What Accounts For Jewish Success?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Cochran figures a 12 point IQ gap fits well with the achievement distributions. Maybe the IQ gap is actually only 10 points and other traits account for the other 1/6th of the achievement gap?

* The key to understanding modern America is to forget about race and religion and look at IQ instead. In raw numbers, Jews are “over-represented” in the elites but if you adjust for IQ, they are just where you would expect them to be. Instead of “Jews” say “high IQ elites” – high IQ elites are disproportionately Jewish but not just Jewish – they are WASP and Asian too. And instead of blacks say “low IQ” and instead of “whites” say “middle IQ”. Modern America is based on a high-low coalition against the middle. The elites provide the intellectual leadership and the low provide the voting masses (in exchange for goodies) and they squeeze the middle to pay for it all.

* IQ plays a huge role but so does geography (Jews are more over represented than IQ alone would predict). Roughly 2/3rds of US Jews live in the Bos-Wash, Chicago, LA, and SF metro areas. 30% live in the NYC metro area by itself. US Jews are a high IQ group (110ish) that culturally values economic/academic success, and they overwhelming reside in premier metro areas where paths toward that success are both highly visible and more numerous. Those two factors lead to the over representation that exists.

By contrast only roughly 16% of US non Hispanic whites live in those metros. The horizons of a smart person growing up in the NYC or SF metro areas is going to be far different than someone growing up in Ohio or Tennessee.

* In addition to IQ there are certain network effects involving certain high profile industries. Just as Cambodians dominate the donut trade, Jews just happened to be in the right place at the right time to dominate the film industry, which has a higher profile than the donut business. Jews are also concentrated in large coastal cities which set the tone for the overall culture and are interested in sending their kids to high profile national universities. There are a lot of high IQ Midwesterners who are perfectly happy attending their flagship state university and then going back home to run their family farm/business/the local bank/ local law firm, etc. and Jews are UNDER represented in those places. Likewise, Jews are underrepresented in certain other businesses – in America they were mostly absent from aerospace/auto manufacturing and other heavy industry (but they were present in light manufacturing – e.g. the garment business). Possibly because these industries were centered in places that the Jews weren’t.

* When it comes to elite college admissions, Jews (and not just Jews but other “plugged in” elites) have an advantage. As I mentioned earlier, many otherwise qualified non-elite whites are just not interested in playing the game to begin with. They will attend their flagship state U, get a fine education and go on to fine careers in their home state.

BUT, even among those who want to attend, coastal elites are especially networked in. There is a whole network of college consultants who will help you to polish your application, tell you what summer internships you should do, maybe get you untimed testing on the SAT, etc. Maybe you know some prof. at that university who will write you a recommendation. Just going to an elite private school is already an advantage – these places remain feeder schools for the Ivies. Worst comes to worst (Jared Kushner) daddy may just make a huge donation and buy you into Harvard. If you are a rich person (Jewish or not) living on the Upper East Side or in some Superzip, there are a ten different angles that you can use to get your kid into an elite college and some parents begin plotting these from the moment of birth.

The average farm family in Iowa doesn’t even know that these things even exist (and if they did, they aren’t in a position to pay for them anyway). Their SAT study advice is “get a good night’s sleep and bring a #2 pencil.” On the other end, you have Asians who are first generation. Their idea of getting an advantage is cramming for a 1600 on their SATs. They (again not being plugged in) don’t understand that Ivy admissions officers LOVE to throw (not all – gotta keep those averages up so you can let in more minorities) Asians with 1600 SATs in the reject pile. Should have started that charity for the children of Rwandan coffee bean pickers – THAT would have impressed the readers, not playing 1st violin in the school orchestra.

Again, ALL coastal elites benefit from this network effect – it’s not just Jared Kushner, it’s Chelsea Clinton too. It just so happens that Jews are disproportionately plugged into this network already.

* Unz makes large numbers of basic factual errors in that article.

Kind of like his multiple attempts to show hispanics don’t have a higher crime rate than whites.

In both cases you get an overwhelming sense he started with his conclusion and looked for any possible justification for it and ignoring any possible contrary evidence.

Sure, antisemitic stereotypes, like stereotypes in general, rarely come out of nowhere. I can go even further and say I agree that Jews are disproportionately responsible for nearly all of the destructive cultural Marxist trends that are ruining America.

The problem with right-wing anti-Semites is even the less nutty ones exaggerate the disproportion, minimize the non-Jewish responsibility, never seek to weigh the damage caused by the cultmarx Jews with the benefits bestowed by others, and wink-and-nood their approval of genocide.

* In a complex transaction, it’s just not true that both sides would be better off if they did not hire a lawyer. We live in a complex world where no two business people have the time or the specialized knowledge needed to enter into a complex transaction. Say you are buying a used car and you have a professional mechanic look at it and talk to the dealer’s mechanic – have you both “lost” because you hired an expert?

Ignorance is only bliss until you find out what it is that you don’t know. Say that two businessmen follow your advice and don’t hire lawyers. Instead they write up some crappy two page agreement on the back of a napkin – I’ve seen it done. At first everything seems great – they didn’t have to “waste” money on legal fees and fight over all sorts of issues that might get covered in a complex contract and will probably never come up anyway. But then, stemming to “bad luck” one of those issues does come up – say you get a letter from the state sales tax people asking you to pay the business’s unpaid sales taxes from 2015. They are telling you that you are liable for this even though you only bought the assets of the business and not the seller’s corporation – they tell you that you should have gotten some kind of clearance certificate and you didn’t know that you were supposed to do this. Or maybe one of the company’s suppliers is saying that there are unpaid invoices and they won’t keep shipping to you unless you pay them. Or maybe someone pulls up with a truck and says they are here to repossess some machine – they show you that they have a recorded security interest on it and you didn’t know that you can look these things up. You don’t even know what a “security interest” is. You open up the 2 page agreement that you did with the other guy and you realize the contract doesn’t say anything about any of these things – you never even considered that they might happen. What do you do now? (That’s when you call me and I tell you that you should have called me BEFORE you signed that contract).

* Yes, Hollywood was great before the Jews ruined it. Mind you, it was just a bunch of orange groves before then, but they were great orange groves.

* Hitler permanently changed the stakes on anti-Semitism, even on American anti-Semitism which was never genocidal (or even close to genocidal). Before the Holocaust, it was possible to be a “polite” anti-Semite and make rational arguments about whether the Jews were in all respects 100% nothing but good for America and all Americans and should be included in every possible sphere (club, private business, etc.). People (especially Jews) might disagree with you but it was a valid (if somewhat controversial) POV. Henry Ford was openly anti-Semitic and remained a well respected figure. Lindbergh too.

But, the Holocaust changed everything for American Jews. They perceived (rightly or wrongly) that “polite” anti-Semitism might lead to the not so polite kind and that the stakes involved potentially were not just membership in golf clubs but literally life and death. Say you have some dandelions in your lawn – you might choose to live with them or fight it with half-hearted measures. But one day you realize that those weeds are not dandelions, they are really poison ivy. Suddenly you are not willing to tolerate them at all, even a little and will do everything in your power to stomp them out.

* Ron Unz: “The problem with dealing with fanatic Jewish-activist types like Gelman and Mertz (and “Lot”)”

* Lot: I am a Christian of a bit less than half Jewish heritage, was raised going to church semi-regularly in small metro areas that were under 1% Jewish and not knowing a single practicing Jew other than a single elementary school classmate. I have never been to Israel, have never been part of any Jewish organization, and know maybe three Hebrew words. I am also not an activist of any sort, though when I was in HS and college I was involved, at a low level, with Republican politics. And I am quite sure that you spend at least ten times the amount of time on these issues than I do, and with far more passion.

Same with Gelman. Looking at his website, there appears to be only a very minor interest in these issues, so low there are no topic categories nor a single reference on the front page to them, while on yours there is an enormous focus on the supposed misdeeds of Israel and Jews. I mean, you just mentioned you listen to Red Ice radio! While I don’t think there is anything wrong in being interested in these issues or writing about them to the extent that you do, it is pretty rich for you to throw around the word “activist” and “fanatic.”

I took (as did Gelman) Unz’s core point to be that there was evidence of the top colleges discriminating in favor of Jews compared to white non-Jews. In fact, the opposite is true, for two main reasons. First, there is a geographic diversity preference that results in an admission bump to the heavily non-Jewish residents of the low-population Western states, plus a few more states that produce few very high scoring students like WV and MS. Second, there is an athletic preference, which is strongest for men’s basketball, football and hockey, but exists to a smaller extent in many other sports.

I have no objection to these preferences by the way, but they both certainly exist, and work against Jews and to an even greater extent Asians in favor of non-Jewish whites.

At least on what I took to be his core point, the sloppy Jew counting, including taking Hillel’s absurd and internally contradictory estimates of Jewish student scares screwed up the rest of the work. As does the idea that you can measure talent at the population level with competitions like IMO and Putnam. You might as well conclude that 90% of the most qualified high school students are South Asian based on spelling bee results. The PSAT presents a better method, but the problem is that being a NMS semifinalist is below what you need to get into the very top schools, and also Unz’s Jew-counting was sloppy or biased there too.

* Ron Unz: I’d guess that roughly 80-90% of high-IQ American whites are non-Jewish.

Lot: Depends on where the cut-off for “high IQ” is. Using your 110 Jewish mean and a 25-1 ratio, at the 160+ IQ level the breakdown will be 64.8% non-Jewish and 35.2% Jewish.

At the 170 level it becomes 54.7% non-Jewish and 46.3% Jewish. And there are still hundreds of Americans at that 170+ level, and they likely are well represented in science Nobel winners and founders of large computer companies.

* Jews maximize the brains that they have and push for success in a way that non-Jews don’t. And, of course, some of their success might be looking out for each other at opportune times.

* I don’t mean to use antisemite pejoratively, and agree it is used too readily. But we do need a word to describe people whose negative opinions on Jews inform a lot of their worldview. You must agree it is a distinct group?

A couple months ago someone objected to the term, and I switched to their preferred “countersemite” without complaint, and have used it a few more times since when I thought it would be preferred.

If you don’t think they almost all wink and nod about the holocaust (while blogrolling those who explicitly approve) you’re either missing not very subtle jokes or we are thinking of different people.

* Sailer: 3-d cognitive skills are less correlated with the g factor than anything else. It’s kind of like in PCs that have a CPU chip and a separate 3-d graphics processor chip.

Posted in IQ, Jews | Comments Off on What Accounts For Jewish Success?

Do Jews Belong In The Alt Right?

Comments:

* The “Alt-Right” is more of a philosophy and an ideology than it is an exclusive membership club. If Jews want to be Alt-Right can anyone prevent them? Can anyone prevent Christians from being Zionists?

* explicitly jewish organizations have done everything they can to antagonize and slander people like mike enoch and white nationalists in general…and on top of that, the tactic actually works…as you have admitted yourself. Resentment over this issue is just rather predictable.

* I’m very weary from the binary thinking of many on the Alt Right. They don’t seem to want any ally who offers a smidgeon of a different perspective, and they are dead-set on pursuing the perspective that is as far-removed from mainstream lines of reasoning as possible. There are plenty of mainstream lines of reasoning to wield as weapons to shift the discussion in favor of white interests and culture, but there are many who prefer the path of marginalization to the path of true Sieg. We must become humble enough to want this victory and stay on the true Kampf of recognizing the reality around us. We can strongly advocate for our interests and refuse to cuck while also not pursuing the path of self-alienation. Sieg heil means nothing without victory.

* The issue is that ‘smidgeon [sic] of a different perspective’ is coming from a hostile out-group. We’re not playing games here Thomas, the survival of our people is the only thing we care about. How it comes off, we don’t really care – so they can offer all the advice they want, we don’t want it.

* Privada Machina Again, this seems like either-or thinking that involves thinking that any attempt to reconcile survival with recognition of the outside world will itself lead to demise. But you don’t know that trying to reconcile to certain aspects of the outside world will lead to demise. It doesn’t seem to be controversial to me to want to have a good message and ethos to present to those who have yet to join the fight for survival. You don’t charge the gates of Mordor until you have had a good recruitment campaign, and our recruitment is not very powerful so far. That means a period of self-reflection to figure out a good recruitment campaign is necessary to ensure the survival of our people and a future for white children.

* When we face any criticism, it is important not to misunderstand the criticism or we won’t be able to understand reality. When I was becoming disillusioned with the Left, I noticed time and time again black activists saying that they didn’t want to hear criticism from their oppressors. This seems to be a phenomenon very similar to the one we face now. I don’t think that any movement insulated from criticism is a good thing, and I think that all movements are capable of spiraling out of reality just as the Left did when they started to dismiss any criticism from a white man.

* I truly value Mr.Ford’s channel. I think that he’s highly entertaining and his ongoing struggle with faith an phenotype is fascinating as it unfolds amidst his livestreams…

I frequently comment underneath his videos, leaving observations I doubt he would often support and he has yet to block me. So I have to give credit. In a culture consumed with status he is remarkably candid and seemingly prepared to indulge in levels of introspection that most of his “fellow Jews” would recoil from…

* Let’s face it Luke, it wouldn’t matter what you said on JF’s stream. As soon as the crowd hears you are jewish and sees your yarmulke, they are going to savage you. It’s not personal. It’s just the nature of the beast. I know I also go hard on you in the sperg chat and my fan cuts, but it is not intended as a personal attack. I use the characters on your shows as foils to bounce ideas off of. I think you are doing God’s work with your streams, but even Jesus had Satan as a scrutineer of his conscience.

Keep your chin up you degenerate Aussie.

* I think there’s a resurgence of traditionalism because at this point in time Whites are learning to reject multiculturalism, and I think the Alt-Right is part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the multiracial societies that they have become over the recent decades. The Alt-Right is at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. Whites are now going into purification mode, and nationalists are resented because of their leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.

* I think the guest who recommended you call others on their motivations is dead wrong. This sort of pop psychoanalyzing and ad hominem – well, ok, it has its place. But its place isn’t you. I think that would be a bad move.

Let others do that if it is to be done. Keep your focus on the things you have been focusing on (and you actually do that *some,* but you don’t let it derail you, and mostly you do it with respect to whether people are letting their views improve their lives or drag them down, which I think has its place).

If that commented wants to engage in that, let him do that. If you do it, it is far more likely to simply backfire. You will lose, rather than gain, receptivity. It will be more difficult, not easier, to attract such people as guests and they will listen to what you have to say even less than they do now.

It would also be a jerk move. In my opinion.

* I was red-pilled when I was 16 and I am currently 18 now. The red-pill has made me an incredibly hateful person against basically everyone. I was raised by a single-mother and have personally seem some of the awful female behaviors that I have learned about from this movement. This has made me very anti-women emotionally although I try to fight this hatred with logic (very difficult to do). I hide my new knowledge/emotions and don’t speak about it, but the hate is always there in the back of my mind. I isolated myself from all my friends because I am too afraid to talk to them about what I know, but I have nothing else to talk about. I tried going to a therapist but she kept pushing me on what my hobbies were and I couldn’t tell her about this movement and what I was learning (so I stopped going). I was a straight A student who was finally losing weight and improving myself, but the red-pill has thrown me into a vicious cycle of depression and anti-social behavior. I don’t regret learning about what I have learned about, but I always wonder what it would be like to be blissfully ignorant again.

* Travis’s songs are always a highlight. For white identity culture to become something coherent rather than a pipe dream, a folk music revival is imperative.

* My girl was sharing some comments on vegan YouTube videos with me…and it’s shocking the kinds of things that vegans and leftists get away with saying.

Outright incitements to violence and property crime, people saying ‘google and Facebook deserve more mass shootings on account of suppressing our views. Next time I hope a man shoots up YouTube because this way he’ll actually kill people.’

I can’t imagine someone getting away with that on an AltRight channel.

They also post videos of themselves breaking into farms and ‘liberating’ animals.

Sometimes, I think they do good work here. They often get tipped off by people who work at these factory farms because the owners are being grossly negligent about how they keep the animals. There are some truly horrifying things that they’ll come across — and to some extent I buy the notion that it’s in the public interest to know that these people are selling diseased, horribly mistreated animals to the public as food…

But, honestly, the fact that they get away with as much of what they do is astounding.
Symptom of how we’re living in a society where a harm-based hyper-feminized infantile pseudo-morality trumps the rule of law.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Do Jews Belong In The Alt Right?

Nathan Cofnas: Kevin MacDonald won’t accept evidence supporting alternative theories about Jewish influence

Here are some of Nathan’s latest tweets:

* Since I think MacDonald’s theory is wrong, obviously I think it has a “non-educative effect” on people who buy into it.

* Setting out to understand Jewish behavior without being committed to distorting the facts to fit a preconceived anti-Jewish theory = legitimate interest.

* I agree. That’s why my argument isn’t that I can find one or two exceptions to MacDonald’s rule. I’m saying MacDonald’s rule doesn’t predict anything.

* I say here that “many educated white nationalists [have become] anti-Semitic.” Ergo anti-Semitism can affect educated people.

* What exactly does MacDonald’s Judaism-as-a-group-evolutionary-strategy theory explain if it’s consistent with Jews being leaders of the most influential anti-liberal, anti-multicultural movements? This is exactly what the DH predicts. Don’t see how MacDonald predicts it.

* Leonard Cohen: “The point is this that peoples, races, bloods have vocations. That people have geniuses. If you don’t believe it then you wipe out the variety and the beauty of the world.”

* I’m satisfied with having made the point that he [Sean Last] didn’t understand my hypothesis, thus didn’t respond to it at all. There are many issues in his video, but most of his misrepresentations aren’t relevant to my original paper.

Nathan Cofnas writes:

Kevin MacDonald now says that his “central goal has been to describe intellectual and political movements that were influential. The participation of individual Jews, such as the Jewish speakers at American Renaissance…, does not make AmRen a Jewish movement, nor does it make it influential.” He says he is only “concerned about where the power lies.”

Editor’s note: Nathan Cofnas is writing about the essay Kevin MacDonald responds to criticism of his theory of Jewish ethnocentrism and influence. Cofnas’s original piece was Analyzing Kevin MacDonald’s ‘Culture of Critique’ and the alt-right’s embrace of anti-Jewish ideology.

Notice the implication: Even if Jews are vastly overrepresented in leadership positions in anti-liberal, anti-multicultural movements (which they are), it won’t matter for MacDonald because these movements haven’t been “influential” and the “power” doesn’t lie with them. This effectively means that he will refuse to accept evidence that supports the obvious alternative to his theory, namely the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews will be overrepresented in all intellectual movements and activities that are not overtly anti-Semitic.

The case of American Renaissance is a good example of how Jews are overrepresented among the whole range of (non anti-Semitic) political movements. AmRen is the only major white nationalist organization that is not anti-Semitic. Jewish involvement in AmRen has gone far beyond the “participation of individual Jews.” Jews were 40% of the invited speakers at its first conference, and many of the most prominent people who have been associated with AmRen have been Jews. There are currently eleven books and pamphlets for sale on AmRen’s website (including three by founder Jared Taylor). Two of these are by Jews: Why Race Matters by Michael Levin, former professor of philosophy at City University of New York, and “The Color of Crime”—probably the most influential AmRen publication—by Edwin S. Rubenstein. (Ironically, Jewish involvement in AmRen seems to have dropped off in recent years in large part due to the increasing influence of MacDonald’s work, which has turned many educated white nationalists anti-Semitic.)

MacDonald says that he “can’t think of any prominent populist Jewish intellectuals.” It’s not clear what he means by “populist” or “intellectual.” Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were both described as “populists,” but I assume MacDonald is referring to a white nationalist populism. If that’s what he means, it’s not clear that there are any prominent populist intellectuals in America today, Jew or gentile.

MacDonald says that “there is a sprinkling of Jews among paleoconservatives.” This is misleading. The term “paleoconservative” was coined by a Jew, Paul Gottfried (whom alt-right leader Richard Spencer described as a “mentor”). As I wrote in my first rejoinder to MacDonald, according to the “Prominent people” section of the Wikipedia entry for “Paleoconservatism,” 1/6 prominent paleoconservative politicians, 1/9 philosophers and scholars, and 1/5 journalists is Jewish. This makes Jews vastly overrepresented among prominent paleoconservatives despite the fact that many self-identified paleoconservatives are (at least implicitly) hostile to Jews. Once again, we find the pattern predicted by the default hypothesis and not predicted by MacDonald.

One final point. MacDonald keeps repeating that the Jews he discusses are “strongly identified Jews.” I have pointed out in both my paper and my rejoinder that, in almost all cases, he has no evidence for this other than the fact that these people were Jewish and (in some cases) spoke out against anti-Semitism, which does not actually prove that someone is a “strongly identified” Jew. For MacDonald, however, it seems that the only reasons to oppose anti-Semitism are that one is a strongly identified Jew, under the control of Jews, or alienated from society because of physical unattractiveness. (He recently offered the following explanation for why Jean-Paul Sartre fought against anti-Semitism: “Sartre was ugly by all accounts and 5-feet tall. No surprise growing up he felt rejected & had low social status. He turns this resentment into philosemitism (Jews are also rejected outsiders), hatred of traditional institutions, & into [the] theory [that] anti-Semitism is psychopathology.”)

In his reply, MacDonald claims that the figures he mentions, who espoused universalism and rejected Jewish nationalism, “often had complex and even self-deceptive Jewish identities.” This is a roundabout way of admitting that these figures never gave any indication that they cared about being Jews. Nevertheless, MacDonald concludes that their apparent apathy was “self-deceptive” because unconsciously they were strongly committed Jews. The practice of reinterpreting obvious counterexamples to a theory as supporting evidence is the essence of pseudoscience.

Posted in Alt Right, Jews, JF Gariepy, Kevin MacDonald | Comments Off on Nathan Cofnas: Kevin MacDonald won’t accept evidence supporting alternative theories about Jewish influence

Chabad Yeshiva Student Kicked And Punched In Crown Heights

From the Forward:

(JTA) — For the third time in three weeks, a person affiliated with the Chabad-Lubavitch movement was assaulted in Crown Heights.

The victim, a 22-year-old yeshiva student, was walking home from the Chabad-Lubavitch headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway in Crown Heights when he was attacked at around midnight on Tuesday night.

The Crown Heights Info news website reported that the victim felt as if he was being followed and crossed the street, only to discover someone coming at him from the other direction as well.

The two African-American assailants punched and kicked the yeshiva student until he managed to break free and run, catching the attention of police officers. One officer took one of the assailants into custody immediately, and another officer chased after the second assailant, catching him two blocks away. Both assailants were armed with knives, according to the report. Both assailants had prior arrests.

The victim, who had fled, called Crown Heights Shomrim, who assisted in putting the victim in touch with police, and offering translating services in Hebrew until police translators were available.

The father of the victim told CrownHeights.info “they didn’t demand anything from him, all they wanted was to hurt him, to take his life,” and added “my son was lucky [that a police officer] who understood Hebrew just happened to be passing by that intersection and saw my son running for his life.”

A Jewish friend says:

>>You’d think the chabad would be realistic enough to move somewhere less colorful

They are right to stay and fight. Their resilience in the face of the early 90s pogrom directly helped lead to the rebirth of NYC. It takes time. But last time they fought for D’Amato, took down Cuomo, and helped Rudy get elected. I would say all three of those pols made significant changes. They rose up and defeated the Jewish Left, essentially. Whatever my qualms with Chabad, and to be clear, I kinda detest them, they are spiritually along with Breslov the Jewish altright. Those two sects move differently than other black hatters or the Modern Orthodox.

The masses sided with Chabad against the NYT and all of moderate liberal Jewry fell into line. Chabad is more powerful than ever although also more tied to the elites than ever. Time will tell, but they are not going to lay down and they are not going to run away.

* Goy: Both you and your friend are correct (while people like dooovid who welcome the vibrant enrichment and think it’s worth the beatings and intimidation and growing violence are wrong). It was great they stood firm in the 90s and standing firm now has some nobility to it.

However, on present trends, you’re incorrect. If people aren’t going to reverse things (and it doesn’t look like we are), the best thing to do is to pack and leave while they still can. “where will be safe?” nowhere will be safe for my people, but yours has a etho-religious state. I think you all should consider moving there, but not for the reasons AltRighters like M. Enoch give, for example, but rather for the reasons FrameGames predicts and wants us to stop.

There’s no sanctuary down here for my people (and all our elites are to blame for that, which includes, of course, Jewish members of the elite, who are a high proportion of that elite, no matter whether they earned it through sheer merit as Cofnes concludes or through the usual ways any elite rises, as Pareto wrote about 100 years ago). Yours has somewhere to go; I am not sure it will thrive on a South Africa of Everything Planet, but best wishes.

Posted in Blacks, Chabad | Comments Off on Chabad Yeshiva Student Kicked And Punched In Crown Heights

I Snuck Into Newsweek

Newsweek story. MP3

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on I Snuck Into Newsweek

NYT: Standing Up at Your Desk Could Make You Smarter

Psychiatrist Richard Friedman writes:

We’ve known for a while that sitting for long stretches of every day has myriad health consequences, like a higher risk of heart disease and diabetes, that culminate in a higher mortality rate. But now a new study has found that sitting is also bad for your brain. And it might be the case that lots of exercise is not enough to save you if you’re a couch potato the rest of the time.

A study published last week, conducted by Dr. Prabha Siddarth at the University of California at Los Angeles, showed that sedentary behavior is associated with reduced thickness of the medial temporal lobe, which contains the hippocampus, a brain region that is critical to learning and memory…

They found that the thickness of their medial temporal lobe was inversely correlated with how sedentary they were; the subjects who reported sitting for longer periods had the thinnest medial temporal lobes.

The implication is that the more time you spend in a chair the worse it is for your brain health, resulting in possible impairment in learning and memory.

What’s also intriguing is that this study did not find a significant association between the level of physical activity and thickness of this brain region, suggesting that exercise, even strenuous exercise, may not be enough to protect you from the harmful effects of sitting.

But what is it about walking — besides increased blood flow to the brain — that might facilitate thinking? Perhaps it’s the fact that you are constantly bombarded by new stimuli and inputs as you move about, which helps derail linear thinking and encourages a more associative, unfocused thought process…

It’s also yet another good argument for getting rid of sitting desks in favor of standing desks for most people. For example, one study assigned a group of 34 high school freshman to a standing desk for 27 weeks. The researchers found significant improvement in executive function and working memory by the end of the study.

Posted in Health | Comments Off on NYT: Standing Up at Your Desk Could Make You Smarter

The Public Space With JF Gariepy – Schools Impose Diversity (4-30-18)

MP3

Comments:

* (((Luke is only half Joo, does he get half parenthesis?

* Luke’s goal is to prove that one a non-biological Jew can be as submersive as a real Jew.

* Thank you Luke, I really enjoy your videos. You ask great questions and are conscientious of history, politics, and philosophy in meaningful ways that help explore the issues of the modern day.

* I just listened to JF talk to Luke Ford, another Jew. It was a fascinating description of why Jews win and whites lose. Ford was explaining him how to be tactical and win but JF rather chooses romantic heroism and certain defeat. Very sad.

* Luke, I admire and envy your ability to stay an intellectual course in the face of so much non-intellectual banter. Your chat is full of toxic alt-righters, likely kids, who want any viewpoint other than simplistic advocacy for AR to be “kicked” or gassed. Youtube is getting blowback from SPLC and ADL about the “gassing” comments so freely exchanged in chat, that this entire online house of cards will collapse. too bad it will take some really fine thinkers down with it. But this is an example of your point yesterday. Given the gift of expression, how do you use it to bring others to your side? By saying “GAS LUKE”, “GAS AL”? Not exactly. As long as 13 year olds make up the shock troops of the AR online , the movement will go nowhere.

* We don’t always agree, Luke, but you were polite and interesting with JF. I think your point was 100% clear to the intelligent viewer. Choose your battles, don’t get emotional and do stupid things to get yourself fired, or your close relationships severed. Because we all know extreme views take easier hold in those whose lives are marginal or damaged, They reach out and say “its not you, its THEM, join us”. when in fact for an idiot who flushes his life and family down the drain, it very much is their fault.

* Good show, you made good points. I have non-substantive constructive criticism though.

JF will only very rarely interrupt and jump in; quite different from most interweb discussions and certainly different from ones you’re used to on your stream or among your community.

Therefore: dude, you gotta pause to let the other person come in some more. Your points were good (if often familiar to those who watch your stuff), but to be a good co-host with JF you have to take a pause and throw it back to him more often than you did.

Like you often do on your own stream when you’re hosting.

It was good but I think people got exasperated a bit, and I imagine JF got exasperated a bit, by the extended monologuing. He did jump in occasionally but normally he does not do that very much (I only watched him a few times but I have noticed this). So it will be up to you to pause and throw it back to him.

I look forward to the next one.

* Al has a sort of manic intensity. He reminded me of the scene in Apocalypse Now, when the photo journalist first meets Captain Willard.

* Going into hostile territory and pushing through, Luke was as nervous as I’ve seen him on JF’s stream yesterday. He has my respect for that, even though I didn’t agree with many of his points of strategy.

There’s an interview that was shot sometime in the 80s on line with a Russian dissident who stated that the ideology he, as a Soviet propagandist, inculcated into Western minds could not be altered by reason. Like addiction, it’s only when they realise that what they’ve been taught is not going to lead to the promised land they rebel. While the process globalism is still in motion most of them cannot be reached. Most of us have tried reason and subtlety to reach liberal colleagues, friends and family to no avail. They simply dig in and demonize the messenger in the process.

* Great job Luke! You did very well. You made excellent points & made total sense. JF is still pretty young. He, & other red pilled young men, may not appreciate the subtlety of your argument, but it’s good you were able to make it. It’s understandable that these folks are eager for change, but anyone with half a clue knows your approach is the way to go.
Hope you get invited back soon. It was a great watch!

* Interesting guest, much better than your previous guests. I’m not really Alt-Right and I don’t really understand the fear of whites disappearing. Here’s the basic facts: From about year 0 to 1600 Europe accounted for from 15 to 20% of the world’s population, so let’s say about 1 human out of 6 was “White”. After 1600 Europeans experienced a population explosion and expanded to the Americas and Australia, and their share of the world’s population peaked at around a third in 1925. At that time you had around 600 to 700 million Whites out of a world population of around 2 billion. Since then the rest of the world has grown much faster. The White population has doubled to around 1.2 billion, but the world’s population has increased to 7.4 billion, so Whites now find themselves back in the 15%-20% range that they were at from year 0 to 1600. The world’s population is expected to peak at around 10 billion around 2100, then slowly decline because of low birthrates. Whites have already begun that process, so there may be around 1 billion whites by the time the population peaks at 10 billion, so Whites will be about 10% of the World’s population. Whites may be only 10% of the world’s population, but that will still be a billion people, which is far from disappearing.

* Wow that’s a great point about competition being the only thing that can raise a student from his slumber. So many intelligent boys in my school were bored and dropped out.

* Great show JF!
Luke is fantastic. His insights are so thoughtful, precise & wise. The AR is in desperate need of all these qualities.

If the AR is concerned about achieving political power & legitimacy, it would benefit enormously from listening to Ford.
He’s unique in that, on one hand, he’s got no skin in the game, yet, on the other, he understands the AR as a dissident movement extremely well.

So, as a smart, engaged, yet neutral observer, his advice & proclamations are rooted in utter honesty.

The AR would do well to listen up & take his analysis seriously.
Bring back Luke as often as possible. Great guest!

* Agree or disagree this was probably the most high IQ discussion in this show so far.

* Luke Ford is like Rachel Dozelal—the sole reason he does not look as stupid as her is that Jews look a tad like whites. He is really a sad individual, going from having a dad who is an academic and christian theologian to working in the porn industry and trying to be a jew..

* At the end I think Luke Ford’s advice is good for most people, but we also need a continuously growing body of people who just come out and say what needs to be said despite what others think, and the silent group needs to fervently support those who speak out on the issues which they themselves cannot.

* Luke’s disingenuous, amoral, Machiavellian “might makes right” mentality is utterly cancerous. First of all, he’s tacitly admitting that if everyone else subscribed to the beliefs that he does, then they would have every reason to destroy the Jews, including him, if they could.Secondly, he is completely undermining the whole idea of nuclear disarmament, and basically encouraging any and all nations to attempt to procure as many nukes as possible. What a psychopath.Us “evil Nazis” are peace-loving flower children and hippies by comparison!

* Is he wrong though? If you’re not completely beholden to the states and allow international corps and bankers to use your country as a playground, you better have a nuclear arsenal.

Nuclear disarmament is never going to happen with the USA.

* Taken from Luke Ford’s amazing interview. Luke Ford is Jewish by the way, and his interview with Richard is the best Spencer interview I’ve ever listened to. At the end of this 2-hour interview, Richard lets Luke know that he’d like Luke to interview him ‘once a year or once every six months.’ I really hope for the latter rather than the former. Luke’s original interview is found here..

Here are some possible topics for tonight’s show:

* I would like to talk about North Korea because I have a perspective I don’t hear often in the MSM. My view is that North Korea is not an independent agent, rather, they do what China tells them to do. When you have a superpower on your border, you don’t get to choose your own foreign policy.

Nukes make a loser country into a winner, at least relative to where they (and especially their leader) would be without them. Contrast and compare the fate of Kaddafi, who gave up his nuke program, with that of the Kims, who held on and now are on the cusp of dominating the Korean peninsula. Wanna be a winnar? Go Nucular! Only fags oppose nukes for their countries. Also, had Saddam gone big on his nuclear program, either he or one of his sons would still be in charge there, and thousands of American lives would not have been lost in a pointless war.

Japan should draw the correct conclusions, and begin to go nuclear as well, in a staged and sensible manner. Missiles and delivery systems first, in parallel with the necessary uranium enrichment and work on building bomb cores, with their assembly last. Saudi Arabia needs to go nuclear, as Iran certainly will sooner or later.
Not to be left out, Egypt too, needs nukes. And, if they are really thinking about the future, Poland. Poland needs nukes and missiles. And Ukraine.

A friend says:

You can take the position that this is a diplomatic breakthrough accomplished only because of Trump’s tough talk. If you want to do this, all you have to do is echo Fox News, Lindsey Graham and Gordon Chang (and others)
Or you can take the position that Kim is doing nothing more than playing for time and playing Trump the same way he or his father played Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Or you can take the position that this is happening because of Chinese pressure on Korea. See Mike Whitney in today’s Unz. This is corroborated by Trump himself who tweeted thanks to China’s president for his help.

I think in any analysis it is wise to consider at least two things: What is in each country’s national interest and to what extent does the personality of that countries leader affect policy.

North Korea is both diplomatically and economically isolated. If Nuclear Weapons are preventing normalization of relations with other countries both diplomatically and economically, and assuming North Korea wants better relations, by agreeing to denuclearize, what can North Korea get. Aside from the fact that Kim wants to survive, and ignoring that his government has been implicated in many criminal activities from drug smuggling to counterfeiting, what is it that the other countries want. There are six that matter: North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Since the leader of the South Koreans, Moon, wants to normalize relations with North Korea, he is willing to (1) sign a peace treaty formalizing the division left in place after the Korean War armistice, have the U.S. Nuclear forces (both land and sea based) moved off of the Korean Penninsula. This is definitely welcomed by the Russians and China as both countries are really close to North Korea (China shares a long border with North Korea) and they don’t like either U.S. offensive nuclear weapons stationed that close and they don’t like the anti missile defense systems (THADD) that the U.S. has in South Korea

President Trump is both susceptible to flattery and a world class flatterer himself. I don’t know how susceptible the Asian leaders are to flattery. My suspicion is that they all (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) take it with a big grain of salt. But Moon is also playing on Trump’s vanity by flattering him by saying he should get the Nobel peace prize.

You have to throw out a lot of other information as well. It appears the North Korean testing site may be ruined and not suitable for conducting future tests. You have a regime (the north) that has been fully demonized as robotically following the siren call of an evil dictator, the closest thing to 1984’s Big Brother that has ever rule. Its fascinating to watch the Western press back off in their anti Kim articles in anticipation of peace with the South and the summit with Trump. What is the truth about North Korea? What is the truth about South Korea? Is it a true democracy, or has the U.S. been pulling the strings since the end of the Korean war. Do those who have been pulling the strings have different agendas than those of Trump?

What do you think Bibi’s bombing of Syria beforehand symbolize? Why did Bibi bomb Syria right before releasing the nuke files?

Some Jews exaggerated Jewish suffering in late 19th century and early 20th century, so when the Holocaust came around, people didn’t believe them. Perhaps Bibi has cried wolf too many times on iran’s nukes? This story has little significance for American interests. If Israel were wiped off the map, America’s strategic interests would not be greatly damaged.

A friend says:

Regarding Israel and Iran. The Iranians are right, the Israelis have been warning that Iran is but months away from an operational atomic bomb for years. Now they claim to have a cache of top secret Iranian documents which appear to show that in 2004 the Iranians had a plan to develop nuclear weapons, plans the Israelis claim the Iranians never gave up.. It is easy for Israel to point to these documents and to name names, even though international inspectors have concluded Iran is abiding by the agreement and the fissionable fuel has been removed from the country. I have to wonder how the Israeli’s obtained this information, and more important than verifying it, how do they know what plans the Iranians are following through with post the Iran treaty deal.

The problem is that the U.S. has two countries, Saudi Arabia and Israel, that for very different reasons want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Even worse they want to prevent Iran from normalizing relationships with other countries to the extent possible. Although the Israelis will fight a war if necessary, and have no compunction about killing even peaceful protestors as a way of sending a message to others, they are very reluctant to engage Iran directly, although they will attack Iranians in Syria. If they attack Iranians in Syria, the Iranians are some what constrained from retaliating by both their Syrian hosts and b y the Russians in the country but if Israel attacked Iran, there is a very large conventional missile threat to Israel from Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.

Not since the war of Independence has the Israeli civilian population had much in the way of casualties inflicted upon them. The Israelis may think that if the U.S. attacks Iran with the intent of taking out Iran’s hardened nuclear development facilities, Iran may not strike back against Israel. But in any event Israel seems ready to subject its population to attack if the U.S. launches an attack on Iran. Perhaps the calculus is as follows: U.S. launches a strike only against identified nuclear facilities. Iran attacks U.S. Navy ships in Persian Gulf, attacks Saudi oil fields and has Hezbollah attack Israeli targets including cities. This then triggers the U.S. to launch an all out war on Iran. There is also the issue of how the Europeans, who don’t want the Iran nuclear deal trashed, and the Russians will react.
Netanyahu keeps saying Iran lied because they claimed they didn’t have a nuclear weapons program when they did, before the deal. He also says work continued on the bomb after the deal under the guise of peaceful uses of nuclear material. I do not know that there is actual proof that Iran was continuing work n a development of a bomb. It looks like most of these documents were locked away for the time when the nuclear deal expired (it was to last 10 years.) In other words despite all the sound and fury, it is not clear that there is really anything new in these documents. There may be and they may prove Iranian perfidy, but based on the articles I have read, I am not sure they reach that point. There is a lot of smoke and a lot of inference, inferences which are easier to believe since Iran has a very repressive, Islamic government.

But Trump’s pulling out of the deal means nothing unless he can reimpose stringent sanctions, something that requires the other signatory’s cooperation. These documents are being released to help the U.S. argue for reimposition of sanctions against Iran.

Fred Kaplan says: “However, the larger message of the archive—and Netanyahu’s briefing—is that the Iran nuclear deal, now more than ever, is worth preserving. Netanyahu pointed to documents suggesting that Iran had plans—he talked of secret documents, charts, presentations, and blueprints—for every aspect of designing, building, and testing nuclear weapons. What he neglected to point out is that the deal gives international inspectors highly intrusive powers to verify whether Iran is taking any steps to pursue those plans.”

Another friend says:

Hey Luke — if people bring up US aid to Israel consider mining this bit for insights.

It’s much cheaper to give Israel ~$3b — 75% of which is earmarked for purchasing military equipment made by men and women in Oregon, Washington state, etc. than it is to have Israel send us a bill for all the sigint and humint that they collect. You lack all perspective.

Essentially, the point is that US aid and weapons are given to Israel, as well as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia in order to draw them into the US military-industrial technology base. This means that they require parts, training, technology upgrades from the United States indefinitely if they want to retain their ability to wage war in the future.

It gives us incredible amounts of leverage over them geopolitically.

Evidence for that? No two countries which are part of our military-industrial technology base have ever gone to war with one another.

This is the premise behind the Carter Doctrine. And it’s what effectively ended Israel’s large scale wars with its neighbors. Wars which were routinely fought every few years between 1948 and the early 1980’s.

The Israeli ultranationalists WANT us to pull the plug on giving aid to Israel in order that they’d have a free hand to deport all the Arabs, drive the Arabs out of Gaza, send tanks over the Jordan river, etc.

They’d finance it by allying themselves with China. They could make $30b a year by turning Israel into the arms factory for Beijing. Let the Chinese leapfrog 30 years ahead of where they are.

But important points are that it’s as much a subsidy for US defense manufacturers since ~80% of the funds are earmarked for purchases of US technology.

That no two countries which depend upon US tech have ever gone to war.

And that the US gives $1.8b to Egypt every year and $1.2-1.3b to Jordan every year.

This is about the same as what the US gives to Israel every year. ~$3b.

It’s a way of keeping them all safely dependent upon us.

* I’d think that Heartiste could offer some insight on why gen Z is having less sex.

Likely the result of female hypergamy in the era of tinder.

Probably more chads juggling multiple broads on tinder, and betas getting the scraps. Possibly also a symptom of higher female obesity.

* You can’t have a love life without having a social life and Americans are less social because of diversity and other reasons.

From Politico:

Too Much Netflix, Not Enough Chill: Why Young Americans Are Having Less Sex
By W. BRADFORD WILCOX and SAMUEL STURGEON

American adults, on average, are having sex about nine fewer times per year in the 2010s compared to adults in the late 1990s, according to a team of scholars led by the psychologist Jean Twenge. That’s a 14 percent decline in sexual frequency. Likewise, the share of adults who reported having sex “not at all” in the past year rose from 18 percent in the late 1990s to 22 percent from 2014 to 2016, according to our analysis of the General Social Survey…

There is certainly a correlation between the rise of smartphones and the decline of physical sex among young adults. The share of young adults who had a smartphone rose above 50 percent in 2011 and has now reached almost total ownership. The surge in smartphone ownership coincides with the marked, recent declines in sex among young adults and teenagers. The evidence is growing that the spread of highly entertaining and diverting technology discourages in-person socializing, including—we think—one of the most fundamental forms of socializing—sex.

Dating has fallen precipitously in recent years, at least among teens, as smartphones and screens have become more popular. In the past 10 years, the share of high school seniors who reported ever going out on dates fell from about 70 percent to approximately 55 percent. We don’t have data for dating among adults, but “socializing offline” is down among them, too. For all the talk about young adults’ “Netflix and chilling,” many young men and women may end up just bingeing on Netflix, not chilling.

Porn is also likely to be a factor. A decent amount of young men’s screen time and attention is devoted to virtual sex rather than the real thing. “A look at shifting attitudes and behaviors from 1973 to 2012 finds porn viewership has increased substantially among young adults,” noted a research team headed by the economist Joseph Price. For those young adults devoted to porn, Twenge speculates, “Why risk rejection, sexually transmitted diseases, relationship arguments or having to meet up with someone when you can watch porn in the privacy of your own bedroom and do things your way?” Pornhub, the leading vehicle for online porn in the United States, saw its viewership rocket from 10 million daily visits in 2009 to 25 million in 2012 to 75 million in 2017.

* Steve Sailer: Upper West Side Parents Not Pleased with Public School Diversity Push

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I think that the problem isn’t racial animus, it’s mental dullness animus. The parents don’t want their kids in with dumb kids where the class will by force of necessity have to be dumbed down and slowed down and most of the teacher’s time spent with the remedial kids.

It would be helpful if someone could quantify this: In that neighborhood what would the average white kid’s IQ be, and what would the effect be of letting the top 25 percent of the poor kids in? What is their average IQ? How would that affect the teaching, exactly? Whatever is wrong with the mental ability of the poor kids, it’s not going to be fixed in the first week of a diverse class, so everyone suffers.

I love the guy who talks about giving $5,000 worth of tutoring to each poor kid, as though that is the problem and things would be equalized. Test tutoring is mostly a placebo even for rich kids, but it would have zero effect on poor kids. You don’t torture naturally poor musicians and athletes by forcing them to take tutoring. This is like gay conversion therapy.

As far as diversity goes, the way it was done in my high school in Los Angeles in the early 1970s was that a few black kids were bussed in, and then everyone was tracked according to his ability in academic classes. You had a few black kids in the smart classes, but mostly they were in the normal classes. The diversity happened on the athletic field, the band, orchestra, choir, and drama classes, home ec and shop, and places like that. You didn’t try to mix people with different brain power in cognitive classes. People made friends in those classes. It left the black kids who were dumb with some self respect, since they weren’t forced into classes where they would not do well, in front of everyone else. Common sense. We no longer have that. Of course we no longer have a lot of these non-academic classes anymore.

* This guy went to University of Arizona, but subsequently did his higher level stuff at — Northern Arizona University. And now he’s running the New York City Public Schools.

* Rich people assume that the policies they apply to the lower classes won’t affect them, and then get to claim moral superiority while their kids are all unaffected because of private schools or things like Manhattan’s school system. If you hang out in a private golf club, your kids go to private school, diversity just means lower greens fees.

* I have been to a few dinner parties where after a few bottles of wine, arguments have broken out over this very school district. Not exactly chair throwing fights, but the Extremely Upper Middle Class Jewish version of chair throwing fights, if such a thing exists.

Basically, my richest friends have bought homes in this Upper West Side District and then virtue signal to their merely affluent friends that they send their children to NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!! because of their commitment to diversity and equity. My friends who live in merely affluent neighborhoods, but not one affluent enough to have excellent public schools, then explode in anger to the accusation that the merely affluent parents are not fully committed to public schooling, diversity and equity because they send their children to Jewish schools or private schools.

Because I have a screw loose in my head, I invariably point out that the most affluent only embrace public school education because they are rich enough to buy into one of the five public school districts in New York City with excellent schools. Stating this obvious truism, then makes me the enemy of everyone and I am not invited to the next dinner party.

* These parents may look rich on paper, from a national perspective, but from a Manhattan perspective their status is probably perilous. If they were Manhattan rich, their kids would be in private schools already. They’ve been walking a tight rope to live in one of the best neighborhoods in America while keeping their kids in good schools; this threatens to knock them off, hence the anger in the meeting.

But this should concern the Manhattan rich too, as these families are the buffer that keeps their neighborhoods as nice as they are.
* How long until the option to send your kids to private schools is taken away? Rich people may have outsized influence. And whites with children may be able to vote out politicians at this point. But those days are coming to a close. Pretty soon angry blacks and Hispanics will be the ones voting out politicians, and I foresee a day when the education of kids is decided by the state, not by parents. Non-white parents will be pissed that whites are able to escape the public schools and will see that the politicians put an end to that by regulating charters more strictly.

The only hope that I can see is that religious schools will be found to be constitutionally protected, and there will be a sudden increase in religiosity (as with so many atheist Jews who send their kids to Jewish schools now).

But what if vouchers are given that can be used at, say, Jewish schools, and black parents want their kids to go there? What if they claim to identify as Jewish? In this day and age, why not?

Once whites are clearly in the minority I foresee a post-Vichy France sort of metaphorical pogrom on whites. It’s going to be very nasty. Want a jury of your peers? They’re all going to be black and Mexican.

* People never mention the damage to White Boys’ self-esteem from sport. NAMs mature earlier & sport is important at that age: they can’t compete on a level.

* And that will be the beginning of the end of the multicultural scheme. You don’t mess with people’s kids. In 1970, desegregation busing seemed like the logical consequence of the civil rights laws, so they tried it, but by 1990 desegregation was a dead letter. Whites were just not going to put up with it, no matter what. They used whatever safety valve they could find to get their kids out of it, usually moving out of the city. Those bused white kids probably constitute the vanguard of the alt right now.

If they try to close all the safety valves with some kind of federal law, it will not be tolerated. It isn’t going to matter whether whites are in the minority. It will not be tolerated.

* Figure that on the Upper West Side the average white kid (some combination of Ashkenazi/WASP/Asian, sometimes all in the same person) has an IQ of around 115. For every one black with an IQ of 115 there are maybe 1,000 white people. In NYC the odds would be a little better – let’s say it’s 50 to 1 (which is an overstatement, but let’s go with it). That would mean 0 or 1 black kids in every elementary school class, not 25%. There just aren’t that many high IQ blacks around. The few that there are, are fought over with scholarships to prestigious private schools looking to boost their diversity credentials. Most of the time they are not even Michelle Obama (American slave descendant) blacks anyway, they are Barack type blacks (half white and raised by white mothers/grandparents or African-African) or Eric Holder black (Caribbean blacks who do everything possible to keep their kids away from the influence of African American culture). But there just aren’t that many of them, not enough to fill 25% of the seats at that elementary school. Not even close.

* Years ago, a friend and I crashed one of those middle-aged, upper class Jewish dinner parties in a Manhattan brownstone. My favorite part of the evening was the look on people’s faces when my friend told them that we became friends in church Sunday school.

* Tony Blair famously wanted to rub the white working and middle classes face in diversity but he pulled strings to get his own children into an all white school in Fulham, one that was miles away from where he was living at the time, Islington. Other members of the Labour Party establishment pulled stings to get their children there too, so that the school was eventually pulled over the coals by the regulators for its policy of keeping out blacks.
Gordon Brown moved to a small all white village in Scotland to endsure his own children attended an all white school, yet he was the one who called a native Engluish woman a bigot for complaining about eastern Europeans driving down wages and overcrowding schools for ordinary working English people.
Harriet Harman was another Labour politician who sent her son to a school far away from where they lived to escape diversity.
Billy Bragg, a folk singer and left wing supporter of multiculturalism lives in Burton Bradstock, Dorset, probably the whitest part of England it is possible to find. Ben Elton, a left wing comedy writer, moved to Perth in Australia to escape diversity
In the USA the Clintons live in the whitest part of the USA. The horror writer Stephen King who fills his novels with racist uneducated white people lives in a neighbourhood that is exclusively white.

* If you can’t afford $15,000 to $40,000 per child for 13 years private school tuition you aren’t wealthy.

NYC jews still have their bizarre attachment to the public school system. Maybe it’s because Bubbe went to Hunter in 1960 when it was still a prestige women’s college right up there with Penbroke, Vassar, Radcliffe etc. now it’s just another black Hispanic low rated city college

Maybe their hatred of Catholicism still keeps them away from the thousands of catholic schools in NYC.

These parents may think they are wealthy. The reporter trying to survive in high cost NYC may think they are wealthy.

But if they can’t afford private school they are not wealthy.

I too would rather live in a beautiful 1900 condo rather than an ugly box of a suburban tract home. But if you’re going to pick beautiful architecture over safety and decent public schools, better provide for public schools and personal security.

I have no sympathy for NYC Whites. They hate the rest of us. The grandparents and great grandparents of these people donated millions to ADl, AJC ACLU and the rest to pay for the lawsuits that destroyed the public school system with hordes of savages

5 percent black kids in a school cause 90 percent of the problems. At 10 percent the destruction starts. At 15 percent it’s all over.

The only thing that can turn around NYC public schools is a mass invasion of Asians and Hispanics. It’s worked in California, even in Watts and Oakland.

Daily Wire:

Samantha Bee’s Husband Fights To Keep Poor, Black Kids Out Of His Children’s School

Jason Jones is not only a former “correspondent” for the left-wing Daily Show, he is also husband to Samantha Bee, one of the leftist leaders of the so-called Resistance Movement against President Trump. Oh, and Jones doesn’t want the city of New York to move his children’s school to a location that would make it more accessible to poor, black kids.

Both Samantha Bee and Jason Jones are wealthy and very white.

According to the Civil Rights Project, New York is not the Liberal Utopia it is advertised to be, at least if you are not white and wealthy. Just like when Democrats ran the South, Democrat-run New York has managed to create the most racially-segregated schools in the country:

New York has the most segregated schools in the country: in 2009, black and Latino students in the state had the highest concentration in intensely-segregated public schools (less than 10% white enrollment), the lowest exposure to white students, and the most uneven distribution with white students across schools. Heavily impacting these state rankings is New York City, home to the largest and one of the most segregated public school systems in the nation.

Slate reports that one of the reasons for this is that in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the most left-wing part of this left-wing state, there is never-ending resistance — if you’ll pardon the use of that word — to opening up predominantly-white schools to under-privileged, minority students.

In other words: these rich, white left-wingers want their schools to remain rich and white.

Posted in Blacks, Diversity, Education, Israel, JF Gariepy, Korea | Comments Off on The Public Space With JF Gariepy – Schools Impose Diversity (4-30-18)

The Best Of Nathan Cofnas

Here’s a selection of his recent tweets:

* Jews tried to be white nationalists. E.g., 40% of the speakers at the first AmRen conference were Jews. But they got chased away by Kevin MacDonald fans. It’s ironic: MacDonald predicts there won’t be white nationalist Jews, and there aren’t that many because of MacDonald.

* As soon as a non-anti-Semitic white nationalist organization was created, Jews showed up and said “We’re here to help.” White nationalists told them to piss off, now complain that Jews don’t support them.

* If white nationalism weren’t anti-Semitic, I think Jews were be intensely involved.

* [Jared] Taylor recently strongly endorsed Identity Evropa, which prohibits Jews from being members. He would never endorse a white nationalist organization that excluded Slavs (or other gentile whites). Jews are now de facto second-class citizens in AmRen even if Taylor says otherwise.

* He did make some more ambiguous statements, too. In any case it’s clear that he’s willing to be allied with open anti-Semites who say Jews should be excluded from white nationalism.

* Jared Taylor never took a clear public stand on Jews. He didn’t expel anti-Semites from AmRen, so it got Nazified.

* I’ve heard several stories about Jews who used to attend but stopped because other attendees were confronting them with Jewish conspiracy theories. Seems clear that they are much less represented among speakers, though I haven’t collected the data on that.

* Also, suppose nannying hurts the majority because the majority doesn’t need it (I agree). What about the minority that does need it? Shouldn’t their suffering also be part of the moral equation?

* I’m sympathetic to libertarianism. But I don’t see why an IQ=80 obese person who can’t understand how to treat his diabetes is better off with unlimited freedom.

* People who subscribe to [Charles] Murray’s position are debating on Twitter but not on television, in major newspapers, in any sociology journals, etc.

Friends writes:

* 1) ‘Excludes jews’ isn’t closed under the ‘endorses’ relation. Not if you have a moral commitment to freedom of association.

2) If there are exclusively Jewish organizations, advocacy groups, etc. it’s not morally legitimate for there to be exclusively gentile advocacy groups?

Sean Last and The Alt Hype made two of their worst videos ever this week.

There were a number of soft spots in Sean and Ryan’s videos that’d be easy to press on. Among them, that there didn’t seem to be a statistically significant difference in the views of Jews and Gentile college educated whites regarding affirmative action as an anti-white policy. It was observably true on the data he was reading off of…but he felt like the better comparison to make would be between Jews and the white average.

Basically everything is interpreted incorrectly. He wasn’t controlling for education, SES, and geography. He needs to do that jointly to test the DH. It’s an hour and a half jam-packed with problems. It would be a big undertaking to go through all of it.

He also didn’t look at Jewish representation in hard Vs soft sciences

Ryan basically says Jews run the cushy science programs like sociology at the end of his video and that they gravitate toward those fields

But we’d have to see how Jewish overrreresentetion in, say, chemistry compares to overrepresentation in gender studies

In order to determine if this is a “Jews gravitate toward subversive soft sciences” thing or just a “Jews are over-represented in all science in general” thing.

Noah Carl writes:

It is often asserted that, when it comes to taboo topics like race, genes and IQ, scholars should be held to higher evidentiary standards or even censored entirely because of the harm that might result if their findings became widely known. There is held to be an asymmetry whereby the societal costs of discussing certain topics inevitably outweigh any benefits from doing so. This paper argues that no such asymmetry has been empirically demonstrated, and that stifling debate around taboo topics can itself do active harm. To the extent that the paper’s argument has force, it cannot simply be taken for granted that, when in doubt, stifling debate around taboo topics is the ethical thing to do.

Posted in Alt Right, Jared Taylor, Jews, Nathan Cofnas | Comments Off on The Best Of Nathan Cofnas

Styxhexenhammer666 Interview (4-29-18)

MP3.

Styxhexenhammer666 is my guest today.

Styx is a prolific Youtube personality with a recent video on this: “Any significant criminal enterprise has the cash needed to pay scientists to replicate DNA in order to plant false evidence. The government could easily craft false evidence to jail dissidents.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Styxhexenhammer666 Interview (4-29-18)

A Time Of Tribalism

Rod Dreher writes:

The book starts by talking about how Americans’ blindness to tribalism as a social and anthropological fact has been disastrous for us overseas. She quotes President Woodrow Wilson saying that “America does not consist of groups” — a statement that was bonkers on its face in a time of legal segregation, among other things. But that was the myth that Wilson wanted us to believe, and that many white Americans wanted to believe. Chua doesn’t say this, but it seems to me clear that in the same way that many liberals today conceal their own racism, and racist policies, from themselves by framing their worldview as “inclusive” and “diverse,” many in the ruling white establishment in Wilson’s day (I don’t think “liberal” or “conservative” in the way we understand the terms makes sense applied back then) told themselves that “America does not consist of groups” as a way to conceal from themselves the ugly facts of discrimination against marginalized Americans.

That was the American ideal, though not the American reality. Chua doesn’t use that to slam America as hypocritical, though. She says that this sentiment represents America “at both its best and its worst.” That is, America aspires to be a nation where loyalty to ideals and principles trumps group loyalty — that is America at its best — but is also a nation where the better angels of our nature are so comely that the cause us to overlook our demons.

A friend says:

It’s funny to read this and realize how ignorant Dreher actually is about real world things. I don’t just mean in terms of looking at things through a racial or tribal lens (which once you do it explains a lot more things about the real world including the voting on the Voice) but on factual things, such as not knowing that Chinese dominated commerce in Vietnam and were resented by the Vietnamese or that Chinese dominate almost all the economies of southeast asia and that gives rise to things like the Malaysian “pogroms” against Chinese merchants a few years back. Of course he fails to pick up on the fact that Amy Chua is herself a descendant of the Chinese diaspora (I think her parents were born in Malaysia) and that she is married to a Jew. Both ethnicities are tribal to an extreme. I don’t know if you read Sailer yesterday, but multiculturalism has brought the caste system along with Indian immigrants, where the Dalits or untouchables are facing very real harassment and discrimination from higher caste Indians in the United States.

One of the things about Dreher is that I like him and I think that he is very open and honest about what he writes. I know that Paul Gottfried for one things his thinking is puerile and has no respect for Dreher. The problem with this post is that it triggers in me the insight attributed to the great physicist Murray Gell-Mann (sometimes called the Gell-Mann effect.) Gell-Man was reading the paper one day and realized the person who was writing the science article knew nothing about what he was writing and was wrong on every point. Gell-Man then extrapolated from this that he shouldn’t trust anything he read in the paper, especially the articles about which he knew nothing since he had no way of judging how right or wrong (or true or false) the article was. So since Dreher considers himself a social commentator, to see how badly he misunderstands both immediate historical events (such as the war in Vietnam; my recollection he was very enthusiastic about Ken Burns’ recent documentary) and what drives competing ethnicities, races, groups etc, it makes me question the wisdom and insight on other things, including his pet project the Benedict Option, or his conclusions about the problems facing the church.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on A Time Of Tribalism