethnic nepotism might still be too salient, especially initially, so it won’t be practiced too heavily. But another discrimination might be discrimination against anti-Semites, preferring philo-Semitic gentiles. You might call them Shabbos goyim.
It’s basically how the most intolerant minority is going to win. So, eventually, Jews will make up maybe 20-30-40% of the elite instead of just 10 or 20%, and the rest will consist of an increasing number of philo-Semites. A feature is that the philo-Semites might do the discrimination for the Jews.
Now, there is a further factor, also amply documented by KMac, and it’s that the Jews will flock to the same few strategic industries, of which maybe entertainment and academia are the most strategic. (But perhaps also finance.) Henry Ford was a billionaire, but decided to publicly renounce his views after Jews organized boycotts against his products. The threat of losing a few shekels from Jewish or even philo-Semitic customers was enough to shape the media not controlled by Jews. (It worked in reverse, too, when gentiles started an infamous movement in Central Europe: Hollywood famously self-censored many of its movies, so that they wouldn’t lose the German market… But it required collective action, basically an organized state. Whites are not very good at informal collective action, because they are not clannish. They are very good at formal, organized collective action. Again, amply documented.)
So basically Jews will dominate (maybe not numerically, but in spirit) a few key industries, which in turn will indoctrinate whites against any useful group identity.
I fail to see how this was not inevitable, once a more or less meritocratic system was set up. In other words, meritocratic systems immediately contain their own destruction. The only way to avoid it is organized discrimination against Jews. (Though if we manage to get out of our predicament now, then maybe no discrimination will be needed: because it will be proof that truth is so strong that it could break Jewish power. Then, maybe, even under a meritocratic system, Jewish power could be kept in check: it could only grow stronger once Jewish power is broken. But it’s path-dependent, so before a period of Jewish power clearly legal discrimination would have been needed to completely avoid it.)
There needs be no apathy to create Jewish dominance, merely meritocracy. (See my points above.) And yes, Jews were always above the average (so depending on semantics either part of the elite or just immediately below the elite), this was already the case in medieval Germany, or in early modern Poland-Lithuania. But because these weren’t meritocratic systems, instead they were based on legal discrimination and vastly different legal positions of many numerically large groups (like serfs, different shades of aristocrats, lower nobility, poor nobility without property, etc.), so there was never a chance of a Jewish domination we see today.
The intolerant minority will always rule over the blind majority. Clannishness works in meritocracies because the ability to organically generate informal collective action for your group bypasses the need for formal networks which everyone else must rely on.
It’s kind of like how writers build their fame, through ad hoc conspiracies to circle jerk each other. Writer John says Peter, Paul, and Saul are great and famous writers. Writer Peter says the same of John, Paul, and Saul. The ignorant public through lack of knowledge of informal networks foolishly assumes this to be the case, when it really isnt.
Your thoughts on this echo my own and in fact aren’t new at all, though mostly forgotten.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
The Christian state was abolished, and all de jure and de facto discrimination against Jews with it. The Jews never surrendered their Jewish privileges.
Two ways to counter-act this. Outconspire the Jews, as Non-Spanish priests were able to do as they gradually purged the Marranos from the Jesuit order en mass. Formal discrimination and quotas, 5% and no more, to contain the spread of the circle jerking.
Yes, I understand how ethnic nepotism can allow a small group to seize dominance. Absolutely.
But then the system is no longer meritocratic, as you say.
The narrative many white HBDers were pushing was that current day Jewish dominance is meritocratic. Certainly both Sailer and Derbyshire say that.
So it’s not what you are saying.
Yes, KMac and some other white HBDers bring in the nepotism angle, and that’s great, but he still vastly overplays the intelligence angle and fails to mention the elephant in the room – rising white apathy as Western civilization abandoned religion, heavily documented in the literature of 19th and 20th century Europe and America.
And apathy plays into the situation in a number of complex ways. One, reduced exertion and effort. Two, the very idea of a purely meritocratic system (a self-loving person wants his group to win, not play fair!). Three, less motivated to attain power. Many more.
Finally, I want to commend you in making the point that a purely meritocratic system carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction and cannot last.
It is an abstract Enlightenment idea that works only in theory – messy human realities intervene.
But it is a point that is well aligned with my style of thinking
Crucial point. One of the major weaknesses of Enlightenment culture is its reliance on consciously spelled out plans.
This is a major tactic employed by Jews. Again, it’s a spontaneous, organic thing – when you love your group, you’ll always be talking it up.
I hear, but any road followed to its end, becomes something monstrous. We should strive to achieve balance. Too much of anything is bad.
As for Jews, their attitude towards non Jews isn’t one of genocide – non Jews have their God given place, which is just much below that of Jews.
A religious Jewish friend once told me that at the end of the world, when the Jews join God in Heaven, the goyim will become the new Jews on earth, according to one Rabbinic opinion.
So the attitude is certainly one of superiority and narcissism, and sometimes hatred and contempt, but there are sympathetic elements as well.
Quite correct regarding the regional thing. So give me the lowdown on popular usages and meanings in Mexico.
Only in theory. That’s the way it was designed. The designers were the wannabes, the future elite that wanted to bring down the old elite, the aristocracy and take their place. They were members of secret societies like various masonic orders and Jews were part of it. Their animus was chiefly anti-Christian and especially anti-Catholic so Jews loved it. The RCC as Duke of Qin alluded was able to break down and resist Jewish ethnic and masonic group activism. The exoteric message of Enlightenment Liberté, égalité, fraternité was just a slogan for the masses and fools like Sailers and Derbyshires of the 18 century but there was the esoteric part hidden from them which was “Now it is our turn.” And with the knowledge of social engineering that the old elites did not posses they knew how to the keep the masses preoccupied with the ideas expressed by new slogans and hate for the Ancien Régime. Once they took power they did not intend to give it up. At some point they had to ditch the égalité and fraternité parts and put full emphasis liberté part to detriment of fairness and justice so they came up with the social Darwinism before Darwin and and at the later stage with Libertarianism. Meritocracy is social Darwinism. The IQism is a part of it. When people began to notice that Jews are doing exceptionally well within the system they doubled down on IQism and began to come up with ad hoc explanations of Jewish IQ and Jewish fat tails to explain Jewish over representation. When Herrnstein induced Murray to do the Bell Curve project the exoteric and scandalous message was that Blacks are stupid and that delineated the front line where all battles were fought but the esoteric insidious message that was planted w/o any resistance and discussion or controversy and that was eaten up by almost everybody was that Jews were the smartest.
Duke of Qin’s “The intolerant minority will always rule over the blind majority.” cuts to the kernel of the truth.
By using Enlightenment as your favorit boogeyman in your rants you are obscuring much deeper processes that are occurring.
It is too bad that Herrnstein died. It would be interesting if he were a public figure today, like Murray, and had a record of recent commentary.
I do not know about Herrnstein but in 2007 in Commentary Murray wrote:
“Insofar as I am suggesting that the Jews may have had some degree of unusual verbal skills going back to the time of Moses, I am naked before the evolutionary psychologists′ ultimate challenge. Why should one particular tribe at the time of Moses, living in the same environment as other nomadic and agricultural peoples of the Middle East, have already evolved elevated intelligence when the others did not? At this point, I take sanctuary in my remaining hypothesis, uniquely parsimonious and happily irrefutable. The Jews are God’s chosen people.”
see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190562/
With Murray, I always get the sense like he is performing for his social circle, to be invited to dinner parties, etc. I’ll bet he has a lot of Jewish friends. Not saying he doesn’t necessarily believe it, just that his beliefs might be socially-orientated, based on his circle of acquaintances.
So why were German Jews so accomplished and Yemenite Jews are primitives? Murray seems like he is pandering.
Which study?
This one:
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5/htm#B7-psych-01-00005
The one with circa 2000 SNPs? r=0.33 not possible with that few SNPs on a large sample.
It is possible. The polygenic score explains 11-13% of the variance at the individual level. The value of “r” is the square root of 11-13%.
The correlation between the polygenic score and IQ will get stronger as we discover more of these gene loci. I would like to see a correlation coefficient of 0.5, but I fear that might not be possible. There are two reasons:
The genetic component of IQ has been estimated at 50-80%. So the polygenic score can never perfectly correlate with IQ, because IQ itself is an imperfect measure of the genetic component of intelligence.
This discussion thread has shown that a faction of the alt-right is hostile to HBD. There seem to be three reasons:
HBD portrays certain human populations as being less intelligent. This is insulting to groups, like Muslims, who could be valuable allies against the Jooz. This sort of thinking is rife on the alt-right, and it’s one reason why I don’t consider myself alt-right. Remember: The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
In any case, some Muslim groups, like the Volga Tatars have a high mean IQ. Please note: Islam is not intrinsically opposed to intelligence. In fact, until the twelfth century, mean IQ was probably just as high in the Islamic world as it was in Europe. From that point on, a divergence took place. Just as Ashkenazi Jews diverged in IQ from other Jewish groups, a similar divergence happened between Christian Europe and the Middle East. Conditions became more conducive to the growth of the middle class, and this class became the vector for a steady rise in mean IQ.
Pandering is the name of the game. It also goes under the name of whoring.
You must be joking. You are giving me a link to Davide Piffer’s crap as a reference? Published in psych that has zero impact on any scale there exists. This psych so far published 10 articles of which three have Kirkegaard as author/co-author, two are by Richard Lynn, two by Davide Piffer and one by you. The only paper that comes from a respectable author is by James Flynn who actually demolishes Rushton in it. Papers has not been cited by anybody outside the mutual masturbation society that established this pseudo-journal. For instance Peter Frost (you) paper has zero citations. The same with Kirkegaard’s paper. The same with Lynn’s paper. ZERO CITATIONS! Flynn has three citations of which one is in a legitimate journal and the other two are incestuous in psych. And finally Davide Piffer paper that you linked to:
has four citations of which two are incestuous in psych including one by you, Peter Frost also a member of mutual masturbation society, one by some confused Laura Whitton who apparently was not aware what she was citing and one by Miller in Mankind Quarterly which has the following reputation
I can’t make my mind about the Piffer guy who certainly is not stupid whether he is just blinded by his chutzpa or whether he is a huckster or kind of a Jewish trickster who is trolling you guys. But we will find out sooner than later.
I can’t find in his paper anything about 2,000 plus SNPs and 11-13% explained as you have implied earlier. There is only a reference to Lee’s paper who indeed claimed 11-13% variance explained. Why don’t you go to the Lee’s paper and read it carefully:
On pages 1114-1115 you will find the following paragraph:
Which obscures the following truth. To get R2=12.7% SNPs that are in LD were not stripped. This means that the polygenic score actually had 100’s of 1000’s of SNPs. Not 1,271 or 2,000 plus. When they stripped the SNPs that were in LD which means when they used just 1271 SNPs form their “treasure throve” they got only 3.2% variance explained. Do you understand?
Last year I had a link to their explanatory notes (FAQ) which explicitly states what they did and what they got. What did they actually accomplish? With GWAS they identified 1,271. SNPs:
This summary suggests that with just 1,271 SNPs they can explain 11-13% of education attainment variance. But is it true? They call these SNPs a treasure trove for future analyses. Let’s go to FAQs notes for more explanation:
As we see the truth is, which does not jump at you form the main body of Lee’s paper that to obtain 11-13% prediction each “lead SNP” from the “treasure trove” of 1,271 had to be combined with additional 787 SNPs on average. ONE MILLION SPNs in the polygenic score is a lot. Their polygenic score uses 10% of all SNPs there are in human genome and yet it can explain only about 10% of the phenotype variance. Are we closing the heritability gap?
Did you get it: ONE MILLION GENETIC VARIANTS TO GET 13% EXPLAINED?
With ONE MILLION GENETIC VARIANTS I could predict all phone numbers in the NYC telephone book.
I speak Spanish fairly well, but not perfectly, and i am not aware of a direct equivalent for “cuck”, “Sancho” however is the eqivalent for “buck” in other words; “the other man in your bedroom,”
A closer word would probably be “mandilon”; “mandil” meaning “apron”, in other words; “the man who wears the apron.”
Callimg someone cabron is much more powerful in, say Argentina, where speech tends to be more formal. “Cabron” is technically a goat, and the general connotation is one that is hardheaded and can’t learn; aka sort of stupid.
Another prejorative you hear along those terms is “cornudo”, but i think that might be Caribbean.
No one here is bothered by that fact.
I am beginning to think you people have a mental block.
Published in psych that has zero impact on any scale there exists.
It’s a new journal. Give it time.
For instance Peter Frost (you) paper has zero citations. The same with Kirkegaard’s paper. The same with Lynn’s paper. ZERO CITATIONS!
My paper was published a week ago. The others were published over the last two months.
[Mankind Quarterly] has been described as a “cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment” and a “white supremacist journal”
“Scientific racism establishment” and “white supremacist” are fake terms. For the most part, the authors of these papers pay for their research out of their own pockets, and they publish their findings at considerable risk to their careers. The word “establishment” creates the impression that they have the protection and backing of VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE. You’re indulging, here, in what psychologists call “projection.”
I can’t make my mind about the Piffer guy who certainly is not stupid whether he is just blinded by his chutzpa or whether he is a huckster or kind of a Jewish trickster who is trolling you guys.
Hmm … I used to think you were an antisemitic nut. Now, I’m coming around to an alternate theory. You’re not a nut, and you’re not an antisemite. Far from it.
I can’t find in his paper anything about 2,000 plus SNPs and 11-13% explained as you have implied earlier.
Go to the first sentence of Materials and Methods:
In other words, he used the SNPs that Lee et al (2018) had identified and found 2,411 of them in the 1000 Genomes dataset.
To get R2=12.7% SNPs that are in LD were not stripped. This means that the polygenic score actually had 100’s of 1000’s of SNPs. Not 1,271 or 2,000 plus. When they stripped the SNPs that were in LD which means when they used just 1271 SNPs form their “treasure throve” they got only 3.2% variance explained. Do you understand?
You’re the one who doesn’t understand. Lee et al. (2018) looked at 1.1 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Only 1,271 were associated with variation in educational attainment at a GWAS level of significance (p = 5 × 10−8). These SNPs were added to SNPs that had been previously associated with educational attainment. Together, they explain 11-13% of the variance in educational attainment. The figure of 3.2% comes from an earlier study. All of this is explained in the Introduction to their paper:
Their polygenic score uses 10% of all SNPs there are in human genome and yet it can explain only about 10% of the phenotype variance
Two reasons:
Most SNPs are not associated with the functioning of the human mind.
The SNPs they identified had to reach a very high level of significance.
Also want to point that I myself do not have a “problem” with HBD. I accept that in our New Hellenistic Age, this little mini religion will attract a certain type of adherent.
I merely want to “characterize” it correctly.
Somehow, HBD has gotten bound up with the Western revitalization. This is a mistake of the first order. Whereas it needs to be properly seen as just branch of Western decadence.
HBD is not white self-hate, it is white lukewarmness and neutrality. Since the normal, default, healthy human attitude is “strong self-love, this is a “soft” form of decadence.
1) Since white HBDers gloss over positive facts about whites and reject plausible flattering interpertatins of the data, it is clear they are not motivated by partisan bias towards their own group – self-love – or by scientific objectivity. They are motivated by the desire to be “neutral” – it is a soft form of “egalitarianism” that afflicts the mainstream Left.
2) Adopting the pose of scientific objectivity is itself a sign of decadence and an act of bad faith – truth emerges when biased people try and vindicate their world view but accept the constraints of facts and logic. “Starting” from a place of ojectivity means one has lost connection to ones desires and motivation – it is a gateway drug to cuckery. Moreover, it is acting in “bad faith”, as true objectivity is not possible and one merely ends up with pereverse motivations (like to appear neutral rather than be objective, or falsely flatter the not-self to demonstrate one has transcended bias).
3) White HBD promotes a fatalistic view of man that is not even slighty supported by history or the available data, which is the story of flux and the impact of environment. By doing so it saps motivation and oprtimis, and puts whites at a severe disadvantage when competing against groups that emphasize motivation over innate ability, like Jews and Asians. White HBDers seek to “freeze” the moment of European decline as the Platonic form for Europeans.
4) In the end, HBD is what Nietzsche might have called a “chandala movement” – made up of the white mish-mash and the lower riff raff.
5) Which is not to say this is not a legitimate Hellenistic min-religion that adequately caters to the spiritual needs of a certain type of man. It has its place. But one should never, ever, confuse with promoting Western recovery.
I really think yours and my theories are at least somewhat complementary rather than contradictory. The question is one of emphasis.
I don’t deny malevolent or self-interested actors of various stripes and ethnic compositions have played a role, but to me they would not have been successful had the West not abandoned religion and traditional non-rational ways of thinking which are a societies first line of defense.
Its like ancient Rome would never have fallen to the barbarians had they not first drastically weakened themselves through various internal social developement.
Or what ended British rule in India – Ghandi’s feeble agitations or that the British had become liberal and soft and no longer had the stomach for conquest and harsh rule? Its been often and well said that Ghandi would have been nothing more than a gnat brushed aside if the Nazis or the Japanese were ruling India.
So to be perfectly frank, it seems to me that placing too much emphasis on outside attackers rather than internal resistance and health is a mild symptom of decadence, as it focuses not on personal agency but gives pride of place to the agency of the enemy.
Why focus on enemy agency instead of personal agency? Isn’t that a kind of learned helplessness, that itself grows out of the modern malaise?
Cornudo is Castellano Rio Platense borrowed from Italian. Cuernudo is used most everywhere else in the Spanish speaking world. They both literally mean having horns (cuernos) placed upon oneself– i.e. being cuckled. (typically by a another man consorting with an unfaithful wife)
Thus cabrón (old goat) is a cuck– by virtue of being crowned with billy goat horns.
All this other business about Sancho, mandilon, mandil etc. is new to me, though I suspect the mandilon, mandil really refers to a pussy-whipped man who is ordered about by his wife and this may or may not include wifey having sex with other men.
Excellent.
I think a better way to put this would be to acknowledge that as biological organisms with emotions – as interested parties – i.e ineterested in survival – we cannot be objective and must have biases.
Therefore, we should be honest about what our biases actually are – what world view we are secretly/implicitly trying to vindicate in our reasearches. Saying one is “starting” from a place of objectivity, then, is itself not objective and is dishonest – it is to be dishonest about what a human being is (a biological organism trying to survive, not a robot in outer space who can see everything objectively).
So I would ask the HBDers – what are your biases? Do you claim you have no biases and are merely searching for objective truth? That claim alone shows you are not capable of objectivity, as an objective analysis shows that biological organisms that evolved to survive cannot dispense with biases.
So how can we understand what the biases and motivations of HBDers actually are?
Well, for one, trying to present oneself as starting from a place of objectivity in the study of group differences suggests the specific bias of trying to vindicate neutral outcomes.
Two, we can look at what data they gloss over, and what intepretations they favor (when there are multiple plausible ones).
And then the picture becomes clearer. One, they wish to vindicate a world view that is fatalistic about human performance. They will ignore data that conflicts with this or interpretations that offer highly plausible alternatives.
Two, they seek to discount the role of personal agency in performance. They wish to see performance as a spontaneous expression of one’s inner character or nature, not under one’s control.
Three, they wish to discount environment and history in assessing group performance.
Group performance is seen as a kind of invariant, stable, immutable for practical short term purposes expressions of ones inner character.
What is discounted is psychology – will power, agency, motivation, optimisim, willingness to exert effort – and history – the story of changes in psychology in response to environment – and they want to discount environment – all the external factors not included in psychology (partial overlap with history).
Finally, they are biased in favor of seeing their own group as “medium” – they will ignore data that show it is exceptional, and reject highly plausible interpretations that demonstrate exceptionality. They are highly motivated to develop and sustain a “neutral” attitude towards their own group (not to be confused with an objective attitude) and are motivated to produce outcomes that show their group as “medium”.
I interpret this as a softer and milder version of how leftists are highly motivated to produce interpretations that favor egalitarianism, or worse, their own group as negative – in all three cases, the underlying motivation is at least partly to demonstrate that one has overcome one’s biase towards self-love and has achieved that elusive, rare, but highly prized commodity – “scientific objectivity”.
But for biological beings, objectivity becomes merely another form of bias – in this case, against the natural desires and preferences.
So, the scientifically objective European is one who is motivated to take sides against his natural desires and preferences, and against himself.
Really. Reading comprehension problems? Or you haven’t read the paper? Lee’s 2018 paper is about 1,1 million individuals in the sample. Here is the title:
Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. – NATURE GENETICS | VOL 50 | AUGUST 2018 | 1112–1121
With GWAS they identified what they called 1,271 lead SNPs and called it also as a treasure throve. Then they created various polygenic scores. The ones that had the lowest number of SNPs could explain 3.2% -3.9% of education attainment. This PGS included the 1,271 SNPs w/o associated SNPs that were in LD (linkage disequilibrium). The PGS that could explain about 13% of variance had circa 1 million of SNPs because it included SNPs that were in LD. With 1 mil SNPs there was almost as many variables as the unknowns and yet only 13%. Do you get the significance of this fact? With 1 SNPs I could easily predict much more that 13% of the whole phone book of NYC.
I am still waiting for you to justify your earlier statement that Piffer’s PGS consisting of 2000 plus SNPs or any other circa 2000 SNP PGS explained 13% of variance on large sample like the one of 1,1 million individuals. Take it back and apologize for wasting my time.
My original point was that the huckster Piffer used PGS consisting of circa 2000 SNPs that at best could explain 3.2-3.9% of variance (r=0.178-0.197) and applied it to averages of clusters (countries, ethnic groups) where he got correlation of r=0.88 claiming that he has a causative explanation of 77% of variance of IQ’s between nations. This is not how you do the science. You do not put the cart before the horse. His PGS has practically zero predictive power on individual level. To claim that it has a predictive power on cluster averages is putting the cart before the horse. His r=0.88 correlation has to be considered as spurious until proven otherwise. No amount of hand waving will change it. And your lack of comprehension when reading scientific papers does not help it either.
Furthermore Piffer’s own Monte Carlo simulation demonstrate that it is very easy P=0.01 (1 in 100 trials) to find random SNPs that predict 26 countries average IQs not worse than with correlation of r=0.88. He ran only 900 plus cases. But think about the genome. There are 10 milion SNPs. How many subsets of k=2000 you can find? That’s is how many: 2.4690404055981E+8264. You can find a subset that will match any n=26 random sequence of numbers you generate. That’s why what Piffer does is useless. He can’t prove that his result is not spurious.
Imagine that eventually somebody found PGS that actually could eliminate the heritability gap and explain 50-70% of IQ variance in a large sample of individuals. This PGS would include the 2000 SNPs that Piffer used. But to produce R2=0.5-0.7 it would have to include 100’s of 1000’s of other SNPs and possibly in a nonlinear function. We could write then that
PGS=PGS_piffer+PGS_x, where PGS_x does the heavy lifting but is so far unknown. It explains between 50-3.2=46.8% to 70-3.2=66.8% of variance because PGS_piffer explains only 3.2%.
Now Piffer gets high correlations (r=0.88) when he uses the average Avg(PGS_piffer) to correlate with Avg(IQ) where Avg() is an operate of averaging on clusters. His high correlation for clusters implies that Avg(PGS_x) must be pretty constant on the clusters. Don’t you find it strange that Piffer by picking up 2000 SNPs managed to omit 100’a of 1000’s essential SNPs that when averaged do not contribute to the average polygenic score for clusters? Everything point to the fact that his result is spurious.
Reading comprehension problems? Or you haven’t read the paper? Lee’s 2018 paper is about 1,1 million individuals in the sample.
That was also the number of SNPs under study. I’ve seen stranger coincidences.
I am still waiting for you to justify your earlier statement that Piffer’s PGS consisting of 2000 plus SNPs or any other circa 2000 SNP PGS explained 13% of variance on large sample like the one of 1,1 million individuals. Take it back and apologize for wasting my time.
This point is discussed repeatedly in Piffer’s paper:
And in Lee et al.:
It’s difficult to make sense of your argument, but you seem to be arguing that many of the SNPs identified by this approach are “false positives”, i.e., if you examine a million SNPs, you will inevitably “find” some that seem to predict educational attainment but which really don’t.
If that is your argument, you are actually saying the correlation between the polygenic score and educational attainment should be higher, since a large proportion of the SNPs are false positives.
Well, the universe IS Social Darwinist. As Nick Land said, any improvement in a population can only be achieved through harsh selection, that is, in the past a lot of dead people, incels and eunuchs among humans.
Not really. We just have very different personalities. To me facts and goals are separate. That is, “I want to become a billionaire” and “I’m a billionaire” are distinct statements. To you maybe for the purpose of motivation they aren’t.
No amount of human pro-social myths work on AI and aliens. The more humans watch “we can defeat AI with emotions” and “we will defeat aliens with roughly the current tech” shit the more likely that humans will be destroyed by AI and aliens. That’s “We the Second Polish Republic can easily repel a Nazi invasion!!”-type madness.