David Stratton’s Stories Of Australian Cinema

David Stratton is the only consequential film critic Australia has produced. His autobiography is called, I Peed On Fellini (“a reference to a drunken attempt to shake Federico Fellini’s hand while using a urinal”).

In his new ABC show, “David Stratton’s Stories of Australian Cinema”, he says: “Like Muriel, I was also an outsider in my own family. The black sheep who loved movies.”

David’s brother Roger: “I don’t think any of the family would describe themselves as cinema lovers. I wouldn’t care less if I never saw another film in my life. Our father who was very interested in sport couldn’t understand how anybody on a nice sunny day would want to go sit in a cinema.”

David: “My father expected me to become a businessman like him. I was heir to the family grocery company but my passion was always cinema.”

Roger: “When David worked at the family’s grocery, he bunked off in the afternoons to go to the movies and there were rows at the supper table over his performance and the position that my father took was that it will never do you any good going to watch movies in the afternoon.”

David: “My escape from the family business came in 1963. The ten pound pom scheme offered cheap passage to Australia provided you stayed at least two years.”

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on David Stratton’s Stories Of Australian Cinema

How Do You Tell A Bloke You Miss Him?

For many people I know, if they were to up and leave their town, they wouldn’t dearly miss anyone they’ve left behind. I find that sad. I can’t imagine it would be the same thing for 90% plus of Orthodox Jews. You just can’t live in an Orthodox community and not form tight bonds with people unless you’re a freak. You can’t live in any Jewish community as a Jew, from secular to Haredi, and not form tight bonds, unless you’re a freak.

I remember one friend of mine missed shul two weeks running and I really missed him but didn’t know how to say that. So I texted him and asked if he would be at shul on Shabbos. He texted back, “Why?” That flummoxed me. I replied, “Have not seen you for weeks.” He replied, “You taking attendance?” I was thrown and got the hell out of that conversation.

When I’ve gone to day yomi (daily Talmud class), when a guy missed one class it was noted by everyone, and if he missed two classes in a row, someone found out what was up.

As a Jew, particularly in a traditional community, you have no doubts that you matter. On a regular basis, you’re needed for a minyan or for security duty or to visit the sick or to donate. I’m sure it is similar for other tight-knit communities, but Judaism has a profound formula for living in community that is unparalleled in my experience.

In gentile life, you usually don’t socialize with people you work with, but in Jewish life, you’re much more likely to be up inside of each other’s lives.

I asked a bloke in rural Australia what was the hottest gossip in town and he said it was about which flowers were in bloom. A Jewish community, by contrast, is usually filled with excitement and passion. There’s always someone getting screwed. Oy, the tumult!

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on How Do You Tell A Bloke You Miss Him?

Bret Stephens: You Didn’t Build That, The Immigrants Who Arrived Today Built That

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Stephens offers a whole new spin on the Warren/Obama ‘You didn’t build that’ spiel.

Not only didn’t the people already in America fail to build that, but it wasn’t even built until those who weren’t even here came and retroactively built it. Got it?

If my construction of this line of reasoning is insane, don’t blame me: I didn’t build that.

* Bret Stephens’ mass deportation, Bill Kristol’s “lazy white, working class” that should be replaced, David Brooks’ and Jennifer Rubin’s “dying white America”…

Do these (((people))) just have no sense of irony or self-awareness? Or is this what having the cultural whip hand looks like: the ability to let your racialist id run wild while implicitly daring anyone to call you on it?

* If that was your self, would you want to be aware of it?

* Schrodinger’s proposition nation. It comes into being when immigrants arrive at it.

* It [is] truly amazing that anti-semitism has never gained a stronger foothold in America. It’s to the credit of the American people.

* David Brooks wrote a book called “The Road to Character” while cheating on his wife with his much-younger research assistant *who helped him write the book*. Self-awareness is not his strong suit.

* Though I remain just as firmly in the anti-antisemite bloc of Sailer commenters (it’s admittedly been a month or two since I’ve been accused of being a closet Jew or Hasbara, but that’s probably because Trump’s sucked up all the oxygen), both parts of this statement are objectively true.

White (ex-)Christian Americans are, by far, in word and deed the most philosemitic non-Jewish people who’ve ever existed, which is remarkable, and it’s very much to our credit, which the bulk of the direct beneficiaries rarely acknowledge or even betray awareness of. (In fairness, in my experience Israeli Jews and ex-USSR immigrant Jews are quite grateful for our friendship and will frequently say so).

Anyway, I’ll admit that Stephens’ piece so enraged me (which, I suppose, was his goal; it’s clearly a troll job) that, with apologies to Mencken and Ace, I was at times tempted to spit upon my hands, hoist the black flag and begin wearing out my “9″ and “0″ keys.

But then, if you showed it to any, Jew or otherwise, of the Goodwhites of Massachusetts, among whom I live, they would simply nod along to the whole thing before the obligatory “like” and “share.” So it’s hard to get angry at Jews in particular, especially since, now that I’m thinking about it, most of the open Trump supporters (which doesn’t describe me outside them and my immediate family; can’t risk getting blacklisted from employment for life) I know in real life are Jews.

* Apparently the United States of America is a teleological enterprise.

Personally, I’d like to thank the incoming hordes for the interstate highway system and the Apollo Program.

* I suppose eventually it will be the people who aren’t here yet are Who We Are. The Congolese, among others, “built that”, are building “that” right now! How can we not let them in?

* America wasn’t really America until we got a bunch of highly intelligent, bookish, neurotic Ashkenazi immigrants who could help us fulfill our promise by tearing down and changing everything we thought we’d built.

Jews, man, is there anything they can’t do?

MORE COMMENTS:

* I was under the impression that Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were, as the phrase goes, native-born…..That must be one of the lies that my teacher taught me….

Perhaps we should retroactively strip Hamilton of his citizenship? After all, he didn’t seem to “get it”:

“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

“The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] The Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

* “Anti-Semitism” (that is, criticism of Jews) can only have one cause: the mental illness of Gentiles.

* Written like a true Jew, open doors, pro-diversity, except for Israel.

* Of course as a highly ethnocentric Jew and Israeli it’s not surprising that Bret Stephens sides with the “newcomers” in certain circumstances – Jews in Palestine, Jews in Emma Lazarus land or non White immigrants to the USA.

* What Bret’s proposing, basically, is to manage America like Jack Welch managed GE: cull the bottom 10% of deadwood every year.

* Next they came for the journalists and editors, which was kind of apropos seeing as they’ve had the megaphone since before 1968.

* What if Americans, without being fed the agitprop bile stew cooked up non-stop by Stephens and his native-hating coethnics, understood that it was Stephens who didn’t get their idea of America as a homeland for themselves and their “posterity”?

Can they make Stephens and his ilk “get out” and go back to (the) Jerusalem (Post)?

* Imagine a Michael Moore-style propagandistic documentary that intercut scenes of Brett Stephens, Alex Nowrasteh, and Jennifer Rubin talking about immigration and foreign policy with scenes of carnage overseas from our pointless wars and carnage here from the heroin epidemic, illegal alien DUIs, etc.

* As a history buff, I cannot think of any parallels (at least in the western world) for certain modern trends. This level of craziness is entirely new. Has it ever happened before in history that the ruling class of a nation actively sought to kick out their fellow citizens and replace them with newcomers? Forget for a moment that Stephens likely considers himself first a Jew and then an American; his attitude is shared by rich gentiles who also despise non-wealthy whites (the undeclared target of Stephens’ article). Unfortunately, I can foresee Stephens’ proposal becoming the enlightened view within academic circles in a couple of years and the official position of the Democratic Party in a decade or so. If you think that I am an alarmist, think about how transgenderism evolved from marginal odd behavior in the late 90s to the most important civil rights issue of our times. A large segment of the population in the West has decided to commit cultural suicide; these people are succeeding and see those who oppose their objectives as their enemies.

* Our country is so damn precious that they have to remake it. You know, like how they repaint the Mona Lisa every year.

Do these people listen to themselves?

* Is there anything else that so effectively misdirects or eradicates noblesse oblige than a hostile takeover of journalistic and academic life, a hijacking of the entire opinion-shaping, issues-setting, history-writing, virtue-defining apparatus by Stephens & Co.?

* Journalists are now in a stage where they’re giddily seeing how far they can go. After the shooting Huffington Post had to delete an article seriously calling for Trumps execution.

I’m not so sure how much of it is conscious (journalists are from the fat part of the curve), but at some level they realize that in a country of 300 million there’s always a bunch of people who’ll just do what you tell them to. I was very close to the Pim Fortuyn situation that Steve likes to reference, and that’s exactly how it happened. The media hysteria right before had to be seen to be believed. Like in Holland, if Trump ever gets assassinated the perp will first get a very stiff sentence to pacify the masses and then after a decade will be quietly released and given police protection.

That one guy with the mustache was right: allowing journalism to run rampant without strict supervision that they aren’t in it to destroy society is madness.

* A study by the Cato Institute notes that nonimmigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants

A sure sign of knowing dishonesty. People hear “nonimmigrant” and get the mental picture of the largest nonimmigrant group, whites, and immigrant and think Mexicans.

In fact, whites have a much lower crime rate than Mexicans. And lower still than other Meso-Americans.

As Steve notes, the reason that “nonimmigrants” have a high crime rate is that the group includes a lot of blacks, puerto ricans, and native-born hispanics, while the “immigrant” group includes a lot of very low crime NE Asians, whose own very low birthrate means they are not producing very many law abiding native Americans.

* I’m sure Bret wrote lots of editorials when he was editor of the Jerusalem Post about how Israel needs lots of non-Jewish immigrants. Right?

* Wrong newspaper for that. But plenty of editorials in Israel call for a “right of return” for descendants of Arabs who lived in Israel proper. That includes the majority of the population of Jordan, who mostly would “return.” Jordan’s per capita GDP is $5,000, Israel’s is $39,000.

That raises the question, do you think the USA should have an Israel-like policy of encouraging the immigration of compatible-to-the-majority populations? A large percentage of the population of Eastern Europe would come here if they could, but it is substantially harder for a bright Latvian or Ukrainian to come to the USA than a typical Haitian or Somali.

* Part of the problem the US is facing now is that the enemy isn’t tied to a state. It’s pretty clear that this Bret Stephens is just a traitor–a simple old-fashioned traitor who has chosen to side against his fellows. The problem is that he hasn’t chosen to side with Krauts, Japs, Reds, or other easily identifiable enemies of the US. His real ally is too nebulous to pin anything on him. Imagine McCarthyism without the USSR, the CPUSA, or any of the other institutional manifestations. Where would McCarthyism have gone?

* No one is seriously proposing deportations of anyone. The purpose of this exercise is to accelerate the disenfranchisement, dispossession, and delegitimating of white Americans. This is why it finds space in the NYT.

* The problem is that the “improvements” (like throwing the doors open to wretched refuse, “nudging” the plebs away from the First Amendment and cash currency, etc.) are likely to prove fatal to the host in the long run. And the covetous, oh so helpful new tenant knows this.

* At least he’s honest about what he wants: the racial dispossession , displacement and replacement of the founding stock of the United States, or at least it’s less prosperous (European-origin) portion. Genocide, in another word.

* Astonishing how liberals seem to believe the United States was a failed state prior to their world view becoming ascendant. That there was nothing really going on here except slavery. Yet somehow the US became the world’s largest economy in 1890 when our population was only 63 million people. That by 1929 90 percent of all privately owned automobiles in the world were in the United States and Canada.

* The interesting thing about official narratives are the vain attempts on the part of advocates to make them appear bulletproof with respect to their first order rational shortcomings and inconsistencies.

You see, it’s okay that Israelis and their supporters are anti-open door and anti-diversity with respect to Israel but not to the United States since Yahweh gave Greater Israel to the Jews and their posterity in a prehistoric epoch. Israel is the God-given homeland for God’s Chosen People, get it. Those who occupied Palestine in the interim are transient marauders.

Yahweh, on the other hand, did not give America to its original European immigrants. Therefore, European Americans are likewise transient marauders. Therefore, it is immoral and irrational for European Americans to try to justify the same things for Americans that Israelis justify for Jewish Israelis … mixing apples and oranges, at it were.

As the Muslims say, Mashallah … God has willed it! He also takes care of logical inconsistencies that might otherwise bother his Chosen People.

* The Irish, the Russians and other continental Europeans know that regimes come and go but nations remain. We in the US, UK and former White Dominions have enjoyed such a long winning streak of relative prosperity and stability that we came to forget that fact. We may come to learn it again in the next few years.

People like Bret Stephens and the Young Turks crowd think Trump is the last chance for the White men who just don’t get it. They think once Whitey is finally brought down along with Trump, then the good times can begin again. Maybe it’s they who don’t get it? Maybe they don’t get that the Trump presidency is their last chance to enjoy rule of law under the “First Republic” of the United States? Maybe Bret Stephens — and the smart-ass judges blocking Trump’s travel ban, the members of Congress warming up for the impeachment of Trump and the cute Attorneys-General of Maryland and DC — don’t understand they’re dancing as the sun goes down on their playground? Maybe someone needs to tell Bret Stephens this kind of humour will be taken seriously by the kind of people who shoot up baseball practices and by the surplus human resources he dreams of deporting?

* I find it interesting that on the national level in the US there is almost no discussion of Native Americans and their issues unlike in Canada. Once Native American sports mascots and and names are abandoned they will have virtually representation in the national culture. It will be as though they never existed.

* Stephens began as some kind of business-y journalist for Rupert Murdoch’s Hong Kong media properties. Though he might have “immigrant parents” they were of the rich, globetrotting professional variety, in the way he is a U.S. national incidentally but spending most of his life in jet-set elite havens. The Jerusalem Post was actually run by Tom Rose, an immigrant from Indiana, and I think it was in the News Corp family at some point. What I’m getting from his screeds over the years is that Stephens is a cosseted, parochial person traveling in un-diverse circles, but constantly invoking the Stars & Stripes imagery like he cribbed it from part of an edited Frank Capra film he watched on a plane. What use would liberal cocoon NYT subscribers have for this yawping poodle conservative?

* Here’s a more honest version of this nasty shot across our bow by Stephens:

Dear White American goyim,

The Jewish dream of an America without boring, backward, reactionary white bread is righteous and eternal. It is the New American Dream and you need to accept it. Or else.

Writings like mine, while painful to read at first, are designed to change your psychology as regarding your own deportation from the country that your ancestors built. This is the only way for you to begin addressing your guilt: you must leave.

Sincerely,

Bret

* What we’re dealing with as a society has gone past the societal equivalent of AIDS. In an immune deficiency syndrome, the body fails to distinguish self from non-self to protect the self’s resources from non-self. In our case, however, we are directed to distinguish self from non-self in order to favor non-self over self.

Our societal immune system is inverted. And people like Stephens are now ratcheting up the level of immune response we are expected launch against our collective self.

* America has a very severe case of Lupus.

Lupus is a chronic inflammatory disease that occurs when your body’s immune system attacks your own tissues and organs. Inflammation caused by lupus can affect many different body systems — including your joints, skin, kidneys, blood cells, brain, heart and lungs.

Lupus can be difficult to diagnose because its signs and symptoms often mimic those of other ailments. The most distinctive sign of lupus — a facial rash that resembles the wings of a butterfly unfolding across both cheeks — occurs in many but not all cases of lupus.

Some people are born with a tendency toward developing lupus, which may be triggered by infections, certain drugs or even sunlight. While there’s no cure for lupus, treatments can help control symptoms.

* The black abortion rate already serves to keep black population growth in check. Blacks aren’t really increasing notably as a percentage of the population. They just continue to behave badly, on average, and out of proportion to their numbers, no matter what we try.

If you removed black criminality from U.S. crime statistics, our crime rates would look like most Western European countries.

* There certainly are historical precedents.

For instance, after large numbers of Jews arrived in Medieval Poland, they joined with the nobility and the Lipka Tatars to form a privileged class which took away all the rights of the common people, turning them into serfs. The Polish nobility were ethnically identical to Polish commoners, but they invented a mythological history of themselves as Sarmatian conquerors of the Poles. They dressed like Turks, unlike the commoners who dressed like Europeans. The story of Ham, Japeth and Shem was interpreted by both the nobles and the Jews as justification for their privileged position. Europeans were interpreted as the descendants of Ham, destined to be slaves. Turks and nobles were interpreted to be descendants of Japeth, and Jews of course to be descendants of Shem; together they formed the divinely ordained master race. Built on such a rotten foundation, Poland’s economy was always backward, and the state was easy prey to the Russians, Prussians and Austrians in the mid-18th century.

(The Sephardic Jewish slave traders who, after the failure of the Dutch invasion of Brazil, moved from Brazil to Barbados in 1640, and from Barbados on to London, Jamaica, Charleston etc., interpreted Ham/Japeth/Shem differently: Blacks = Ham, Europeans = Japeth. The Caribbean islands, formerly home to more Englishmen than the mainland colonies, capable of fielding a formidable privateer force against the enemies of England, subsequently declined into plantation dominated historical dead ends.)

In England, the opposite historical development took place. After the expulsion of the Jews in 1290 the Normans nobles, who really were alien conquerors, came to identify with the English commoners, creating national solidarity and strength. Serfdom disappeared. With a productive, non-parasitic middle class ethnically identifying with both the nobles above and the peasants below, the English economy became the wonder of the world. England and her mainland colonies were the greatest power in the world by the mid-18th century.

* “Jews, man, is there anything they can’t do?”

Asbestos removal. They leave that to blacks, who apparently excel in that nation-building endeavor.

* Stephens is a guy with a culturally appropriated surname – his real surname should be Ehrlich – who believes that America should be “the world’s policeman” but has never actually served in the military.

I’m sure his three children are reasonably intelligent, but I doubt if any of them can hold a candle to the Intel Science Talent Search finalists. Perhaps the top three ISTS winners should ask Bret Stephens if he would disinherit his own three children in favor of them, since Stephens clearly and expressly believes that inheritance should be based on merit, not blood.

Stephens clearly belongs to the neoconservative crowd which believes that America is a “proposition nation” rather than a nation of “blood and soil.” Well. Every great nation is a combination of ideas, beliefs, laws, blood, and soil. It is not really an either/or kind of thing. Despite the beliefs that have been retroactively applied to our founders, the fact is that probably most of them understood that this nation, if it was to prosper, required shared blood and beliefs to hold it together. Quite a few of them didn’t think much of the African race, and openly admitted it.

Within a decade of the Constitution’s ratification the same generation of men who won our independence and authored our Constitution – a Constitution that promises to “ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity – passed a naturalization law limiting naturalization to whites. Then again just 17 years after winning the Civil War and freeing the slaves – and before the French gifted us the Statue of Liberty – Congress overwhelmingly passed severe restrictions on Chinese immigration. Probably most of the men in Congress back in 1882 had served in the Union Army that liberated the slaves, yet Americans today – very few of whom have risked their lives for anything – think themselves qualified to sit in judgment of that august body.

Bret Stephens may pretend to have been writing tongue in cheek, but those of us who have been listening to the open borders neofeudalists for well over a decade now know that he was quite serious. The irony, though, is that if our government were to follow his prescription, a vastly disproportionate number of the people it would deport would be the very people who voted for the party that most fanatically and openly supports unrestricted immigration.

Posted in America, Immigration | Comments Off on Bret Stephens: You Didn’t Build That, The Immigrants Who Arrived Today Built That

‘Yo theah, muh Goy!’

John Derbyshire writes: A few days ago in conversation with a friend I used the word "Goy" facetiously. My friend, who is Jewish, took mild objection. "We don’t really use that word," he said. "It’s kind of low-class and not very polite."

I honestly did not know this. (Neither, apparently, does Steven Pinker.) Now that I know, do I care? No. I refuse to join the offense-taking community.

My friend then told me that some of the naughtier spirits on the Alt-Right have taken to referring themselves as Goy or Goyim — owning the insult.

So, I replied, it’s like blacks addressing each other as "Nigga." He said yes, he guessed it was the same idea.

Here came my mischievous thought. The next time I meet Richard Spencer, I shall greet him with, "Yo theah, muh Goy!" and record his reaction.

Posted in Alt Right, Jews | Comments Off on ‘Yo theah, muh Goy!’

Turkheimer in Vox: Demonizing Charles Murray Is Good for the Jews

Steve Sailer writes:

From Vox:


There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes
Our response to criticisms.

Updated by Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett Jun 15, 2017, 12:00pm EDT

Actually, however, it turns out that the three academics don’t agree among themselves. Turkheimer admits:


In fact, I will close by noting that not even the three of us are completely in agreement about it: I (Turkheimer) am convinced that the question is irredeemably unscientific; Nisbett accepts it as a legitimate scientific question, and thinks evidence points fairly strongly in the direction of the black-white gap being entirely environmental in origin; while Harden questions the quality of the existing evidence, but thinks more determinative data may be found in future genetic knowledge.

It’s probably not a coincidence that the younger academic, Harden, takes a less extremist stance than the two older professors. Dr. Harden will likely be around a lot longer than Turkheimer and Nisbett, so she’s more concerned about what the rapid advance in genomic science will uncover over the rest of her lifetime than are the two older guys.

Turkeimer more or less admits something I’ve believed since 1995: that anti IQ science denialism is largely driven by Jewish paranoia and prejudice against gentiles: many Jews worry that if Americans are allowed to notice the white-black IQ gap, they will also notice the Jewish-gentile IQ gap and then the peasants will come for the Jews with torches and pitchforks.

Or, more plausibly, that awareness that American Jews have a higher mean IQ than American white gentiles will lead to college / job quotas like Jews were burdened with in the 1920s.

I recall that back in the 1970s, many Jewish intellectuals such as Nathan Glazer were strenuously opposed to the new quotas benefitting blacks and Hispanics. But over time their opposition muted as they realized that quotas against whites in general tended to have a much less deleterious effect on Jewish career prospects than the quotas against Jews in the 1920s.

And, since 1969 Jews were able to construct a mighty firewall between it being respectable to express anti-white sentiments (e.g., #OscarsTooWhite / White Privilege) and it being completely unacceptable to express anti-Jewish sentiments (e.g., nobody talks about the parallel concepts of #OscarsTooJewish / Jewish Privilege).

Turkheimer writes:


To convince the reader that there is no scientifically valid or ethically defensible foundation for the project of assigning group differences in complex behavior to genetic and environmental causes, I have to move the discussion in an even more uncomfortable direction. Consider the assertion that Jews are more materialistic than non-Jews. (I am Jewish, I have used a version of this example before, and I am not accusing anyone involved in this discussion of anti-Semitism. My point is to interrogate the scientific difference between assertions about blacks and assertions about Jews.)

One could try to avoid the question by hoping that materialism isn’t a measurable trait like IQ, except that it is; or that materialism might not be heritable in individuals, except that it is nearly certain it would be if someone bothered to check; or perhaps that Jews aren’t really a race, although they certainly differ ancestrally from non-Jews; or that one wouldn’t actually find an average difference in materialism, but it seems perfectly plausible that one might. (In case anyone is interested, a biological theory of Jewish behavior, by the white nationalist psychologist Kevin MacDonald, actually exists.)

If you were persuaded by Murray and Harris’s conclusion that the black-white IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea that the same kind of thinking might apply to the personality traits of Jews, I have one question: Why? Couldn’t there just as easily be a science of whether Jews are genetically “tuned to” (Harris’s phrase) different levels of materialism than gentiles?

On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are.

Turkheimer’s example is a bit of a misdirection, since it would be more straightforward in this debate over IQ to discuss higher Ashkenazi Jewish mean IQs.

My guess, however, is that most American gentiles, of whatever race, recognize that Jews tend to be smarter — e.g., 1/50th of the U.S. population makes up about 1/3rd of the Forbes 400 — and admire them for that fact.

While I oppose quotas, on the other hand, there is a reasonable concept, which I got from David Brooks, that smarter American ethnic groups should feel a sense of noblesse oblige toward the average people amongst whom they have thrived. (Brooks referred, gingerly, to “new meritocratic elites,” but obviously Jews are the dominant group within the new meritocratic elites who have displaced the old WASP elites.)

The most obvious form of noblesse oblige would be for Jews to become more self-aware about how self-indulgent and petty is their traditional urge to further deconstruct the American people via mass immigration. Some Jews, such as Mickey Kaus and Stephen Miller, are exemplars of 21st Century noblesse oblige, but even Brooks can’t bring himself around to promoting moderation and prudence on immigration policy.

This is not to say that all Jews feel that IQ science is not good for the Jews. Murray’s Jewish co-author Richard Herrnstein, for example, felt that honesty about IQ was good for the Jews. But, my observations are that the old question — “Is it good for the Jews?” — is what motivates a lot of the leaders of IQ science denialism, from S.J. Gould to Eric Turkheimer.

COMMENTS:

* Jews should realize how annoying they become when they try to rework existing social orders in the societies that host them. Especially societies that have allowed them to thrive and thus far have been free of the purges and pogroms that characterized earlier Jewish relationships with host societies. But that would demand too much self-reflection and would ask that Jews try to understand why they have been persecuted by nearly every culture, nation and empire in history.

Perhaps mass Arab immigration into Europe may demonstrate to Jews the importance of maintaining the existing social order.

* A quote from Kevin Macdonald:

“It is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite pattern is found for infants from North Germany. The Israeli infants were much more likely to become “inconsolably upset” in reaction to strangers, whereas the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the North German babies were the opposite — findings that fit with the hypothesis that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and ethnocentrism.”

Never mind materialism, it seems that xenophobia is the most important trait here. You cannot expect the same noblesse oblige as the Parsi when your instinct is to be terrified of strangers. The only thing you can do is try to destroy the identity of the stranger, so that it becomes less fearful for you.

* Turkheimer appears, based upon your extracts, to be arguing that regardless of the evidence it is unscientific to accept hypotheses that are regarded, in the particular society we live in, as being morally unacceptable.

Is this really what he is arguing, because it would appear on the face of it to be a pretty remarkable thing for a scientist to believe? It’s pretty much a direct refutation of “sapere aude”, and of course the “Enlightenment” would have been snuffed out at birth if that approach had been successfully enforced.

* So basically we shouldn’t explore these things because the answers might be too dangerous. Even if one were to agree with Turkheimer about that, he has to realize that no one has ever been able to halt inquiry for long on the grounds that it’s too dangerous. If there’s a genetic explanation, researchers will eventually find it.

(Also, Turkheimer seems to be blissfully unaware of how much he sounds like the Grand Inquisitor, warning scholars away from knowledge that it is unsafe for man to possess.)

* Turkeimer’s materialism example is just a bunch of hand-waving. What if, instead of “materialism”, you substitute “Tay-Sachs Disease”? Turnkeimer has just “proven” that Tay-Sachs Disease has nothing to do with being Jewish and we shouldn’t even look for a genetic basis for it. Only anti-Semites associate Tay-Sachs Disease with Judaism.

Maybe Turkeimer is going in the wrong direction here – we are supposed to laugh at the obvious ridiculous of the idea that materialism is genetic, but maybe it’s not as ridiculous as Turkeimer thinks. His appeals are all appeals to moral authority, not appeals to science. IQ is not allowed to have a genetic basis because Hitler -that’s fundamentally his whole argument.

* What is your evidence that Jews are above-average eager to “deconstruct the American people”? Are we higher, by that metric, than Episcopalians? Than blacks? Than Chinese? Indians? Latinos?

Granted you hear and read more from Jews who wish to deconstruct America. More, I suppose, than Latinos. But that surely reflects the fact there are more Jews in places where you’re likely to hear what they have to say. So for a fair comparison, you should compare Jewish pundits/celebrities/politicians against Episcopalians, Latinos etc who are in the same lines of work.

* With respect, I think you’re wrong about most Americans thinking Jews are smarter. Here in Vermont, anyway, most of the people I know (white to the last) don’t know that Bernie Sanders, for example, is a Jew let alone imagine it explains his smarts or mores at all.

Most Vermonters couldn’t tell you why much of their food comes labeled with a K or U. So I don’t think it ever occurred to them that our last governor was a Jew or that the mayor of Burlington, out largest town, is. If they were exposed to the fact, it wouldn’t register or mean anything. Noticing that is not a thing here.

* It’s interesting that you tie it so directly to Jews, and you are certainly logical, and Jews certainly are inexhaustibly paranoid and self-centered. However, I am content that the whole thing is explained in terms of the big white elephant we paid for with our life savings and have been tending for a generation, and that we cannot afford to admit was a mistake: the whole civil rights mess. I think the left’s existential dependence on cognitive dissonance and not keeping track of Eastasia ever trading places with Eurasia explains it. Consider their reaction to the book “Stop Helping Us.”
One of the strongest redpilling experiences is to go back to the statements and predictions of the sixties and see that the monstrous “racists” were absolutely dead on right all down the line, and the progressives on the right side of history come off now like white Rastafarians.
Furthermore there is a threat to the current Judeo-friendly (but not exclusively or specifically Jewish) power structure besides direct attack. In allowing whites to unapologetically separate, in unmaking the all-stymying swamp that they trap us in, in allowing police departments and employers to unapologetically discriminate, we can expect to see life improve by every metric for disgusting peasants in flyover country.
A Jew with a high IQ, family connections, good work ethic, family connections, and agile verbal skills should expext to beat a Gentile competitor most of the time — but it doesn’t hurt if the Jew can benefit from secret Apartheid while the Gentile is subjected to Section Eight housing experiments, expansionist urban crime, Affirmative Action, and everything else made possible by the Civil Rights movement and the crusade to end qualitative characteristics. In fact, on an even playing field, there might even arise bizarre spikes where the Jew’s natural advantages cannot save him from other factors that would become possible in a post-Civil Rights world, like popular awareness of an individual’s reputation.
They have money. They’re not trying to get money. What they want is for Rusty Shackleford to commit suicide, get lost in an electronic lotus, chase the opioid dragon or get “knocked out” without media or police attention.

* …even if everyone believed the wrong thing about Jews’ relative propensity to materialism, there would be no social cost to it. Whereas the dogged insistence that blacks and whites are, deep down, equally capable as students, as firemen, professors and rocket scientists, has resulted in a vast misallocation of resources.

And, really, are the Jews you know all that “materialistic”? I can believe that the up-and-coming Jewish merchant class, in the 1920s-1960s, appeared materialistic in the eyes of the gentile elites of the time, who could live comfortable lives thanks to their hard-driving grandfathers. But today? Nah, I don’t see that materialism. Our kids slack off with the best of them.

* If you accept the idea that IQ is paired with impulse control and that blacks have lower IQs on average, or even simply that black per capita have a high crime rate, then all of sudden the KKK looks like a bunch of white guys trying to protect their homes and families. That doesn’t make it correct still because trials are necessary to real justice. But suddenly they go from mysterious, evil motivations…to rather human.

And that will never do in a world that’s lost it’s religion. Radical egalitarianism runs very deep for a population that in part descends from puritans and have abandoned any other form of morality. If “not a racist” is not a real virtue (and to a certain extent it’s not), then who they are? How are they “good” people then?

“I’m not racist” sounds so warm and fuzzy to Christians (because in part we are not allowed to discriminate within a church along those lines) that it’s this one last “in” to not be weird. Christians too can “fit in” to an increasingly secular society. I have lost count of the “don’t be racist” Homilies I’ve listened to because they’re safe and don’t involve anything uncomfortable. (The irony being of course, they’re given to a bunch of white Northeastern transplants who have no roots in the local population.)

Anyway, most of society, not just Jews, at this point in time have a lot invested in assuming that race is only skin deep. If it were just Jews thinking along these lines, they wouldn’t have chance, regardless of their placement within society. But there’s a lot more going on and a lot more at stake.

* There are clear phenotypic differences in IQ across races — even Turkheimer can’t dispute that. So how is the question of whether those differences are to some degree genetically based not a scientific question? Is it really impossible for the methods of science to express the question sharply and to answer it? What makes IQ so special that it — in contrast to countless other phenotypic traits — is beyond the reach of science? It just makes no sense. Turkheimer sounds like a fool when he makes claims that entail such bizarre things.

If he truly believes that the moral problems of genetic research with regard to racial differences trump the standard scientific imperative to understand our world, then he should just be honest enough to say so. Pretending that such research somehow just isn’t science is nothing but disingenuous and frankly stupid.

* Pinker wrapped up his lecture on the Cochran, Harpending, and Hardy article on Ashkenazi intelligence with a Powerpoint slide asking the question, “But is it good for the Jews?” It got big laughst from the audience at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. “This question occurs to most people [i.e. most people in that audience] when they hear about this research,” Pinker said.

* When I talk with my fellow Jews about immigration, it quickly becomes apparent that they’re concerned about two things: 1.) How supporting a movement to restrict immigration is somehow an insult to their great-grandparents, who were immigrants from Russia. 2.) How immigration restriction could lead to antisemitism.

* I, as a white Christian, haven’t got the slightest problem with high Jewish IQ scores.

I DO, however, have a problem with the fact that the Jews seem to employ their high IQ for the following purposes:

1) Subversion of the U.S. Constitution (when it suits them to do so)
2) Subversion of traditional American, Protestant, culture and morality with pornography, feminism, miscegenation, gun control, and financial manipulation
3) Subversion of the American nation, the American taxpayer, and the American military to the state of Israel, which bans many things that American Jews advocate for the goyim (e.g., homosexual marriage and miscegenation)
4) Clannishness and nepotism
5) Communism, psychotherapy, and feminism
6) The notion that they are the Chosen People of God, and thus empowered to subvert and kill their enemies by any treacherous means, including women and children, which is celebrated in their religion. Numerous passages in Jewish scripture and lore attest to this, for instance, the story of Judith beheading the enemy general after having intercourse with him, the story of Esther and Mordecai subverting the Persian throne and killing 75,000 enemies of the Jews, the killing of Egyptian babies and the Egyptian army by Yahweh, the slaughter of the Amalekite women and children (sanctioned by Yahweh) in the book of Samuel, etc. And of course the torture and execution of Jesus of Nazareth of charges of blasphemy for criticizing all of this.

If a Jewish surgeon with an IQ of 140 wants to make $300k a year excising cancerous tumors, more power to him. It’s the other stuff that’s the problem…

* Sailer: …there really aren’t that many high-profile African American intellectuals anymore. We’ve reached a point where Genius T. Coates is just about the highest-profile African American intellectual.

Most intellectual disputes these days involve Jews on at least one side, if not both sides. They have the IQ, the energy, the self-confidence, the contentiousness, the money, the ethnic dispensation, and so forth.

* Turkheimer deliberately picked a trait (materialism) that lacks a reliable measuring scale, has 1/1000 the amount of research literature devoted to IQ, is probably much less heritable than intelligence, and for which group differences are not as consequential. He is right, that does make genetic questions about materialism less “scientific” than the same questions about IQ. But of course that’s also an argument for treating the questions as scientific when they are about IQ.

* Conspiracy theories look at IQ and the general success of Jews in the US and throughout history (deserved mind you, they work hard) and think they must be running everything. But they are only ever less than 5% of population in most time.

They are clever, but they are, when taken as a whole, not particularly wise. They show a great deal of what I’ve come to think of as “mind blindness”. Within their own society they value traits that are generally speaking, going to make them an anathema to almost any outside culture and blind to that fact as well.

The story of Joseph in the OT is the perfect example of clever, but not wise. He’s clever, but he’s got the obnoxious about him, to the point even his brothers can’t stand him. He rises to the top of the household only to find himself in trouble with some funny business between him and the mistress of the house. (The way it’s written inclines the reader to imagine it was false, but why would that be – the guy, for whatever reason, can’t even shut up around his brothers and is clearly ambitious)

As a prisoner, Joseph cleverly interprets some dreams and Pharaoh makes him his number 2. The author (and presumably Joseph) imagines this to be end result of God, the giver of good things.

In real life, a good sane leader does not make a foreign prisoner, in for rape, his number 2, even if does believe him. He might say thank you by releasing him with some gifts, but he’s stranger and foreigner. Sanity would be turning to his court for help. Since we know that inbreeding was epic with Egyptian pharaohs, it’s quite probable the guy was this side clinically insane. But the author for sure doesn’t pick up on that and we have to presume Joseph doesn’t either.

So then he whomps an amazing plan that supposedly nobody ever thought of called: save some crops for bad harvests. Then his brothers, who tried to kill him, come to him for food during the famine. Instead doing something vaguely normal like revealing himself or telling them to pound it, we get some sort of weepy reunion scene with Egyptian law enforcement acting out in the middle of the family drama. Then the people of Egypt end up stuck supporting not only a foreign prisoner, but now the entire family of sheep herders and their wives and children.

The next scene/part of the Bible (I believe) cuts straight to their slavery in Egypt like that was some sort of unpredictable event/punishment from God. But if you can see Joseph’s story from the Egyptian POV it was going to happen.

* When we know that intelligence is genetic, a significant difference in average intelligence tells us how much Jews must be biologically separated from us.

Thus, “race isn’t real”, “everybody is equal” and “intelligence isn’t genetic” (and its precursor, “intelligence isn’t real”) are all protective rings to keep us from forming a concept of the Jew as its own biological category.

Once we accept enough genetic separation to maintain 0.5 to 1 SD difference in general intelligence over centuries of living in the same place, there’s basically no other personality trait either in which we have to assume the average Jew to be “just like us.”

The current fixation of HBD on intelligence alone is another protective ring.

* I am Episcopalian. And some of the most rabid SJWs I know are my cousins (who also happened to have grown up very wealthy). Our church is burdened with a rapacious social justice sect that insists on homosexual priests conducting mass and being married in our church by other gay priests.

Go throughout Chicago and you will see many Episcopalian churches with rainbow flags, BLM placards and “no hate here” posters.

My church is largely hijacked by monstrous imbeciles who think these actions will make them more pious and increase our flock. Meanwhile, my home church withers in size as the kids aren’t returning to the suburbs and aren’t having kids. And they wonder why it’s falling apart. It’s disgraceful.

* Jews didn’t create the European or American society. They are a smart and aggressive middle minority who as a result do well in the high quality/high trust societies gentiles create. But they didn’t build those societies. In fact, it’s close to the reverse. Jews–the Ashkenazi–clearly got their initial IQ boost from the literacy requirement imposed by rabbinic Judaism. (The dropouts are my ancestors, not yours.) But they have their world beating IQ by being a middle man minority looting on top of a competent/successful European host society. Literacy, and especially Jewish business knowledge and networking gave even dumber Jews a huge advantage. But in general to be more successful–and hence more likely to pass on your genes–you needed to be smarter than the goyim. Any Jews in Arabia, or South East Asia or Africa would have found both far inferior middle man opportunities, and would not have undergone as intense selection as outwitting those peoples would have been a bit to quite a bit easier. The Ashkenazi were built essentially by looting from–both materially and in terms of “stolen” genetic selection–European gentile societies. They didn’t create European success, but were essentially created or at least “forged” by it.

And “anti-Semitism”–at least 95% of the criticism of Jews around here–is about the negative behavior–political and cultural–of Jews. We want Jews to “shape up”–stop their destructive behavior and start acting in the interests of fellow whites or “fellow Americans”–or go away.

* Jews end up in positions of public influence (media, academics, law, and occasionally politics) that other immigrants do not. Further, when they secularize they almost always push policies that are destructive to America, like open borders or in the case of Europe, championing Islamic migration. In Russia they persecuted Christian farmers (Ukraine) and Orthodox Jews alike.

When Jews keep the Covenant, they don’t tend to rogue on everyone.

Posted in IQ, Jews | Comments Off on Turkheimer in Vox: Demonizing Charles Murray Is Good for the Jews