ADL Criticizes ‘Blue Lives Matter’ Bill That Would Make Police Shootings a Hate Crime

Posted on August 12, 2016 by Luke Ford

You rarely find Jews in any movement that seeks to enhance the rights of the majority at the expense of minorities but you frequently find Jews in movements that seek to enhance the rights of minorities at the expense of the majority.

Forward: A new bill that would make it a hate crime to attack a police officer in New York State has drawn opposition from the Anti-Defamation League, which drafted the hate crime laws now in place in many states across the country.

According to the ADL, the proposed law would make it harder for prosecutors to make cases against people who attack police. In a statement, the ADL’s New York Regional Director, Evan Bernstein, said that the law would be “harmful.”

The bill, proposed in the New York State Assembly by Ronald Castorina, a Republican representing parts of Staten Island, would be among the first nationwide to protect a profession under hate crime laws, which were created to stiffen penalties for crimes motivated by racial and ethnic bias. A similar bill, also opposed by the ADL, was recently signed into law in Louisiana…

Yet the ADL believes that Castorina’s proposal would backfire.

The ADL has led the development of hate crimes statues across the United States for decades. Forty-three states have adopted hate crime laws based on or similar to model legislation that the ADL drafted in 1983.

In a June blog post arguing against the new Louisiana Blue Lives Matter bill, the ADL noted that the inherent weaknesses of hate crime laws would make hate crime cases involving police more difficult to prosecute. Hate crime laws, the group wrote, would require that the prosecutors prove that the defendant attacked a police officer because they were a police officer. Otherwise, the hate crime charges won’t stick.

“That additional intent requirement, which is not included in existing laws covering attacks on police officers, would make prosecutions more difficult, not easier,” the organization wrote.

The ADL also argued in the blog post that including police as a class protected by hate crime laws “confuses the purpose” of hate crime legislation.

Posted in ADL, Police | Comments Off on ADL Criticizes ‘Blue Lives Matter’ Bill That Would Make Police Shootings a Hate Crime

Human Biodiversity: the Pseudoscientific Racism of the Alt-Right

Posted on August 12, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ari Feldman writes for the Forward:

There’s a piece of the “alt-right” puzzle of bigotry you need to know more about: “human biodiversity.”

An ideological successor to eugenics, human biodiversity (HBD) is, like eugenics (from the Greek words for “good” and “breeding”) primarily a euphemism. Ostensibly, HBD refers to the scientifically proven (and therefore apolitical) genetic differences between groups of humans. The term fuses biological and liberal language into a benign-sounding neologism, like “neurodiversity,” a key term within the autism rights movement.

But it is just pseudoscientific racism, updated for the Internet age.

“Human biodiversity” appropriates scientific authority by posing as an empirical, rational discourse on the genetically proven physical and mental variation between humans. It uses the language of genetics to underscore, for example, the prevalence of Mongolians in sumo wrestling, the IQ scores of black people or the inbreeding patterns of Ashkenazi Jews. The refrain of HBD bloggers and forum commenters is that the (gene-driven, according to them) dissimilarities they outline are “non-negligible” or “non-trivial” and have, accordingly, social policy implications. Though it has a rational, policy-wonk zing to it, that’s just Internet forum-ese for “you’re genetically distinct from us and should be treated differently.”

Recently, the conservative “journalist” Milo Yiannopoulos boosted awareness of the HBD proponents when he name-checked a couple of HBD gurus in his article “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.” He brought the term human biodiversity — coined by Steve Sailer in the mid-90s — to a wider audience. Sailer, a blogger for several conservative websites with racial preoccupations, including Taki’s Magazine, the Unz Review and VDARE.com, has said of human biodiversity (in an interview with the H.L. Mencken Club, one of 40 hate groups in Pennsylvania) that it’s both a field of study and a political movement, because it has to “fight for its right to exist.”

The other writers in the HBD community are former journalists, science grad students and a lot of comment-section laymen. Sailer, who founded the Human Biodiversity Institute, maintains a blog at the Unz Review, writing about the dating prospects of Asian men and the inadequacies of gay men and lesbians, among other things.

Reddit hosts a human biodiversity forum, though membership is by invitation only, and the site has flagged the forum as racist. A racist Reddit forum called Coontown runs an online resource dump and lexicon called HBD Bibliography, which is linked with a Twitter account of the same name. (A Redditor with the username TheZizekiest posted an exhaustive, three-part rebuke to the sources compiled by HBD Bibliography on Reddit.) Elsewhere on the Internet, a woman calling herself “hbd chick” runs a wide-ranging personal blog on HBD; she seems particularly consumed by the inbreeding habits of Ashkenazi Jews and the genetic makeup of Europeans.

Though many in the HBD community are Internet autodidacts — people with little to no scientific training who spend their free time learning the scientific argot — some are trained scientists with an expertise in animal biology or statistics. One such writer, Razib Khan, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California-Davis’s Department of Animal Science, has been writing about human biodiversity for many years. He briefly had a job at The New York Times as a writer for its Opinion section, before Gawker reported that he’d contributed to the virulently racist Taki’s Magazine and written to VDARE.com, an anti-immigrant website.

Steve Sailer and other HBD bloggers believe they present an accurate depiction of human genetics — especially population genetics, the study of how gene pools change over time, and behavioral genetics, the study of how genes are expressed. These two fields have been generating controversy for the better part of a century. One of the hallmarks of genetics research is that it produces data that are easy to sensationalize, such as IQ scores of black people (see: “The Bell Curve” controversy) or the supposed Khazarian origin of the Jewish people. In addition to obscuring the actual scientific consensus, these false conclusions have, in the former case, served as a license to discriminate against black people and, in the latter, provided “evidence” for those who say that Jews have no ancestral connection to the land of Israel.

The modern field of genetics has disavowed theories of human behavior that are all nature — i.e., based only on genes — just as sociologists and anthropologists have disavowed theories that are all nurture. The reality is somewhere in-between, where, for example, a genetic predisposition to asthma (more common among Jews) may be worsened by living in smoggy Mexico City or mitigated by moving to Phoenix. The science of that in-between is called epigenetics, the study of the environmental effect on gene expression.

Yet HBD blogs tend to skip the last 25 years of genetics, during which epigenetics supplanted the nature versus nurture debate. Human biodiversity is stuck at the moment when geneticists were able to show that distinct ethnic and geographical populations have distinct genomes and are therefore distinguishable from other groups (albeit under a microscope). The evidence of these genetic isolates is, for the HBD community, evidence of different races…

COMMENTS (heavily censored in favor of political correctness at the Forward.com):

* Isn’t saying race doesn’t exist sort of like saying family doesn’t exist? There’s no obvious hard dividing line for how distantly someone has to be related to you before they stop being considered family. But family is still a useful concept. A race is just a big family, essentially.

* As I’ve been saying since the 1990s, a racial group is simply an extended family, but one that possesses a heightened degree of coherence and endurance by being somewhat inbred.

* Right, the closer two people’s ancestors were geographically, the closer the two people are likelier to be genetically. We would expect this from what we know about the inheritance of genetics and also empirical studies. Doesn’t everyone know this, actually? Didn’t people in Roman times know this?

* “The problem is the adherence to the totem of “race”: It is a word so slippery as to be meaningless…”

You should take up your complaints about the meaninglessness of the word “race” with institutions far more influential than HBD bloggers. The word “race” is used by the U.S. government in the Census to collect vast amounts of data sorted by race; it’s used by the New York Times dozens of times per day; and it’s used in the title of the President’s autobiography: “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”

* This article is almost unreadable. Rather than deal with a pretty big (and old) body of research on race and IQ, you spend most of it blathering about how secret racists in suits and lab coats are trying to trick us into neo-Nazism. The author seems a lot more comfortable attacking people than challenging (or even properly identifying) arguments.

It’s funny how race doesn’t exist until we want to blame whites for something (or everything).

* You’re saying race doesn’t exist because that would be racist. That’s absolutely retarded. Racism is a word invented by the communist Leon Trotsky to shut down dissent among the party. Are you trying to shut down the dissent of the alt-right with “racism” because you don’t like their racial theories.

* I just hope the goyim don’t look into actual pseudo-science, like the founder of modern anti-racism Franz Boas and his “studies” that showed immigrant brains “become American” within a few years, which happened to coincide with his ethnic background and that group’s tendency to support mass immigration to America, which coincided with his personal agenda. I hope they don’t look too hard into his successor Ashley Montagu, real name Israel Ehrenburg, and especially not look too hard into the Marxist political activist posing as a biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, or his deliberate lies about Samuel George Morton’s “scientific racism,” as they now call it since they’ve hounded honest human biologists out of the academy.

* This is just an incredibly terrible article.

You also seem to miss that some of the foremost people working on HBD are black (JayMan) or are real working scientists.

I mean seriously, I know you have to preach colorblind pluralism and “more diversity” for political purposes (except when discussing Israel of course) but this is just ridiculous.

Oh, and I’m Jewish so don’t come at me with that fake anti-Semitism crap. There IS evidence of Ashkenazi inbreeding and higher IQs are nothing to be ashamed of, even if the author of this piece falls a little below our mean.

* Kenyans are long distance runners, West Africans and Jamaicans in particular are sprinters. Of course, I’m probably making this all up, I’m sure Inuits will be winning 100 meter dashes, Zambians will be leading research at the Large Hadron Collider, and Jews will be honest any day now. All established tendencies to this point are surely complete coincidences, which means that you just can’t have nations for European peoples, but remember to keep Israel Jewish. That ethnic group obviously exists and must be preserved on our dime while they spy on us and maintain a secret nuclear program, but the goyim can all just melt into a mocha-colored race of docile consumers.

* As for the Jewish angle:
1. It is not correct that HBD bloggers have a particular preference for the Khazarian hypothesis (which was propagated by Arthur Koestler a long time before). In fact, the Khazarian hypothesis has found the interest of some (mostly Jewish) professional geneticists and has been tested extensively – and this has just been reported by the HBD layman community without much ado and partisanship.
2. Is it really possible, even today, to write an article about gentile racism and completely to ignore the existence of Jewish racism, in particular Jewish racist views about Arabs?

* “Race” is an arbitrary measure of genetic distance. To say race is social construct is like saying “color” is a social construct.

In a sense, it is: we call this wave length “yellow” and this wavelength “blue”; where “yellow” begins and “red” ends, also is somewhat arbitrary. We have different color schemes (RGB or CMYK), etc.

And yet, “color” very much depends on the physical wavelength of light. This is not a social construct.

To say “race”, i.e. genetic distance, like “color”, has no physical basis, that it is a social construct, is imbecilic. Hence the vigorous adoption among the Left.

* I attended university from 1941 to 1946 when the anthropology class I took did not have to be “politically correct”. So the instructor really talked about race! And the “differences” were described! For example, according to this professor, Caucasians have at the end of their nose, a separation between the cartilage shaping the nostrils. Blacks don’t. Blacks have longer arms and legs in relation to their trunk, making them better athletes and dancers. Asians have a distinctive skin structure around their eyes resulting in the almond-shape. And so on. His answer as to “what are the Jews” was that they are an ethnic group!

* Intelligence is about 80% heritable. Genes have been identified that positively correlate with IQ and those genes are not uniformly distributed between races. Enriched environments via exorbitantly expensive government programs fail to raise intelligence. Biological parent’s IQ is a better predictor of a child’s IQ than adoptive parent’s IQ.

Divergent evolution and unequal distribution of intelligence-linked genes explains why Africans never invented written languages, the wheel, a calendar or a system of numbers. It explains why they under-perform as a group compared to whites and Asians, no matter where they are in the world. It explains why Hong Kong and Singapore maintained and improved what colonial powers left for them while Africans destroyed what was left for them.

Where is the evidence that everyone is equal?

* They should put their belief in human equality to the test. Hire wise Latinas and sassy Black women in equal proportion to Whites and Asians in their new Democrat Party cyberwarfare defense commission. Lets see if Black and Brown are a match against the Russian hackers, amirite?

* Running performance correlated mainly to one thing between races, trunk length vs leg length. There are other factors like iliac vs subischial length, speed at which lactic acid is processed and so on, but those are fairly constant among groups of people.

People of sub-Saharan African heritage have the longest leg lengths compared to their trunk lengths, which is why they dominate running sports. Ethiopian highlanders are an especial outlier because of their tendency
to also be barrel chested and have a larger percentage of RBC in their blood, but this is too regional to be called a race.

Caucasians have the longest trunks and shortest legs on average, so they can’t really compete in running sports. But because of the Caucasian trunk size, they can (and do) dominate swimming sports. Most other races have a smaller trunk to leg length ratio. There’s an informal and humorous hypothesis that this came to be because Caucasians were some of the first people to sail seas, invested the most time in doing it at pre-marital ages, and shipwrecked most often…. to the point where the ladies back home only got romanced by teens who could swim back to shore from a shipwreck.

* Tribalists like Feldman have no problem with Race when attacking Whites. The problem for (((them))) is when Whites use race as a positive group identity to advocate for themselves. That’s when the kvetching starts.

* You want policy? How about something akin to Israel for white, non-Jewish Americans — i.e. our own state (country).

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* Anatoly Karlin writes: I wrote the following comment to the Forward article:

“she [hbdchick] seems particularly consumed by the inbreeding habits of Ashkenazi Jews”

I just checked hbdchick’s site and she has 25 posts tagged “Ashkenazi Jews” out of the hundreds she has written.

So I wouldn’t really describe that being “consumed” – at least not any more so than this very publication: http://forward.com/culture/140894/may-you-live-until-120-dna-uncovers-secrets-to-je/

It was removed. Sad!

* “Yet HBD blogs tend to skip the last 25 years of genetics, during which epigenetics supplanted the nature versus nurture debate.”

Whenever you read epigenetics being talked up like this, you know you are dealing with a blowhard and a clown.

They seem to attribute magical qualities to Buzzwords.

* If Ari is mentioning you by name, it won’t be long before Heidi Beirich has you in her sights. She must be lonely now that Lawrence Auster is dead. I expect you’ll be getting one of her disconcertingly frisky emails inviting you to chat with her.

I hope you’ll resist the gentlemanly impulse to keep her correspondence to yourself. It’s an election year and I can use all the laughs I can get.

* Steve, he’s not saying you’re wrong. He’s saying the implications are terrifying to him.

There is no shortage of misguided policy proposals that harp on the pet obsessions of the HBD community. However, at least in the blogs and forums I examined, there was little discussion of what to do with the data of “human biodiversity.”

If you remember, quite a while back, there was a writer [William Saletan] for, I believe SLATE (or Salon?), who had read about biodiversity, and concluded that, scientifically, it had to be true.

His first question about his newfound discovery was “what do we DO with it?”

Shortly afterwards, he was converged upon by not only the Slate readership, but also his editors, and the people who sign his checks. He recanted and apologized.

In debates I’ve had with others personally on the issue, those who give me some consideration have inevitably stared at me with nervous eyes and said “okay, if you’re right, what DO we do with this information?”

If I recall, your response was using it for better social policy for the improvement of the lives of everyone, which… just isn’t enough for them. They need more assurance that it doesn’t end in concentration camps, enslavement of the lessers, or it’s a non-starter, science be damned.

Until a better view of the social outcome of HBD being widely accepted is clear and believable to them, they ain’t gonna play. They’ll play AROUND it, like Ari just did. He’ll give you a little bird whistle, but until you convince him of roses on the other side, he ain’t playin’.

* I dunno, methinks Mr. Feldman understands exactly that HBD is true, and wants to let the Jewish Daily Forward’s readers know so, too. Hence, it is “a piece of the ‘alt-right’ puzzle of bigotry you need to know more about.” Obviously, he can’t say it’s true in the Forward, or that would be another useful footnote for future reference, a la Saletan’s admission of many years ago. In fairness, he does link to you, Razib, and HBD Chick toward the top of the article, which has probably just created a thousand or more new, Jewish HBD realists.

* The Forward seems to cater to people who are highly concerned with genetics and racial/ethnic affiliation.

* Writers like Feldman who laud the benefits of diversity, always fail to show convincingly why it’s such a good thing, other than nebulous reasons of little virtue. Many of us ask the question of diversity, Why? What purpose does it serve? Who benefits? Who loses? Does the good outweigh the bad? What is the greater good from having different peoples and cultures clash? Isn’t it possible that we’ve been through this before – in some past time, some past age – maybe, diversity clashes are why people are spread out to the four corners of the globe, inhabiting a set region for a particular people – Whites in Europe, Yellows in Asia, Blacks in Africa, etc.

I certainly hope that the world doesn’t blend into a turd brown of mediocrity – why, heaven forbid – but this seems to be the ‘diversifiers’ end goal – the opposite of what preach – a world without diversity.

* That same man considers non-binary gender neutral Hebrew “super cool”. Adjust language to ideology.

* I’d like to see that guy explain that races don’t exist to the forensic experts working for the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2004/case/2004_10_case01.htm

“Ancestry was assessed by gross cranial morphology. Craniofacial features (broad face, nasal overgrowth, projecting zygomatics, blurred nasal sill, large teeth, and edge-to-edge bite) are characteristic of an individual of indigenous ancestry, and notably not of African origin (Bass 1995; Krogman and Iscan 1986; Rhine 1990).”

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2001/phillips.htm

“The skull was analyzed metrically to determine the age, race, and sex of the victim. The anatomical features of the skull were determined to be of mixed racial origin, containing Khoisanoid, Negroid, and Caucasoid features (Figure 16).”

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric1.htm

“Forensic examiners differentiate between hairs of Caucasoid (European ancestry), Mongoloid (Asian ancestry), and Negroid (African ancestry) origin, all of which exhibit microscopic characteristics that distinguish one racial group from another.”

* I had to giggle a the pop-up that encouraged me to get “the Jewish take on the news!”. I guess we’re all so much the same that we’re different.

I found it heartening that nobody in the comment section was defending Feldman.

Posted in Alt Right, HBD, Race | Comments Off on Human Biodiversity: the Pseudoscientific Racism of the Alt-Right

Forward: How The Alt-Right Manipulates the Data to ‘Prove’ the Existence of Race

Posted on August 12, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ari Feldman writes:

A group of blogs and Internet forums, led by blogger Steve Sailer, have come together to embrace a successor to the pseudoscientific racist movements of the 20th century. “Human biodiversity” (HBD) is the term they have used to give their particular theories a policy-wonk zing. (Read an in-depth explanation of the human biodiversity phenomenon here.) One of the hallmarks of HBD blogs is the use of data and charts from genetics studies to “prove” their theories. This evidence is culled from articles in the leading journals of population genetics and behavioral genetics, and published by some of genetics’ leading lights. But what does this evidence look like? And, if they’re using cutting-edge research to make their points, does that mean their theories hold some water?

We’ll start with the “evidence” itself. Most often it takes the form of what’s called a principal component analysis. A PCA is able to boil down a data set comprising hundreds or even thousands of dimensions (think the largest spreadsheet you’ve ever seen) into a 2D plot. (Or, depending on the type of analysis you’re running, 3D, or 4D, and so on.) If you do a PCA of a bunch of distinct genomes from around the world, you’ll get something that looks like this:

new-old-world-graph-1470243577

This PCA chart is from an article called “The population genetics of the Jewish people,” by Dr. Harry Ostrer and Dr. Karl Skorecki. Each individual dot represents one genome — one person’s DNA. The chart is just one of several data analysis methods they use for showing the genetic “location” of Jews — somewhere between Middle Eastern and European, as it turns out. The chart also shows, quite clearly, that all three of those populations are rather far away from the cluster of sub-Saharan African genomes.

This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews. The chart is scaled so that differences between groups are enhanced: even though the two groups are far away from one another on the chart, the “distance” represents a very small amount of genetic variance. (And, if this chart included “New World” genomes, you would see much of the empty space taken up with a continuum of African American, Native American, Latino and Caribbean genomes.) Another kind of chart, called a neighbor-joining tree, (similar to a cladogram in evolutionary biology) also shows spatially the amount of variance between the genomes of certain populations, in order to discern the ancestry and descent of the different groups.

Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA). Though a mutation on the scale of a single nucleotide might, for example, significantly increase your risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease, it doesn’t say much about your innate capabilities or faults as a member of a certain “race.”

HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.

COMMENTS (from the heavily censored Forward.com):

* I realize articles like this are just to keep the troops in line–no progressive Jews should read about this genetics stuff and lose belief in the narrative!

But it’s just weird\depressing how folks–certainly intelligent–can stare something in the face and then just spew out nonsense.

This doesn’t, however, mean that sub-Saharan Africans are a different “race” from Jews.

This, of course, is exactly what the graph shows–it shows genetic distance and clumping. The interesting thing is that the clumping between sub-Saharan Africans and Jews (or Europeans or Chinese) is *complete*. There is no overlap. If that isn’t “race” … then the word has no meaning. (It’s essentially disproof of the “race is only skin deep” notion.)

Then this:

Geneticists use charts like these — that scale up, visually, the genetic differences between human populations — because they are interested in tracing the changes and mutations that happen at the level of a single trait, like eye color, or even a single nucleotide (the “building blocks” of DNA).

Well no. The chart is about massive numbers of genes, and hence ancestry and race. It in fact says almost nothing interesting about individuals genes. Something like say an allele to allow adult lactose tolerance could develop somewhere else and end up spreading completely through some other population that was engaged in herding with just some very minimal genetic contact and you’d still have these discrete genetic “clumps”. (Maybe we can replace race with “clump” or “cluster”.)

Then:


HBDers can cite the data all they want: it just simply doesn’t say what they want it to say.

Well sure. It’s one chart. It says nothing about what traits these various “clusters” have–says nothing about IQ, personality traits, disease resistance … anything. All that stuff one has to figure out with more data. But it does tell you that the clusters vary by large numbers of genes and are in fact “clusters” with different genetic profiles. In other words, it shows that there *could* be variation between these clusters in genes with real world impact. What those are and their effects and why they evolved are all topics of HBD discussion.

* Why post this Ari? The Jewish community is suffering from the effects of miscegination in the diaspora. You know it and I know it. We are not the same. To think Jews are on the same level as non-Jews is insulting to Jews everywhere.

* Actually, this posting gives no real exposition of the HBD, nor does it present any logic refuting any hypothesis. It’s more of the “point and sputter” category.

A Principle Components Analysis is a way to find a small number of factors to give a rational explanation to a mass of data. In other words, it’s an attempt to find an explanation. But, there are two criteria that have to be met before a PCA has any validity: it has to explain a significant amount of the differences, and it has to be replicable over different studies. Otherwise, any finding can be simply taking advantage of chance. You can also have external validity, where the derived PCA dimensions correspond with other windows on reality.

The HBD movement attributes a large amount of the group differences in behavior to genetic influence. Where the groups are clearly distinguishable, and the behaviors are clearly differentiated and persistent, the statistical analysis doesn’t have to be very sophisticated. Thus, the high rate of criminal behavior in black populations, as compared to white or Asian. The PCA provides some explanation, but is not necessary for validation.

What do group differences mean? They are not a prescription for treatment of individuals. Instead, they have implications for policy. A high rate of black incarceration does not imply a biased criminal justice system. Similarly, a low rate of black admissions in prestigious universities does not imply a biased admissions system. It simply reflects persistent group differences that are not susceptible to policies or pedagogical approaches.

A recognition of group differences actually allows better uses of resources. Methods of policing and methods of education can be geared to the individual, rather than spending resources trying to achieve equal outcomes for groups that are not, in fact, equal.

Of course, group differences does not mean that there are not injustices in a system. For instance, the police in Ferguson were said to have given out a high number of unnecessary traffic citations which had the purpose of enhancing city revenue rather than maintaining secure streets. This, however, has to be judged on its own merits, rather than a blanket determination that there was a “disproportionate impact”.

* ‘represents a very small amount of genetic variance, [which is irrelevant because it’s small]’

Then you go on to say:

‘Though a mutation on the scale of a single nucleotide might, for example, significantly increase your risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease,’

Right, so genetic variation between races is irrelevant because it’s small, and small variation in genetics can cause as profound phenotypic variations as not having and having Alzheimers.

On the side of your website, there’s an ad run by ‘the albert einstein college of medicine’ inviting visitors to your site to discover the secret of aging, which the ad implies ‘runs in the family’

You better shut that ad down because its invoking genetics to explain a phenomenon related to humans.

* I’m not sure there’s anybody in the HBD community who believes that the mere separation of different groups genetically entails a genetic difference on any particular set of traits. What the genetic separation entails is simply the POTENTIAL for a genetic difference on various traits; genetically separated groups can have occupied different environments, and have been subjected to different selection factors, and so would have a different distribution of genes relevant to a particular trait.

Whether one wishes to call these genetically separated groups “races” is a matter mostly of linguistic convenience, because the underlying facts remain the same.

Despite all his huffing and puffing, I don’t think Mr. Feldman would disagree that the average person of Sub-Saharan ancestry looks rather different from the average Jew or European. That’s a genetic difference, of course, and possible only because of the genetic separation.

The question is, are there other traits, not simply those apparent to the eye, on which, say, the person of Sub-Saharan ancestry differs on average genetically from Jews and Europeans?

Despite all the attempts to pretend that genetic differences between these groups are only skin-deep, nothing in science would distinguish traits such as IQ from skin color or facial/body shape and composition in terms of their susceptibility to differential selection. One can determine whether such genetic differences exist only by empirical investigation.

And people in HBD pay attention to such empirical investigation, unlike, it seems, Mr. Feldman.

Posted in HBD | Comments Off on Forward: How The Alt-Right Manipulates the Data to ‘Prove’ the Existence of Race

Where Are The Latinos On HBO’s Hard Knocks?

Posted on August 12, 2016 by Luke Ford

I watched episode one last night of this new season about the Los Angeles Rams and I rarely saw a latino face.

When the show wanted to present how wonderful and exciting Los Angeles is, they showed beautiful white women.

Posted in California, Football, Los Angeles | Comments Off on Where Are The Latinos On HBO’s Hard Knocks?

Jews, Human Biodiversity and Science

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer is right. Which group sets the Overton Window in America and around the West? Elites with high IQs. Who determines what is acceptable to discuss publicly? Media and academic elites, which are disproportionately Jewish.

Do Jews have a rational reason to fear being seen as different, as aliens? Of course. Such noticing is dangerous for minorities.

The more acceptable it is to notice patterns, to note how people are different, the more gentiles will see Jews as different and that is likely to be uncomfortable for Jews. It’s always easier to fit in with the crowd. Who wants to be pointed out?

Among traditional Jews, of course, in private, there’s no doubting that Jews tend to be smarter than goyim. There’s Yiddish Kup and Goyisha Kup. “That’s goyish” is never a compliment. I asked a friend who works for a billionaire if his boss is Jewish. “What do you think?” he replied.

Unless you subscribe to faith, the world is composed of various forms of life struggling for survival and often having to fight each other to the death for scarce resources such as land, food and water. Anything that gives your group an edge is this struggle is likely to be used. If Jews see reality more clearly than the goyim about group differences (taken for granted by most Jews), they have an edge.

Many Jews I know, particularly the smarter and more affluent ones, have back-up plans if America goes south. They have taken out citizenship in other countries and they’re ready to move (Israel etc).

I never thought America would collapse until I converted to Judaism in 1993 and I started seeing the world differently. I started thinking about the Holocaust and could it happen here and Israel has to be strong and Jews have to be ready to go at any time and the world hates us and will kill us if we’re not smarter and fitter… I took on a tribal outlook.

Jewish author Neil Strauss wrote the book, “Emergency: This Book Will Save Your Life.”

A Jewish friend recently made $5k in a business deal and decided to invest it in ammunition for when the s*** hits the fan. In that dystopian future, bullets will be worth more than their weight in gold. He’s ready to leave for Israel at any time.

Hating the other is normal, natural and to some extent healthy. The world naturally divides into the friend/enemy distinction. Nature has color-coded people so that we can tell at a glance with reasonable accuracy who’s a friend and who’s an enemy.

The stronger your in-group identity, such as Jewish or black or Muslim, the more likely you are to fear and hate outsiders. Social Identity Theory applies equally to Jews and to non-Jews.

Everyone I know back home in Australia is a WASP and none would consider it moral to favor your own kind before others (yet they would all favor their own children before other children).

It took me a long time into my conversion to Judaism to take seriously the constant question — “But is it good for the Jews?”

Steve Sailer writes: In the mid-1990s in the wake of the huge brouhaha over the The Bell Curve (such as the rebellion of the staff of The New Republic against its editor Andrew Sullivan for daring to publish an excerpt), it finally dawned on me what was actually going on.

The rage by intellectuals against scientific discussion of black-white IQ differences was largely an “outpost defense” of what intellectuals really cared about, which was preventing discussion of gentile-Jewish IQ differences.
It’s like how the U.S. military in 19th Century California installed big coastal defense cannons in the Presidio at the Golden Gate, but not because these rocky headlands were all that valuable unto themselves. Instead the strategy was that if the U.S. Army’s coastal guns could keep the Royal Navy, the French, the Russians, the Japanese or whomever from sailing past the chokepoint of the Golden Gate, the Americans wouldn’t ever have to fight over what was really valuable: the magnificent watershed of the San Francisco Bay.

This is the inverse of what SlateStarCodex calls the motte-and-bailey strategy: instead of withdrawing from the economically valuable land to a fortress in the middle and let your enemies ravage your farms, you put the forts out on the edge at strategic chokepoints. When it works, it works spectacularly well: after 168 years of unchallenged defense and, thus, peace, the San Francisco Bay Area may be the richest place on Earth.

Similarly, if nobody is ever allowed to consider that average IQ differences between blacks and whites explained quite a lot about modern America, then it is less likely that an ensuing discussion would ever occur about average IQ differences between gentiles and Jews.

This suggests that the Jewish intellectuals so enraged by public discussion of IQ differences were, deep down inside, less skeptics of IQ science than the truest of the true believers. They assumed that IQ is so overwhelmingly important that if the gentile masses ever were allowed to learn the truth — that Jews tend to be smarter — the moronic peasants would come for this endangered minority with their torches and pitchforks.
…I like having lots of different kinds of human beings to notice.

If, say, Samoans are so heavily represented in the NFL despite their tiny numbers because they tend to be remarkably strong, that’s a good thing. Similarly, if Jews make up a high fraction of theoretical physicists because they tend to be smart, that’s also a good thing.

Thus, the human biodiversity approach offers the one moral perspective that’s not inherently anti-science.

COMMENTS:

* In the same way, all of Political Correctness is built around what might be called the question of Jews.

Imagine a series of concentric circles. “Transgender-whatever” is the defensive ring around “Islamophobia”, Islamophobia is the defensive ring around “homophobia”, homophobia is the defensive ring around “sexism”, sexism is the defensive ring around “racism”, “racism” is the defensive ring around HBD, and “HBD” is the defensive ring around Jews.

This is why “antisemitism” is the highest moral crime, higher than all the rest, because the purpose of Political Correctness is to control speech, and the purpose of speech control is to limit discourse about Jews.

I’m not actually convinced about the “Jews control the world” bit, but if you look at the origins and development of the ideology that became Political Correctness you will find it that it came overwhelmingly from Jews concerned with eradicating antisemitism.

* The irony is that (except for the Orthodox) the Ashkenazi breeding experiment is rapidly coming to an end. In Israel they are mixing with Sephardim and in the US with non-Jews. Now in the US, it’s true that they are not mixing with the riff-raff but with other successful upper middle class people of comparable IQ, but (due to regression toward the mean of the parent population) it’s not going to be quite the same. Maybe Ivanka’s kids will take after their granddad or maybe after his alcoholic brother (one of the secrets of Jewish success is that, while under no religious restriction, they tend not to have a weakness for the bottle) As with species, once the Ashkenazi Jew is extinct, there will be no way to unscramble the omelet.

Steve’s thesis sounds a little too triple bank-shotish for my taste. Occam’s Razor say is that the real reason is that Jews have bought into the “all men are created equal” thing a little too literally – they didn’t think it up. Now, that’s not what Jefferson really meant (to say the least) but its not unusual for immigrants to miss out on the some of the subtleties of their new language or culture. A lot of modern “Jewish” thinking is not very “Jewish” – people who actually practice Judaism (Orthodox Jews) often hold views 180 degrees opposite from “liberal” Jewish/Democrat positions.

* The important question when it comes to Jews isn’t about differences in intelligence – it’s the intellectual / behavioral differences other than just raw brainpower.

As an analogy, if you ignored the 15 point IQ gap the remaining cognitive differences between black people and white people are still huge – and probably more important than the difference in IQ.

* If the goyim would just stop with the pogroms and inquisitions and lynchings and Klan murders and ‘alt-’right echoing and raging antisemitism, maybe the Jews wouldn’t need to be so worried. It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

The world has never been kind to intelligent, creative, sensitive minorities. It’s only natural to take basic precautions.

Of course, ill considered precautions can be ruinous. Just look at Europe where multicultural anti-racism has imported forty million of the most unassimilable anti-Semitic population in the world and the remaining Jews are emigrating at rates not seen since the last batch of Nazi goyim was operating openly in the 1930s.

* Do you really think it is “cool” that both of our major political parties are controlled by the Jews? Do you also think it is “cool” that most of the enemies of Israel are also our enemies even though their ability to harm us is relatively limited? Do you also find it “cool” that most Jews apparently want to use Hispanic immigrants to turn the United States into Northern Mexico? You and I must have very different understandings of the word “cool.”

* Assuming Mr. Sailer’s theory is correct, then our country -and many others in the West- are being subjected (among other atrocities) to irreparable damage by a deluge of largely low-IQ Third Worlders because a cadre of “Jewish intellectuals” suffer from some unfounded paranoia about Gentiles with “torches and pitchforks” coming for them in the night. Have these “intellectuals” ever contemplated what kind of backlash might potentially develop if/when irrefutable DNA evidence showing the reality of biologically-based group differences in IQ is revealed, and as an outgrowth, the Gentile masses then realize the disproportionate role Jews played in suppressing this reality to the immense detriment of the West?

* The goyim largely *have* stopped with that, at least if you count Christians. Trump raises a white nationalist rebellion and all we get are nasty comments on Twitter. Marine LePen’s actually courting Jewish votes. Putin is more interested in going after non-Orthodox Christians than Jews. Sure, there’s the )))alt-right(((, but they don’t seem all that powerful.

I think this all made sense in 1945 but now it has become ridiculous. Cruz is antisemitic for alleging Trump has ‘New York values’, and Trump’s not even Jewish?

I have to say I do not entirely buy Steve’s triple-bankshot theory. The goyim probably figured out the IQ differential somewhere around Nobel Prize #38. I am not in Steven Jay Gould’s head but I have poked and prodded the odd evolutionary biology grad student, and they all knew about this stuff but were keeping it quiet for fear of (a) getting themselves in trouble and (b) encouraging white-black racism.

* I (non-Jew) am not threatened by the mere fact that an individual or group may be smarter than me. Nor if they are richer that me. Being smart and having money are good things. The rub is when the “smart” ones use their intelligence in sociopathic ways which harm me or my people. Or when rich individuals use their money to try to infringe on my natural rights.

What your cited ‘enraged’ Jews are actually concerned about is non-Jews noticing that they are being harmed by policies/actions being pushed, disproportionately, by shrewd activist Jews.

There are limits to chutzpah, though. Spergy types can get addicted like a gambler: “I told them what’s what, shamed them for being intolerant, and they folded! Hah! Next time I’ll be twice as insistent!” Of course, from time to time the constant chutzpah becomes unbearable to the goyish noticers and things may get holocausty.

I think your blog does a good service spreading the word to reasonable, non-spergy Jews that hey, isn’t it better if we all get along? Please don’t push stuff that makes things “disruptive.”

* Just went to West Hunter tonight and there is a audio interview with Greg Cochran by James Miller, who I guess is an economics professor at Smith College. Anyway, during the last quarter or so of the interview Greg mentions that Pinker told him that if he tried to test the Ashkenazi Jewish theory at Harvard he would loss his job and Greg guesses that that is true throughout academia, even in Israel since Ashkenazi Jews are no longer a majority there.

* But the existence of the Flynn Effect suggests that changes in the environment over time seem to have some effect on the more technical types of IQ subtests.

Mostly, the whole world has been getting better at IQ tests at about the same rate. But, we’re finally starting to see some Gap Closing: for example, Lynn recently co-authored a paper showing Saudi Arabia isn’t as far behind in IQ as they used to be.

My guess is that the whole world is getting more information intensive due to Moore’s Law.

* I just got back from dinner in LA with a couple who have talked recently about having those bags ready. A friend’s cousins two miles away actually had bags ready and talked about Australia as their destination of necessity.

* So despite the fact that the Left makes fun of “slippery slope” arguments of the non-Left, they actually believe in it wholeheartedly.

“Oh please, don’t ask don’t tell won’t lead to ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay adoption.’”

“Oh please, gay marriage won’t lead to transsexual ‘rights’.”

“Oh please, transsexual rights won’t lead to ‘normalization of pedophilia.’”

And, of course:

“Oh, please, amnesty won’t lead to ‘replacing your race with another.’”

* The argumentative style of certain Jewish intellectuals brings to mind Waugh’s Lord Brideshead:

“D’you know, Bridey. If ever I thought about becoming a Catholic, I’d only have to talk to you for five minutes to be cured. You manage to reduce what seem quite sensible propositions to stark nonsense.”

Just as Bridey’s convoluted apologetics on behalf of Catholicism made reasonable ideas seem idiotic, public intellectuals like Simon Schama and Cass Sunstein somehow manage to accidentally vindicate Kevin MacDonald in the course of their absurd apologias for liberal Jewish paranoia. Fortunately, I have enough Jewish friends to know that this awkward nonsense is confined to a tiny segment of the chattering classes, but if a man’s only exposure to the Jews was through such self-appointed defenders, it could almost make an Anti-Semite out of him.

* I would say that while maybe 2/3 of Jews are liberal, almost every Jewish organization is 100% hard left on subjects like abortion and immigration. My sister had to give up on the National Council for Jewish Women because she said its agenda was nothing but the Democratic Party platform and it had nothing to do with Judaism or even being Jewish. From the looks of these organizations one would not say Jews are intelligent, one would say they are suicidal.

* Jews are unique in that nobody is asking if transsexual three way marriage is good for the Irish.

* I actually heard an exemplar of this back when WLS-AM hosted Roe Conn. He was talking about Black people problems when a white (apparently) female teacher called in and started talking about their low IQs in school. Conn said: “Don’t go there.” In other words, the man who jestfully talks about having a “Black card” knew the Truth(tm) but moved immediately to shut down the conversation.

* I’m having trouble trying to re-think teenaged, bar-mitzvahed Robert Zimmerman in Hibbing Minnesota as having conceived a lifepath of deep-cover pro-civil-rights disinformation to convince the wretched goyim they’re no better than the shvartza, quickly dumping shiksa Baez to marry Shirley Noznisky… Dylan was always a chameleon opportunist though, so maybe. Do Jews have a word for this game, walking a tightrope of false gentility, setting yourself up as an inspiring but secretly self-destructive role-model?

* Bob Dylan was known for musical ability (if not voice), not common sense. I think he just had the same wooly-headedness as lots of artists. They’re generally not practical people.

* Ready for what? … A Trump presidency? He’s going to round all the Jews up in the railroad stations for transport to the camps–including his grandchildren?

I’ll be near the head of the line, pointing out the damage to Western civilization from Jewish political ideologies, including the stuff that’s so over the top it’s shooting themselves in the foot–like pushing multiculturalism and “tolerance” all the way to “let’s welcome muslims”.

* You have to really hate the dominant society to risk your own safety in order to harm it. It’s on par with blacks who support demographic change, as long as it harms whites, while completely ignoring the fact that they cutting their own noses off.

* Jews are a big factor in the political correctness orthodoxy but they wouldn’t have been able to get very far without their partners in crime: Post-Millennial Puritan type Northwest Europeans. Jewish “zionism for me but cosmopolitanism for thee” agitation wouldn’t take them very far in, say, China or South Korea, let alone India or Iran. They require collaborators among the host population.

* White people are absolutely more ethical. Even it’s because we’re more pussy and more afraid of confrontation, we treat people fairly. I don’t have any stats to back that up, only public school anecdotes. Every other ethnicity seems OK with standing on someone else’s shoulders to reach a little higher, and when it comes down to it it isn’t their problem. Look at white religion. Original sin, turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherent the earth, confession, self flagellation. We care about corruption and nepotism, those things are shameful. It’s considered shameful to live in the family home and take up the family business, that is different than any other culture.

* There are a lot of smart gentiles out there. But Northern Europeans might not skew toward high verbal intelligence as heavily as Jews do.

The fact that Jews are concentrated in the most important cities (New York, Los Angeles) has a lot to do with it, as well. Ethnic networking is a lot more effective when a) you’re all in the same place and b) that place is where the movers and shakers are.

As Steve has mentioned in the past, there’s an awful lot of untapped white gentile talent in the flyover states.

* So, why such sensitivity about black IQ?

1. Blacks are very vocal, and TNR got scared.

2. Jews rely on ‘white guilt’ to control white gentile politics, and it works best if ALL BLACK PROBLEMS are traced back to slavery and Jim Crow, not to biology. If bio-diversity becomes accepted, then ‘white guilt’ will diminish because whites can say black failure is due to genetics, not white ‘sins’.

3. The cult of Martin L King and other black-philia make it bad form to speak of any black inferiority. Reverence is called for. So, Liberals act like Obama is the smartest person in the room. Conservatives act like Thomas Sowell is the smartest man that ever lived.

4. Liberal condescension and affirmative action mentality call for make-believe about black genius. Mary Lefkowicz wrote in NOT OUT OF AFRICA that many of her peers know Afrocentrism is bunk but pretend otherwise because they feel blacks need anything(even myths) to boost their self-esteem.

* The Jews are supposed to be the smartest group on the average. And yet, you picture them as reacting to the old stereotype of advancing their own survival as a group by discouraging the group self-consciousness of other white groups.

Part of discouraging the self-consciousness of other white groups is to promote the group benefits of Muslims, including the promotion of open immigration by Muslims. Islam has a built-in anti-Semitism. Muslim immigrants almost universally make it physically dangerous for Jews to be present. Jews have formal second-class citizenship and ritualized humiliation in even the most stable Muslim countries.

So, the contradiction is, the “smart” Jews are either ignoring the very obvious fact that a Muslim presence is antithetical to Jewish well-being, or else the Jews are acting against their own interests. You can use Steve’s contention that Jews are simply reacting to their gut horror left over from World War II. But, if the Jews are reacting to an obsolete and obviously untrue assumption, then they’re not so smart, are they?

The fact is, at worst, Jews are completely, 100% safe in the US as presently constituted. The Jewish religion and Israel in particular is revered by fundamentalist Christians. So, for Jews to promote Black Lives Matter and open Muslim immigration and interfaith with Muslims is the most blatant form of altruism (denial of one’s own legitimate self-interest).

You simply cannot support the dual propositions that Jews are smarter than the average, and that they are acting out of self-interest. At present, these propositions are contradictory.

* We’re told that opening America’s borders just makes us stronger. We’re told there is no “race.” We’re told that all people are equal and really the same. We’re told that mass immigration from peoples of alien cultures with alien values will not change our culture or political system one iota. For example, importing thousands of Somalis into Minnesota won’t change a thing about those communities, except improve them.

Hence, there is no reason mass non-Jewish immigration would change anything in Israel. To say otherwise is to reveal oneself as a bigot.

This is why I dislike Jewish actions. They advocate tirelessly in to import third worlders into white nations, yet when it comes to their own nation suddenly race/ethnicity *does* matter.

The conclusion is inescapable to me: Jews pursue a strategy of ethnocentrism for themselves whilst undermining ethnocentrism for other nations/groups. All while denying they are ethnocentric in their host nations. A brilliant strategy, for them.

* Yes, on the one hand Muslim immigration is against Jewish interests. Muslims tend to be intensely anti-Jew. It would not be smart to import people who are likely to harm you.

On the other hand, if you buy the premise that a primary motivation of Jews is not to be “othered” as an alien nation in their host countries (which I do) then the apparent contradiction can be reconciled as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

A multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and divided society is far less likely unanimously to finger Jews as the “other” (see Germany 1930s). Hence, Jews are “safer” in such a society.

It’s hard to exclude one ethnicity without the logic being extended to other ethnicities/racial groups. Hence, gotta accept Muslim immigration as part of the multicult package that, in the big picture, “makes Jews safer.”

If the above is true, Jewish advocacy for Muslim immigration is quite smart indeed. A shrewd way to advance Jewish interests, even if there is a bit of collateral damage.

Posted in HBD, IQ, Jews | Comments Off on Jews, Human Biodiversity and Science