A study has shown that Jewish boys are very successful in top universities (Ivy League) and this fct bothers the antisemite right. Steve Sailer made a nice analysis of the issue which is now evolving on the right wing net. The situation is that Jewish boys and girls are getting into the top institutes, something that has been observed with shock and awe everywhere Jews are more than 1% of the population such as Germany in 1860, Hungary 1920, the USA in 1910, the USSR in 1950, leading to the establishment of mechanisms to limit Jewish admittance. Now it is well known that Harvard and other Ivy League universities had a gentlemen agreement to limit Jewish admissions for decades - till the Civil Rights movement broke down racial discrimination in America. In Hungary there was the Numerus Clausus limiting Jews to 5% of the universities. The net effect of these anisemite measures was that Jewish boy went in masse to Vienna, Zurich, Paris and got better education that they would have received in the shitty local schools. In the USSR, when the universities in the big cities were closed to Yevrey holding passports, they went to study in remote universities in Siberia. Apparently Steve Sailer and his followers are starting to agitate for some kind of Numerus Clausus in the Ivy League, and on the basis of similar precedents, I feel they have a good chance to succeed and limit the admission of Jews. Paradoxically I feel that this antisemitism is not bad for Jews, being blatantly and unjustly discriminated will make them feel Jewish, and they will come to study in Israeli Universities, which are in my opinion better than many of the USA. For a change, I dont feel menaced by the imposition of Numerus Clausus in the USA. In fact, this Israeli Engineer is for it.
One aspect that is bothering Steve SAiler and his acolytes more than having 20% Jews in Harvard, is the feeling that Christian White Americans - specially those of the lower classes - can no longer get into those schools. Even taking into account their average IQ, there should be more of them inthe Universities. Since there are not, there may be some discrimination against them, or more probably, they dont feel the need to make the effort to get into top universities. The sons of my friends that are in those places say that American boys are lazy. I am not there and have no first hand opinion, although I personally have never met a lazy WASP. On the contrary. In any case, this is very bad. A country cannot be led by foreign ethnics. I think there should be some kind of mechanism to push low class small town Christian Americans through the universities, even if they are unwilling and not so bright.
I think this issue should be discussed (in a way of not causing offense to the majority). American Jews should not fight against the return of a mild kind of Numerus Clausus, - it is not about trying to expulse or exterminate them. It is a legitimate White American ethnic issue that needs to be solved.
85 comments:
A numerus clausus for Jews at American universities would almost certainly reflect a more generalized loss of status and influence for the American Jewish community. As Israel is so dependent for security on American goodwill mediated by Jewish influence, you should not even joke about favoring such an act.
Though you never listen, I will reiterate that it is a foolish idea for Jews to be concentrated only in Israel, especially given its always precarious security situation. That would place a majority of the world's Jews only one nuclear strike away from annihilation, a veritable dream for the Jew haters. A strong American Jewish community is good for Israel and for the Jews.
and they will come to study in Israeli Universities, which are in my opinion better than many of the USA.
Maybe for water engineering… but for must subjects the better American universities are far superior to the better Israeli universities. Without attempting to compare things that are actually really difficult to compare, in America there is no "moed bet," which means the students have to learn the material the first time if they want to succeed on the exam; the professors run the classroom, not the students, and they can assign whatever work they want; and there's no constant threat of "striking" for conditions that are easier on the students.
My son is at an Ivy League School - about to graduate. White Christians, especially from outside the coasts, are vanishingly rare - they are the real minority on campus. You can do the math - maybe 1/4 are Jews, another 1/4 Asian, another 20% black and Hispanic - this leaves maybe 30% for white Christians and maybe 1/2 of those are from the historic coastal WASP elites so maybe 15% are "average white Americans" from small town USA. When he was first admitted there was an orientation and the admission officer called out the US states one by one and when it came to (largely white Christian) states like Idaho, maybe 1 or 2 kids would stand (hundreds from NY, Cal., etc.) The Ivy League Schools are getting maybe 10 applications for each one they admit. But the chances of getting in are not evenly distributed. Blacks & Hispanics gets special preference. Children of alumni (which now includes a lot of Jews - my son is now the 2nd generation at this U. - pretty good for the descendants of an illiterate fisherman recently arrived in this country) get preference. Athletes get preference. All the different preferences take up a large % of the class. So if you are a white farmboy from Iowa with no "hook", your chances of getting in (even if qualified - only those at the top of their class with top scores need apply and a rural HS is usually not the best prep) are vanishingly small. These states are not that populous to begin with - 1 NYC block has more people than the average town in Wyoming. So if only 1 of 20 are getting in, they might only have 20 applicants from the whole state to begin with so 1 gets in. Then there is the cultural aspect - even if you could get in, white Christians are by now a distinct minority at Ivies - they are no longer at the top of the social heap. The social climate is not comfortable for small town religious Christians - there are all sorts of gay and lesbian and leftist organizations, etc.. Then there is the question of paying for it - $40,000 per year. In most Mid-Western states, the local state university is considered the best option - this is where all the local lawyers and doctors have attended, not some high-falutin' Ivy School, and the cost is maybe 1/4. Etc.
However, all this is not the Jews fault. Jews have among the highest test scores. The real problem (and this is finally being uttered in public) is that less qualified blacks and hispanics are being taken ahead of more qualified whites under "affirmative action" (which effectively means quotas for unqualified blacks). The solution is not more quotas for Jews but to do away with the black quotas.
One of the problems I suppose of being far away is that it's hard to tell if some blogger from another country stands in the mainstream of his country's politics or is off on some fringe. For all I know, J, whose views seem quite sensible to me, is considered a raving lunatic by other Israelis. What (you say - I don't see where he has actually said this) Sailer is talking about (a numerus clausus for Jews) is FAR FAR beyond the mainstream political discourse in America. In Israeli terms, it would be equivalent to someone saying, let's expel all the Arabs from Greater Israel. Though some people might secretly agree that its a good idea and a few might even be willing to say so publicly, it's just not on the map of realistic possibilities that the ruling class would be willing and able to undertake in the real world that exists beyond the electrons on a page of the blogosphere. So don't believe everything you read in a blog.
K
In general I admire J and agree with most of what he has to say. But this is one area where I disagree with him (and I think a lot of Israelis think like J on this point). I think that he secretly wouldn't mind if things got a little worse for the Jews in the Diaspora. Not so bad that, God forbid, people were dying, but just bad enough that they would wake up and make Aliyah. I know he means well by this (maybe if things had been a little worse in Hungary in the '30s a few of the Jews would have come to their senses and gotten out in time). But personally I don't wish anything bad on any Jew anywhere, even if it's for a "good cause" like Zionism.
I don't think Israeli universities would be the 1st choice of American Jews anyway. Aside from the language and distance issues. they are just not on the radar as first choices. American Jews identify as Jews but not to the extent that they want to attend Israeli universities (aside from a few people). Universities in Canada and Great Britain would get the overflow. In the case of medical schools, the # of slots has exceed the demand for decade so profit making universities were set up just for American students in the Caribbean and Mexico (outside of the US but only a couple of hours by air)
K
To anonymous: The USA was founded by white Christians, primarily from Britain and northwest Europe. It was they who created a society that prospered and later enabled the Jewish minority there to become arguably the richest ethnic group on the planet. If we say that "Jews are smart" then this is not entirely true, as Jews from the Yemen or Iraq have substantially lower IQs than European Gentiles. This strongly indicates that the high IQs of Western Jews is a recent evolutionary trait that exclusively exists in Jewish groups that have spent a thousand years or more in Europe. This means that Europeans had high IQs before Jews settled in Europe, but not vice versa. It also means that the difference between Eastern and Western Jews is so great that Jews in the post-Roman diaspora evolved into at least two distinct ethnic groups, both of whom are now called "Jews" for historical and religious reasons.
I don't question the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group on this planet. I don't buy the 115 number often cited, and I understand that Ashkenazi Jews in Israel have substantially lower IQs than this. My personal bet is that the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews in the West is closer to 109. That is still quite respectable and will give Jews a statistically significant edge over northern Europeans and a substantial one over southern Europeans. There is a strong global correlation between IQ and economic performance, so the fact that Ashkenazi Jews do very well financially is not a "conspiracy." However, IQ is a bit like random-access memory (RAM) in an electronic computer. A higher number means that you can process more data faster, but it doesn't automatically make you morally superior. Just like a fast computer, a high IQ can be used for both constructive and destructive ends, as the example of Bernard Madoff reminds us.
Jews may have encountered "prejudice" at some points in American history, but so have many European Christian groups, including northern Europeans ones like the Irish. All things considered, the USA has been very kind to kind to Jews and has been their best friend for many generations. So how do Jewish organizations in the USA repay this kindness? That is a legitimate question. Jews have been genuinely mistreated even before the Nazis in places like the Russian Empire, where there were a number of nasty pogroms. If Jews therefore harbor some suspicion of, say, Ukrainians then I can understand this. But by which right do many Jews harbor resentment against white Gentiles in North America or treat them as a bunch of "NASCAR retards" or closet Nazis? Is that a proper way to treat friendly people?
There are many conspiracy theories about Jews, some of them patently insane ones, but it is not a conspiracy theory that nearly 80% of American Jews voted for Obama and that the Obama Administration has as its policy the dispossession and displacement of whites. It is also not a conspiracy theory that there is a widely disproportionate Jewish influence in Hollywood, perhaps the most influential propaganda machinery in world history whose reach stretches far beyond North America. Hollywood these days is rabidly anti-white.
I'm not going to blame Jews alone for this; in fact, one of the worst movies I've seen recently was Avatar by the white liberal Gentile director James Cameron. On the other hand, I don't think Jewish influence made this anti-white liberal bias any smaller, either. Two facts: A) Hollywood is very Jewish. B) Hollywood is very anti-white. Sooner or later and regardless of whether the ADL likes this or not, many average white Gentiles in the USA will ask whether there is a connection between A and B. If they find one they will then conclude, with some justification, that although they have been generally kind to Jews, many Jewish organizations respond to this kindness with hostility and disrespect. This will naturally breed resentment.
Due to the ongoing mass immigration of non-whites, the USA will most likely implode as a superpower in the near future since whites created a prosperous society there. This will not be "good for Jews" as it will deprive North American Jews of much of their wealth and Israel of a critical ally. Despite their famously high IQ, North American Jews are currently displaying a serious lack of common sense when they support policies and ideas that undermine one of the best friends they've ever had. Jewish organizations in the USA need to end their support of damaging cultural and immigration policies. Failure to do so could blow up in their face.
Orwell (in reference to the Communists who had to follow the twists and turns of the party line as they flip flopped on being against and for and against Naziism before/after the Hitler/Stalin pact and its breakdown) said that some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them. The Jews are among the top victims/examples of this phenomenon.
Why the Jews "live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans" is a topic for another day, but I think there is hope. Many young Jews to whom the heroics of '68 are just history are quite conservative. My 90 yr old father in law on the other hand recalls marching in the May Day parade (in the US). There will be a generational shift and the new Jews, who have grown up in an America that has treated them as equals (this was no true in my father in laws generation - there were no pogroms in America but not all doors were open to Jews) will see their current interests more clearly and less clouded by past injustice than the old.
K
Regarding Israeli universities, Genius confuses order and discipline with quality. Jewish synagogues and Jewish yeshives and Jewish eveything are a chaos, everybody shouting and no respect for the teacher or each other. Moed Beth and the negotiating of grades and permanent and aggressive positioning and strategizing to improve one's position is a fact of Israeli society and universities. The fact that we have already several Nobel Prizes - the last one in the Weizmann Institute - means much. According to my colleges in Chemistry and Biological Sciences we are the most quoted dabs. They say that those ranking univerwsities ar ten - twnty years behind the times - they measure the past and not the present. A secret genie in the behind of mind (called "local patriotism") insists we are the best.
I dont dispute that American Jews are unaware of this fact and come what it may come, they will not migrate in crowd to TAU or Technion. Or Ariel.
BTW, Genius, pardon me if I cant believe that any institute of higher learning with the human composition of Harvard et al (40% Black and Latino and Samoan and Nigerian and so on) could be of a very high intellectual level. Shoot me now - I owe PC to nobody and I write what I think. Which is that when you gather those people together you get a bordello or an "Animal House", not an university or a yeshive.
(If I take into account the Gender and Bizarre Studies and so on, bordello would be more descriptive.)
Regarding American Jewish status, I feel that they overshot the target and have gathered too much of America and that is no good for them. But in this I could be wrong.
Regarding what Steven Sailer and others are debating, it honestly smells to me as agitation for Numerus Clausus for Jews and for Asians. The current situation is untenable. If I were an Ameican Jew, I would be more afraid of the status quo than a return to the social conventions of the fifties-sixties.
But I choose to be an Israeli and my worry turns to the Orient.
Regarding Obama, I think there was a kind of mass hysteria thing going on which afflicted not only Jews but even many so called "conservatives" (even white Christian conservatives such as Buckley). Obama was the Savior, the Christ who would redeem America's original sin and make us pure and whole again. Of course there was no chance that this would ever be true, even if he wasn't the closet socialist that he really is, but that is the nature of Messianic figures - over and over in history and in all different cultures, people have followed Messiahs even though they have all (or if you are a Christian, all except for one) turned out to be false Messiahs. But like Charlie Brown with the football, we fall for it every time. THIS time it will be different we say, this guy is the real deal, ignoring all evidence tot he contrary. It must be some bug in our programming that causes this.
K
J - Having a son at a top American U. and a daughter currently working in a lab at that same U., I assure you that, despite what you read in the media, American U's are not bordellos (not to say that there is not a lot of copulation going on among healthy young adults, though no babies ever result) nor a zoo. Part of what you may be missing is that many minorities and radicals are safely shunted into "Studies" programs (Black Studies, Gender Studies, etc.) where they can do no harm and where the grading standards are (much)easier. Meanwhile in the quantitative courses (math, the sciences, finance, etc.) standards have not fallen at all ( exam grading is usually blind) and if anything the influx of Asians has made things more competitive than my day when the Jews only had to compete with each other for the top of the class. To the extent you find blacks at all in these areas, they tend to be the offspring of African or Caribbean immigrants who have not been infected with the anti-intellectual current in American Black society, and they are a self-selected group that does just as well as the students of other races in these specialties. Keep in mind that racial averages tell you nothing about an individual. Although some large % of blacks are underqualified (but not by a gross margin - they are spotted around 100 points on an 800 point scale, but having a 700 instead of an 800 is still intellectually respectable - it would qualify you to attend a good university, just not a top one if you were white) there are a few who would be well qualified to be there under any system and they are the ones found in the hard sciences. Some I have to say put me to shame - I just heard an ad on the radio that Condaleeza Rice will be giving a Mozart Piano recital here in Philadelphia (I assume she is on tour). In addition to having been the Secretary of State, she is a highly gifted classical musician. So again don't confuse averages with individuals.
K
The old Europeans, who made the modern world by laying the foundations of all the disciplines from physics to linguistics to politics to hydraulics were not merely highly intelligent but perhaps even more so men with the highest commitment to the truth. This explains the sheer scale of their achievements. It is the atrophy of the spirit of truth that accounts for their relative decline. If I am not mistaken, the Japanese are reckoned to be the most intelligent nation in terms of IQ, but they have not produced a Newton or Shakespeare or an Edison.
Ivan - give the East Asians time. The Chinese especially have rejoined the Western world only recently and they are progressing by leaps and bounds. Come back in 100 years and we will see if any Chinese or Japanese Einstein emerges. Also, keep in mind that the world does not only run on geniuses. One Einstein can keep a legion of lesser physicists busy for centuries usefully exploring the full theoretical and practical implications of his work. In the future, these legions will have an Asian cast regardless of who stands at their head.
K
I heard a lecture by Condo in Stanford these days but she did not impress me. I remember she did produce a deep impression on Ariel Sharon, who could not take his eyes from her legs. Later he apologized and said something that she is a beautiful woman, which made things much worse. America had better Secretaries of State, I daresay.
About the idea that Ivy League universities are a multi-tiered organization with an ivory tower of hard science inside and a colored mass of "Studies" around, that is impossible. That university, if exists, is based on lies, on hypocrisy, on fake democracy and equality. The degrees and degrees it grants are suspicious and worthless. Since Americans are honest and truthsayers, they will not tolerate such monstruosity.
Regarding American Jews, who am I to give advise? But change is inevitable. The status quo never lasts. Jews shuld not be afraid of change, if any ethnic group is able to cope successfully with change, it is we.
J - not only is what you describe possible, it is exactly what exists. Employers are aware and they do not consider a finance major or a physics major to be equivalent to a Race and Class studies major (not that the Race and Class studies majors are applying for the same jobs anyway). When it comes to Americans being great truth-tellers, the exact opposite is true when it comes to matter of race, we are the worlds biggest hypocrites and the gap between what people say in public and what they think and do in private has never been bigger due to PC.
The gap has always been large - when Jefferson lived at Monticello it was the practice that behind each chair at dinner stood a slave to wait on each person. The man that stood behind Jefferson (most likely his son) was Jefferson's spitting image but slightly darker (not much - at some point he ran away and "passed" as white person in the North - he married a white and his descendants are white - slavery was based on parentage, not actual color). Everyone who ate dinner was expected to completely ignore the resemblance and wouldn't dream of saying a word about it to Jefferson's face - so much for honesty in racial matters in America.
K
As for change in American Jews, as an organized religion it will be come increasing orthodox as the non-orthodox intermarry and disappear into American society. But the rest are disappearing "upward" and not downward like your Argentine friends - they are marrying Chelsea Clinton and thier fellow Ivy Leaguers and not the local cow milking girl. Of course as we have discussed before, how many generations this can be sustained (before the upper classes fall to the lower) I don't know. But in terms of physical/economic threats to Jews, I just don't see them. Maybe I'm as blind as your Hungarian relatives, but there you have it.
K
Everyone who ate dinner was expected to completely ignore the resemblance and wouldn't dream of saying a word about it to Jefferson's face -
Exactly as politburo stood to applaud Stalin's five year plans!
they are marrying Chelsea Clinton and thier fellow Ivy Leaguers and not the local cow milking girl.
Cow milking girls are prettier than Chelsea Clinton and Ivy League women.
"Cow milking girls are prettier than Chelsea Clinton and Ivy League women."
No doubt. Chelsea is not exactly a great beauty (although as she has gotten older her looks are less horrendous - better hairdo and makeup? Plastic surgery? I don't know).
In general Ivy League women spend more time on their studies and less on beauty care than the average milking maiden. You have to know that (most) beautiful women don't just wake up that way - they have to spend many hours a day on hair and makeup and clothes and tanning and workouts, etc. The academic schedule of Ivy League life doesn't
permit that kind of focus - you can have one or the other but not both.
But one of the things that have always distinguished the upper classes from the lower is that marriage is delayed and used as a strategic alliance between families rather than just marrying the first hot babe you meet. Mezvinsky is surely aware of Chelseas looks and is marrying her for other reasons which surely won't hurt his career.
K
Dear Fjordman, the Jews were in America before it was the USA, and fought on both sides of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Without Haym Solomon, the Colonists would have lost the Revolutionary War, probably. So when you start spouting platitudes about the Jews' place vs. European-Americans whose ancestors came here 200 years after the first Jews, my kneejerk reaction is to tell you to eat a bag of dicks, though it's moderated by my respect for your other writings.
J, the fact that a non-Jewish white kid is effectively penalized for his ethnicity when applying to the Ivy Leagues, and that he's even more penalized for participation in the Future Farmers of America or 4H as opposed to drama club or some envirobullshit is not good, when you consider the disproportionate influence Ivy League grads have on the rest of the country. Numerical quotas to fix this, however, are like putting makeup on a whore with tertiary syphilis. I favor Moldbug's solution, which is to disband the Ivy Leagues, privatize their campuses, etc.
Racial Norwegian gave Obama Nobel Prize and Jews did not, yes?
Privatize the campuses? I'm confused - Ivy League School are already private (non-state) institutions. Who has the power to disband them under our Constitution? I have to say that they are also among the last admired institutions America has left. Kids in India, China, etc. all want to go to a top American university.
There is something wrong though. These colleges are rejecting 9 applicants for every 1 they admit (this in part has enabled them to be so super-picky about who they take and shape their classes in an ideological way). Any rational business that was turning away 90% of its customers would expand but these U's haven't, so there is some sort of perverse incentive going on.
I endorse what B said about Fjordman - please read Washington's letter to the Jews of Newport. Washington understood that the Jews were no longer to be "tolerated" by the Christians in America but were full and co-equal citizens who had as much right to be here as anyone else, even if they vote for a candidate you don't like (along with millions of white Christians - why not make it simple and just expel everyone who voted for the big O?)
K
Stalin is applauded for drinking water during speech:
Stalin's Speech on New Soviet Constitution
Stalin drinking water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLqplbwD644
K,
If they're private, how is it that they dictate government policy? In truth, they're about as private as the NYT, or the state church whose role they fill.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, I'm not a big fan of it, nor the idea of constitutional government. Is the right to abortion in the Constitution? How about the government's right to take over GM? The Russians have a saying: "the law is like a spigot-whichever way you turn it, that's the way it comes out." The idea that a Magic Parchment will keep those in power from abusing it has been thoroughly discredited by the last 200+ years.
B: You didn't address any of the points I made at all. It is a fact that the US Constitution was inspired by British political practices and European Enlightenment thought, with very little direct Jewish input. Jews were financially significant but scientifically and politically speaking quite marginal before the Enlightenment, with Spinoza as the most important exception. But then he was excommunicated by the local Dutch Jewish community....
If you've read my other writings you would also know that I argue that the vast majority of the problems of the modern West were caused by the European majority populations, not the Jews, despite what some of the hardcore anti-Semites claim. Hollywood is the most important exception to this rule. What was introduced in the late 1700s with the American and French Revolutions was the concept of the Idea Nation or Universal Republic. This happened during a time of very little Jewish influence. The idea that the USA and France were "Universal Republics" were not realized in the beginning, but the ideal struck and was finally implemented in the second half of the twentieth century. Incidentally, both the USA and France started dying at this point.
The USA is currently like a cancer patient who has convinced himself that dying from cancer is the highest virtue and wants everybody else to share his illness, by force if necessary. So is France.
I'm not a big fan of outsourcing generally, but the Nobel Peace Prize can safely be exported to Fiji or some other peaceful place.
"You don't know what you've got 'til its gone.", as Joni Mitchell said.
If you think a Magic Parchment can't save you, try living in a place where they don't have one or pay no attention to it if they do. A Constitution that is sometimes honored in the breach is a hell of a lot better than none at all. Trust me on this one. The thing that separates us from Pol Pot's Cambodia is rule of law. Without that, all that remains is the law of the jungle. I'd rather have power come from a Magic Parchment than from the Barrel of a Gun as Mao would have it, any day, any time.
K
What makes you think that was water he was drinking?
Eventually they had to put in a bell like a prizefight - when the bell rang you were allowed to stop clapping. Or else the would be clapping still.
K
When you look at the thinking of the Dissenters who gave rise to the Puritans and how it came about, every tree and stone cries out "oh, Fjordman! There is a Jew hiding behind me!" Look at Cromwell and what he stood for, look at all the stuff about building a New Jerusalem, and so on. Haym Solomon risked his entire fortune to support the Revolution for philosophical reasons-think it's because he had been converted to Protestantism? And when you look at the ideas of free trade espoused by Solomon's friend Robert Morris, another financier of the Revolution and American statesman, you think he just came up with that by himself? I'd like to see you argue that Jews were less influential in the creation of the US as we know it than such Europeans as the Scandinavians, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese and Italians.
K, when I compare constitution-having countries such as the US, Liberia and Stalin's USSR with non-constitution-having ones such as the UK, Pol Pot's Cambodia and the Aztec Empire, it strikes me that having a constitution is almost as important as picking the right colors for a national flag. In practice, it has turned into personal sovereignity for an elite group of lawyers. If this is what we want, let's just codify it and nix the Constitution-it would be more honest. If it's not what we want, having a Constitution won't help us.
I'm not sure I understand Fjordman's point. The US Constitution was written and influenced over 200 years ago almost totally by non-Jews - white British Protestants. Agreed. The US Jewish community at the time of the Revolution was very small (and mostly Sephardic). The Jews in America now are not the descendants of British Protestants or even of the Jews here at the time of the Revolution (except to the extent they have intermarried - FDR, who was a Dutch (here even before the British) blue blood, has a great grandson who is a Rabbi). Mostly the current Jews' ancestors arrived in the US more than a century after the Revolution. Mine didn't get here until the 1950s, but I was born here and last I read the 14th Amendment, I am entitled to all the privileges and immunities of a US Citizen, same as the descendants of Adams. My son went to a prep school with descendants of Revolutionary Generals (but they elected him the class president). Therefore it follows that the Jews of America should what? Keep their mouth shut and listen to their WASP betters? Not upset the apple cart by voting for a Negro? Follow the example of their betters and join the Republican party? I dont' dispute F'man's version of early American history but I don't understand what this has to do with how the Jews should act in 2010 or why he gets to tell us how the Jews should behave? I don't accept that America is the WASP's world and the Jews just live in it. Sorry baby, that's not how it is anymore. If it's not your world anymore, whose fault is that?
Also, that's a pretty f'ed up view of American history. When Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal, he was just kidding. He didn't really mean it. America was great until we decided to accept his words at face value and actually put them into real world effect. Then the decline began. That's a grim way to read our history and I refuse.
K
B, you're being too clever by half. Obviously what is important is not the document itself - Britain has an "unwritten Constitution" (which is almost as metaphysical as a Holy Trinity - I'm still trying to figure out who the Holy Ghost is and how he is different from the Father - Jesus the Son I get) but that doesn't mean its not a real constitution with real limits on what the police can and can't do to you. Stalin's Russia had a beautiful constitution, worthy of endless applause, but in real life it wasn't worth sh_t - if the NKVD wanted to haul your ass off to the Gulag or put a bullet in your brain, they did. So what counts is you have a system with rule of law. America is somewhat unique because we have both and the world's oldest continuous written constitution.
K
K: Thomas Jefferson apparently didn't believe that all men were created equal with regards to Africans. But the ideal was instituted in writing in the American Declaration of Independence, which states quite clearly that "all men are created equal." This is a lie, and a huge one at that. Since this was the founding document of the USA you could successfully argue that the USA was founded on a lie. And as I pointed out, this happened long before any significant Jewish influence in the country. What happened after the 1960s was that this ideal was actually implemented, and the USA has been dying ever since. It will probably continue to die until the country has split or become a giant Mexico.
Your emotionalism is irrational and unbecoming. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Jews have been well treated in the USA and that the nearly 80% of Jews who voted for Obama, a far higher percentage than for white US Gentiles, are thereby undermining the country that made them safe and wealthy. I still think that most of the problems in the USA and the West as a whole were caused by people of European origins, but Jewish organizations in the USA have contributed disproportionately to their numbers, yes. They constitute merely one of many factors, but they should not be above criticism.
Is it legitimate to point out that the Jews have treated the US well? That if they were not responsible for writing the Declaration, they were responsible for the Manhattan Project that probably saved the live of a million American boys?
Did the Jews get more out of America than America got out of the Jews?
K
K, from what you've written, it would seem that you agree with me that a constitution is not the important thing-the values of those enacting, interpreting and enforcing the laws are. The unwritten constitution, like the equality of all men, is an ideal, i.e., a fiction whose general acceptance is beneficial to a society. When a big enough chunk of the society ceases to share that ideal, the rest become freiers. Shortly, things break down.
It is funny to hear you defend the ideal that all men are created equal. Not only are we born unequal in such things as health, intelligence, wealth and social status, but there are other, larger inequalities in your own mind. If your daughter were to marry a healthy, Ivy League-educated doctor from a prestigious family, the mere accident of his birth to a Gentile family would lead you to see him as "some goy, some blond Nazi." Your Jewish and Americab identities conflict.
Feynman and the rest contributed to our abilities to beat the living crap out of the Japanese and make East Asia safe for communism. Let's say that we measure Jewish utility to America in Feynmans. How much is Andrea Dworkin? -.02 Feynmans? What about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Noam Chomsky? Saul Alinski? Leftism is by nature attractive to the intellectual elites of our society, among whom the Ashkenazim are disproportionately represented. Unlike Kevin McDonald, I don't think that it is anything intrinsically Jewish that makes the Dworkins, Chomskys, Alinskis and Ginsburgs do what they do, or that the philosophy they ascribe to is intrinsically Jewish, but it is dishonest to pretend that it is not a destructive and satanic philosophy, or that Jews are not disproportionately represented among its apostles in America today.
How many Feynmans were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, as well as all the other Jews in their network? Again, they probably didn't see themselves as primarily Jewish, and there was nothing Jewish about the goal they were working towards-it was more of a Universalist goal. Still, the same was true of Feynman.
I don't take credit for Feynman and I'm not responsible for Rosenberg either. I'm not responsible for any Jew that voted for Obama. I sure didn't. This whole game of identity politics and group rights and responsibilities which F'man wants to play is not how our system is supposed to work. Each citizen exists as an individual, not a neat little box to be checked.
F'man wants to play is not how our system is supposed to work. Each citizen exists as an individual, not a neat little box to be checked.
If Obama had run for President of Norway in 2008 what percentage of racial Norwegians would have voted for him, 90%?
K, regardless of the Asians' intelligence, there remains the question of the ends to which that intelligence is used. As is well, known A Einstein, when he was not chasing skirt devoted himself to the answering the question - did God have a choice in the creating the world as He did. Now that question stands in the philosophical tradition of the West with luminaries such as Leibniz and Plato behind it. The Chinese have nothing comparable. Similarly on the question evil, the Western tradition stretches back to Jonathan Edwards, Pelagius, St Augustine, St Paul and Job. This accounts for the passion with which they fought over trivial differences which would have amused the pragmatic Mandarins. The twin strain of God's providence and judgement inherited from the Jews and the logical scientific tradition from the Greeks, when melded with the experimental attitude of the Europeans created their civilisation the likes of which we will never see again.
Nobody wants you to take individual credit or blame for Feynman or Rosenberg. The validity of the question of whether the Jews as a class of Americans have contributed more good or harm to America as a whole doesn't rest on your or anybody else's willingness to do so. Me, I say that any harm that the Jews have done is just due to our high verbal IQ, which made us more susceptible to the Progressivist virus, the origins of which are totally non-Judaic. Any other high-verbal IQ group would have done the same or worse-look at the Dutch and the New England Brahmins, for instance. Roosevelt is the guy who did the most to make this country the mess it is today, and don't get me started on the Lodge family. All the Jews as a political class did is see which way the wind was blowing, and try to get there first.
You can't get "is" from "ought." The system works the way it does, which is that we have a "community organizer," i.e., professional ethnic rabble-rouser, as a president, due to codified tribalism. The fact that this is not how our system is supposed to work, if it's a fact, just speaks to poor engineering of the system. And you can't say that the Norwegians have no room to talk, since their society is even worse-their system, like every modern democracy, is an epiphenomenon of our system, the export version, which they didn't have our Red State limited immunity to. We're the Typhoid Mary of democracy, and you're saying "who are you to tell me what to do, you typhoid-ridden freak?"
Fjordman, Thomas Jefferson may or may not have been a Deist, but he was surely a product of the Christian tradition. The Protestants have always been great Bible readers, so while the line "all men are created equal" may be attributed to the deplorable JJ Rosseau, the Spirit behind it speaks in Genesis, "let Us make man in Our image and likeness...". Right there, you have all the warrant you need (if you so wish) to treat all men as equal. No Freemason or even the wiseacre Ben Franklin could have gainsaid the direct revelation of God Himself in religious America.
> Therefore it follows that the Jews of America should what?
Should not figure prominently - perhaps nearly predominantly - in importing tens/hundreds of millions of latins and muslims into the West.
> Roosevelt is the guy who did the most to make this country the mess it is today, and don't get me started on the Lodge family.
I don't understand why FDR matters that much. Suppose we would be 1.7x richer today had we taken a non-FDR course. So what? Does that really matter? The real problems are mass immigration, and a spiritual malaise reflected by the decadence of art (a minute amount of great art is still made, but large amounts of very good art were last made in the Belle Epoque).
Scandinavia is FDR^2. Yet on a material level, it was in perfect shape, and still is, to the extent that it is made of chthonics. It could certainly be that FDR policies have some spiritual impact which are not even small... but I hesitate to think that they are large.
> I say that any harm that the Jews have done is just due to our high verbal IQ, which made us more susceptible to the Progressivist virus, the origins of which are totally non-Judaic. Any other high-verbal IQ group would have done the same or worse
Interesting claim, but I tend to doubt it. In the US I believe there is barely any difference in Dem vs GOP general IQ distributions.
Anyway, I don't think jews or whites have much of a future unless they work together.
I see. The Joos brought over all them Meskins as cheap labor for their sweatshops. The Joos made us lose control over our law enforcement at the border so millions could just stroll in. Then their leftiness makes them be responsible for whatever legislation gets passed that "legalizes the undocumented", even though it takes a vote of the majority of both houses and the president. Sure, whatever you say, the sin is upon us and our descendants forever. After all we killed Jesus too. But why did we bring over all those Muslims to France so they could beat up the few remaining Jews?
K
"Anyway, I don't think jews or whites have much of a future unless they work together."
1. Does that mean that the Jews aren't white already?
2. I think many Jews and many "whites" (by which I assume you mean white Christians) are working together already, just maybe for goals that you don't agree with.
The idea that the white minority (yes minority) in the US is going to wake up and see the error of their ways and throw out the Mescans and the modern art and start having babies again and restore America to greatness, etc. is a pipe dream. Ain't gonna happen - the rot in the ship's bottom is too deep, we've sailed too far up the wrong river for too many years, we're not going to make it back to port and sail the truth path. I see the SS United States rusting away at its dock here in Philadelphia - they don't even have the money it would cost to tow it to the breakers - it is a metaphor for its namesake.
K
Rob,
FDR matters because he is the guy who created the modern scientocracy, where our policy is decided and propounded by think tanks, foundations, Ivy League professors spitting contrived numbers, the civil service, NPR and the NYT, etc., and immigration policy is only a small subset of that. He is the man who killed American democracy and nailed its coffin shut, while preserving the form to distract those who were not in on the game. Having a higher verbal IQ, we are disproportionately represented in many of those circles, though not in others (some part of the civil service-Department of State, Labor, etc., do not seem to have many of us,) so when you see a member of a think tank or an NPR spouting something about how no person is illegal, odds are disproportionately high that they're Ashkenazi by origin, and neo-Puritan by faith ("God may or may not exist, but what is important is social justice, etc., etc.")
It is wrong to talk about Jews and Whites working together-the abovementioned Ashkenazim are as white as anybody else. Certainly, if Italians, Portuguese, etc., are white, we are white. And that destructive ideology is white as it gets, being the modern version of Quakerism/Unitarianism, which are not products of the Ashante or the Igbo of Nigeria. Rather, it would be accurate to say that America does not have much of a future as a first world country unless an ideology appears which is constructive and appeals disproportionately to the cognitive elite.
The "created equal" thing has been misunderstood. It doesn't mean that we are equal in wealth or health or future prospects or anything like that. It is (and this is what is important) that we are all equal in dignity before our God and in our "inalienable rights" before the eyes of the law. Jefferson understood that ultimately this included black people too - he was not an idiot. He just didn't know how to get from A to B, especially if a lot of your own personal wealth is tied up in A. So he punted to future generations and we continue to pay the price.
K
Our "inalienable rights"-what are those, but convenient fictions? We have rights only so far as we or someone else are willing and able to protect them.
Maybe the "no person is illegal" thing is the Jew's revenge/ survivor's guilt for the fact that America kept its doors shut in the '30s, sealing the fate of Europe's Jews. You could have had 6 million high IQ Ashkenazim (surely there would have been a bunch of Nobel prizes in it for America by now, or at least a bunch of Drs, lawyers, etc. judging by the few who made it) but now instead you get 6 million (or 20 million or whatever) Mexicans and Africans, etc. BTW the glorious FDR, author of the whole modern clusterfark, had no small part in keeping the doors closed, though the main authors were the same "keep America white" crowd we are hearing from today - be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
K
Should not figure prominently - perhaps nearly predominantly - in importing tens/hundreds of millions of latins and muslims into the West.
Are ya sure da Joos opened the borders? Or is Kevin MacDonald just making shit up:
Mehler Questions MacDonald's Use of Sources
View the h-ethnic Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-ethnic's July 1998 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-ethnic's July 1998 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-ethnic home page.
From: Barry Mehler
List Editor: Richard Jensen
Editor's Subject: H-ETHNIC: challenge to MacDonald's use of sources
Author's Subject: H-ETHNIC: challenge to MacDonald's use of sources
Date Written: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 13:00:03 -0400
Date Posted: Fri, 30 Jul 1998 13:00:03 -0400
Mehler questions MacDonald's use of sources.
My concern, at present, with Mr. MacDonald's work, is with his use of
sources. For example, in MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Jewish involvement
in
influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical
review. Population and Environment, 19, 295-355. Mr. MacDonald uses
Neuringer, S. M. (1969). American Jewry and United States immigration
policy, 1881-1953 Ph. D. Dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1971; reprinted by Arno Press
(New
York), 1980. He cites Neuringer extensively throughout the article.
Here
is an example of how MacDonald uses this source.
On page sixteen MacDonald writes:
Neuringer (1971, p. 164) notes that Jewish opposition to the 1921 and
1924
legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish
immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America
should
be dominated by individuals with northern and western European
ancestry.
The Jewish interest was thus to oppose the ethnic interests of the
peoples
of northwestern Europe in maintaining an ethnic status quo or
increasing
their percentage of the population. ...
Here is the relevant passage from Neuringer:
Neuringer (1971, p. 164): "What is of at least equal significance is
that
the members of this group opposed these laws more because they
possessed
the taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism than because they would
drastically limit Jewish immigration."
It seems to me, Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this
case
and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the
literature
might have a judgement on MacDonald's use of the historical data.
Barry Mehler
Are there any other "misrepresentations" you would like to hurl at us, Rob S.?
;)
B- you seem tied up in the whole "convenient fiction" thing. Our entire legal system is a "convenient fiction". Gravity is a "convenient fiction". God Himself is a "convenient fiction". If the our concept of the world consisted only of things that we could see and smell and taste, then we would be dogs, not human. The important thing about convenient fictions is that if, as you point out, we all behave as if they are real, then you end up with a system that functions pretty smoothly.
Now on one level, that's a little crazy - as long as we all behave like idiots and don't point out that the emperor has no clothes, he continues to rule and the kingdom is peaceful. But it's hard to argue with success - all the former British colonies that have adhered to the useful fiction have done pretty well as societies. In places where everyone is open eyed and cynical, not so much.
K
K, the difference between "inalienable rights" and gravity is that you can ignore and violate "inalienable rights" all day long with impunity, which happens in the ghettoes that spread proudly actoss our great nation. Ignoring gravity is fraught with immediate and painful consequences.
You agree with the first part of my statement about ideals, or conventional fictions. Now, what happens when we import a population from the Third World that doesn't share in them, or feralize a local population? Everybody else is now a freier, a mark, a simp, and the smartest ones are the ones who fastest shed these ideals, which is what you can see happening with game over on Roissy's blog. Please note that all the former British colonies you speak of (except maybe Barbados) had a majority-WASP population, or at least a controlling minority. Such former colonies as Jamaica, India, Pakistan and Egypt have had a different fate. Steve Sailer writes a fair amount about the linkage between Anglosaxon society and trust, vs. tribal society and its paradigm of "fuck you, I got mine," "me vs. my brother, me and my brother vs. my cousin." Also, Israel is a former British colony which is quite successful, despite everybody being open eyed and cynical. Maybe it is more a question of biology than ideals, no?
While I agree that part of FDR's scumbaggery was that he wouldn't let the Jews into the US (and if he really cared about preventing the Holocaust, how hard would it have been to buy every Jew in Europe from Hitler?) and another part was his incineration of European cities in the name of progressivism, that doesn't address the fact that long before the 1930's, the Jews were disproportionately represented in the vanguard of this same progressivism. Also, you can't simultaneously espouse the idea that American Jews are Americans no different from any other Americans and say that the current immigration policy is revenge on all the other Americans by the American Jews for the way non-American Jews were denied entry during WW2-it's either one or the other.
and say that the current immigration policy is revenge on all the other Americans by the American Jews for the way non-American Jews were denied entry during WW2-it's either one or the other.
How do we know Jews are using immigration as revenge? What if MacDonald is lying?
I'm not saying this is what is going on, it's just what K said, and I'm pointing out that it's inconsistent with his stance as an American. Personally, I believe that immigration is used as a political tool by our ruling class, in which Ashkenazim are disproportionately represented, for adaptive and ideological reasons having nothing to do with Jews or Judaism.
Even if this was the Jews' subconscious (or even conscious) motive, I don't believe that the Joos really have the power to put this plot into effect. If the Joos are so all powerful and central to the "progressive" project, why weren't they able to save their own brothers? What makes the Joos more powerful now than they were in 1939, when their % of the population (never big) has fallen further? How is it that a small cabal of Jews can secretly control all of American democracy and nobody but a few guys with tinfoil hats notices? I think that just as the Democrat party often plays blacks as suckers, buying their support with rock candy mountain promises that they don't deliver on, even if the president himself is black (more or less), they do the same to Jews, so that the Jews are the victims of the progressive project as much as they are its authors (see Stalin's Russia for another example).
K
I'm not sure I follow the McDonald thing at all. Whether the Jews opposed the '21 and '24 legislation because it would stigmatize those who were already here (which implicitly means they didn't give a shit about those who weren't here already -this is entirely consistent with the Jewish establishment's self centered approach to immigration and the Holocaust) or whether they opposed it because they had made a secret pact with the Devil to destroy all that is good and true about White American Christian civilization, the legislation passed anyway, so what does their opposition prove other than they were a powerless minority being buffeted by larger forces?
K
the legislation passed anyway, so what does their opposition prove
The link is relevant because it raises the question of whether or not MacDonald's research can be trusted or whether Dr. Kevin B. MacDonald is a lying quack.
Since MacDonald's scholarship is the foundational pillar of modern antiSemitism I would like to know the answer to this question, don't you?
The problem is that this doesn't prove that MacDonald is a lying quack - there is no smoking gun. The money quote is "The Jewish interest was THUS to oppose the ethnic interests of the
peoples of northwestern Europe in maintaining an ethnic status quo or
increasing their percentage of the population." From the context, as emphasized by the word THUS this is MacDonald's (anti-Semitic) spin or interpretation of the Jew's motive, but he is not, as far as I can tell, actually misquoting or misrepresenting Neuringer's work. Neuringer, as quoted by MacDonald, tells us WHAT the Jews did and MacDonald tells us WHY he thinks they did it. Now you can argue that this conclusion is a leap of faith not really supported by the evidence presented(and anti-Semitism is after all a form of faith that does not depend on evidence any more than belief in God) by MacDonald or a non-sequitur, but I don't think it is a misrepresentation of Neuringer's work per se.
K
but he is not, as far as I can tell, actually misquoting or misrepresenting Neuringer's work.
At best, he's stretching the truth.
But I agree with you this single quote is by itself insufficent to prove whether MacDonald is a quack.
It is, however, enough to make me wonder if this was an isolated incident or whether it is indicative of more systemic fraud on the part of MacDonald.
Perhaps someone should ask MacDonald to explain Mehler's entry in the comments section of the Occidental?
I'm sure he would enjoy addressing head-on the question of whether he is a liar at his own website considering how much he loves to boast about being a champion of academic inquiry.
;0)
> How is it that a small cabal of Jews can secretly control all of American democracy and nobody but a few guys with tinfoil hats notices?
K, do you dispute that jews provide the Dems half their funding? I don't know how true that is.
Aside from that, very few people understand complex matters from scratch to any significant extent. Among those in America who do, jews are hardly a minute group - they're more like 30%. Others just follow the few minds that are strong and autonomous (and often nonetheless mistaken).
Jews and whites are both great peoples who merit preservation.
B, I agree that we need an appealing replacement ideology that gives hope and direction. But what could it be, besides eugenics, including of course liberal eugenics (which might work) or non-coercive eugenics based on incentives paid by governments (which definitely works - just pay the most excellent 20% of the population to reproduce more, and the least excellent 20% to reproduce less).
What other ideology after all can be realistically universalist - what other path can get our Igbos and Ashantees to stop suffering cataclysms (the Congo War being the biggest since WWII), and instead produce their own kind of cathedrals, or their own kind of Song of Solomon, which could only be made by Africans? Basically, nothing; no other path can do it. Unless there might be developed drugs that could alter their IQ and Conscientiousness phenotypes (probably by altering brain development itself) without terrible side effects. That may or may not be remotely feasible.
This relative utopia would be a long way away in Africa. But it could be far closer in a place like Vietnam or Uruguay or Turkey, which, if they retain their current population traits forever, can never match existing German or Japanese attainments in economy, science, or art. But they certainly can match those attainments if they take a lesson from Lee Kuan Yew.
Of course, it's possible that the world's total technological toolkit could change enough that worldwide peace and prosperity is brought about. But this seems unlikely to me.
I'm not even a transhumanist in a clear and uncomplicated way. But I suspect that in the total absence of eugenic practice, probably all societies would return to the malthusian margin in two or three centuries. This would set up the whole world for profuse conflict.
Eugenics is certainly lying in a very deep public relations nadir at the moment.
"Eugenics is certainly lying in a very deep public relations nadir at the moment."
I think you can thank our friends Herr Eichmann and Herr Dr. Menegele for that. Eugenics was once upon a time respectable science in America (and not totally racist - a lot of US eugenics was aimed at what we would call "white trash" today). But if not racist, it was classist. Just like God supposedly made humans in his own image (or we made God in our own image if you believe in projection), if you ask a eugenicist who are the "good" kind of people that we should have more of, they are people much like himself. Quelle surprise!
K
I am not going to begrudge Jews or Asians any rightfully earned places at American universities. I would prefer a three-part solution to our ethnic imbalance.
First we should eliminate the various non-merit admissions classes such as legacy admits, athletic admits and AA. As part of this we should eliminate school athletics and race-studies departments. If K's son is as bright as he claims then he should be able to be admitted without the need for for a legacy preference.
Second, we should simply stick to using standardized test scores to determine entry to universities and ignore academics.
Third, we should stop letting in immigrants to the US. These people have countries of their own to study in.
Then we would be full circle. Once upon a time in America, admission to college was based strictly on rankings on an entrance exam just as you propose (this was before SATs - each college had its own). If Harvard had 100 seats, they would take the 100 top scorers on their entrance exam - it was very simple and effective. This is exactly the system that prevails today in many countries like Japan where they don't have any Jews to worry about.
The problem in America was, "too many" of the top scorers were Jewish, so they developed the whole byzantine system of "holistic" admissions we have to this very day where things like legacy and athletics and activities are considered (the 1st two on this list were once upon a time especially good at screening out 1st generation Jews). The whole purpose of the entire new admissions system was to screen out Jews, nothing more and nothing less.
Read "The Chosen" by Jerome Karabel which lays all this out in great detail. It's a real eye opener and will make you even more cynical about college admissions and the whole moral dry rot that always lay under the noble facades of the Ivy League.
PS My son did EXTREMELY well on his standardized tests. ( My daughter only got a 720 on her math SAT (out of 800), but I forgave her because she took it when she was 12 years old.) If we had the original system back again of admission by test scores, he would be exactly where he is now. As J explained regarding Hungary (where the best students just went to Vienna, Berlin, etc. after there was a numerus clausus in Budapest) it's really impossible to keep the cream from rising to the top.
K
K, I hate to pry, but how well did your son do on his SAT/ACT exams?
"About the idea that Ivy League universities are a multi-tiered organization with an ivory tower of hard science inside and a colored mass of "Studies" around, that is impossible. That university, if exists, is based on lies, on hypocrisy, on fake democracy and equality. The degrees and degrees it grants are suspicious and worthless. Since Americans are honest and truthsayers, they will not tolerate such monstruosity."
Hahahaha, are you kidding? Americans are tremendous liars and hypocrites about race. They would infinitely prefer a university that taught nonsense to the unqualified than to admit the truth about race or have a genuinely meritocratic university system in which whites, Jews and East Asians dominated the Ivy League while the rest were relegated to mediocre state schools.
It's been a while (he's graduating now) but as I recall all his ACT scores were between 34 and 36 (out of 36). He did not take the SAT.
Just as Anonymous says - the whole race hypocrisy in college admissions thing started with keeping out qualified Jews and it segwayed neatly into taking unqualified blacks. Even in the 20's it was not possible to have a publicly explicit numerus clausus in the US, so in order to do their dirty deed they had to make the admissions process opaque and under cover of this same nebel (fog) they were later able to institute a quota system for blacks, while denying its existence. In both cases they mumbled incantations about how admissions is "holistic" and scores are only one component, blah, blah, blah but internally there were and are quotas (or "targets"). The whole thing has worked remarkably well in that they have gotten away with it successfully until the present day. If one more Supreme Ct. justice switches sides, the game will be well and truly over, but of course this depends on Obama leaving office before he can appoint a liberal to fill a current conservative seat - so far all his picks have been for seats that were liberal already.
K
I am convinced that the whole issue of immigration - to America, to Israeol, everywhere - is meaningless. People cannot be excluded. I see it here in Israel, where the Rabbinate and the Interior Ministry are fighting the veritable invasion of foreign peoples that is flooding Israel, yet they are here and cannot be moved out. The rabbis are demanding ketubot (Jewish marriage contracts) FOUR generations upwards to prove a person's Jewishness. The whole thing is becoming ridiculous. people comes and marries and has children and it is clear that rabbinate's archives (full of fake documents) may burn as they did in the past. Israel has expulsed Arabs time after time, yet they are more than ever. In 1948 there were 5000 Arab Beduins in Israel, now there are at least 1,000,000 - how did it happen? They multiply at 10% per year? They cross the border on night in their camels and asses? The fact is that they are here for good. They work, they marry, they find their places and are useful to the State, cause no problems (their crimes are among themselves), so no one wants to deal with them.
The same with Mexican and other Latin immigration to the USA. I dont think it can be controlled. It will stop spontaneously, because the Mexicans are not reproducing anymore. They will be absorbed into the American working class, they fill the Army and the factories, they clean houses for cents and no one cares. Theoretically they reduce average American IQ but what is the problem? I think Australia also cannot stop Asians coming on boat to the continent. In our days when a motorboat or a plane can cross oceans, every one can go where it wants. Foreign populations never harmed the countries where they live. Contrarily to the widepread opinion, German Jews in England never spied for Germany, German stevedores never sabotaged American ports, Japanese Americans fought like crazy for America, Africans never did anything but petty crime anywhere. Moreover, Arabs in Israel (and they are about 20%) cause little trouble to our State. The fact is that Athens was the Greek city most open to foreigners and it became rich and powerful in no time. Shanghai had no passport control stations, yet it prospered (before Mao). May be Israel too shuld abolish passport control and let everybody in, Africans and Asians. We are not going to intermarry with them, but that is a religious thing, a 800 years old tradition (Genetioc studies show that we always intermarried with our neighbors, we Ashkenazi Jews share about 50% of our genes with the Tuscans. Morocccan Jews are basically Moroccan. Yemeni Jews are Yemeni). If Israel had 30 million inhabitants, we would be more powerful and more wealthy.
J - I agree that some of the anti-immigrant type in America are hysterical and that mostly immigrants are a good thing - they are the only ones who are willing to do any physical labor any more. The grandfathers of these same people were hysterical as if letting a few Jews into America in the '30s and thereby saving their lives from Hitler would somehow ruin America if a single one was let in. This "no room at the inn" approach is most un-Christian.
However, immigration is like alcohol or food or anything else - the dose makes the poison. Moderate amounts are good, overdoses are dangerous. There are parts of the United States that are no longer recognizable as being in the United States. If you trickle small amounts of sugar into tea, the sugar will dissolve and sweeten the tea. If you dump a lb. of sugar into a glass all at once the sugar will sink to the bottom and remain separate from the tea. The entire poor population of the world cannot come to the advanced countries all at once. We need to have a legally enforced mechanism where the national governments and not the immigrants get to decide what the proper immigration levels are and who should be let in. These should be generous because of the benefits that immigrants bring (and biased toward more skilled immigrants) but they should not be unlimited. Unskilled workers should have the status of guest workers but not on a citizenship path - the children of low intelligence immigrants tend to combine the WORST qualities of their parent and adopted states and damage rather than enrich the society - we see this over and over, in the US, in Europe, etc..
K
Moreover, Arabs in Israel (and they are about 20%) cause little trouble to our State.
J, truly you are a man of many minds. What about the horrors of Haifa?
The Rav said that Eretz Israel always was a diverse, multiethnic country. We Jews were never alone. You had Phillistines, Moabites, Edomites and so on. What you didnt have was democracy. There was
עם קדוש
and there was
שואבי מים וחוטבי עצים
I shall shock you: Democracy is not in the tables of the ten Commandments.
May be it was given to the Anglo-Saxons, but not to us.
Here is something that American Jews would never dare to say: We Jews are not Anglo Saxons!
God-fearing Jews do not believe in Anglo Saxon traditions, they believe in the Tanach.
So Haifa Arabs and all peoples of the world are welcome and prosper, they can be generals in the army and everything else, but not cohanim in the Temple nor Prophets nor Judges.
Sorry, I forgot. Democracy was given to the Greeks.
You know, we had our ideological differences with those Ancient Greeks.
K, according to this that would place your son around 150 on an IQ scale, unless I have misread the table.
K, what evidence do you have that white Americans won't do physical labor for a reasonable price. In my view that is more or less a canard. I've done chainsawing and such with other white college students at $6 and hour and at $8.50 an hour (ten years ago). So, some white labor is in fact selling at low wages, which suggests that not all that terrible a hike in wages would be needed to secure plentiful white labor.
Obviously I know that this will slightly reduce the real wages of all people. But there will also be less need for the redistribution of wealth (be it cash, social services, whatever). Because it would start redistributing itself, relative to what we have now. To me, a moderate hike in wages is basically a good thing. Obviously you or I could have just as easily been born with an IQ of 100, or 80.
My way also saves us from the somewhat higher crime and higher amounts of mariachi music associated with latins. Finally, if you really need alien labor, it's very likely that a guest-worker program would work (unless it should be *politically* untenable).
From my perspective, your views are all mixed up. You're a jewish preservationist, which I respect totally (though I myself have no personal objection to American ashkenazim intermarrying with other American whites). Yet you don't seem to mind all kinds of latins moving here as long as they do it more *slowly*. Well, even then, they are still going to get here eventually, breed with Europeans like ourselves and change the character of our inheritors. Why ignore the long view? The year 2500 may be rather abstract, but it's not as though it's not actually ever going to arrive - it is going to arrive. Our inheritors and nation being, to me (an agnostic), the only thing that gives us any measure of immortality, or really, gives our lives any non-transient meaning. How many of your mestizo 2500 Americans will ever read Job, Augie March, Nietzsche, or Heraclitus.
But this is 'hysteria'?
K (and J),
consider also the very low propensity to breed which is, on average, found in people of our IQ range. This pattern holds worldwide, with few exceptions. It's probably going to stay that way - forever. Good luck getting US whites to breed as much as latins. So, what do we predict based on that, over the course of two or three centuries?
> It will stop spontaneously, because the Mexicans are not reproducing anymore.
Sailer: "the fecundity [in the USA] of women of Mexican descent (3.2 babies per woman) is 80% higher than the non-Hispanic white norm (and 48% higher than the African-American average of 2.24). And since Mexican-women generally give birth at younger ages than do white women, the effective fertility ratio of Mexicans to whites is around two to one."
Again, there's little doubt that these differential birth rates are partly intrinsic, biological, or in any case pragmatically inalterable.
> Africans never did anything but petty crime anywhere.
You say this after writing so much about Detroit?
I agree that there is a difficulty keeping out illegal immigrants, but it is a political problem. Of course you do not believe that Mexicans first desired to sneak into the US in 1980. President Eisenhower sent back one million illegal Mexicans in "Operation Wetback" (interesting Wikipedia article).
> I think you can thank our friends Herr Eichmann and Herr Dr. Menegele for that.
I agree, that's the common understanding. So far I have no reason to think it wrong.
It does seem that Nazism deeply harmed a great many sensible ideas with their murder and warfare mania.
150 or so sounds about right for him. My daughter is the scary smart one. He will have some practical occupation - as an executive or businessman. She will be the PhD. in some esoteric subject. He is much better at schmoozing with people and connects instantly even if it is a taxi driver in China (in Chinese) - he is not at all snobby and makes friends with people of all social classes. She comes off as cold but really it is more shy. IQ is just a number on a piece of paper - it doesn't tell you everything about the person. I remind them that their IQ is a gift that they did not do anything for.
K
I don't believe there is anything biological that causes Mexicans to have a high birthrate. White girls would have a high birthrate too if they started having babies at 15, but they wait until they are 30+ and have one after expensive fertility treatments.
There are many anecdotes of farmers not being able to recruit whites to pick crops, etc. even at fairly high wages. It's not a matter of pay, its a question of not wanting to do that kind of work for any (reasonable) amount of money. I don't have any more proof than you do that they would.
I'm really not worried about the year 2500. 2100 is a good target to worry about. God willing I will have grandchildren, hopefully ones that I meet before I die, that will be alive in 2100. There's a fair chance that we won't have to wait until 2500 for things to get somewhat worse in the US. Hopefully not seriously worse.
K
Humans are programmed to reproduce in certain conditions and modern life inhibits it. Mexicans today are reproducing at lower rates than required to maintain their numbers, and soon their society will grow older as they do in Europe and Japan. Mexicans in the USA maintain the reproduction habits of their origin and class, but soon they adopt their local counterpart's habits. I am not sure Steve Sailer's numbers reflect today's reality. A "Mexican" 16 y.o. girl born in California behaves according to the habits of the local girls of the same age and class.
Regarding Africans in Detroit, Whites left because of the petty crime. Drunk driving or selling cocaine in the streets is in my opinion petty crime yet it can make a place unlivable. Of course there are some horrible cases of gang rape but what kills a town is the daily harassment against which there is no defense.
J - I think you underestimate the damage black and Hispanic crime did to American society (these 2 groups account for the vast majority of crimes). As you have pointed out, there is a huge capital cost associated with the abandonment of infrastructure not just in Detroit but in cities all across the US. "White flight" changed the entire pattern of living in the US, made us more dependent on the automobile and Arabs for oil, etc. If our cities had remained livable the entire culture of the country would be different today. Black crime was the catalyst that ignited this reaction. A large % of young black males are involved in criminal activity of one sort or another - there are far more black males in jail than there are in college. A huge amount of $ is spent on burglar alarms, guards, not to mention the prisons, courts, police forces, etc. The Chinese, for example, don't have this whole entire drag on their economy and can spend their resources on true improvements instead.
K
"A country cannot be led by foreign ethnics."
At least you are honest.
The USA currently is being managed and ruled by a Jewish elite, and look at how rapidly America is declining. Is this a coincidence?
It is only partly a coincidence.
I admit, blacks have not taken over the US population via high fertility - even though the fertility of Africans in Africa is stupendous, but fortunately declining (else they would have a malthusian nightmare for sure).
Also, I agree that there is cultural assimilation in this variable. It has been reported in a study that fertility in rural S. America declined after TV came in and people started watching soap operas about rich people with 1.7 kids - they also started naming their kids after the people in the soap operas.
Here are the alleged data on American blacks from the US census:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922246.html
So, blacks are no gypsies taking over Hungary - but they are increasing their population share since the end of the Great Depression, perhaps due to social changes. Namely, liberal mores in amorous matters may cause a large increase in unplanned pregnancies in blacks, while causing a more modest hike in unplanned white pregnancies.
I think there is a potential for southern races living in Western lands to have higher fertility than whites - but it does not happen with all peoples at all times. Apparently muslims still out-reproduce natives in Europe - the gap may be declining though of course that does not guarantee that it will ever disappear.
Unfortunately, I believe dysgenics will make a big mess of American life well before 2500, absent intervention. The change per generation is modest, but from looking at Lynn's work it seems fairly likely that a big shift could happen after five generations (125 years). Mostly the methods are not perfectly precise, so there is some uncertainty. Lynn finds dysgenic trends in all countries worldwide, except for (only) some stringently traditionalist ones - this makes it less likely that his findings are erroneous (which is still conceivable of course), and also less likely that some emergent factor will change these trends without any deliberate intervention. In America the rate of dysgenesis is about twice as severe in blacks as it is in whites - the fertility of higher-IQ blacks is extremely feeble. I sure wish I could live to see what happens over the next 1,000 years, even if I could not participate in any way or even discuss it with anyone. But after that I'd just want to watch another thousand, it never ends.
Rob S.,
Very interesting your comment. No chance you or me will follow up human evolution. I think the future cannot be extrapolated and the current trends are non sustainable and will not continue for long.
The emergent factor that is changing all is technology. About 10% of the new born today in the West are through some artificial technology such as egg or sperm donation and so on, and soon we will have gene transplants and then synthetic genes. The revolution going on in agriculture is stunning and it will take over human race too.
I have been reading authors from the thirties and they imagined that these technologies (then yet only imagined) would be applied to produce praetorian guards (like the Soviet experiment to produce human-primate hybrids as super-warriors). Here are here now and the future they imagined is different: people buys babies from a catalogue and everything is peaceful and normal. No State is directing reproduction, on the contrary, all Western states are happy with any new baby born.
J, you have not travelled enough.
The Soviet experiment succeeded.
Anon.
Post a Comment