Post: #76

(02-12-2017 12:07 AM)rw95 Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 12:00 AM)weambulance Wrote:  So you admit your point is bullshit, because apparently white supremacists don't care about asians doing better than whites in IQ tests despite getting "triggered" if they aren't on top of the "natural hierarchy". Jews are rarely broken out in general discussions of IQ because they're a tiny group, globally.

And I didn't try to silence you at all, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about now. I just pointed out that you have a tendency to make shit up because of your personal biases. I think we've conclusively proved that now.

Thanks for playing.

What shit am I making up exactly?

Ashkenazi Jews are on average smarter than whites. This is a fact.

In my experience, bring that up to alt-righters and you get a shitstorm of mental gymnastics.

Look no further than this very thread with Nomadbrah.

Do you have an inability to understand what I posted to you? Try to read the links first before commenting.

IQ is not a single number denoting intelligence, it is made up of 3 different areas, verbal, visual-spatial, mathematical.

Azkenazis only outperform in 2 of those 3 and Asians only in 1 of those 3.

I don't know why you think this matters though?

AB claimed that whites had been intellectually dominated or something along those lines by jews, while that is patently false, since not only can a cursory glance at philosophy, art, science and inventions disprove this easily, so can reading literature up until 1945.

Post: #77

(02-12-2017 12:07 AM)rw95 Wrote:  What shit am I making up exactly?

Ashkenazi Jews are on average smarter than whites. This is a fact.

In my experience, bring that up to alt-righters and you get a shitstorm of mental gymnastics.

Look no further than this very thread with Nomadbrah.

Real footage of rw95 last page (goddammit):

Post: #78

I don't understand what the fuck everyone is arguing about in this thread. This is about Yale admin pandering to whiny cry babies, and witlessly changing the name of buildings meant to honor one person to someone else just to appease the tears of do-nothings.

Post: #79

(02-12-2017 12:24 AM)Delta Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 10:55 PM)Arminius Wrote:  Right, but....isn't our thinking in the United States today premised upon the idea that each group is exactly equal in intelligence, and in everything else? The idea behind the civil rights movement was that if the legal barriers to black advancement were removed that they would rise to the level of whites in terms of income and educational achievement. Once the legal barriers were removed, blacks would lift themselves out of poverty and as a result the crime rates between the races would equalize, because in this view poverty causes crime.

Except none of this has happened. As one example:

Race gaps in SAT math scores are as big as ever

What you just stated right above me explains so well, so neatly, so Occam's Razor-y, what the liberal Brookings Institution is observing in that article.

If someone begins from the premise that the races are 10,000% equal in every way, nothing, literally nothing, of what he observes around him makes sense, at least not in this country. Blacks (on average, folks, on average) aren't even in the same galaxy as whites or Asians as far as education and test scores, they aren't in the same galaxy as whites or Asians as far as rates of imprisonment, they aren't in the same galaxy as whites or Asians as far as incomes and welfare use, yada yada yada. If the races are equal, and we know they're equal because (((Franz Boas))) told us so, what must account for these differences? White racism! White supremacism! Implicit racial bias in literally everything that has ever existed and exists now!

Ayn Rand (not a fan of her at all) always told people to check their premise whenever something doesn't make sense.

You checked the premise of racial equality very well...but then didn't address the very, very serious implications of removing that premise.

Reading this type of post makes me feel dirty. I feel like a scumbag piece of shit for agreeing with it, yet I can't find a single thing in there that's logically or factually incorrect to make me disagree.

This issue in general causes me a lot of internal discomfort. If people knew that I believed in race differences, 80% of them would hate me and think I'm some kind of monster. But between the persistent achievement gaps you allude to and the fact that African countries are invariably far less developed than white-run countries, I cannot convince myself otherwise. In fact, sometimes I think the rest of the world is insane for chalking up this mountain of outcome inequality entirely to "racism." Yet I envy them in a way. I don't want to be a bigot. I don't want people to misconstrue my opinion as "hatred," or a hard-and-fast rule by which every black person is dumb. I want to be an acceptable human being. The pressure to conform can be overwhelming.

If the masses of the people acknowledged these facts as everyone in the United States did until the middle of the twentieth century, and society existed in accordance with those facts, there would be far fewer problems related to these issues than there are now. Remove the premise of equality, the chips fall where they may, and that's that.

Related to thread's original topic: to many whites now, me included, it seems that there are certain interested parties who for whatever reason have serious, serious hostility towards whites and who will use whatever tortuous arguments they can come up with in order to pin the blame for what seems like every wrong thing under the sun, onto whites. I'm 33 now and I wasn't brought up with racism at all - both sides of my extended family (in rural Virginia) voted for Obama, both times - but the left in this country has become so insane, so vile, so extreme in its hatred for heritage America and whites, as whites, that I was led very quickly down the road to what would be considered by the powers that be as "beyond-the-pale" racial nationalism.

There is no support in any of the research for saying that every black person is dumb. The same studies that reveal the persistent one standard deviation in IQ between blacks and whites in the United States also show that over 15% of blacks have IQs that are above the white average. There are plenty of intelligent blacks and plenty of dumb whites. Lots and lots of overlap, but big differences in proportions.

By the way, I think it was the philosopher Michael Levin who pointed out that it's only subjective human judgement that makes these facts unpalatable. Meaning, it's only because we all value intelligence and think of it as a beneficial quality that pointing out low intelligence in a person or group of people is considered insulting or degrading, the same as stating the fact that a steak is tender and juicy is understood as a compliment, because tenderness and juiciness are valued qualities for a steak to have. They're only statements of fact, but our views make them more than that.

Post: #80

(02-12-2017 12:31 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 12:07 AM)rw95 Wrote:  What shit am I making up exactly?

Ashkenazi Jews are on average smarter than whites. This is a fact.

In my experience, bring that up to alt-righters and you get a shitstorm of mental gymnastics.

Look no further than this very thread with Nomadbrah.

Real footage of rw95 last page (goddammit):

Not an argument.
Try harder next time, ok?

Post: #81

[/quote]

Do you have an inability to understand what I posted to you? Try to read the links first before commenting.

IQ is not a single number denoting intelligence, it is made up of 3 different areas, verbal, visual-spatial, mathematical.

Azkenazis only outperform in 2 of those 3 and Asians only in 1 of those 3.

I don't know why you think this matters though?

AB claimed that whites had been intellectually dominated or something along those lines by jews, while that is patently false, since not only can a cursory glance at philosophy, art, science and inventions disprove this easily, so can reading literature up until 1945.
[/quote]

There you go again.

If a group outperforms another group in 2 out of 3 criteria for something, I'm pretty sure that's a huge advantage for that group.

And as the alt-right believes, IQ is everything. According to Charles Murray, IQ is the single most important determinant for success. As the old expression goes, "the cream rises to the top." It is quite clear that this "cream" is the Ashkenazi. They have always been overrepresented in important fields wherever they have gone. (By the way, this also applies to the Chinese and the Germans. The same thing has happened with them wherever they go.) They always will. And a major factor why this is so is simply because they're smarter than everyone else.

Post: #82

There are four races caucasian, asian, black and australoid. Which race are Ashkenazi Jews if they are not white?

Post: #83

(02-12-2017 09:24 AM)Topher Wrote:  There are four races caucasian, asian, black and australoid. Which race are Ashkenazi Jews if they are not white?

Oh, the Ashkenazi are Caucasian. So are all Jews.

Of course, mention that to the alt-right, and well... I think you get the drift.

Post: #84

(02-12-2017 12:16 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(02-12-2017 12:04 AM)churros Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 06:27 PM)weambulance Wrote:  If you want to learn more about why whites are so often attacked in popular culture and education--and you would have to be enormously ignorant or an outright liar to claim they aren't--learn about the Frankfurt School. If you don't, you simply cannot discuss the matter because you lack the requisite knowledge.

May I respectfully point out the irony of this comment. Nobody on this forum has read the Frankfurt School. Nor are they reading it in universities. The scapegoat you are looking for is Judith Butler.

Is critical theory still taught? Yes. Is political correctness still taught? Yes. Ergo, the reference to the Frankfurt School is not irrelevant. I was not meaning to give a comprehensive lecture on the history of indoctrination in our schools and Judith Butler is less relevant to my point than what I actually referenced.

And I'm not looking for a scapegoat anywhere. Are you claiming that indoctrination in schools is not happening?

Frankfurt School ≠ political correctness, so your logic is flawed. I suggest you follow your own advice and actually read something by them.

Post: #85

(02-11-2017 03:19 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Do you think it's right that people who live 150 years from now would consider you a savage and feel entitled to erase you from history because you weren't a vegan? Do you think it's right in general to judge our ancestors through the lens of present social norms, rather than trying to understand their actions as being the necessary product of the times in which they lived?

I feel the need to nitpick here. When you say "our ancestors" it is important to note the scale of slavery when it was legal. According to google, who would lean towards too high a number if anything, 1.4% of whites owned slaves at the peak of American slavery.

This is important because if one is to accept the notion that you need to get on your knees and beg for forgiveness for your ancestors sins, your ancestors probably had nothing to do with slavery.

Personally there's some dispute if one of my ancestors was a slave owner, and I'm not going about life supplicating to blacks over it or feeling "genetic remorse" or whatever one would call it.

Post: #86

(02-12-2017 12:09 AM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  Becomes race thread....

Becomes IQ thread.....

Should I get the 32 oz big gulp cup out yet?

Godwin's law states that the first person to mention Hitler loses an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I am thinking you are onto something here along similar lines.

You could call it Tex Cruise's law.

Or maybe Calhoun's law.

No, not Calhoun's law.

You would have to change it.

Post: #87

Many of you don’t sufficiently appreciate the impact of an average IQ difference of 15 points between two populations.

This is common—many people don’t really “get” the effects of normal distributions at the tails—and Yale is a tail (har har, it rhymes). Tail effects are why the average man may only run a bit faster than the average woman, but there are thousands of men who can run a 100m dash faster than the women’s world record of 10.49 seconds.

IQ, by construction, is normally distributed—with a mean of 100, and standard deviation of 15. Cognitive ability is not perfectly normally distributed, but the normal distribution generally works quite well to model it (same deal with traits like height). Among large population groups, IQ appears to have a standard deviation of roughly 15, as well.

If we go with a standard deviation of 15 for each group, and if the mean US black IQ is 85, US gentile whites 100, and US Ashkenazi Jews 115—only .003% of blacks will have an IQ over 145, but .135% of gentile whites will, and 2.28% of Ashkenazi Jews—since for blacks, a 145 IQ would be 4 standard deviations above average. For whites, it would be 3 standard deviations above average, and for Ashkenazi Jews, 2 standard deviations above average.

On a per capita basis, there would be about 42.6 whites to every black with an IQ over 145, and 16.9 Ashkenazi Jews to every gentile White.

Then let’s consider the respective U.S. population size estimates of 38.9, 197.9 (maybe this could be 197.9 – 5.5 = 192.4, but shouldn’t make a big difference), and 5.5 million for blacks, gentile whites, and Ashkenazi’s, respectively (each from Wikipedia, I got 5.5 by averaging the 5-6 million range they gave).

Out of Americans who are black, gentile, or Ashkenazi Jews with an IQ over 145 (so not including Asians, etc.), blacks would only be 0.31% of said over-145 IQ group, whites 67.89%, and Ashkenazi Jews 31.80%. Almost no blacks, and about 2/3 gentile whites and 1/3 Ashkenazi Jews.

Now we can see why that in the absence of affirmative action, blacks would have very small percentages in any arena that selects for high IQ, and why Ashkenazi Jews would have a large presence—like at Yale.

However, if Ashkenazi’s really are 27% of the Yale population (as posted by someone) and whites overall are 62% (72% from the Yale site divided by the sum of all the percentages, since as noted they went over 100% because of Yale double-counting), this would mean a 35% gentile white population.

This seems like there’s more Ashkenazi’s Jews at Yale than you would expect based upon IQ figures, especially since an “IQ cutoff” to model Yale would probably be a bit lower than 145.

If we went with a 145 cut-off for Yale and we accept the numbers of 27% for Yale Ashkenazi’s and the figures on Yale’s site, A 27% to 35% ratio of .77 is higher than the 31.80% to 67.89% ratio of .468. This may suggest that Yale favors Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites—the ratio of Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites is .77/.468 = 1.65 times higher than we expected. The 1.65 number is conservative, since the 145 IQ cut-off for Yale is probably a bit too high. However, for context, the ratio of blacks to gentile whites at Yale is apparently 8.5%/35% = 0.24, whereas we would expect 0.31%/67.89% = 0.0046 based on the above IQ calculations. This means a ratio of blacks to gentile whites .24/.0046 = 52.56 times what we expected. Weirdly enough, if gentile whites really indeed only are 35% of Yale’s population, this would mean blacks might be over-represented vis a vis whites as 8.5%/35% = .242 > 38.9/197.9 = .1965 even if we pretended the blacks and whites have equivalent IQs—a .1965 ratio is what we would expect if we just randomly selected people with no regard to IQ. This would be pretty egregious.

Repeating the exercise with IQ over 160 leads to per capita ratios of 110.5 gentile whites to every black, 42.6 Ashkenazi Jews to gentile whites, and factoring in population numbers we have .08% blacks, 45.74% gentile whites, 54.18% Ashkenazi Jews—Ashkenazi’s would now outnumber gentile whites in the above 160 range.

Now we can see why it seems like every other historically eminent scientist is Ashkenazi Jewish (e.g. Einstein, Feynman, Von Neumann).

To the extent that low-IQ is associated with violent crime, repeating the exercise yet again for low-IQ would illuminate why violent crime rates by race of perpetrator are the way they are.

The above calculations are not meant to be law (for example, the US population figure are not age-adjusted, we can quibble about the average IQ estimates, cognitive ability is not perfectly normal, colleges select on things like conscientiousness in addition to IQ, etc.), but they help illustrate the general principle—the impact of differing mean IQs between population groups at the tails.

Post: #88

Biology does not control behavior like many of you chose to believe. Here is a great post, talking about this scholarly article: "Parenting behaviors associated with risk for offspring personality disorder during adulthood."



See how antisocial PD starts out at zero but avoidant PD starts out at about 3 percent? That is because you can be born shy, but not antisocial. The nature versus nurture debate is all but dead in psychiatry. You don't need a high IQ to develop a superego -- which is what is relevant when considering violence and impulse control, not intelligence.

Post: #89

Kabal.

I think it is wrong to assume Ashkenazi IQ is normally distributed as historically, they are just the high end of the general Eastern European population who were sufficiently smart to do finance instead of assimilating for easier but less rewarding work.

Post: #90

(02-12-2017 03:15 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  Biology does not control behavior like many of you chose to believe. Here is a great post, talking about this scholarly article: "Parenting behaviors associated with risk for offspring personality disorder during adulthood."

...

See how antisocial PD starts out at zero but avoidant PD starts out at about 3 percent? That is because you can be born shy, but not antisocial. The nature versus nurture debate is all but dead in psychiatry. You don't need a high IQ to develop a superego -- which is what is relevant when considering violence and impulse control, not intelligence.

Come on, don't be silly--I expect better of you. Your opening statement is a strawman and the authors did not control for genetics in their study, and they disclaim as such. I almost feel Poe's Law'd.

Many psychiatric traits are highly heritable. Additive effects of genetics alone are estimated to explain a substantial of amount of the variation in traits such as Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, Major depressive disorder, ASD, and ADHD, at 81%, 75%, 37%, 80%, and 75%, respectively, from family studies.

The authors of that paper were able to recover 17-29% of the heritabilty with SNPs--SNPs are tough to work with, as you often have many more SNPs than observations (n >> p), making the statistics difficult. Hence, the SNP-based heritability is a floor on the actual heritabilty.

For example, although the first paper only got 27% for bipolar, a newer paper, with a different data set, focused more on statistics and captured over 60% of the heritability of Bipolar disorder using SNPs through 3 different statistical techniques (each of the 3 came within 60% and 65%)--closer to the family-based estimate of 75%.

So for Bipolar, additive genetics explains at least 60-65% of the variation in the phenotype of Bipolar disorder, and perhaps up to 75%. Thus only leaving 35% to 40% of the variation, at most, due to items such as genetic dominance effects, genetic interaction effects, peer groups, schooling, parenting, measurement error, developmental error, etc. combined.

Clearly, parenting can have an effect--if you hit your kid in the head with baseball bat, that probably wouldn't bode well for his future IQ. However, overall, parenting explains little variation relative to additive genetics (heritability).

In a multitude of cognitive traits, heritability alone explains a substantial amount of variation in phenotype--including the bulkload of variation in traits such as IQ and bipolar disorder.

For many cognitive traits, such as IQ, "nature" trumps "nurture" in countries like the United States. Even if we restrict "nature" to additive genetics and dump stuff like peer groups, schooling, parenting, measurement error, developmental error, and other sources of error people wouldn't think of as "nurture" into the "nurture" term.

Post: #91

(02-11-2017 08:56 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 07:23 PM)Lucky Wrote:  Why are Jews more than 10X more represented than their national demographic?

Because the Ashkenazi IQ is approximately 110, and as such they will always be overrepresented?

I don't understand this forum sometimes. Supposedly this forum has become "red-pilled" enough to admit IQ differences between blacks and whites. Why can't we admit the (rather large) IQ difference between the whites and the Ashkenazi?

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance in this forum. It deserves its own thread, but I dont think there would be any constructive discourse, due to aforementioned cognitive dissonance.

Also:

(01-16-2017 05:44 AM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 02:29 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  It makes sense that Jews are so talented and high IQ that they do everything better than White Nationalists, Jews are even better at antisemitism. Oy Vey!

Large swathes of the alt-right in a nutshell:

When black people underperform against white people - ah, its because they have low iqs compared to us, look at these charts

When jews outperform white people - conspiracy!

Post: #92

The guy that invented the IQ test was a Jew. Its probably rigged.

Aloha!

Post: #93

(02-11-2017 07:23 PM)scorpion Wrote:  I note that Kona seems to think this was a "white people created issue", based on the idea that Yale (and the rest of the Ivies) are bastions of old money WASPs busily conspiring against the various shades of brown folk who make up their social inferiors. But the reality is that the Ivies have not been this type of WASPish old boys' club for the better part of the past century. In fact, these days, far from being catered to by administrators, WASPs are the single most underrepresented demographic in the Ivy League. Bold claim, isn't it? Sounds impossible? It would be, if not for a single trick: Jews being counted as white. This is how a class at Yale might be reported as 70% "white", which would actually be broken down as 30% white and 40% Jewish. In relation to their actual number of high achieving students compared against Whites and Asians, Jews are overrepresented in Ivy League universities by a factor of 1000.

If you have the time to kill, Ron Unz's extended article on this topic is a must-read.

The Myth of American Meritocracy is a must-read to get a sense of how elite universities make admission decisions. It is written by Ron Unz, who is Jewish.

There is no conspiracy.

Quote:Meanwhile, any hint of “anti-Semitism” in admissions is regarded as an absolutely mortal sin, and any significant reduction in Jewish enrollment may often be denounced as such by the hair-trigger media. For example, in 1999 Princeton discovered that its Jewish enrollment had declined to just 500 percent of parity, down from more than 700 percent in the mid-1980s, and far below the comparable figures for Harvard or Yale. This quickly resulted in four front-page stories in the Daily Princetonian, a major article in the New York Observer, and extensive national coverage in both the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education.108 These articles included denunciations of Princeton’s long historical legacy of anti-Semitism and quickly led to official apologies, followed by an immediate 30 percent rebound in Jewish numbers. During these same years, non-Jewish white enrollment across the entire Ivy League had dropped by roughly 50 percent, reducing those numbers to far below parity, but this was met with media silence or even occasional congratulations on the further “multicultural” progress of America’s elite education system.

I suspect that the combined effect of these separate pressures, rather than any planned or intentional bias, is the primary cause of the striking enrollment statistics that we have examined above. In effect, somewhat dim and over-worked admissions officers, generally possessing weak quantitative skills, have been tasked by their academic superiors and media monitors with the twin ideological goals of enrolling Jews and enrolling non-whites, with any major failures risking harsh charges of either “anti-Semitism” or “racism.” But by inescapable logic maximizing the number of Jews and non-whites implies minimizing the number of non-Jewish whites.

Post: #94

Not only is Kanal correct to state that many psychological traits are heritable, it's also true that general intelligence (IQ) is one of the most heritable traits. Furthermore, if you look at the demographics of countries, the highest IQ countries (like Singapore, Japan, and South Korea) are at least 95% racially homogenous. So, too, are the lowest IQ countries like Mozambique, Yemen, and Equatorial Guinea.

Once any country becomes extraordinarily racially homogenous, (and once you can prove that it's been that way for a very long time), you can settle the "nature versus nurture" debate by declaring that nature is nurture.

Post: #95

Am I the only one that genuinely enjoys reading these threads?

We should just have one ongoing 'Racial Shitshow Containment Thread' where people argue about this shit and no one gets banned.

Post: #96

(02-12-2017 08:33 PM)iop890 Wrote:  Am I the only one that genuinely enjoys reading these threads?

We should just have one ongoing 'Racial Shitshow Containment Thread' where people argue about this shit and no one gets banned.

It's called the politics subforum. Maybe this thread should be moved there, out of sight.

Post: #97

@ Lucky

Thanks for excerpt. I had read about Unz's musings on possible gentile white discrimination vis a vis Ashkenazi Jews in college admissions, but was kind of indifferent and forgot about it, a bit.

I've never believed in a "Jewish Conspiracy" and still don't. US Ashkenazi Jews consolidate on many on opinions; it's because they're overwhelmingly liberal. Especially because the overwhelming majority of them have no skin in the game.

Since they generally live in nice areas (by virtue of their higher IQs and thus SES), it's statistically not them or their daughters getting blown-up, raped, assaulted, murdered or whatever by "vibrant" minority groups.

Jews have gentile whites to absorb that--if they're not God's Chosen people and white, they're basically asking for it.

To the extent that one may want to counter the viewpoints of PC-Lefitism, that means countering the opinions of many U.S. Jews.

In aspects such as IQ, differences in race far surpass differences in sex in terms of effects (men do not appear to be smarter than women on average; men just appear to have higher variance). If one is to be against PC-lefitsm, racial and sexual egalitarianism are both destructive--with racial egalitarianism more egregious from a statistical standpoint.

There was mentioning of some possible cognitive dissonance with regard to the Black/White IQ gap on this forum, and the Gentile/Ashkenazi Jew IQ gap. I agree with that sentiment.

However, any cognitive dissonance on this forum on the Black/White vs. Gentile/Ashkenazi gap would be paltry compared to that when it comes to racial gaps versus male/female gaps. Men only differ from women when it comes to variance in IQ (if that), but different racial groups often differ from each other in mean.

And when it comes to roughly normally distributed traits such as IQ, differences in mean are much more impact-ful than differences in variance, especially on tails (as I have covered multiple times on this forum).

It takes a lot of hamstering to believe in cognitive differences in distribution between men and women, especially when it comes to IQ, but not between "racial" groups. If this forum treated cognitive differences between races like it did cognitive differences between men and women, many of ya'll would complain it's Worst Than Stormfront. In other words, the forum is already relatively PC when it comes to racial differences, and exceedlingly polite--especially in comparison to any discussion on male vs. female differences.

Lastly, obviously I meant (p >> n) and not (n >> p) in my previous post.

Post: #98

Quote:Grace Murray Hopper GRD ’34, a United States Navy Rear Admiral who made pivotal advances in computer science,

Why is it that whenever they find some woman to celebrate as a genius, it's inevitably in some sort of obscure field where you need a PhD to even begin to understand her contributions?

And for that matter, why is it that White people either roll over whenever Jews complain, OR turn into toxic "Gas the Kikes, Race War Now" idiots? Actually I suppose that's just people in general; binary thinking.

Post: #99

(02-12-2017 09:45 PM)Kabal Wrote:  I've never believed in a "Jewish Conspiracy" and still don't. US Ashkenazi Jews consolidate on many on opinions; it's because they're overwhelmingly liberal. Especially because the overwhelming majority of them have no skin in the game.

Since they generally live in nice areas (by virtue of their higher IQs and thus SES), it's statistically not them or their daughters getting blown-up, raped, assaulted, murdered or whatever by "vibrant" minority groups.

Jews have gentile whites to absorb that--if they're not God's Chosen people and white, they're basically asking for it.

To the extent that one may want to counter the viewpoints of PC-Lefitism, that means countering the opinions of many U.S. Jews.

I don't believe in a Jewish conspiracy.

In a previous post I shared Roosh's review of Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald.

He advances a persuasive theory that Jews are simply working toward beneficial ends for themselves and their group. There is no secret illuminati ensuring Jews get the best positions. That's silly.

Jews have tribal loyalty to one another. They help each other out, even if they don't know each other. Compare this with white gentiles, who feel no intrinsic loyalty to other gentiles. It is easy to see why Jews outnumber gentiles in elite universities and top professions.

If a group is cognitively gifted and loyal to other members of that group, that group will rapidly ascend in an individualist society where other groups don't have such strong tribal loyalty.

I am not making any value judgments for Jews or anyone else. For some, tribalism and loyalty are good. For others, individualism and merit are good.

Post: #100

(02-12-2017 07:39 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Not only is Kanal correct to state that many psychological traits are heritable, it's also true that general intelligence (IQ) is one of the most heritable traits. Furthermore, if you look at the demographics of countries, the highest IQ countries (like Singapore, Japan, and South Korea) are at least 95% racially homogenous. So, too, are the lowest IQ countries like Mozambique, Yemen, and Equatorial Guinea.

Once any country becomes extraordinarily racially homogenous, (and once you can prove that it's been that way for a very long time), you can settle the "nature versus nurture" debate by declaring that nature is nurture.

Demographics of Singapore:
74.1% Chinese
13.4% Malay
9.2% Indian
3.3% Other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore


But then again, what do I know?