August 12, 2016 Forward: How The Alt-Right Manipulates the Data to ‘Prove’ the Existence of Race Luke Ford No sacred cows.

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

Posted on August 12, 2016 by Luke Ford

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:

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

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

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

Did Assange Say Seth Rich Was Killed For Leaking To Wikileaks?

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Did Assange really say that? Or was he saying that actual or potential sources are made antsy by Seth Rich’s murder? Assange might have been hinting that. Or he might have been saying that his actual and potential sources have been made antsy by Seth Rich’s unsolved murder.

COMMENTS:

* Yeah, but no amount of pay compensates for rolling the dice on having the federal government come after you with unlimited resources in order to appease its coalition of the fringes because you were impertinent enough to try saving your life.

The Border Patrol is shedding something like 25-50 agents a week and is down 3K agents and some stations are down 50% in manpower terms. This in spite of being a federal job where your line agent (needing only a high school diploma) makes near 100K -straight pay- and can retire after 20-25 years with a nice bit of money. All well and good until you’re facing federal civil rights violations and murder 2 when you shot a dope mule who tried to bean you with a softball sized rock because some AUSA wants to make a name for herself. Look at how Ramos and Compion got railroaded by Bush appointee Johnny Sutton in the name of “justice”.

There’s a lot of blithe assumptions here that getting hired at a PD/FD, especially a desirable one, is just a matter of putting in your application and being able to do a lot of pull ups. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get an interview as a California fire fighter, or a Malibu County Sheriff’s Deputy? I’m not even talking hired, but just to get a call back to interview? You better know someone or have an amazing resume or both, and impress the interview board when you show up. Assuming you pass the polygraph and the exam, there’s still an academy to go through, and then a probationary period so they can confirm you’re not a fuck up.

In other words, a lot of law enforcement knows the score, and are realizing that things are only going to get worst under Hillary.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Did Peyton Manning’s Dramatic Decline Result From No Longer Doping?

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Likely, the most difficult sports role in U.S. sports is NFL quarterback.

Do PEDs help there?

Probably …

There aren’t a lot of positive drug test results in the NFL so there’s not much evidence to go on.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if a certain quarterback’s physical decrepitness last year was due in part to him deciding he wouldn’t risk tarnishing his legacy by risking anymore getting caught by a PED test in his last season. At his retirement press conference he looked more like a middle manager on the 8am flight to DFW than the thick-necked superstar we were familiar with.

But even though he could barely throw the ball anymore last season, he went out on a winning note, which probably says more about the mental demands of being an NFL quarterback than anything else.

* “I would guess that there are more foreign-born white players in the NBA now than there are American whites.”

I haven’t done the count, but I’m almost certain it’s true.

“However, it would be interesting to have an Olympic team of White American Refugees, composed of boys from Duke, Gonzaga, and a few other outliers, and see what toughness, ball skills, and true teamwork could accomplish against dose supa affletes.”

They would lose, but put up a good fight. The list of best white American players in the NBA goes something like this:
Kevin Love
Gordon Hayward
J.J. Reddick
Ryan Anderson
Chandler Parsons
The Zellers and the Plumlees in some order

Then you get into the Cole Aldrich, Frank Kaminsky, Chase Budinger, Nick Collison, Sam Dekker, Meyers Leonard, Ryan Kelly types. All these guys except Reddick are 6-9 or taller. Who’s playing PG, 35-year-old Kirk Hinrich?

The best internationals, however, if they developed some cohesion, could and would win. Indeed, the Yugos, Spain, Greece, Argentina, Lithuania have all beaten the “Dream Team”. Australia came close yesterday, though of course the two main MVP contenders, Lebron and Curry, are not playing for Team USA.

The idea of an “American” (read: black) vs. “International” (read: white) NBA All-Star Game was raised years ago by Bill Simmons before he was cucked/emasculated by ESPN. Unlike the current All-Star Game, which is essentially a very high level AAU game with nothing at stake, it would generate tremendous interest. They could do pay-per-view and make millions.

The blacks would do everything to avoid the eternal shame of losing to whitey, and the latter would try their hardest to show organization and skill can defeat the inherent athletic and anthropomorphic advantages of West Africans in basketball.

Posted in Football | Comments Off

A Trump Landslide?

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Scott Adams writes: If you have been following this blog since last year, you know I have been saying Trump was playing 3D chess against 2D opponents. And by that I meant Trump was using powerful persuasion techniques while the rest of the field was flailing away with facts, reason, policy details, and other things that don’t change anyone’s mind.

Then, in late spring, at about the time that Bernie Sanders’ flamed out, Clinton ascended to the 3D playing field and stayed there, thanks to help – I assume – from one or more weapons-grade behavioral psychologists who joined the cause. For the past few months both candidates have operated in the third dimension, where emotion and persuasion rule, and facts are irrelevant.

Recently, Clinton has been winning in the third dimension. She abandoned her 2D rational arguments about experience and policies and started hypnotizing voters into believing they have the power to predict the future if they try hard enough. And in that imaginary future, Donald Trump is incinerating the world with nuclear fire because he can’t take advice, or he’s a narcissist, or he’s unstable, or he’s Hitler Version 2.0. This approach is excellent persuasion, and it is working for Clinton….

My prediction from last year – that Trump would win the general election in a landslide – was based on his persuasion advantage. That advantage is largely gone now because Clinton has evidently hired some weapons-grade Master Persuaders and moved to a purely emotional appeal, specifically fear. And it is working.

If nothing changes, Clinton will win in November. But things rarely stay the same. Here are several ways Trump could still win from behind.

1. Voters discover that Clinton has been hiding a major health issue.

2. Wikileaks releases something damaging.

3. Trump over-performs at the first debate, showing the world that he is willing and able to master the issues.

4. Trump makes the case that the Clinton Foundation is really about selling influence to foreign concerns.

5. Trump gives a speech or interview that is so effective in its empathy that he no longer appears to be crazy and racist.

6. A new surprise revelation about Clinton that no one sees coming.

7. Terror attacks push everything else out of the headlines in the final months.

8. Someone assassinates Clinton because of Trump’s 2nd Amendment joke.

Trump still has several ways to win, and at least three of those paths are under his control. But to be fair, we have seen no evidence that Trump is likely to do anything different in terms of style. So don’t count on a personality change.

In terms of persuasion technique, Clinton now has world-class advisors, but Trump still has the advantage of his risk profile. Trump can take bigger risks and go places Clinton wouldn’t dare. So Trump’s persuasion can be stronger if he chooses to increase his risk. Clinton will be more constrained by political correctness.

Posted in America | Comments Off

President Obama Lobbied For This Olympics To Be In Chicago

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* If you think that the Rio Olympics is an unmitigated disaster, just imagine what a total crap show a Chicago Olympic Games could have been. The cost over-runs alone would have been astronomical. Not to mention the total logistics and traffic nightmare along with the usual black criminality mixed in.

It’s said that losing the Olympic bid forced Daley, Jr. from seeking another term or two. If Chicago had won the bid, and he was still mayor, the ensuing fiasco would have made him become more of a complete stuttering, stumbling mess than he already otherwise was.

* Rio has a lot of problems, and they’re showing up at these Olympics, even if NBC isn’t in much of a mood to let us know.

Yet and still, the IOC still thought that all that was preferable to Chicago.

They had a point.

* All of these 426 murder victims will be quickly replaced, net-population wise, with more illegitimate babies born by mothers who have no clue as to how to support a child or raise a human being who will contribute to society’s well-being.

* I’ve lived most of my life in the Chicago area and after recently spending time downtown, including the lakefront, River North, the brand new riverwalk, nearby neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville, Old Town, etc, it’s never seemed as safe, and as “white” to me. In the summer, Chicago is extremely fun and lively.

The violence is occurring a million miles away, in the no-go zones of the South side and the West side. I hardly know anyone who’s ever set foot in those areas.

* Do we know what the development plan was for the Chicago Olympics? Perhaps they were going to plow over the entire South Side. If so, there’d be a lot less crime in Chicago today, which would be whiter, and a lot more crime wherever the South Siders moved to.

* I watched one of this year’s officer-involved-shooting videos–I think it was Alton Sterling–with a Brazilian coworker. He watched, shrugged and said, “Stuff like this and worse happens all the time in Brazil. No one thinks it’s news.”

So, to your point that Rio may still be preferable to Chicago for the IOC, perhaps that is because the police violence necessary to maintain order for an event like the Olympics is unremarkable in Brazil, while it is impermissible in the US.

* Let’s see, there’s been two boxers charged with attempted rape (how one boxer can ‘rape’ two maids is beyond me) one of the torch bearers was shot at, and of course, lots of ruffian-on-tourist action. So far, not the train wreck I was expecting. But they still haven’t had the rowing, sailing or triathlon in that, um, ”water” so who knows. The high dive has been interesting, seems they either couldn’t afford enough chlorine or they don’t know what they’re doing with it.

* When Chicago hosted the World Cup in 1994 the murder rate was twice what it is today. The overall crime rate was higher as well. One of the big news stories from that was about a German radio show that was doing a live remote from the Chicago Loop during the World Cup Games. At least half of the questions from German callers who called in asked if the hosts of the show had armed guards protecting them or if the hosts feared for their lives because of how violent the city was. The feel good part of the piece that aired on local Chicago news programs was that the radio hosts extolled how safe they felt and how Germans in the city were surprised by how much they enjoyed the city. I think that the Olympics in Chicago probably would have been the same. A lot of hype about shootings and attendees to the Olympics not seeing much crime at all. The only exception would have been events that might have been held in places like Garfield Park. But even there the problem might be robberies, not murders. Most of the shootings in the city are from a gang war that has been going on since most of the high rise public housing projects were demolished. This has also increased the crime rate in smaller Illinois cities that some of the residents were sent to. When you hear about a Grandfather who was shot on his front porch or a 6 year old girl being shot, it usually is from a gang banger who is a bad shot.

* Chicago got the Gay Games in 2006. Didn’t that satisfy them?

Posted in Blacks, Chicago, Olympics | Comments Off

JJ: For her directorial debut, Natalie Portman mines her inner Israeli and what it means to be Jewish

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Aside from considerations of faith, what it means to be Jewish/black/Muslim/Japanese is the same — to perpetuate the genes of your people and assist them in perpetuating themselves. As the preamble to the U.S. Constitution states: “For ourselves and for our posterity.” That’s the purpose of life.

No people and no country has a right to exist. Every people, every country, have to establish themselves against fierce competition and defend themselves and when opportunity presents itself, go on the attack to strengthen themselves. If your country and people do not become as strong as possible, they are reducing their chances to survive.

From the Jewish Journal:

“I realized how much Judaism for me was connected to yearning — to wanting what you don’t have — which is maybe why Israel is so complicated emotionally for Jews: It’s built into the emotional structure of our religion to yearn for a homeland we don’t have,” Portman wrote in the Times.
“So then, if we have it, what do we yearn for? We say ‘next year in Jerusalem’ as if we are still in exile. But maybe Jerusalem as an idea is never attainable — so we can keep longing for it, even when we have it.”
Portman’s eloquence on Israel is decidedly uncharacteristic of most of Jewish Hollywood. In good times and bad, Israel is a subject Jewish celebrities tend to avoid, lest they be seen as too tribal, or worse, unsympathetic to the Palestinian cause. But Portman is an exception, and, over the years, she has become a kind of a de facto defender of Israel (when I use this label with her, she laughs), especially in the face of public misconception or outright hostility toward Israel or the Jews. When a video surfaced in February 2011 of Dior chief fashion designer John Galliano spouting anti-Semitic comments in a Paris bar, Portman, then the face of a Dior fragrance, was quick to condemn him.
“I am deeply shocked and disgusted by the video of John Galliano’s comments,” she said in a statement at the time. “In light of this video, and as an individual who is proud to be Jewish, I will not be associated with Mr. Galliano in any way. I hope at the very least, these terrible comments remind us to reflect and act upon combating these still-existing prejudices that are the opposite of all that is beautiful.”
Galliano was subsequently suspended from Dior. Four years later, when The Hollywood Reporter questioned her about the incident, she said she could forgive him, but not his comments. In the same story, she was equally unforgiving of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom she condemned for “racist comments,” which she said she was “very much against.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

JJ: ‘Stephen Miller, meet your immigrant great-grandfather’

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Rob Eshman writes:

Miller’s powerful lines, the ones that really froth the mob, all revolve around immigration. To stoke the emotions, he repeatedly references the brutal murder of Kate Steinle at the hands of an illegal immigrant.
“How many children are dead because of our sanctuary cities?” he asks. “Don’t ever, ever let anyone tell you that you’re not a good person because you want to secure the border!”
And then, playing John the Baptist to Jesus, Miller says, “I have some good news for you, folks, I have some fabulous news.” And he brings on, that’s right, Donald the Savior.
According to a long profile of Miller by Julia Ioffe in Politico, Miller is fast becoming the forward face of the Trump campaign. His former boss, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, said he can’t think of anyone as valuable to a presidential campaign since Karl Rove. When Trump brought Miller on board, Ann Coulter, America’s blondest race-baiter, tweeted, “I’m in heaven!”
But what stopped me short in Ioffe’s report was this biographical tidbit: Stephen Miller grew up in Santa Monica, in a Jewish family.
Cue the record scratch. What? I doubted the Family Miller came over on the Mayflower, and I was positive they weren’t here to greet the boat. Could it be this young anti-immigrant leader is the descendent of immigrants? With the help of attorney and genealogy whiz E. Randol Schoenberg, I had my answer. On his mother’s side, Miller is a Glosser — and you could write a book on the Glossers. In fact, someone did.
For $19.99, I bought the Kindle edition of “Long Live Glosser’s” by Robert Jeschonek, a history of Pennsylvania’s first family of retail.
“Imagine living in a place where armed Cossacks ride through the streets, looking to cripple or kill you,” Chapter 3 begins.
And so it was Wolf Lieb Glotzer and his wife, Bessie, sought to flee “dreary, scary” Antopol, in Belarus. On Jan. 7, 1903, Wolf arrived in New York aboard the German ship S.S. Motke with $8 in his pocket. He was eventually joined by his son, Natan, a tailor, and his brother Moses, who had arrived earlier, having escaped conscription in the czar’s army. On a visit to Uncle Moses, Natan stopped in Johnstown, Pa., and fell in love with the place. He found work as a tailor and soon bought the shop.
You know the rest. Glosser’s expanded. More family, including brother Sam, joined in, and Glosser Bros. eventually grew into a chain of dozens of stores, becoming a beloved part of the community before eventually closing. And so it was: Sam Glosser begat Isadore, whose grandson is, yes, Stephen Miller.
By becoming Trump’s anti-immigrant avatar, Miller demonstrates that in America, truly anything is possible: The great-grandson of a desperate refugee can grow up to shill for the demagogue bent on keeping desperate refugees like his great-grandfather out.
But it’s different now, you say. Miller’s forebears came here legally, and Trump is not about stopping legal immigration.
Well, false. Last week at a rally in Portland, Maine, Trump attacked legal immigration from countries that are “prone to terrorism,” including Somalia, Morocco. Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan.
“We’re letting people come in from terrorist nations that shouldn’t be allowed because you can’t vet them,” Trump said, according to The Washington Post. He warned the crowd of “outsiders pouring into our country.”
(How a Trump administration will handle immigration from Israel, where far more terrorist acts are committed than in Morocco, is anyone’s guess.)
And for Miller to say his family came to America “legally” is simply a ruse. There was no illegal immigration at the turn of the century, because all non-Asian immigration was essentially legal until the 1920s.
Then, as now, angry voices fought to keep these immigrants out. They organized the Immigration Restriction League, focused on shutting the ports to swarthy Italians and Jews.
“The floodgates are open,” wrote one anti-immigrant newspaper editor as the Eastern European Jews docked in New York. “The horde of $9.60 steerage slime is being siphoned upon us from Continental mud tanks.”
Such sentiments led to the Immigration Quota Act of 1924 — which effectively shut the door to Jewish immigration on the eve of the Holocaust.
Miller’s stump speech taps into that same, ever-present strain in the American body politic. But when an American Jew turns on immigrants, there is a whiff of head-scratching hypocrisy, if not something more clinical. It is taking the side of people who, in a historical blink of the eye, would have met your own great-grandparents at the docks with stones and spitballs.
It is taking a fixable problem like immigration reform and making it intractable by stoking anti-immigrant fear and hate, by calling for a ban on an entire religion, by demeaning the sons and daughters of immigrants by race — all things Miller and his boss are doing. The goal of that behavior isn’t to fix a broken system, but to score political points off it.

Regarding this line: “Could it be this young anti-immigrant leader is the descendant of immigrants?” Everybody is a descendant of immigrants because nobody sprouted from the earth.

Wondering why immigrants might not want more immigrants is like wondering why a guy who lands the woman of his dreams might not want other guys taking her to bed.

Let’s take the example of a good Jewish liberal op/ed writer who secured the love and commitment of a wonderful woman. Would he want her sharing her bed with other men and women? If not, why not? If she is great, why keep her all to yourself?

So too if you are an immigrant who made it through the arduous legal process of becoming an American citizen (like my parents and I did), then you may not want American citizenship given to people who came here illegally and you may not want it given to people who are a bad fit (for instance, blacks and Muslims and mestizo Mexicans).

I suspect Rob Eshman lives in a nice home. Why doesn’t he give it up to people less fortunate than himself? Why is he choosy about the type of people he invites over? I am fascinated by leftists who have nice homes and are very selective about who they invite over. Why don’t they live in black neighborhoods? Why don’t they live in Mexican neighborhoods? Why don’t they live in Muslim neighborhoods? No. They always prefer to live in expensive white and east-Asian neighborhoods.

Eshman’s powerful lines, the ones that really froth the mob, all revolve around the evils of racism and yet he practices good racial hygiene in his own life, he chose not to live in a majority black or Mexican or Muslim neighborhood, and what’s more, he — gasp! — practiced eugenics by being very choosy in whom he selected to be the mother of his children.

To stoke the emotions of Jews, Eshman repeatedly references the brutal murder of six million of his tribesmen in the Holocaust at the hands of goyim.

I doubted the Family Eshman came over on the Mayflower, and I was positive they weren’t here to greet the boat. Could it be this aging pro-immigrant newspaper leader is the descendent of racist people who would not marry non-Jews? Well, I never.

By becoming Trump’s pro-immigrant enemy, Eshman demonstrates that in America, truly anything is possible: The great-grandson of people who would not marry non-Jews and an ardent supporter of the Jewish state is bent on maligning those who want the same things for their people.

And for Eshman to say his ancestors refused to marry non-Jews for noble reasons is simply a ruse. It’s racism and racism is bad according to people like Rob Eshman. Being racist is being like Hitler and Trump is Hitler.

From the Robert DeNiro movie, The Good Shepherd:

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something… we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?
Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

Goyim have interests too.

Regarding immigration from Israel, it is not Jewish Israelis who are committing terrorism.

As for illegal immigration prior to the 1920s, there were places like Ellis Island which screened people before letting them through. America was not a country where just anybody could show up. It was a country for white people of good character.

“Most immigrants, illegal or not, come to America to live secure, prosperous lives.”

Well, how are those second, third and fourth generation Mexican-Americans doing? Pretty lousy. Pro immigration Mexican-American intellectual Gregory Rodriguez writes in the New York Times: “In Los Angeles, which has the largest Mexican population in the country, there is no ethnic-Mexican hospital, cemetery or broad-based charity organization.” There’s no college either.

Why does American need immigrants from countries with an average IQ of 90 or less?

Steve Sailer argues that Hispanic immigration is “recreating the racial hierarchy of Mexico” in California:

While upwardly mobile Mexican-Americans marry blonde Anglos, downwardly mobile white men wed Mexicans. Now, there is no doubt plenty to be said for getting hitched to a Mexican lady. They probably tend to make better mothers, homemakers, and cooks than the leggy blonde careerists who, however, are so much more in demand in Southern California. But sadly, there is a big social cost to Anglo-Hispanic marriages—which raises severe doubts about America’s ability to assimilate Latino immigrants. As pro-immigration/pro-assimilation researcher Gregory Rodriguez admits, “Surprisingly, in most homes headed by an Anglo/Latino couple, Spanish becomes the household language.”
Thus, those L.A. blue-collar whites who don’t flee to Utah will tend to assimilate genetically and culturally into Latino culture.

Posted in America, Immigration, Jews | Comments Off

Jewish Liberal Argues That The Book Of Deuteronomy Pronounces Republican Senate Out Of Order

Posted on August 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Did Jewish liberals say the same things when the Democratic-controlled Senate did not want to appoint a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court just before an election? I doubt it.

From the Jewish Journal:

Laura W. Brill is a media law and appellate litigator who writes frequently on legal issues. She served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She writes:

One of the most popularly quoted Torah phrases about justice is “Tzedek, tzedek tirdof,” meaning: Justice, justice shall you pursue.
This is in Deuteronomy 16:20, in a Torah portion called “Shoftim,” meaning “Judges.” Shoftim actually begins two verses earlier, in Deuteronomy 16:18, with a commandment that gets much less attention but that seems every bit as important for people who care about justice: “You shall appoint for you judges and officers in all your gates…”
The obligation to appoint judges doesn’t appear to be optional. We “shall appoint judges.” There is no exception when a president is in his last year of office, or for protecting gun ownership.

Posted in America | Comments Off