The Meaning Of An Olympic Snub

It’s about the Jews!

I am unable to get exercised about the Egyptian judo athlete who would not shake hands with his Israeli competitor.

Playing sports is goyish. Sports plays no role in Torah. While the New Testament is filled with sports metaphors, they are absent from Tanach and from the Talmud.

From a traditional Jewish perspective, a Jew competing in judo is like a black doing physics.

Good sportsmanship is an Anglo thing. I don’t expect non-Anglos to act like Anglos. I expect Arabs and Muslims to hate Jews and for Jews to hate Arabs and Muslims just like I expect the Koreans and Chinese to hate the Japanese and vice versa.

Good manners are a WASP thing. They are a product of island cultures like England and Japan. There’s no Hebrew word for etiquette.

If Jews and Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow and shook hands, Israel would boom and the Arab world would remain backward. How would Arabs live with the shame of being outshone by the Jewish state? It would kill them and they simply do not have the cognitive power to compete. It would take hundreds of years of eugenics for them to catch up to the Yiddishe kup.

So I don’t expect Arabs to simply shake hands with the Jews and accept third-rate status. A self-respecting Arab is going to have some negative feelings about the Jewish state and about Jews in general. That’s why the presence of two million Arabs in the Jewish state does not make Israel stronger.

Diversity usually weakens a country. The more united a nation, the stronger it is. The more cohesive, the less divided, the more effective it will be.

I was just watching the French documentary “Planet FIFA” about how the soccer federation became corrupt when it stopped being run by an Englishman in 1974 and was instead directed by a Brazilian.

I don’t expect Brazilians to be as free of corruption as Anglos. I don’t expect poodles to act like pit bulls and I don’t expect pit bulls to act like pussy cats.

As Maj. Kong put it in a comment at Steve Sailer’s website: “Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization.”

Jews have plenty of reasons to fear gentiles and gentiles have reasons to fear Jews. Different groups have different interests and different abilities. When you bring people or animals from one habitat into a non-native habitat, severe destruction for the native forms of life often results (see Wikipedia’s entry on “invasive species“). This is as true for rabbis in Australia as blacks in America and Muslims in Europe and for the Native Americans and Native Australians when the Europeans invaded.

One reason that Western Europe has a prosperous middle class and Eastern Europe does not, according to one theory, is that at various times, Western Europe threw out its Jews, allowing the natives to take over the middle-class jobs that Jews were doing. Eastern Europe did not throw out its Jews (until the Holocaust, when it killed most of them), and so superior Jewish intelligence meant that Jews dominated the middle-class jobs such as money-lending, doctoring, and running estates.

No group is universally superior or marked out as chosen unless you subscribe to a faith. Otherwise, the world consists of various forms of life struggling to survive and to perpetuate genes. Life is war.

When a professional athlete gets religion, it’s usually bad for his athletic performance (except for Tim Tebow). If Tony Romo, the quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys, were to become born again and a holy roller this season, it would turn off his team, hurt his performance, the Cowboys would win fewer games, but it would be great news for the opponents of Dallas. If Tony Romo were to break his leg today, it would be great news for the teams that play Dallas. What is bad for one group is often great for other groups.

A Jewish state of Israel is great for the Jews, but not so great, perhaps, for America (9/11 would not have happened if the US was not so entangled with Israel) and for Arabs and for Muslims. Arab unity is great for Arabs but lousy for the Jewish state. Japanese homogeneity makes Japan strong but that is not so great for countries that compete with Japan.

A big increase in Muslims in America is great for Muslims but perhaps lousy for everyone else in America.

Jewish power and influence tends to be great for Jews but it is sometimes bad for some non-Jews (just as Christian power and Muslim power tends to be great for those groups but not so great for outsiders). If America had fewer Jews, it might be more nationalistic, more homogeneous, more Christian, and more unified. On the other hand, it would have fewer of the great things that Jews make such as technological advances.

Arabs and Muslims are not backward because they hate Jews. They are backward because they have low IQs. Islam is a low-IQ religion.

Jews and Arabs have fundamental conflicts of interest (just like all groups tends to have conflicts of interest). Jews want a Jewish state in the middle of the Arab-Islamic world. Arabs and Muslims naturally consider this an affront. These conflicts of interest are why the groups hate each other. Most Arabs and Muslims want the Jewish state to disappear and most Israeli Jews want their enemies to disappear.

Donald Templer writes:

The present research found that the Muslim country mean IQ of 81 is half a standard deviation below the mean IQ of non-Muslim nations and is not related to strength of Muslim culture as defined by the percentage of Muslims in the country. The mean IQ of 84 in Arab countries is not associated with per capita income and is incompatible with the intellectual achievements of the golden age of the Muslim Empire. Possible explanations for this decline include hybridization with sub-Saharan Africans, dysgenic decrease in the more educated Muslims employing birth control as suggested by Meisenberg, the Muslim religion not fostering critical thinking, and the intellectual contributions being both exaggerated and made by non-Muslims.

1. Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to compare the mean IQs of Muslim and non-Muslim countries. The great intellectual achievements of the Muslim Empire from the 7th to the 12th century have been written about by numerous authors (e.g., Bloom & Blair, 2000; Lyons, 2009; Masood, 2009). These achievements have been especially noted in science, mathematics, architecture and medicine. However, the contemporary Muslim world is underrepresentated in highly creative contributions published in prestigious scientific journals. Lynn (1991) presented the total number of Nobel Prizes in science, literature, and economics combined with the Fields award in mathematics as a function of five major categories of ethnic origin. Europeans had a total of 541, North East Asians 23, South Asians and North Africans combined 10, Africans one (in literature), and Southeast Asians none. It is apparent that the predominantly Muslim countries are in the bottom three categories. Such a dearth of superlative scholarly achievement is consistent with the Lynn & Vanhanen (2006) Table 6.5 listing of mean IQs of the world’s countries. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, has a mean IQ of 87. If the standard deviation in Indonesia is 15, two standard deviations above the mean is only 117, which probably is not a high enough IQ to obtain a Ph.D. in physics from prestigious universities in high mean IQ countries. Even if mean IQ differences between two countries are modest, the disparity of extremely gifted persons can be huge.

The IQs of the Muslim populations in non-Muslim countries tend to be lower than those of the majority population (Lynn, 2008a). In the Netherlands, the mean IQ of Turks is 83, of Moroccans 81, and Indonesians 94 (Lynn, 2008a). Mackintosh (2007) reported that in the United Kingdom Pakistanis score 4 to 6 IQ points below the Indians. It is unlikely that this can be attributed entirely to minority status. The Chinese are a minority in many countries of the world and yet obtain higher mean IQs than the majority populations. They generate and/or control over half the wealth in Southeast Asian countries. In Indonesia the Chinese constitute 3.8 % of the population and generate/control 73% of the wealth. In Malaysia they constitute 28% of the population and generate/control 69% of the wealth (Lynn, 2008a). Caution should be employed because of the possibility of selective migration.

Special attention is given here to the Arab countries for two reasons. One is to examine the role of the great variation in per capita income. At the high end are Kuwait with $25,314, Qatar with $20,987, and the United Arab Emirates with $20,585. At the low end areYemen with $2,588 and Syria with $2,892. The second reason is to raise for consideration an incongruity between the achievements of the past and the state of the present. The Muslim Empire began in the Arabian Peninsula and the Arabs played a dominant role in its expansion and rise to greatness. Islam did not become established until the 15th century in Indonesia and in what is now Pakistan. The 16 countries regarded as Arab are Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Jews, like any group, find it flattering to imagine that they are hated for being so wonderful. The truth is more prosaic. Groups, including Jews, are hated when there are important conflicts of interest.

Bret Stephens writes in the WSJ:

An Israeli heavyweight judoka named Or Sasson defeated an Egyptian opponent named Islam El Shehaby Friday in a first-round match at the Rio Olympics. The Egyptian refused to shake his opponent’s extended hand, earning boos from the crowd. Mr. Sasson went on to win a bronze medal.

If you want the short answer for why the Arab world is sliding into the abyss, look no further than this little incident. It did itself in chiefly through its long-abiding and all-consuming hatred of Israel, and of Jews.

That’s not a point you will find in a long article about the Arab crackup by Scott Anderson in last weekend’s New York Times Magazine, where hatred of Israel is treated like sand in Arabia—a given of the landscape. Nor is it much mentioned in the wide literature about the legacy of colonialism in the Middle East, or the oil curse, governance gap, democracy deficit, youth bulge, sectarian divide, legitimacy crisis and every other explanation for Arab decline.

Yet the fact remains that over the past 70 years the Arab world got rid of its Jews, some 900,000 people, while holding on to its hatred of them. Over time the result proved fatal: a combination of lost human capital, ruinously expensive wars, misdirected ideological obsessions, and an intellectual life perverted by conspiracy theory and the perpetual search for scapegoats. The Arab world’s problems are a problem of the Arab mind, and the name for that problem is anti-Semitism.

As a historical phenomenon, this is not unique. In a 2005 essay in Commentary, historian Paul Johnson noted that wherever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline almost inevitably followed.

Spain expelled its Jews with the Alhambra Decree of 1492. The effect, Mr. Johnson noted, “was to deprive Spain (and its colonies) of a class already notable for the astute handling of finance.” In czarist Russia, anti-Semitic laws led to mass Jewish emigration as well as an “immense increase in administrative corruption produced by the system of restrictions.” Germany might well have won the race for an atomic bomb if Hitler hadn’t sent Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller into exile in the U.S.

These patterns were replicated in the Arab world. Contrary to myth, the cause was not the creation of the state of Israel. There were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in Palestine in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Lebanon in 1945. Nor is it accurate to blame Jerusalem for fueling anti-Semitism by refusing to trade land for peace. Among Egyptians, hatred of Israel barely abated after Menachem Begin relinquished the Sinai to Anwar Sadat. Among Palestinians, anti-Semitism became markedly worse during the years of the Oslo peace process.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Arabs | Comments Off on The Meaning Of An Olympic Snub

Fox News Keeps It In The Tribe

Shouldn’t we be more subtle about these things?

From The Jewish Week April 9, 2014:

Fox News Honcho In Jest At JCRC

Roger Ailes, the eminence of Fox News, has been coming to the annual benefit dinner of the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) ever since he was guest of honor in 2005. Last week he hobbled into the Pierre Hotel with the aid of a cane, which startled Michael Miller, longtime JCRC executive vice president and CEO.

“Oy vay!” Miller gasped. “It’s his last dinner. Not gonna make it.”

“It’s just a sore leg, Michael,” Ailes assured him. “It’s not life-threatening. You probably missed my recent appearance on Dancing with the Stars.”

You can always depend on the Fox News Channel chairman/CEO to cheer up a sober awards program.

Ailes introduced one of the three honorees, Sharri A. Berg, senior vice president of news operations at Fox News Channel and Fox Television Stations.

“But first,” he said, “I want to acknowledge a few friends here — because I only have a few.” By the mirthful feedback from the audience of 700, you could tell he had more than a few fans in the ballroom.

Berg proved to be one of his most ardent friends. In order to receive a JCRC Corporate Leader Award she must have done something right in her career. Eighteen years ago, when Ailes invited her to join his launch team, she was ecstatic. But instead of immediately accepting the offer, she tried to talk him into giving her more responsibility.

“This is what I need you to do, Berg,” he snapped. “You come here, work hard, do a good job and good things will happen. But I’m a little busy. So I suggest you take the job.” Ever since then, Berg listened to the boss, whom she calls a “courageous and inspiring leader.”

One thing that inspires Berg to honor and respect her heritage through JCRC is an experience from her teenage years. She and her mother were cast in the play The Diary of Anne Frank at their local community theater, Antrim Playhouse in Suffern, N.Y. She has never forgotten how, at the end of the play when the stage turned dark, she heard the increasingly urgent footsteps of the Nazis running up the stairs to the attic.

“My mother and I both stared at each other, bonded. We were frozen, tears in our eyes. We were transported to another place in time, a terrible time, one we must never allow to happen again.”

New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio dropped by and described his two trips to Israel. “It was particularly challenging to see the children’s center in Sderot which resembled a war bunker.” He praised Michael Miller as the best guide you can have in Israel.

“We will use every effort to confront any evidence of anti-Semitism,” the mayor pledged. “We will not accept any such incidents.”

Posted in Jews, Journalism | Comments Off on Fox News Keeps It In The Tribe

Michael Weiss, the Neocon’s Neocon

Anatoly Karlin writes: In terms of content, the Weisses of this world are a dime a dozen. So why “expose” yet another neocon propagandist?

Because he is also very nasty, and very dangerous – as Richard Silverstein’s comprehensive profile of Michael D. Weiss, just published at The Unz Review, convincingly argues.

So far as (functional) psychopathy goes, he really is one of a kind in the world of journalism.

Posted in Neoconservatives | Comments Off on Michael Weiss, the Neocon’s Neocon

Can’t We All Get Along?

Steve Sailer writes: Some of the Soviet Jews eventually bounced from Israel to Los Angeles.

The first Israelis I can recall meeting in Los Angeles were in late 1980. There was an Israeli fighter pilot who competed with Martin Rothblatt for being the most arrogant man in MBA school. And there was an Israeli three man basketball team that started a fight at Valley College over whose turn it was on the court. Their leader tried to headbutt in the face of the Valley Guy who was patiently explaining the local customs to the newcomers.

Comments:

* I first started noticing the arrival of Israelis in the San Fernando Valley when one tried to headbutt a local at a 3-3 basketball game while the local was trying to make the local custom of which team gets to play next.

Comments:

* Once upon a time, ten All-American boys were happily playing basketball at their neighborhood park. One day two newcomers to the neighborhood asked them if they could join them. “Sure” the boys responded and so the game proceeded with the newcomers rotating in.

Then one day the original ten boys showed up to play only to find that the two newcomers were on the court before them. When the ten asked to join in, the two said “Let us finish our game first”. And so they did.

A few days later the same thing occurred but this time, when the two said, “Let us finish our game first”, they added “and we’re playing to a hundred”. By the time the two had played to one hundred, it was dinner time and the original All-American boys had to go home without having gotten to play at all.

This was repeated the next day and the ten boys got very angry and threatened the two with violence. The two boys ran home and the ten got to play their game.

The next day, the two boys showed up with their fathers in tow. Their fathers confronted the ten and told them that if they didn’t share the court equally with their two sons, then they would find themselves in a different kind of court where they would be facing charges of assault and discrimination against a minority. “After all”, they argued, “two is less than ten and twoness must be protected from assimilation by ten lest it become just another member of twelveness and in doing so, lose it’s unique identity as two.”

The boys didn’t understand this argument but did understand the threat of legal action and so they consented to share time on the court equally with the two. And so the two groups alternated days on which they could play.

All was fine until one day the ten showed up to play only to find the two occupying the court with four other complete strangers. “What’s this?” asked the tens, “Today is our day to use the court”.

The twos responded, “Yes, but, now there are others and you must share. The fours deserve their chance to play too. After all, you didn’t build this court. Today is the four’s turn. You come back tomorrow. Even if you don’t like this new arrangement, that’s tough because if you don’t consent we’ll bring our fathers back and they will sue you.”

And so the court was shared between the three groups.

Until one day when the ten were to play and showed up only to find the twos there with a new group of six strangers. The twos presented the same arguments and the four groups were accommodated just as the three had been.

But as time had passed, the ten couldn’t help but notice that the courts had begun to suffer. First, the nets were gone from the goals, leaving just the bare hoops. The area around the court which had at first been green grass, pleasant to sit on between games, became littered with cast off paper and wrappings. This distressed the ten who began leaving signs asking the others not to litter and such. The signs too were defaced.

Eventually the rims themselves were bent down so that they no longer conformed to standard basketball convention. The court was littered not just with paper, but with broken glass from liquor bottles which made it dangerous to play on. One day the ten arrived to find the burned out hulk of a car sitting square in the middle of the court. When they pushed it to one side, they found that the pavement underneath had melted and broken up, making the court in that area undribbleable.

The ten were dismayed to see the destruction of what had been there nice neighborhood play area. They called a meeting with all the other groups but no one else bothered to attend. So, giving up on the others, the ten with their parents spent one of their play days replacing the hoops, nets and picking up the litter. Barrels were provided for trash.

The next week, when the ten arrived to play, they were dismayed to find that the court was a mess again. The barrel, still smoking, had been used as a burn barrel. Broken glass lay on the ground and the nets were hanging in tatters. They left dejected.

When the ten told their parents what had occurred, their parents said, “No problem, we’ll just build a new court elsewhere, where you can play as you did in the old days”. Which they did.

One of the parents had space in the alley behind his garage which would be perfect for a court. A backboard and hoop were erected, debris swept away and the ten boys resumed playing happily.

Then one day, two strange boys approached them and asked if they could join in……

Posted in Basketball, Diversity, Israel | Comments Off on Can’t We All Get Along?

Will Hillary Have A Sister Souljah Moment?

Comments:

* Her commitment to BLM and what it stands for is akin to her commitment to amnesty, unending immigration, acceptance of the “refugees”, and the “Dreamers”: a matter now of established dogma/religion which it is unthinkable to breach.

I don’t see Hillary as being much different from Merkel: as rigid on points of official religion as has been true of the pious across history. I think there a lot more women like this than men, which is why the most devout parishioners, the ones who, say, show up for Mass every day, are far more frequently women than men. Men, on average, give logic and evidence considerably more weight and are less attached to dogma qua dogma. Women tend to feel their way to belief, to be rigid in their commitment, and to punish dissenters more readily and, generally, more severely. (This is the sort of behavior one sees most transparently among feminists–and there is a huge number of feminists. I can’t think of a like movement among men that approaches the same number.)

One will notice that Bill Clinton has been far more prone to going off the reservation on BLM. One might explain that in a variety of ways, but I think an important component is that, as an intelligent man — if generally a cynically calculating one — the pure bullshit of it is sometimes too much to take.

I really doubt that Hillary even perceives the bullshit. She takes the bullshit as coming from somewhere on high, and therefore unquestionable. She was, for example, convinced — probably by that preachy moron Samantha Power — that Arab Spring was coming, that Qaddafi was an Evil Man who had to be killed, that Assad was an Evil Man who had to be deposed. In the grip of this mindset, Hillary stuck to her guns in pursuit of her idea of Righteousness. At least one sign of her fundamental sociopathy in pursuit of Right was that in infamous video in which she joked around about killing Qaddafi. I wonder if to this day she has any real belief that what she did in the ME was a mistake, other than a political one.

More than anything else, what I fear in Hillary is more of the same rigidity and perverse adherence to ideology over any other consideration. Merkel is a good example of how that can turn out, and I see Hillary as coming from the same mold.

As for the question of whether Trump has any chance at this point, I think we need to hang fire and wait it out.

Hillary is obviously winning the fake news, but Trump wins the real news. I doubt we’ve seen the end of Milwaukees, or worse, before the election. And we are certain to see more Orlandos and Nices — the only question is whether they occur before, or after, the election. I suspect the jihadists would just love to get the extra attention that comes with the election season, and would love the possibility of having an impact on that election (even at the expense of getting in someone who would seem powerfully to oppose them).

And there is finally, and with the greatest likelihood, the possibility that WikiLeaks will dump a bunch of documents that will be very destructive to the demonstrably very vulnerable Hillary. The email thing hurt her badly at the time. More of the same and worse of the same will not fail to bring down her numbers.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Will Hillary Have A Sister Souljah Moment?