Five of the seven prizes awarded till now were won by Jews. Embarrasing.
45
comments:
Anonymous
said...
Israel only has 10 Nobels, and it is a development limited to the last few years that Israelis have won in the substantive fields as opposed to the politicized and phony peace prize.
Tel Aviv University is chasing the prize in the last 20 years yet the Technion is winning. At least I know that my daughter is learning in a good organization. BTW she is bored with Shanghai and wants to return before her term.
No need to be embarrassed (for the goyim). The Elders of Zion have got hold of the prize committee and are rigging the results. Otherwise how could such a tiny minority win so many prizes. In the future, the prizes will be awarded proportionately according to race and ethnicity, the same as admission slots in US universities - that way every group will get its fair share.
(My apologies for not using any academic or professional title to which you are entitled, since I don't know of them, but you presumably have some...)
"The Elders of Zion have got hold of the prize committee and are rigging the results. Otherwise how could such a tiny minority win so many prizes."
With respect, this strikes me as mean-spirited. No one ever claimed that Jews were dumb or lazy. Quite the contrary; any well-informed person cannot help but be aware of the extraordinary accomplishments of Jews in the hard sciences, among other fields.
After the first decade or so of the Nobel Prize, there has scarcely ever failed to be at least one Jewish science Nobelist, and as we see this year, sometimes they form an actual majority, an accomplishment totally unparalleled among any other race of comparable size or, indeed, among most far larger races.
The record of extraordinary Jewish achievement is equally luminous in such diverse fields as math, chess, and classical performance. Of course, Jews have also been extremely successful entrepreneurs, inventors, financiers, and academics. At my very good American law school, about 1/4 of the student body was Jewish, and Jews were even more heavily represented among law review members, professors, winners of prestige clerkships, and academic prizewinners. The fact that 3 of 9 justices of the US Supreme Court are Jewish speaks volumes, since "affirmative action picks" aside, only jurists with truly outstanding qualifications can make it through confirmation (as the Harriet Miers scandal showed.)
As a "goy," many of us are as ambivalent about the prospects for Jews and "goys" living together as many of you Jews seem to be. After all, our host Prof. J. thinks that being a Jew in the diaspora is psychologically deforming (if I correctly understand him.) But only a tiny and politically impotent lunatic fringe would denigrate Jewish achievement in words like yours. Indeed, it's hard to think of a less powerful group than right-wing anti-Semites in the first world - all that comes to mind are the likes of flat-earthers or believers in Forte's gelatinous sky...
It's stuff like this that should make some people think; 'hey, there might something to this HBD idea..'
I mean, come on. Anyone can check out the Nobel prized per country and see how many of them have been awarded to Ashkenazi Jews. This isn't coincidence or conspiracy, it's clearly a consequence of high IQ.
As far as title, I suppose it should be K, Esq. The law school I attended was I think more than 1/4 Jewish as it was located in NYC and Ivy League - a double whammy, so to speak.
To be honest with you , I think we are seeing a reflection of an earlier generation. My daughter is the member of something called the "Study of Exceptional Talent" run by Johns Hopkins University - it is less portentous than it sounds - membership is gained merely by scoring over 700 on either the math or reading section of the SAT before the age of 13. (On the one hand, the math section is a set of not very difficult algebra problems, OTOH, 90+% of high school seniors will never score above 700). At the awards ceremony, most of the recipients were east Asian and Jews, while present, were not an overwhelming presence among the whites. Still , it was a very different group from a modern Ivy League class which is carefully balanced by race (for example there was I think 1 black out of the 500 or so kids present).
I was with you 'til we got to the "ambivalent" part, at least until I hear what conclusions you draw from this. Himmler was "ambivalent" about this too and look where that lead.
It seems to me that (especially in the modern world where high IQ leads to technological advances that benefit everyone) there's no reason why the Jews of America cannot continue to live in peace as they have for the last 200+ years.
By the way, SN, it's "goyim" , not "goys" . "Goy" is a Yiddish word borrowed from the Hebrew (where it means simply "nations" (implicitly, OTHER nations or nationalities) and Yiddish words take their plurals from their base language - Germanic words are pluralized as in German and Hebrew words are pluralized in accordance with the rules of Hebrew grammar.
There are a number of interesting topics discussed in this blog and by its commenters here and elsewhere. But I wonder why I should engage someone who speciously corrects my grammar ("goys" is not an incorrect plural in English, and we are not speaking Yiddish,) and who immediately compares me to a leading Nazi murderer.
The relationship between us "Goyims" and "our" Jews is subject to tensions, as we see here, but with a bit of insight and humor on both sides, and respect for both the causes and the consequences of our respective sensitivities, the relationship can be managed satisfactorily, and its enormous potential for mutual gain can be realized.
K is suffused with righteous indignation at the indignities his people have suffered, despite, and indeed because of their talents; sn,( it appears) and I as well, like many WASPs, have legitimate concerns about the loss of WASP domination, and see how this can and indeed has been increasingly used against us by people who are perhaps not as grateful as they might be, and who, to their credit, are more determined, restless and often intelligent than we are.
There is too much at stake here to give way to bickering. We have to recognize that when this relationship goes wrong, it really goes wrong; but when it goes right, it is the most powerful force in the world. We're soon going to need it to go right - big time.
Anonymous, you are, unfortunately, not right in some of what you assert.
Romney, as a Mormon, is WASP-oid but not strictly WASP. But we'll take him, in preference to Perry, anyway.
WASPs are clearly losing dominance, all over the world. Remember Rhodesia? South Africa?? Been to "Europe" recently? Been to California recently? "Paranoid delusions" - really?
Where you are correct is to note that some powerful Gentiles are indeed working against their own people; there is no shortage of examples. The EU, to start with. The BBC, and the rest of the MSM also immediately spring to mind. We will have to fix this ourselves, and in due course we will.
As far as Jews working or not working against Gentiles, I would say my main concern here is the support for open borders by liberals; let's just say this isn't exactly pro-white, and, ironically, will backfire badly on the people of Israel, wherever they are, since these immigrants are not exactly your best friends.
OK, have it your way SN - goys, even if (frankly) it makes you sound stupid. I tried to teach you something but you are apparently not interested in learning.
"Engage" or not - it's up to you. The last time someone was "ambivalent" about living with the Jews in their country, they ended up killing most of my family, so forgive me if I am sensitive about this. Maybe you "goys" don't get to decide anymore whether you have to live with us Jews or not because under the US Constitution I'm a citizen just the same as you, even if my parents arrived on Liberty ships in 1950 and yours arrived on the Mayflower. It's not "your" country anymore than it's mine. Frankly, as Anon intimates, the Jews are not your problem - you've got bigger things to worry about. I appreciate (more than you can know) the rule of law and due process that is a unique legacy of the Anglo-American founding fathers. But Washington was not "ambivalent" about the Jews (see his letter to the Touro Synagogue) and I think you should learn from him to put all "ambivalence" out of your head and accept us fully as your fellow Americans - people who have vastly enriched American culture, science, medicine, law, etc. and who have fought for this country as much as any others.
Re: Yiddish plurals in English, I don't say "octopodes" and I assume you don't either. The question is whether "goy" is a Yiddish word used by English speakers, or a loan-word in English which ought therefore to be pluralized per the conventions of English grammar.
As for this:
The last time someone was "ambivalent" about living with the Jews in their country, they ended up killing most of my family, so forgive me if I am sensitive about this.
This isn't true at all. On this issue, the Nazis were convinced, not ambivalent; one doesn't murder millions of people out of ambivalence.
On the other hand, many Americans were were ambivalent about living with Jews but certain that Jews had a right to life and that the Constitution guarantees, as you say, equal rights to all Americans. Likewise, I am not at all sure that large-scale Mexican or Middle Eastern immigration is good for America, but I don't want to kill Muslim Americans or take away their citizenship either.
We agree that Jews are talented. (As a racial realist, I am willing to consider the claim Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic IQ median someplace between 106 and 115. It would certainly explain a lot of things.) We also agree that Jews have an identity. These two premises lead to the unsettling conclusion that, in a meritocratic society with sufficient Jews, the upper classes will become disproportionately Jewish over time. Either these Jews in the upper classes will intermarry, thus losing their Jewish identity, or Jews will rise to the summits of power.
If being Jewish were merely a religious question, this wouldn't matter very much. But Jewishness is also an ethnicity. So, as Jews rise higher and higher in America, they will either cease to be Jews, or they will exert power out of proportion to their numbers, leaving members of less capable ethnic groups disgruntled.
It's important to repeat that Jewish success isn't merely on the margins. For example, if the Jewish IQ median is 115, the white median is 100, the s.d. is 15, and getting into medical school requires 130, then only 2% of whites will be capable of becoming doctors, compared to 16% of Jews. If a neighborhood school is equally split between Jews and whites, assuming that both groups of students are representative, Jews will win almost all of the top prizes. (If anything, this understates likely Jewish achievement, because we know that there is a "fat tail" to the IQ distribution curve.)
Thus, even assuming no initial racial or religious prejudice (an unwarranted assumption, of course,) over time, unless Jews intermarry to the point of annihilation, less talented ethnic groups will inevitably come to resent Jews, even if members of those groups are objectively the beneficiaries of living among Jews. This isn't a conclusion that I like, but it does remind me of how Africans appear to prefer being incompetently ruled by blacks over being competently ruled by whites - "maîtres chez nous!", as the Quebeckers put it.
In my opinion, Prof. J.'s singularly broad mind has explored these troubled vistas. My perspective is simply from the other side. As a non-Jew, I'm not uninterested in the question of what's good for the Jews, but I'm also interested in the question of what's good for my people, and the question of what dynamics shape cooperations and hatreds among peoples. There are plenty of other blogs, surely, where these questions cannot be raised because no one dares even to think of them.
A final note. I am a very recent immigrant who just became a citizen. And, anonymous commenter who thinks that I must be unintelligent: as you see, people become reactive and emotional even when one raises painful questions as gently and dispassionately as possible. How much more violently would they react if I wrote bluntly?
To take your med school example, there are around 6 mil. Jews in America. So even if a full 16% of them were med school material, that would be less than 1 million. There are around 300 mil. non Jews so if 2% were eligible that would mean 6 million goyish med school candidates. Jews would end up being 14% of doctors, which is disproportionate but so what?
"If being Jewish were merely a religious question, this wouldn't matter very much. But Jewishness is also an ethnicity."
Apparently it does matter. Weizmann in his biography remarks about how he couldn't stand the German Jews because they were (to him) just that - people who were in all respects just like other Germans but who attended a different church on a different day. Even this wasn't good enough for the Nazis. For that matter, a lot of American Jews are also indistinguishable from other Americans except to those with Jewdar.
But anti-Semites will never let you forget that you are Jewish (sometimes even if you aren't) - witness modern Hungary where they go around sniffing for traces of Jewish blood in people who have no attachment to Judaism. I've heard that in Spain and Portugal, up until modern times there was a distinction between "Old Christians" and "New Christians" - New Christians being the (forced) Jewish converts, even after 400+ years.
All this cannot be explained rationally but only by recognition that we are like some primitive tribe of monkeys that attacks any monkey that is from a different pack. I just saw a program on Papua-New Guinea where it was considered the right thing to do to eat your defeated enemy (the tribe next door in the jungle who looks just like you) until maybe 50 years ago.
14% Jewish doctors is just fine; but there are increasing numbers of East Asians, Indians, etc as physicians and while there is on the whole no problem with their competence, my suspicion is that there are fewer WASPs accepted into med school, and likely other elite faculties, as a policy; can't prove it, but it is a suspicion.
Why would anyone want to attend medical school. In the U.S., one gives up a minimum of 7 years and more likely 10-12 years of one's life to training, of which the first four years are exorbitantly expensive and the rest pay less than minimum wage per hour when one considers the frequent 70-80 hour weeks (and sometimes more hours than that). If there were a guaranteed financial reward, it might be worthwhile. However, both the left and the right want to reduce reimbursement, eliminating the financial security associated with the job. No wonder the newer immigrants are going for medicine and the WASPs are avoiding it.
The point is not that there aren't still elite and successful WASPs (there are, and always will be), it's that middle-grade WASPs now have to fight very hard for a decent life, whereas they did not have to struggle so hard before.
In a way, the Founding People of the US (and elsewhere) have lost significant ground. A further point is that the competition is in some cases egregiously unfair; the playing field is tilted against us by "affirmative action", which is simply an institutionalized form of anti-white racism.
The medical school example was intended to be suggestive, not exhaustive.
The point is that there are discomforts for both majority and minority if a self-consciously racially distinct group, made up mostly of winners, comes to be greatly over-represented in the corridors of power. A sufficient IQ advantage provides the necessary raw material to bootstrap class-formation processes very rapidly.
To flesh out this idea, let's consider a hypo. Take two Americans with 130 IQ's. One is a New York Jew with two M.D. parents and an IQ of 130. He's much more likely to find his way into, say, a successful real-estate development business than our second, a small-town Ohio white whose parents are a foreman and a waitress. The Jewish person in this story will have a higher proportion of successful relatives and acquaintances, who may give him advice, seed money, or his first break. The Jewish person in this story will be vastly more likely to go to prep school and a top university. And his children will, likewise, regress to a higher IQ mean, especially if his wife is Jewish also.
The dice are not loaded in this hypo, because Jews are obviously more likely to have successful parents and relatives than non-Jewish whites are, and Jews are concentrated in New York, California, D.C., and so forth, not in faded rust-belt towns, trailer parks, or farming hamlets.
So, without doing anything wrong or intending anyone harm, there will be an ongoing effect where Jews' high IQ's (and other positive qualities) lead to deserved success, success breeds further success, and even failures are only relative failures (your kid doesn't get into med school, but he doesn't become a bum either.)
Jews, mostly assimilated, make up around 30% of the Forbes 400. I don't think this is due to malfeasance or nepotism. Rather, I think Jews have intrinsically higher concentrations of native talent for headwork than non-Jewish whites, and thanks to several generations of stability in America, most Jewish talent gets cultivated.
Face it: there are downsides to being a winner. One of these is that if you're too successful, other people start to dislike you, even if your presence among them is objectively a net good and you don't do them any harm.
Like I said, I am ambivalent about the ability of Jews and non-Jewish whites to live together, for much the same reason that I am ambivalent about the ability of whites and blacks to live together (in Israel, IQ discrepancies are not primary because a shared sense of Jewishness, cemented by obvious external threats, so in the medium term there is no reason that different groups of Jews cannot live together.)
Perhaps a sufficiently high degree of Jewish assimilation could assuage whites' hurt feelings about being displaced as America's leading ethnic group. But I don't think most commenters here would find that an acceptable solution.
A couple of thoughts. First, it seems to me that average Jewish intellectual prowess is not so imposing as to create such a stark divide between Jews and gentile whites indefinitely. It's rare to see Jewish spelling bee champions, math olympiad champions, or Intel science competition winners these days. The Chinese and Indian immigrants, heavily selected from their native populations, work harder and are starting to win more. In another 50 years, despite any IQ advantage, Jews might perform only slightly better than average as they lose the immigrant striver mentality.
Your point about major cities vs. faded rust-belt towns and farming hamlets is interesting. Jews are concentrated in cities in part because that's where their ancestors arrived in the U.S. There is a cultural preference for big cities among Jews, but it can be overcome when it doesn't make economic sense to live in one (expense vs earnings). Regardless, the U.S. farming and manufacturing economy has been in decline for decades, so mid-sized to large cities are where the economic action can be found. By now, I would imagine that gentile whites in the hinterlands must be aware of this.
I think the emotional anonymous insisting everyone is crazy to worry about WASPs is referring to the sociologist E. Digby Baltzell's usage of the term. I would agree with Anon. that usage has expanded beyond what he initially intended. Most Protestants of Anglo-Saxon ancestry that I know would consider themselves to be WASPs even if they are only lower-middle to middle class.
The white in wasp is redundant - if you are an Anglo-Saxon protestant then by definition you are white. But I guess ASP doesn't sound as good.
MOst American don't dislike rich successful people, except for the Obama supporter class envy crowd (which shrinks by the day). Even those less rich realize that "no poor man ever gave me a job". Every American entertains the fantasy that he too can be rich someday - if not by become a neurosurgeon then by playing pro ball or becoming a rapper or winning the lottery.
American society has tremendous mobility - a mixed race boy from the furthest island in the empire can become president. So can the WASP boy from rust belt ohio. The Ivy schools beat the bushes to find recruits in the Midwest and rural areas - they are sick of applicants from the suburbs of the large NE and West Coast cities and consider "geographic" diversity to be (almost) as important as racial.
The Ivy schools beat the bushes to find recruits in the Midwest and rural areas - they are sick of applicants from the suburbs of the large NE and West Coast cities and consider "geographic" diversity to be (almost) as important as racial.
The Ivies have a hard time finding sufficient qualified candidates off the coasts. Recall that 100 randomly selected Jewish kids will have as many 130+ IQ Ivy candidates (+1 Jewish s.d.) as ~800 randomly selected white kids (+2 white s.d.) and over 5000 black kids, were there no AA (+3 black s.d.) Also note that East Asians in the USA seem to be around +0.3 to +0.5 s.d over whites (105-110 IQ median) and work far harder...
But Ivy applicants are not random - you are (unless you are black) 130 IQ to begin with (to stand a reasonable chance of getting in). So if u are a bright ambitious 130IQ wasp kid from N. Dakota (despite yr lack of polish & connections, etc.) Penn would love to have you (and they have need blind admissions so they will give u a scholarship if nec.
I grew up in the U.S. hinterlands and attended a locally well-regarded private high school. With fewer than five exceptions, even the smartest of my gentile classmates did not care to bother with the Ivies or schools of similar stature (Stanford, MIT, etc.). Some of those kids likely could have gotten in had they tried. For most of them, money wasn't the main issue. I suppose it might have been concern about fitting in socially or regional bias against big-city Northeastern types on their part.
Fortunately for the Jews we are a small (2%) minority in the US so our overrepresentation is not overly noticeable - even if we are over-represented in elite institutions at 8x our frequency in the populations, that still only adds up to 16% of the total. The situation in say pre-war Poland would have led to much more tension. There Jews were 10% of the population (more in the big cities) so an 8x overrepresentation would have been much more noticeable, with Jews forming the majority of elite professions. "Fortunately" due to numerus clausus and other anti-Semetic laws, the Jewss didn't have to "worry" about this problem.
45 comments:
Israel only has 10 Nobels, and it is a development limited to the last few years that Israelis have won in the substantive fields as opposed to the politicized and phony peace prize.
Israel now has more nobels than Japan with her 126 million peoples.
And more than China.
Tel Aviv University is chasing the prize in the last 20 years yet the Technion is winning. At least I know that my daughter is learning in a good organization. BTW she is bored with Shanghai and wants to return before her term.
BTW she is bored with Shanghai and wants to return before her term.
Why does she say she is bored?
She has learned everything to be learnt in the studio she is working.
They just copy standard successful designs. Which is OK and I do it all the time, but not much creative for a Technion student.
And she has a boyfriend in Israel and misses him.
quit hoggin' all the nobel prizes, wouldya?! (~_^)
Koko has been passed over again, as has Mr Malema, who was widely expected to win the Economics prize.
Is there no justice in this world?
However, I hear that the ex-South African Health Minister was on the short list for the beetroot and vitamin AIDS cure. Maybe next time.
Anon.
No need to be embarrassed (for the goyim). The Elders of Zion have got hold of the prize committee and are rigging the results. Otherwise how could such a tiny minority win so many prizes. In the future, the prizes will be awarded proportionately according to race and ethnicity, the same as admission slots in US universities - that way every group will get its fair share.
K
K.,
(My apologies for not using any academic or professional title to which you are entitled, since I don't know of them, but you presumably have some...)
"The Elders of Zion have got hold of the prize committee and are rigging the results. Otherwise how could such a tiny minority win so many prizes."
With respect, this strikes me as mean-spirited. No one ever claimed that Jews were dumb or lazy. Quite the contrary; any well-informed person cannot help but be aware of the extraordinary accomplishments of Jews in the hard sciences, among other fields.
After the first decade or so of the Nobel Prize, there has scarcely ever failed to be at least one Jewish science Nobelist, and as we see this year, sometimes they form an actual majority, an accomplishment totally unparalleled among any other race of comparable size or, indeed, among most far larger races.
The record of extraordinary Jewish achievement is equally luminous in such diverse fields as math, chess, and classical performance. Of course, Jews have also been extremely successful entrepreneurs, inventors, financiers, and academics. At my very good American law school, about 1/4 of the student body was Jewish, and Jews were even more heavily represented among law review members, professors, winners of prestige clerkships, and academic prizewinners. The fact that 3 of 9 justices of the US Supreme Court are Jewish speaks volumes, since "affirmative action picks" aside, only jurists with truly outstanding qualifications can make it through confirmation (as the Harriet Miers scandal showed.)
As a "goy," many of us are as ambivalent about the prospects for Jews and "goys" living together as many of you Jews seem to be. After all, our host Prof. J. thinks that being a Jew in the diaspora is psychologically deforming (if I correctly understand him.) But only a tiny and politically impotent lunatic fringe would denigrate Jewish achievement in words like yours. Indeed, it's hard to think of a less powerful group than right-wing anti-Semites in the first world - all that comes to mind are the likes of flat-earthers or believers in Forte's gelatinous sky...
Regards,
s.n.
It's stuff like this that should make some people think; 'hey, there might something to this HBD idea..'
I mean, come on. Anyone can check out the Nobel prized per country and see how many of them have been awarded to Ashkenazi Jews. This isn't coincidence or conspiracy, it's clearly a consequence of high IQ.
--Maciano
Dear S. N. , Esq.
As far as title, I suppose it should be K, Esq. The law school I attended was I think more than 1/4 Jewish as it was located in NYC and Ivy League - a double whammy, so to speak.
To be honest with you , I think we are seeing a reflection of an earlier generation. My daughter is the member of something called the "Study of Exceptional Talent" run by Johns Hopkins University - it is less portentous than it sounds - membership is gained merely by scoring over 700 on either the math or reading section of the SAT before the age of 13. (On the one hand, the math section is a set of not very difficult algebra problems, OTOH, 90+% of high school seniors will never score above 700). At the awards ceremony, most of the recipients were east Asian and Jews, while present, were not an overwhelming presence among the whites. Still , it was a very different group from a modern Ivy League class which is carefully balanced by race (for example there was I think 1 black out of the 500 or so kids present).
I was with you 'til we got to the "ambivalent" part, at least until I hear what conclusions you draw from this. Himmler was "ambivalent" about this too and look where that lead.
It seems to me that (especially in the modern world where high IQ leads to technological advances that benefit everyone) there's no reason why the Jews of America cannot continue to live in peace as they have for the last 200+ years.
K (, Esq.)
By the way, SN, it's "goyim" , not "goys" . "Goy" is a Yiddish word borrowed from the Hebrew (where it means simply "nations" (implicitly, OTHER nations or nationalities) and Yiddish words take their plurals from their base language - Germanic words are pluralized as in German and Hebrew words are pluralized in accordance with the rules of Hebrew grammar.
K
There are a number of interesting topics discussed in this blog and by its commenters here and elsewhere. But I wonder why I should engage someone who speciously corrects my grammar ("goys" is not an incorrect plural in English, and we are not speaking Yiddish,) and who immediately compares me to a leading Nazi murderer.
-s.n.
"quit hoggin' all the nobel prizes"
Let me correct your math, girl.
The majority of prizes normally go to gentiles.
Gentiles need to give more to the Jews since they are "Hogging all of the nobel prizes" as the majority.
"They just copy standard successful designs."
That is why the Asians have few nobel prizes considering there are more Asians than Jews. No creativity.
Let me pour oil on troubled waters.
The relationship between us "Goyims" and "our" Jews is subject to tensions, as we see here, but with a bit of insight and humor on both sides, and respect for both the causes and the consequences of our respective sensitivities, the relationship can be managed satisfactorily, and its enormous potential for mutual gain can be realized.
K is suffused with righteous indignation at the indignities his people have suffered, despite, and indeed because of their talents; sn,( it appears) and I as well, like many WASPs, have legitimate concerns about the loss of WASP domination, and see how this can and indeed has been increasingly used against us by people who are perhaps not as grateful as they might be, and who, to their credit, are more determined, restless and often intelligent than we are.
There is too much at stake here to give way to bickering. We have to recognize that when this relationship goes wrong, it really goes wrong; but when it goes right, it is the most powerful force in the world. We're soon going to need it to go right - big time.
Anon.
"and we are not speaking Yiddish,) and who immediately compares me to a leading Nazi murderer."
You questioned whether Jews and goys are meant to be together. How should the Jews interpret that question?
Btw, majority of nobel winners are gentile Euro, so it is 1 billion Europeans who are overrepresented compared to 1 billion more numerous Asians.
But, of course, Europeans are only a small, helpless majority in face of Jewish minority. Yes?
"loss of WASP domination,"
There is no loss of WASP domination.
Isn't next POTUS Mitt Romney an elite WASP? How is he persecuted by Juden?
"used against us by people who are perhaps not as grateful as they might be"
The Jews are not working against gentiles.
The gentiles are undermining themselves nicely with or without Juden.
"We have to recognize that when this relationship goes wrong,"
Elite WASPs love Jews. There is no conflict in relationship except in your paranoid delusions.
Elite Romneys and Bushes are in conflict with Jews in what way?
"At my very good American law school,"
Did you really get into a top law school? I wonder because you don't sound very intelligent.
Euros are well represented for nobel prizes.
Asians are underrepresented.
List of Nobel laureates by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country
This is all Japan could do with the nobel prizes. One of their 19 nobels went to Charles Pederson who was half Norwegian and half Japanese:
Japan
Main article: List of Japanese Nobel laureates
1.Ei-ichi Negishi*, Chemistry 2010
2.Akira Suzuki, Chemistry 2010
3.Osamu Shimomura*, Chemistry, 2008
4.Makoto Kobayashi, Physics, 2008
5.Toshihide Maskawa, Physics, 2008
6.Yoichiro Nambu*, Physics, 2008
7.Masatoshi Koshiba, Physics, 2002
8.Koichi Tanaka, Chemistry, 2002
9.Ryōji Noyori, Chemistry, 2001
10.Hideki Shirakawa, Chemistry, 2000
11.Kenzaburō Ōe, Literature, 1994
12.Susumu Tonegawa, Physiology or Medicine, 1987
13.Charles J. Pedersen*, Chemistry, 1987
14.Kenichi Fukui, Chemistry, 1981
15.Eisaku Satō, Peace, 1974
16.Leo Esaki, Physics, 1973
17.Yasunari Kawabata, Literature, 1968
18.Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Physics, 1965
19.Hideki Yukawa, Physics, 1949
Anonymous, you are, unfortunately, not right in some of what you assert.
Romney, as a Mormon, is WASP-oid but not strictly WASP. But we'll take him, in preference to Perry, anyway.
WASPs are clearly losing dominance, all over the world. Remember Rhodesia? South Africa?? Been to "Europe" recently? Been to California recently? "Paranoid delusions" - really?
Where you are correct is to note that some powerful Gentiles are indeed working against their own people; there is no shortage of examples. The EU, to start with. The BBC, and the rest of the MSM also immediately spring to mind. We will have to fix this ourselves, and in due course we will.
As far as Jews working or not working against Gentiles, I would say my main concern here is the support for open borders by liberals; let's just say this isn't exactly pro-white, and, ironically, will backfire badly on the people of Israel, wherever they are, since these immigrants are not exactly your best friends.
Anon.
OK, have it your way SN - goys, even if (frankly) it makes you sound stupid. I tried to teach you something but you are apparently not interested in learning.
"Engage" or not - it's up to you. The last time someone was "ambivalent" about living with the Jews in their country, they ended up killing most of my family, so forgive me if I am sensitive about this. Maybe you "goys" don't get to decide anymore whether you have to live with us Jews or not because under the US Constitution I'm a citizen just the same as you, even if my parents arrived on Liberty ships in 1950 and yours arrived on the Mayflower. It's not "your" country anymore than it's mine. Frankly, as Anon intimates, the Jews are not your problem - you've got bigger things to worry about. I appreciate (more than you can know) the rule of law and due process that is a unique legacy of the Anglo-American founding fathers. But Washington was not "ambivalent" about the Jews (see his letter to the Touro Synagogue) and I think you should learn from him to put all "ambivalence" out of your head and accept us fully as your fellow Americans - people who have vastly enriched American culture, science, medicine, law, etc. and who have fought for this country as much as any others.
K
K,
Re: Yiddish plurals in English, I don't say "octopodes" and I assume you don't either. The question is whether "goy" is a Yiddish word used by English speakers, or a loan-word in English which ought therefore to be pluralized per the conventions of English grammar.
As for this:
The last time someone was "ambivalent" about living with the Jews in their country, they ended up killing most of my family, so forgive me if I am sensitive about this.
This isn't true at all. On this issue, the Nazis were convinced, not ambivalent; one doesn't murder millions of people out of ambivalence.
On the other hand, many Americans were were ambivalent about living with Jews but certain that Jews had a right to life and that the Constitution guarantees, as you say, equal rights to all Americans. Likewise, I am not at all sure that large-scale Mexican or Middle Eastern immigration is good for America, but I don't want to kill Muslim Americans or take away their citizenship either.
We agree that Jews are talented. (As a racial realist, I am willing to consider the claim Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic IQ median someplace between 106 and 115. It would certainly explain a lot of things.) We also agree that Jews have an identity. These two premises lead to the unsettling conclusion that, in a meritocratic society with sufficient Jews, the upper classes will become disproportionately Jewish over time. Either these Jews in the upper classes will intermarry, thus losing their Jewish identity, or Jews will rise to the summits of power.
If being Jewish were merely a religious question, this wouldn't matter very much. But Jewishness is also an ethnicity. So, as Jews rise higher and higher in America, they will either cease to be Jews, or they will exert power out of proportion to their numbers, leaving members of less capable ethnic groups disgruntled.
It's important to repeat that Jewish success isn't merely on the margins. For example, if the Jewish IQ median is 115, the white median is 100, the s.d. is 15, and getting into medical school requires 130, then only 2% of whites will be capable of becoming doctors, compared to 16% of Jews. If a neighborhood school is equally split between Jews and whites, assuming that both groups of students are representative, Jews will win almost all of the top prizes. (If anything, this understates likely Jewish achievement, because we know that there is a "fat tail" to the IQ distribution curve.)
Thus, even assuming no initial racial or religious prejudice (an unwarranted assumption, of course,) over time, unless Jews intermarry to the point of annihilation, less talented ethnic groups will inevitably come to resent Jews, even if members of those groups are objectively the beneficiaries of living among Jews. This isn't a conclusion that I like, but it does remind me of how Africans appear to prefer being incompetently ruled by blacks over being competently ruled by whites - "maîtres chez nous!", as the Quebeckers put it.
In my opinion, Prof. J.'s singularly broad mind has explored these troubled vistas. My perspective is simply from the other side. As a non-Jew, I'm not uninterested in the question of what's good for the Jews, but I'm also interested in the question of what's good for my people, and the question of what dynamics shape cooperations and hatreds among peoples. There are plenty of other blogs, surely, where these questions cannot be raised because no one dares even to think of them.
A final note. I am a very recent immigrant who just became a citizen. And, anonymous commenter who thinks that I must be unintelligent: as you see, people become reactive and emotional even when one raises painful questions as gently and dispassionately as possible. How much more violently would they react if I wrote bluntly?
Regards,
s.n.
To take your med school example, there are around 6 mil. Jews in America. So even if a full 16% of them were med school material, that would be less than 1 million. There are around 300 mil. non Jews so if 2% were eligible that would mean 6 million goyish med school candidates. Jews would end up being 14% of doctors, which is disproportionate but so what?
K
"If being Jewish were merely a religious question, this wouldn't matter very much. But Jewishness is also an ethnicity."
Apparently it does matter. Weizmann in his biography remarks about how he couldn't stand the German Jews because they were (to him) just that - people who were in all respects just like other Germans but who attended a different church on a different day. Even this wasn't good enough for the Nazis. For that matter, a lot of American Jews are also indistinguishable from other Americans except to those with Jewdar.
But anti-Semites will never let you forget that you are Jewish (sometimes even if you aren't) - witness modern Hungary where they go around sniffing for traces of Jewish blood in people who have no attachment to Judaism. I've heard that in Spain and Portugal, up until modern times there was a distinction between "Old Christians" and "New Christians" - New Christians being the (forced) Jewish converts, even after 400+ years.
All this cannot be explained rationally but only by recognition that we are like some primitive tribe of monkeys that attacks any monkey that is from a different pack. I just saw a program on Papua-New Guinea where it was considered the right thing to do to eat your defeated enemy (the tribe next door in the jungle who looks just like you) until maybe 50 years ago.
14% Jewish doctors is just fine; but there are increasing numbers of East Asians, Indians, etc as physicians and while there is on the whole no problem with their competence, my suspicion is that there are fewer WASPs accepted into med school, and likely other elite faculties, as a policy; can't prove it, but it is a suspicion.
Anon.
Why would anyone want to attend medical school. In the U.S., one gives up a minimum of 7 years and more likely 10-12 years of one's life to training, of which the first four years are exorbitantly expensive and the rest pay less than minimum wage per hour when one considers the frequent 70-80 hour weeks (and sometimes more hours than that). If there were a guaranteed financial reward, it might be worthwhile. However, both the left and the right want to reduce reimbursement, eliminating the financial security associated with the job. No wonder the newer immigrants are going for medicine and the WASPs are avoiding it.
"I am a very recent immigrant who just became a citizen."
"14% Jewish doctors"
Many of these "Jews" are half Jewish.
"my suspicion is that there are fewer WASPs accepted into med school,"
Asian competition also hurts Jewish medschool enrollment.
So what's your point?
and the WASPs are avoiding it.
Have numbers to back that up?
WASPs continue to be very well educated and highly succesful.
You are paranoid.
"I am a very recent immigrant who just became a citizen."
From what country di you immigrate from?
Romney is an elite WASP.
WASPs must doing well if one of their own is about to POTUS again.
The point is not that there aren't still elite and successful WASPs (there are, and always will be), it's that middle-grade WASPs now have to fight very hard for a decent life, whereas they did not have to struggle so hard before.
In a way, the Founding People of the US (and elsewhere) have lost significant ground. A further point is that the competition is in some cases egregiously unfair; the playing field is tilted against us by "affirmative action", which is simply an institutionalized form of anti-white racism.
Anon.
K et al.,
The medical school example was intended to be suggestive, not exhaustive.
The point is that there are discomforts for both majority and minority if a self-consciously racially distinct group, made up mostly of winners, comes to be greatly over-represented in the corridors of power. A sufficient IQ advantage provides the necessary raw material to bootstrap class-formation processes very rapidly.
To flesh out this idea, let's consider a hypo. Take two Americans with 130 IQ's. One is a New York Jew with two M.D. parents and an IQ of 130. He's much more likely to find his way into, say, a successful real-estate development business than our second, a small-town Ohio white whose parents are a foreman and a waitress. The Jewish person in this story will have a higher proportion of successful relatives and acquaintances, who may give him advice, seed money, or his first break. The Jewish person in this story will be vastly more likely to go to prep school and a top university. And his children will, likewise, regress to a higher IQ mean, especially if his wife is Jewish also.
The dice are not loaded in this hypo, because Jews are obviously more likely to have successful parents and relatives than non-Jewish whites are, and Jews are concentrated in New York, California, D.C., and so forth, not in faded rust-belt towns, trailer parks, or farming hamlets.
So, without doing anything wrong or intending anyone harm, there will be an ongoing effect where Jews' high IQ's (and other positive qualities) lead to deserved success, success breeds further success, and even failures are only relative failures (your kid doesn't get into med school, but he doesn't become a bum either.)
Jews, mostly assimilated, make up around 30% of the Forbes 400. I don't think this is due to malfeasance or nepotism. Rather, I think Jews have intrinsically higher concentrations of native talent for headwork than non-Jewish whites, and thanks to several generations of stability in America, most Jewish talent gets cultivated.
Face it: there are downsides to being a winner. One of these is that if you're too successful, other people start to dislike you, even if your presence among them is objectively a net good and you don't do them any harm.
Like I said, I am ambivalent about the ability of Jews and non-Jewish whites to live together, for much the same reason that I am ambivalent about the ability of whites and blacks to live together (in Israel, IQ discrepancies are not primary because a shared sense of Jewishness, cemented by obvious external threats, so in the medium term there is no reason that different groups of Jews cannot live together.)
Perhaps a sufficiently high degree of Jewish assimilation could assuage whites' hurt feelings about being displaced as America's leading ethnic group. But I don't think most commenters here would find that an acceptable solution.
-s.n.
s.n.,
A couple of thoughts. First, it seems to me that average Jewish intellectual prowess is not so imposing as to create such a stark divide between Jews and gentile whites indefinitely. It's rare to see Jewish spelling bee champions, math olympiad champions, or Intel science competition winners these days. The Chinese and Indian immigrants, heavily selected from their native populations, work harder and are starting to win more. In another 50 years, despite any IQ advantage, Jews might perform only slightly better than average as they lose the immigrant striver mentality.
Your point about major cities vs. faded rust-belt towns and farming hamlets is interesting. Jews are concentrated in cities in part because that's where their ancestors arrived in the U.S. There is a cultural preference for big cities among Jews, but it can be overcome when it doesn't make economic sense to live in one (expense vs earnings). Regardless, the U.S. farming and manufacturing economy has been in decline for decades, so mid-sized to large cities are where the economic action can be found. By now, I would imagine that gentile whites in the hinterlands must be aware of this.
it's that middle-grade WASPs
There are no middle grade WASPs.
The term "WASP" has always only referred to elite Yankees, not average American protestants.
You have no idea what you are even angry about.
Thank you for the edification. In the rest of the world (there is a rest of the world, by the way) WASPs are simply white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
But you know what I mean, I think.
Also, it's 'Protestant' with a capital 'P'.
Anon.
I think the emotional anonymous insisting everyone is crazy to worry about WASPs is referring to the sociologist E. Digby Baltzell's usage of the term. I would agree with Anon. that usage has expanded beyond what he initially intended. Most Protestants of Anglo-Saxon ancestry that I know would consider themselves to be WASPs even if they are only lower-middle to middle class.
The white in wasp is redundant - if you are an Anglo-Saxon protestant then by definition you are white. But I guess ASP doesn't sound as good.
MOst American don't dislike rich successful people, except for the Obama supporter class envy crowd (which shrinks by the day). Even those less rich realize that "no poor man ever gave me a job". Every American entertains the fantasy that he too can be rich someday - if not by become a neurosurgeon then by playing pro ball or becoming a rapper or winning the lottery.
American society has tremendous mobility - a mixed race boy from the furthest island in the empire can become president. So can the WASP boy from rust belt ohio. The Ivy schools beat the bushes to find recruits in the Midwest and rural areas - they are sick of applicants from the suburbs of the large NE and West Coast cities and consider "geographic" diversity to be (almost) as important as racial.
K
ASP...Gotta love it, K.
Anon.
K,
The Ivy schools beat the bushes to find recruits in the Midwest and rural areas - they are sick of applicants from the suburbs of the large NE and West Coast cities and consider "geographic" diversity to be (almost) as important as racial.
The Ivies have a hard time finding sufficient qualified candidates off the coasts. Recall that 100 randomly selected Jewish kids will have as many 130+ IQ Ivy candidates (+1 Jewish s.d.) as ~800 randomly selected white kids (+2 white s.d.) and over 5000 black kids, were there no AA (+3 black s.d.) Also note that East Asians in the USA seem to be around +0.3 to +0.5 s.d over whites (105-110 IQ median) and work far harder...
-s.n.
But Ivy applicants are not random - you are (unless you are black) 130 IQ to begin with (to stand a reasonable chance of getting in). So if u are a bright ambitious 130IQ wasp kid from N. Dakota (despite yr lack of polish & connections, etc.) Penn would love to have you (and they have need blind admissions so they will give u a scholarship if nec.
K
I grew up in the U.S. hinterlands and attended a locally well-regarded private high school. With fewer than five exceptions, even the smartest of my gentile classmates did not care to bother with the Ivies or schools of similar stature (Stanford, MIT, etc.). Some of those kids likely could have gotten in had they tried. For most of them, money wasn't the main issue. I suppose it might have been concern about fitting in socially or regional bias against big-city Northeastern types on their part.
Fortunately for the Jews we are a small (2%) minority in the US so our overrepresentation is not overly noticeable - even if we are over-represented in elite institutions at 8x our frequency in the populations, that still only adds up to 16% of the total. The situation in say pre-war Poland would have led to much more tension. There Jews were 10% of the population (more in the big cities) so an 8x overrepresentation would have been much more noticeable, with Jews forming the majority of elite professions. "Fortunately" due to numerus clausus and other anti-Semetic laws, the Jewss didn't have to "worry" about this problem.
K
Post a Comment