Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

Israel’s New Justice Minister

Posted on May 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

NYT: “For Ms. Shaked, a former computer engineer, the main thing is “to strengthen the Jewish identity” of Israel…”

“That translates, in policy terms, into promoting Israeli annexation of most of the occupied West Bank and ousting African asylum-seekers. It means curtailing the power of the Supreme Court, giving politicians more sway over judicial appointments and prohibiting foreign funding of advocacy groups — which could put the main internal critics of Israeli actions out of business. And it entails a “nationality bill” that many see as disenfranchising Israel’s Arab minority, about 20 percent of the population.”

Would that America do something like this. I particularly like the bit about ousting asylum-seekers and running the country according to the needs of its majority.

Here’s another area where America should follow Israel’s example: Israeli government to refugees: Go back to Africa or go to prison

Posted in America, Immigration | Comments Off

The Evolution of One Person’s Views on Racial Differences in Intelligence

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

By Lawrence Auster
February 1995

With the publication of The Bell Curve, we see the fascinating phenomenon of mainstream journalists and intellectuals wrestling, most of them for the first time, with the uncomfortable facts about race differences in intelligence. While this is a historic event, it can also seem rather disappointing. Apart from the writers who demonize the book’s co-authors, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, which was to be expected, even those more thoughtful liberals and conservatives who (grudgingly) admit the subject of race and intelligence into discourse hedge it around with so many qualifications as to make it almost meaningless. Thus William Buckley acknowledged the reality of the racial IQ difference, but then quoted Murray and Herrnstein to the effect that it’s not important. Scott McConnell in the New York Post said that IQ can be changed. Jacob Weisberg of New York magazine, a true liberal die-hard, threw even more fences and evasions and escape hatches around the subject. Unfortunately, Murray and Herrnstein had already set the stage for this intellectually unserious treatment of their work by downplaying the idea of race differences even as they promoted it. Murray, in his many appearances on television, has been appallingly evasive about the true content and purport of his ideas. (Here is a letter I wrote to Murray about this.)

As disappointing as this hedging is, we need to recognize that it is a natural and predictable stage in an unfolding of thought that will take some time to reach clarity. It does not happen all at once, but necessarily goes through several stages. This is because the question of race and intelligence does not consist, as people seem to imagine, of just one idea, it consists of a constellation of ideas, which must be grasped one at a time until the larger scene comes into view. To illustrate this, I would like to tell the story of the involvement of one non-specialist—namely myself—with these ideas. The experience as I’ve lived through it can be compared to looking at the world through slightly out-of-focus lenses, then slowly sharpening the focus until what was hazy becomes clear. Or it is like something in the background of one’s field of vision slowly moving into the foreground.

In this process, rationalizations and evasions slip away, sometimes gradually, sometimes through startling insights that revolutionize one’s whole way of thinking. In telling about my own experience of these ideas as they came to me, one by one, I can perhaps give the reader a more comprehensive, if non- systematic, approach to understanding this subject.

IQ and Intelligence

1. In the mid 1980s, New York magazine had a cover story on the growing tensions between blacks and Jews. The article gave figures on black SAT scores that were absolutely stunning, for example, that in the entire U.S. only about 100 blacks in any given year scored over 700 in the verbal SATs. What this meant to me was that the number of blacks at the top level of academic abilities was virtually non-existent. So it was no longer a surprise that there were so few blacks in the intellectual professions.

However, at this time I did not draw any deeper conclusions from this with regard to black intelligence. The data did not suggest to me that differences in SAT scores related to something I would call “intelligence” or that such differences were permanent, but only that, as blacks were at this point, it was unrealistic to expect proportional equality in all professions, and in particular there was this shocking absence of blacks at the higher levels of verbal and logical ability.

2. In 1990, I met Michael Levin when he hosted a National Association of Scholars meeting at his apartment in Manhattan, around the time that he was first being attacked for his statements on black intelligence. I acquired a copy of Professor Levin’s controversial article in the Australian quarterly Proceedings which contained the sentence, “The average black is significantly less intelligent than the average white.” After reading it and also hearing him interviewed on a radio program, I wrote a letter to Levin in which, perhaps contradictorily, I expressed both admiration for his courage and concern that he was being too blunt; specifically, I suggested that instead of saying “blacks on average are less intelligent” he might say “blacks on average are less capable in the intellectual skills measured in I.Q. tests”—wording, I argued, that would be more precise and less demeaning to blacks.

At the same time, however, I conceded to Levin that blunt language might be the only way to get at these forbidden ideas. Experience in later years proved this to be correct. I came to feel that Levin, by stating the forbidden truth in plain English rather than in technical terms or euphemisms, had been a pioneer. The reason for this is that without that horrifying word “intelligence,” as in “blacks are on average less intelligent than whites,” the difficult truth of this matter does not get through to our minds. We can always evade the truth by imagining that the thing at issue is something secondary, like “the ability to take tests.”

3. Then there was the question of whether IQ tests measure something real. While this is amply demonstrated in the literature and I don’t want to go into it much here, a key finding that proved to my satisfaction the validity of IQ is its predictability—a point well established by Murray and Herrnstein in The Bell Curve. You can make all kinds of metaphysical arguments that IQ is just the “ability to take IQ tests,” or that it “does not measure creativity,” and so on. But as Murray and Herrnstein demonstrate in exhaustive detail based on the data from National Longitudinal Study of Youth, if you give a large sampling of fourteen year olds an IQ test, while controlling for socioeconomic background, ten or twenty years later their life achievement will correlate very strongly with the results of those tests. This, I think, is the definitive argument for the validity of IQ. [Note: A couple of years after this was written, Murray demonstrated that siblings with different IQs—who of course share exactly the same socioeconomic status and home environment—differ markedly in their later success and income. This was absolute proof of the reality and importance of IQ.]

4. In 1991, when the New York Post condemned Levin as a racist, I wrote a letter to the Post defending Levin’s ideas. It was the first time I had addressed the issue in print.

In that letter, I saw the significance of the IQ difference in that it meant blacks could not be expected to have equal intellectual achievement with whites, and that lower black representation in the professions was not due to racism. However, I still thought that the lower black achievement might be due to “cultural” factors and therefore could potentially be raised up to equal that of whites. The main point for me was that, as blacks are now, they could not be expected to achieve equally with whites, and that affirmative action was therefore based on wrong premises. I was not particularly interested in the great debate over “environment versus genetics,” since the topic seemed metaphysical to me. I was, and am, also offended by the constant references to “genes” as causal in human life, which I think is a materialistic, reductionist concept. I felt we should stay with the things we know, such as the concrete fact that black do perform differently, without worrying ourselves to death over the hidden ultimate causes that we cannot know.

5. However, the problem with the above view is that it leaves open a huge escape hatch for the supporters of affirmative action. They can concede that blacks are less intelligent now, but still insist that if we push blacks artificially into higher socioeconomic levels through massive affirmative action, then black intelligence will be equalized with that of whites. Or, if it’s too late for this generation of blacks to improve, then their children will grow up with a better environment (created through affirmative action) and will be more intelligent. Liberals are constantly looking for ways to keep the egalitarian social engineering project alive; and as long as that project is alive, any failure by society to achieve complete racial equality of outcomes will continue to be falsely blamed on “white racism,” with all the divisive, demoralizing, and destructive effects that charge has on society. For these reasons, it’s not enough to know about the existence of racial differences in intelligence without also grasping the fact that these differences are not amenable to elimination by any known means. Of course, black intellectual performance could be improved, perhaps significantly in some cases, if society brought back real standards and discipline and if black illegitimacy were reduced. But that’s not the same as eliminating the racial gap, which is the aim and demand of our ruling ideology.

6. Richard Lynn’s and Michael Levin’s articles on the Scarr-Weinberg cross-racial adoption study in the March 1994 American Renaissance settled these questions for me. The adoption study, which followed until adulthood black children adopted as babies by college educated whites, showed that even with a totally “white” upper middle-class environment and upbringing, the large black-white IQ gap remained; at best it was slightly narrowed. As Levin pointed out, this was a definitive demonstration of a hereditary racial difference in IQ.

7. Then there was the assertion of cultural bias in mental tests, meaning that blacks did worse on IQ tests because the tests emphasized “white” cultural knowledge. Jared Taylor’s interview with Arthur Jensen, published in the August and September 1992 American Renaissance (and even more, the unabridged, 36-page typescript of this interview) blew that notion out of the water. Jensen made the point that in test questions that involved no cultural background at all, such as the ability to see similarities in geometric shapes, blacks actually did worse than in questions that used “white” cultural references.

Differences in Style of Thought

8. So far, I’ve been speaking of intelligence as something that can be measured scientifically by a number. But in recent years I’ve also come to believe there are differences in black and white styles of thinking. Race differences are not limited to numerical differences on a single scale like IQ (which itself is an aggregate of several different abilities). Race differences also take in different types of mentality, which we can see more readily by commonsense observation than by scientific tests.

Personal observation is of course subjective and may be erroneous and unfair. Nonetheless, it is a necessary part of understanding the world in which we live. Further, I am attempting to describe the whole journey of my change of attitude regarding race, a journey that has included (possibly unfair) generalizations from personal experience as well as the cognition of more objective facts. In the next few paragraphs, therefore, I will state my subjective impressions and conclusions as such, without claiming objective validity for them and without attempting to document or prove them beyond telling the experiences that led to them.

Following the arguments and actions of black leaders, listening to black callers on talk radio, led me over several years to an increasingly bleak view of black thinking styles. For one thing, it seemed to me that many blacks have a marked tendency to pick up some slogan and then just use it without much logical connection to the subject at hand. I also became increasingly aware of the “hustle,” the way many blacks at all levels—from street people and politicians to celebrated “intellectuals” like Cornel West—did not use ideas as ideas, but as a hustle, as a way of manipulating people’s feelings. Suggestibility and the substitution of rhetoric for reason are general human weaknesses, but it seemed to me that these failings were noticeably more pronounced among blacks. Of course there are many blacks who are rational and logical and intellectually competent. But the proponderance of irrationality among the black population is hard to ignore.

9. I was also impressed by Gedalia Braun’s fascinating manuscript, Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit, based on his many years of close personal observation of blacks in Africa, an excellent review of which appeared in American Renaissance in 1993.

According to Braun, African blacks have a wholly different kind of mentality from whites. He pointed to Africans’ inability to understand cause-and-effect relationships, as seen in the magical mode of thinking observed among Pacific Islanders and known as the “cargo cult” syndrome, and which Braun also saw evidenced among black Africans. For example, as Braun described it, Africans seem to see Western development aid as a magical process that will automatically make all the appurtenances of a modern society appear. This way of thinking leads African blacks to see whites as magical beings who could, if they wanted, do everything for blacks. To the extent that this attitude carries over to blacks outside of Africa, it would explain their belief in (white) government as the answer to all their needs, and their growing rage at whites for not giving blacks the vast range of goodies that blacks believe is within whites’ (magical) power to give.

Another of Braun’s provocative observations was that African blacks (at least those who have not come under the influence of Western liberalism) have no hang-ups about the notion that whites are smarter. In fact, they take it for granted and, he pointed out, are eager to talk about the subject with him because it’s so rare for them to find a white who will speak honestly about race. They prefer such honesty to the racial guilt, the pious lies about equality, and the hypocrisy that they normally get from whites. These observations suggest that white liberal attitudes have done more to harm race relations than any other factor.

10. I also began to think about differences in black and white attitudes and outlook on the world, particularly in relation to the capacity for objectivity. Through numerous experiences and observations, I started to have the sense that blacks are more “non-objective,” they understand things in a much more personal, subjective way than whites. They seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake. For example, I repeatedly had the following experience. Whenever I would turn on C-SPAN and the conference being broadcast consisted of black people, literally five seconds would not pass before the speaker would say the word “black.” In other words, blackness itself was the topic of the conference. When whites get together at an academic or other type of meeting, it’s to talk about some objective area of shared interest, whether science or literature or history or politics. But, at least as far as one can judge from C-SPAN, when blacks get together to talk in a formal public setting it’s almost always to talk about themselves.

Many blacks believe that there is such a difference of intellectual orientation between blacks and whites. Black multiculturalists say that whites are more interested in “things” (or, as the multiculturalists charmingly put it, whites are more interested in “manipulating” things), while blacks are more interested in “relationships.” Of course, the multiculturalists put this in such a way as to make whites look cold and mean, blacks warm and empathetic. In any case, the multiculturalists do not seem to realize that to the extent such a difference in orientation toward external reality does exist, it means that blacks are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization. What distinguishes Western from non-Western cultures is the capacity for objectivity, the ability to recognize a truth beyond one’s own immediate impulses or family and tribal loyalties.

11. A corollary of this lack of orientation toward objective facts and ideas is the relative intellectual and moral passivity of blacks. While there are many decent, upright black people, there is a notable failure on the part of blacks effectively to resist the bad people in their communities. The result is that the bad people—the orators, the hustlers, the corrupt, the despots—always seem to rise to the top. That is why black countries, and black-run cities in America, are the way they are. There are good people living in those places, but for the most part they are only good in their private, familial sphere. They are not actively good in the social and political sense and thus rarely take leadership or succeed in creating a civilized political order. The number of morally courageous and principled blacks who actively resist the corruption and racialist conformism around them is very limited; in fact, such upright and intelligent blacks often separate themselves from the black community when they recognize how unwelcome they are in it.

The only time when there was a relatively high quality black leadership in America was when America was under the influence of a white bourgeois Christian elite who set decent standards for the whole society including whites and blacks. Black communities and churches (just like white ethnic minority communities) tended to replicate the authoritative moral standards of the larger society. Thus the upright black leaders of the mid-twentieth century were themselves indirect products of a virtuous white majority culture. But as blacks have thrown off white influence and cultural standards (and as whites have cast off their own standards), black public society, as everyone is painfully aware, has become radically cruder and less ethical.

12. What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways of thought, however, was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the notion that whites were committing “genocide” against blacks. In September 1989, ABC News did a program on the condition of blacks in America, followed by a special edition of “Nightline” with a panel consisting of several of ABC’s black correspondents and other noted blacks. With the exception of Professor Shelby Steele, these accomplished, successful blacks all endorsed the notion of a white conspiracy to commit “genocide” against blacks. The discovery that it was not just ignorant street people, but successful, articulate black professionals who believed these insane and wicked conspiracy theories, made a devastating impression on me. Indeed, with the exception of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, I was more traumatized by this program than by any other public event in recent history. It shook my former belief that blacks and whites could more or less get along in the same society. (I wrote an article about this program, saying the same things I’ve said in the present paragraph, which New York Newsday rejected because, as the editor put it, it showed an “odd lack of compassion.”)

The wide acceptance of Afrocentrism had a similar effect on my views of blacks. I was appalled when I heard commentator Tony Brown, a reasonable and intelligent black (who moreover had just joined the Republican Party), say in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that, given the fact that mankind began in Africa, “all civilizations are African.” More than anything else, Afrocentrism, with its claims that European civilization was “stolen” from Africa and that people like Hannibal and Cleopatra were black because they lived on the African continent, confirmed my growing conviction that blacks were often incapable of distinguishing their wishes, feelings and resentments from objective reality. There is also the growing “black Bible” movement, which teaches that the main figures in the Bible, including Abraham, Moses, Mary, Jesus and Paul, were black—a truth which (naturally) those tricky whites have systematically hidden from blacks so as to maintain their dominance over them. As far as I can see, the blackness of the people in the Bible constitutes the sole teaching of this sect. Their interest in the Bible is exclusively racialist. (Once again, the fact that a large number of blacks do not believe in Afrocentrism does not change the fact that a large number of them do, and are acting on it and spreading it and institutionalizing it through the whole society.)

The most extreme form of black conspiracy thinking is the Nation of Islam claim that whites are demons who were created by a mad scientist 5,000 years ago, and who ever since then have robbed blacks of their birthright. Whether blacks believe in that myth, or are just fixated in a general feeling of historic grievance, the notion of their historic victimhood tends to justify in their minds every crime and injustice that they might now commit against whites. Over and over, polls and statements reveal that blacks feel they should not be held to moral standards for the crimes of blacks against whites, because blacks have been the victims of this vast and still unacknowledged evil by whites for several thousands of years. Blacks thus tend to see every issue in purely racialist terms—as we can see when black juries excuse black killers of whites, or when a great majority of blacks say that O.J. Simpson is innocent, or when a high percentage of blacks agree that Colin Ferguson’s mass murder on the Long Island Rail Road was a justified act of rage against white racism. The above attitudes all increasingly suggest that blacks and whites cannot truly live as equal co-citizens in the same society.

It is hard to forget Jefferson’s chilling premonitions in this regard:

Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State, and thus save the expense of supplying by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. [Italics added]. [Notes on Virginia, Query XIV, 1782].
Of course, blacks have suffered real historic crimes at the hands of whites. But that does not explain the contemporary, intensifying sense of black grievance, which finds its most flagrant expression in fantasies of white devils and 5,000-year-old conspiracies. Most importantly, the fact that the black feeling of grievance is augmenting, rather than diminishing, as slavery and legal discrimination recede into the distant past, suggests that the grievance has little to do with any actual crimes committed by whites. As I suggested in my American Renaissance speech, even in the complete absence of any racial oppression, blacks with their lower abilities will still tend to end up at the bottom of any biracial or multiracial society, a condition blacks and white liberals can only explain by saying that whites are keeping the blacks down. In other words, so long as the truth of racial differences is not recognized, whites will always end up being blamed—by both blacks and whites—for a black inferiority that is not whites’ fault.
The “Optical Illusion”

13. But there was still a major objection in my mind to the idea of an intractable racial difference in intelligence or civilizational capacities. It was the thought that, after all, most blacks seem normally intelligent, so how could there be so big a racial difference in overall intellectual abilities? It didn’t make sense. I then realized that this confusion stemmed from the mistaken assumption that intelligence is a single ability measured along a single continuum. In fact, intelligence consists of a set of several different abilities at different levels. People who may be equal to each other at one level may be vastly unequal at another level. As I was reading Daniel Seligman’s useful book, A Question of Intelligence, published in 1992, the following occurred to me, based on an experience that many people have probably had:

You’re speaking to an intelligent skilled worker, say a carpenter who is doing renovations on your house. He can speak about the job with great knowledgeability and intelligence. But the moment the conversation strays to an abstract or conceptual subject, he is uncomprehending. At one level of intelligence two people may be more or less equal, but at a higher level of intelligence there may be significant difference between them.
The carpenter idea helped me conceptualize the group difference between blacks and whites. For example, blacks do virtually as well as whites in reciting a list of numbers from memory, but they do much worse than whites when the test calls for them to recite a list backwards. In other words, at the level of ordinary abilities, the racial difference is small, but at a higher order of abilities, the difference is large.
This insight explained for me the “optical illusion” of racial equality. I realized that the reason whites do not automatically become aware of the large differences in average intellectual ability between whites and blacks is that whites often deal with blacks on a superficial level where only the ordinary levels of intelligence are brought into play.

In the fall of 1993 I had a kind of epiphany in which all these thoughts crystallized into a new paradigm concerning racial differences. It happened like this. I recalled an uncle of mine, one of my father’s brothers, who died about 10 years ago. He was a tall, handsome man, a natty dresser, a golfer, socially popular, a tough guy with an authoritative air, a bit irascible at times but not unkind. It never occurred to me in my youth there was anything wrong with him. It wasn’t until I grew older that I realized his entire conversation was limited to saying things like “Not too bad,” or “How about that,” or “You don’t say.” That’s an exaggeration, but not by much. My uncle, a year older than my father, worked with him in their business, in which they were partners, but I gradually realized my uncle did little except answer the phone and take in receipts. It was my father who actually ran the business and who had basically supported my uncle through his entire life, all the while keeping up the amiable front that my uncle was a partner in fact as well as in name. My mother told me that before she married my father, he told her that he would always have to take care of his brother. In fact, my uncle was of very limited intelligence, perhaps even borderline retarded, but it wasn’t something you automatically noticed because of the way he carried himself, his almost kingly manner and leonine appearance.

As I thought about my uncle in this light, I began to see through the “optical illusion” of racial equality. I realized how in ordinary interactions and behavior blacks seem on the whole like ourselves, indeed, often more vital than ourselves, with warm and vivid personalities, so we assume that any intellectual differences must be insignificant. It is only when we go beyond superficial contact and get to know them better, or when we observe them in a position requiring intelligence, that we see that, much more often than whites or Asians, they are unable to deal with more rigorous tasks. In undemanding, routine affairs they are, more or less, intellectually equal to whites. In more demanding settings they are not.

It was this insight that, by revealing and removing the “optical illusion,” brought all my ideas into a new pattern and gave me the conviction that there is a substantial, real difference in intelligence between blacks and whites, and that the difference is not just quantitative, but qualitative.

The optical illusion applies to political morality as well as to intelligence. I discussed earlier the question of passive and private goodness versus active and social goodness. Now, since we experience many blacks as good people, we naturally assume that blacks are equal to whites in the larger sense of being able to maintain a decent, humane, lawful society. But this is an illusion. The personal decency, goodness, and humanity of individual blacks does not translate into the ability to resist public evil, the aspiration to enforce social order. Those things require a degree of moral will, intelligence, and organizing energy that blacks, collectively, do not seem to possess. In any black-run society we can think of, from Washington, D.C. to Haiti to the Congo, good people end up suffering under the rule of despots, crooks, and incompetents.

It was all the above thoughts that led me to conclude, in my speech at the 1994 American Renaissance conference, that “the large and enduring differences in average intelligence between blacks and whites mean … that blacks on their own” cannot be expected in the foreseeable future “to be able to maintain a modern, civilized, democratic society.” That may sound needlessly harsh, but I think all the evidence points, tragically, to its truth. Here, once again, the thought will crop up that many blacks in America perform quite well in modern civilized institutions, that there are many individual blacks who are smarter and more competent and have better characters than many whites, and that some blacks have made distinguished contribution at a very high level, all of which would seem to disprove what I’ve just said about an overall black deficiency. But that is another example of the optical illusion. Such competent or even highly talented blacks are functioning within a white-majority society in which there are expectations and standards and a general level of skills and wealth created and maintained by whites. In a society without whites, the small number of intelligent blacks combined with the very large number of unintelligent blacks would make a high or even middling level of civilization impossible. The question, once again, is not one of individual blacks, many of whom are as capable as whites; the question is one of the civilizational character of the whole black community.

The above also means that to the extent blacks gain power in an institution or community, that institution will begin to undergo a decline, in some cases, a catastrophic decline. This is the unspoken argument against affirmative action. The spoken argument against affirmative action is that it’s unjust, which is of course true. The unspoken—and far graver—concern is that by bringing blacks on a racially proportional basis into occupations for which many of them are not qualified, we are dragging down every institution and profession, with incompetent teachers, incompetent doctors and nurses, incompetent airline pilots, incompetent and corrupt police officers and office holders and all the rest of it.

Even more alarming, the more blacks advance, the more—not less—they resent whites. The more America does to overcome its “racism,” the more “racist” America appears. The reason for this is built into the dynamics of human nature. Very simply, the more equal blacks become with whites, the more unbearable and unjust seem the remaining differences. Thus what started as a demand for basic civil rights mutated into a demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes, since in all these things blacks are still not “equal.”

An example of what happens when blacks gain power can be seen in the current imbroglio at Rutgers University, where President Francis Lawrence, through his own affirmative action policies, created the very student body that is now trying to destroy him. When blacks gain numbers and power, they inevitably subject whites to intimidation and tyranny, just as they do to their own people.

Summing up

The insights that came to me on this personal journey of discovery accumulated through several distinct stages.

First I learned that blacks on average score much less well on achievement tests, which explained why there were so few blacks in intellectual professions, but I didn’t associate these facts with a black deficit in “intelligence” as such.

Then that pioneer Michael Levin came along and tactlessly used the forbidden word “intelligence” to describe the quality in which blacks differ from whites. I was disturbed by this, wishing he would speak of a “difference in test-taking ability” rather than of a difference in intelligence. Yet at the same time I seemed to recognize that intelligence was, in fact, the issue at hand.

Then I came to understand that the quality measured by intelligence tests is something real, as proved by the fact that the results of IQ tests performed in childhood correlate highly with achievement in later life.

At this point, however, I still accepted the conventional view that group deficits in intelligence, even if real, were to a large degree determined by inferior cultural circumstances, and therefore could be eliminated by improvements in behavioral standards, socio-economic status, home environment, and so on. My inchoate belief in environmentalism was decisively refuted by the Scarr-Weinberg study showing that black children raised from infancy by white middle-class parents still were about 15 IQ points behind whites. This proved that IQ was determined by heredity, not culture.

But even if IQ itself was not cultural but genetic, there was the objection that the IQ tests themselves were culturally biased. This was thrown out by the discovery that blacks did worse in questions involving pure cognitive ability than in questions using white cultural references.

Then there was the growing awareness of the markedly different styles of thought between the races including blacks’ much greater suggestibility and reliance on rhetoric and emotional manipulation; their relative lack of ability to think in objective, cause-and-effect terms, their noticeably lesser orientation toward objective things and ideas outside the self; and their demonstrably lesser orientation toward the common political good and a moral and stable social order. There was, finally, the pronounced orientation of many blacks toward paranoid conspiracy theories, their tendency to see every issue in terms of race and to blame all their problems on whites.

And finally, drawing all these thoughts together into a new paradigm, there was the discovery of the “optical illusion” of racial sameness. This experience convinced me that the intellectual differences between blacks and whites are both substantive and qualitative—in short, that there are instrinsic racial differences in civilizational abilities.

Posted in Blacks, IQ, Whites | Comments Off

Dysgenics And The Declining Quality Of Student Writing

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

A college professor writes on FB: “I have now taught at both the university graduate and undergraduate levels for five years. The quality of student writing has never been worse. If I were a university president, I would require every incoming undergraduate to read E. B. White’s book, The Elements of Style.”

“I do grade on writing style as well as content, and if other faculty and students don’t like that, it’s too damn bad.”

“Loretta, the improvement of the English and writing skills of the children of New Jersey must be a bipartisan cause. You have always excelled in such efforts.”

Justin: No grammar is taught anymore at most High Schools. When we try to, we are told to teach to the test (in essence) and not get bogged down with such trivialities as grammar and style. ***SIGH***

Mary: “My boys complained for years when I edited their papers for spelling and grammar. I was brutal–much tougher than their teachers. When TJ scored 95% on the PSAT in writing they stopped complaining. Now, both boys are grateful, as they see their classmates struggle with writing elements they know intuitively.”

George Gilder: “Strunk and White is a menace. It offers rules for writing by pettifogs, puritans, and designers of public buildings and street signs. I think kids should be aroused to write purple phantasmagorias, acoustic tintinnabulations, reckless rampant incandescent bouquets, all wrapped in weeds wide enough for a Midsummer night’s tryst. You can always retro-prune–even “kill your babies”–in the cold light of dawn.”

Multiculturalism means the destruction of standards. Multi-racialism means the destruction of standards (because different races, on average, have different skills and abilities). No country has become more diverse and raised its standards (in education or morals etc). The only groups capable of resisting this rush to Idiocracy are largely homogeneous (whether they are Orthodox Jews or black Muslims or Japanese). Every year America is lowering its median IQ. We’re in a dysgenic spiral. Japan isn’t having these problems. You can assign Strunk & White to every kid but not every kid has the cognitive ability to use the book, finish high school, and proceed to college.

From the Wikipedia entry on Richard Lynn:

In Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Lynn reviews [49] the history of eugenics, from the early writings of Bénédict Morel and Francis Galton through the rise of eugenics in the early 20th century and its subsequent collapse. He identifies three main concerns of eugenicists such as himself: deterioration in health, intelligence and conscientiousness. Lynn asserts that natural selection in pre-industrial societies favoured traits such as intelligence and character but no longer does so in modern societies. He argues that due to the advance of medicine, selection against those with poor genes for health was relaxed.
Regarding intelligence, Lynn examines sibling studies. Lynn concludes that the tendency of children with a high number of siblings to be the least intelligent is evidence of dysgenic fertility. Lynn concedes that there has been a genuine increase in phenotypic intelligence, but argues that this is caused by environmental factors and is masking a decline in genotypic intelligence.
Lynn points to evidence that those with greater educational achievement have fewer children, while children with lower IQ come from larger families [50] as primary evidence that intelligence and fertility are negatively correlated. Continuing the theme of correlates of fertility, socioeconomic status appears to have a negative effect on fertility, which Lynn thinks is because there is increasingly ineffective use of contraception with declining socioeconomic class. Regarding intelligence, Lynn agrees with Lewis Terman’s comment in 1922 that “[t]he children of successful and cultivated parents test higher than children from wretched and ignorant homes for the simple reason that their heredity is better”.[citation needed]
Lynn goes on to present evidence that socio-economic status is positively correlated with indicators of conscientiousness such as work ethic and moral values and negatively with crime. Next the genetic basis of differences in conscientiousness is discussed, and Lynn concludes that twin studies provide evidence of a high heritability for the trait. The less conscientious, such as criminals, have more offspring.
While most of the book discusses evidence for dysgenics in developed countries, Lynn acknowledges that it is less strong in developing countries, but concludes that “dysgenic fertility […] is a worldwide phenomenon of modern populations” (p. 196).
Lynn concludes with an examination of counter-arguments. These include that the traits discussed are not genetically determined, that intelligence and fertility can be inversely related without dysgenics, that socio-economic classes do not differ genetically, and that there is no such thing as a ‘bad gene’. These arguments are dismissed, and Lynn asserts that these trends represent a serious problem. Finally, he expresses support for eugenics, which is the subject of his next book, Eugenics: A Reassessment.[51]
A review of Dysgenics by W.D. Hamilton, FRS, Royal Society Research Professor in evolutionary biology at the University of Oxford, was published posthumously in 2000.[52] In this lengthy review, written according to the author in “rambling essay format”, Hamilton writes that Lynn, “discussing the large bank of evidence that still accumulates on heritability of aptitudes and differentials of fertility, shows in this book that almost all of the worries of the early eugenicists were well-founded, in spite of the relative paucity of their evidence at the time”; in the second half of the review, several directions not covered in Lynn’s book are explored.
Another review of Dysgenics was written in 2002 by N.J. Mackintosh, FRS, Emeritus Professor of Experimental Psychology in the University of Cambridge.[53] Mackintosh writes that, “with a cavalier disregard for political correctness, he argues that the ideas of the eugenecists were correct and that we ignore them at our peril.” While recognising that the book provides a valuable and accurate source of information, he criticises Lynn for “not fully acknowledg[ing] the negative relationship between social class and education on the one hand, and infant mortality and life expectancy on the other.” He calls into question Lynn’s interpretation of data. He also points out that according to Lynn’s reading of the theory of natural selection, “if it is true that those with lower IQ and less education are producing more offspring, then they are fitter than those of higher IQ and more education”; he writes that, on the contrary, the eugenecists’ arguments rest not as Lynn suggests on some “biological imperative, but rather on a particular set of value judgements.”
In Eugenics: A Reassessment (2001),[51] Lynn argues that embryo selection as a form of standard reproductive therapy would raise the average intelligence of the population by 15 IQ points in a single generation (p. 300). If couples produce a hundred embryos, he argues, the range in potential IQ would be around 15 points above and below the parents’ IQ. Lynn argues this gain could be repeated each generation, eventually stabilising the population’s IQ at a theoretical maximum of around 200 after as little as six or seven generations.
In the same book Lynn discusses proposals by David Lykken and others before him to introduce a license scheme for would-be parents. Lynn agrees in principle but suggests that the only practical way to make it work would be to introduce the compulsory sterilisation of every girl and boy at aged 12 – either via medical procedures which each adult would have to apply to get removed or via a virus that would cause sterility for a set period of time.[54]
Eugenics received praise in a review by behavioural geneticist and Pioneer grantee, David T. Lykken as “[an] excellent, scholarly book …one cannot reasonably disagree with him on any point unless one can find an argument he has not already refuted.”
Lynn spoke at the 2012 American Renaissance conference. He argued that the West has undergone six generations of dysgenic breeding, and that dysgenics is also occurring on a global scale due to sub-replacement level fertility among Europeans and East Asians while the population of sub-Saharan Africa soars, and because of Third-World immigration into Western countries.[56] Lynn opined that Western democracies lacked the firmness of will to implement a truly rigorous eugenics program, and that this lack of will to stop dysgenic breeding and dysgenic immigration stemmed from the fact that Westerners had become “too nice.”

RAYMOND WOLTERS WRITES IN HIS NEW BOOK:

As has been noted, Diane Ravitch criticized many of the recent trends in school reform. But Ravitch paid no attention to IQ studies that suggested that the racial achievement gap stemmed from the fact that White and Asian students, on average, are smarter than African Americans and Mestizo Hispanics. When she ignored the research on IQ, Ravitch followed the example of most other education scholars and writers. She apparently recognized that most societies have pervasive orthodoxies that are maintained by a tacit agreement not to discuss certain matters. She probably sensed as well that many people would regard any such discussion of race and IQ as bad manners.

Other scholars and writers, however, believed that the racial gap in achievement was based on a racial gap in average IQ and that this gap was due, in part, to genetic inheritance. Many of these scholars believed that the influence of genes was so great that racial and ethnic achievement gaps could not be eradicated and were not likely to be reduced substantially. ”Those who emphasized the importance of inherent differences often were called “hereditarians.” In recent years, many hereditarians have called themselves “race realists.”

The mainstream media gave the impression that only a few maverick racists subscribed to hereditarianism and that the great majority of well-informed observers were egalitarians who believe that group differences are purely the result of cultural influences. Egalitarians maintain, for example, that the effects of slavery, segregation, and discrimination account for the fact that the average IQ of black Americans trails that of whites by about one standard deviation.

Yet egalitarianism is not the prevailing opinion among experts in the field of psychological measurement. When Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman surveyed more than 600 such experts in 1988, most of these experts agreed with the assertion that IQ tests accurately measured the ability to solve problems and to reason abstractly; and most also agreed with the statement that the IQ gap between Blacks and Whites was due in part to racial inheritance. Among these experts, the prevailing opinion was that “nurture”counted but that “nature”was responsible for at least half of the racial disparity in average IQs.

Snyderman and Rothman did “survey research” that allowed respondents to answer anonymously. The answers might have been different if the experts had been identified. In modern America, after all, the penalty for linking intelligence with heredity and race could be severe.

This point was illustrated in the reaction to *The Bell Curve* (1994), in which Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray made the case for the importance of IQ (and also suggested that, in accounting for racial disparities, “the data . . .tip toward a mixture of genetic and environmental influences”). The 845-page book enjoyed phenomenal sales success…

In 2010 Robert Weissberg published an especially trenchant critique of school reform, Bad Students, Not Bad Schools. Because Weissberg emphasized that basic intelligence is a key to academic achievement, some readers might regard his book as another hereditarian work. Yet this would not be correct. Weissberg noted that science has not yet defined the boundaries between genetic and cultural influences, and he also emphasized the importance of motivation. He acknowledged that the academic work of weak students would improve if school reformers could convince those students that schoolwork was important. He did not dwell on IQ, DNA, or HBD (human bio-diversity).

*Bad Students* grew out of personal experience as well as reading and thinking about American education. Weissberg was born in New York City in 1941. His family was satisfied with the education provided at their neighborhood elementary school, PS 75 (the Emily Dickinson School on Manhattan’s Upper West Side). But there were problems at the Booker T. Washington Junior High School, which young Robert attended for a few weeks in 1953. This was a decade before many other New York schools “slipped into near disaster,”but conditions at Booker T. had already deteriorated to the point that police had to be stationed on every floor. When Robert’s mother heard stories of “mayhem bereft of any learning (other than skillfully avoiding schoolyard confrontations), ”her response was “‘*genugestgenug*’(enough is enough in Yiddish).” The Weissbergs became early participants in White flight when they moved to suburban New Jersey, where Robert eventually graduated from Teaneck High School. He went on to receive a liberal arts education at Bard College and graduate training in political science at the University of Wisconsin. Weissberg then became a professor at Cornell University and at the University of Illinois. Over the course of three decades, he published several books including, *The Politics of Empowerment* (1999), *Polling Policy and Public Opinion* (2002), *The Limits of Civic Activism* (2005), and *Pernicious Tolerance* (2008).

In 2004, after being away from New York City for forty years, Weissberg returned to his home town as a retired professor emeritus. When he described his experiences at Booker T. Washington JHS to a recent president of that school’s PTA, he learned that conditions had become even worse. When he spoke to teachers from other schools, he heard similar reports. But “what finally instigated rethinking . . .was actually meeting many of America’s notable educators”–education professors and writers, high-ranking public officials, and wealthy philanthropists who were privately financing efforts at school reform. Most of these people were smart, and all were serious, but their opinions impressed Weissberg as “little more than heartfelt clichés.”

Thinking back to his days as a student at Booker T. Washington, Weissberg recalled that the school had been almost brand new in 1953 and there was nothing wrong with the teachers, save that they had to spend too much time trying “vainly . . .to control miscreants.” The problem had been with the students. Too many were “intellectually mediocre.” Too many “disdain[ed] academic achievement.” Too many were troublemakers. Yet when Weissberg discussed the state of public education with the leading experts and school reformers half a century later, “not a single pontificator put any blame on students themselves.” Some experts on the left echoed Jonathan Kozol{Kozol, Jonathan} and said that schools were struggling because of inadequate funds; others followed Howard Gardner and Theodore Sizer and found fault with directive teaching that did not allow students to achieve deep understanding by constructing their own knowledge.

Meanwhile, many experts on the right agreed with E. D. Hirsch’s critique of progressive education, while others said that things would be better if more veteran teachers followed the example of the young, hard-working rookies who enlisted in Teach for America. Experts from the left and right joined together in saying that schools and teachers should be held accountable for the scores their students made on standardized tests. None of the experts “put any blame on students themselves. . . . . The unpleasant possibility that students themselves hated school and their aversion was beyond remediation was . . .unthinkable, and voicing it breached decorum.”

The conversations reinforced Weissberg’s recognition that a sea change had occurred in the-late 1960s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, against the background of the Cold War, most public schools had emphasized the importance of educating the brightest students. Grouping students by ability came into vogue, and many high schools added advanced placement courses to the curriculum. But the emphasis shifted after the post-Sputnik panic was replaced by concern about civil rights and race riots. Whether on the left or the right, mainstream educators no longer emphasized the importance of “helping a few Whiz Kids master quantum mechanics so as to protect us from Soviet rockets.”Instead, educators shifted their emphasis to “moving the entire school population, but especially those at the very bottom, up a few notches.”“Uplifting the bottom, not rewarding the smartest of the smart, became the new official policy.”…

*Bad Students* was a relentless critique of this “educational romanticism.” Weissberg insisted that responsibility for learning should be shifted to students and their families, where most people had always recognized it belonged. With a combination of erudition and wit that is rare in scholarly analyses of public policy, Weissberg said “what everybody (or nearly everybody) knows to be true but is fearful of expressing in public – America’s educational woes just reflect our current demographic mix of students.”

Weissberg posited that academic achievement (A) depends on a combination of intelligence (I), motivation (M), resources (R), pedagogy (P), and teaching (T). He recognized that even smart and motivated students do not learn algebra on their own. Teachers, textbooks, and other resources (T and R) are necessary. He acknowledged that the pedagogy or curriculum of a school (P) also matters. Even as he skewered E. D. Hirsch for demanding “a near Stalinist centralization of state authority over schooling” (because Hirsch would impose a one-size-fits-all system of national standards and national testing), Weissberg also indicated that he personally thought “core knowledge”was better than “constructivism.” Yet while acknowledging the importance of resources, pedagogy, and teaching, Weissberg maintained that intelligence and motivation matter even more…

Racially balanced integration provided a second set of “natural experiments.”Due to White flight, integration was usually a short-lived transitional period between the time when large numbers of African Americans moved into a school and most Whites moved out. Nevertheless, there were exceptional instances where racially balanced integration persisted for a generation or more. In these instances of persisting integration, Black students enjoyed “every advantage imaginable in a ‘good school’including learning side-by-side with smart white students.” But this did not change academic outcomes.

Weissberg did more than highlight the failure of integration to boost the academic achievement of non-Asian minorities. He also contended that integration depressed the achievement of White students. Although test scores and other statistics are not conclusive on this point, there are numerous descriptive accounts of the decline of education in the wake of integration, and Weissberg provided yet more descriptions. In one community near San Diego, for example, there were seven elementary schools, five of which were failing. When students from the five were allowed to transfer to the remaining two, “the influx of refugees . . .outraged parents who paid a housing premium to enroll their offspring in the nearby superior school.” They soon discovered that their high quality schools were “suddenly plagued by physical violence and ‘purple language’ thanks to these new arrivals.” This should not have been a surprise, Weissberg wrote, and he asked: “Can one honestly insist that bullies and petty thieves will mend their ways if only sent to crime-free schools? A more likely scenario is that they will be energized by easy pickings.”

In their efforts to “make integration work,” racially balanced schools also moved away from grouping students by ability, relaxed standards of decorum, and placed more emphasis on remedial education and multiculturalism. As they did so, an increasing number of White families fled to private schools and distant suburbs. Weissberg devoted one chapter to what he called “the war on academic excellence.” “The foolishness of the ‘war’against America’s most talented,”he wrote, “is almost beyond belief, a relentless pursuit of an egalitarian{egalitarianism} fantasy at the expense of genuine educational accomplishment.”

…In emphasizing the importance of intelligence, Weissberg confronted what he called an “obvious truth” that most experts did not face. “Racial differences in cognitive ability” had become “great taboos,” Weissberg wrote. “A straight-talking public conversation about education when it wanders into the racial/ethnic minefield is nearly impossible. Lying is endemic; explanations of why African-Americans do so poorly can be near mystical.”In an egalitarian world, “hard-nosed realists”were “shunned or forced into silence,”while “those skilled in manipulating statistics or flattering those desperate to hear good news …rise to the top,”“survival-of-the-fittest style.”

…Although Weissberg expressed his views candidly, he was also a careful scholar. He said it was “nonsense” to “just assume” that all groups have “equal proficiency {Dogma of Zero Group Differences}.” He noted that after publication of *The Bell Curve* (1994), fifty-two leading researchers affirmed that group-related variations in intelligence were real. He mentioned the “sizeable, scientifically-respectable literature [that] shows that IQ is substantially inheritable, and varies by demographic groups.” He personally thought that the academic superiority of Caucasians and Asians was “likely to be at least partly genetic.”

Posted in Education, Eugenics, IQ, Race | Comments Off

Baruch HaShem, We’re Not Losing Control!

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

How dare anyone oppose our interests!

REPORT: Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its ‘zero tolerance’ for Israel boycotters

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

Man Caught Having Sex With Exhaust Pipe In Disturbing Viral Video

Posted on May 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

I don’t think we should judge people’s sexual preferences.

Brazil is a vibrant multi-racial democracy.

LINK: The New York Daily News reported that the 29-second long video, which was shot in Brazil, shows a fully-clothed man vigorously humping a silver two-door sedan in broad daylight. The man appears to have no shame, as he clearly realized he was being filmed.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off

Tabletmag: After the Nazi films unreel, many moviegoers are struck by how technically proficient and aesthetically compelling the films are.

Posted on May 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Tabletmag.com: After the Nazi films unreel, many moviegoers are struck by how technically proficient and aesthetically compelling the films are. “It makes me ill because it was so good,” says one queasy spectator after taking in The Jew Süss. No wonder; even after the Jewish talent was purged from the German film industry in 1933-1934, enough Weimar-era expertise remained in harness to show why German cinema was the only competition on the planet the Hollywood moguls really worried about. The regime also backed up its vision with the kind of resources and budget that today’s German filmmakers “can only dream about,” marvels director Margarethe von Trotta, who happens to be Moeller’s mother, after a screening of Uncle Kruger (Ohm Krüger, 1941), a lavish biopic of the Boer leader Paul Kruger, starring the great Emil Jannings, who abandoned Hollywood to become Goebbels’ prize poodle.

For not a few spectators, the seductive quality of the cinema breeds a fear that, if let loose, the Nazi films can be a gateway drug into the harder stuff. Filmed in shadows, a pair of former neo-Nazis confirms that the vintage Nazi fare is useful as bonding bait for new recruits, though even they scoff at The Eternal Jew as over the top. After watching The Jew Süss, a theater-full of French high school kids is nearly unanimous in voting to ban it from television broadcasts: The susceptible masses need to be protected from material that should be reserved “for the educated bourgeoisie.” A man at a cinematheque in Jerusalem demurs, arguing that The Jew Süss should be shown to every schoolchild in Israel, so they can be familiar with it, understand it, and “dispute and reject it.”

…Spearheaded by the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to Champion Human Rights, which closely monitored and vigorously protested the exhibition of Nazi films in the 1930s, American Jewish groups rallied to close down any screening emanating from the Third Reich. Only a handful of specialty houses survived to serve German audiences—some pro-Nazi, some just wanting to hear the language of the home country. S.A.-Mann Brand (1933) and Hitlerjunge Quex (1933), two of the German youth exploitation films featured by Moeller, got brief releases in the Yorkville Theatre in New York, but the remaining German-language houses stuck to melodramatic and musical fare with little overt Nazi proselytizing. Many of the imported Nazi films didn’t even bother with English language subtitling, and none of them (in contrast to the glories of Weimar-era cinema) broke through to the American mainstream.

Posted in Nazi | Comments Off

From 1991 San Francisco Examiner, The View From Japan: America’s Ethnic Achilles’ Heel

Posted on May 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

TOKYO – Americans are proud of their melting-pot heritage. But as blacks, Hispanics and Asians gradually come to outnumber whites, that ideal will fade. Like the Soviet Union today the United States will have to deal with contentious ethnic groups demanding greater autonomy and even political independence. That could prove to be industrial America’s undoing.
Many Americans, however, feign ignorance of the problem, partly because of the official ideology. The United States sees itself as a pluralistic, multiethnic society with a single national identity based on the principles of freedom and democracy. In fact, discrimination is rampant, but the illusion of equality is vital to maintain a sense of unity.
Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time before U.S. minority groups espouse self-determination in some form. When that happens, the country may become ungovernable.
Today, non-white groups are challenging the traditional order. Within the next 100 years, and probably much sooner, most Americans will be people of color. For the first time since the United States came into being, Caucasians will be a minority. Illiteracy may become widespread, and many Americans will not speak standard English.
Japan, too, faces major changes. A graying economic superpower, it may be a society of old people by the early 21st century. Because of our low birth rate, we might have to admit more foreign workers, skilled and unskilled, to provide basic services and keep the factories running. But these problems pale in comparison with the upheaval threatened by America’s demographic evolution.
Do blacks and Hispanics, for instance, have the skills and knowledge to run an advanced industrial economy? If the answer is yes, America will maintain its vitality through the next century and beyond. But I’m skeptical.
To compete in a high-tech age dominated by microelectronics requires a disciplined, well-trained labor force. Brilliant inventors and innovative engineers are not enough. Workers themselves must be highly motivated and equipped to meet the stringent norms of standardization imposed by precision-perfect high-tech manufacturing.
Blue-collar employees have to work steadily, day in and day out, at jobs requiring great concentration and manual dexterity. They must continually hone skills and improve personal performance and products through quality control.
Unfortunately, relatively few national groups meet these exacting requirements. I doubt that many African or Latin-American countries, for instance, will become high-tech societies in the foreseeable future.
The history of industrialization holds important lessons for the United States. As African Americans and Hispanics gradually replace whites in the labor force, management positions and public administration, they will become responsible for corporate America. Do they have the right stuff?
Idealistic Americans say yes. They insist that if scholastic attainment, living standards and social status improve, blacks, Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans will be capable of assuming this burden.
Many Japanese intellectuals appear to agree, either because they believe in equality or are afraid of being labeled racists.
I would like to be optimistic, but frankly, the experience of the last 500 years leaves little room for hope. Blacks and Hispanics will not be able to run a complex industrial society like the United States unless they dramatically raise their sights and standards in the next 40 years. Burdened with a handicap of this magnitude, how will the United States cope?

Posted in Blacks, Japan, Latino | Comments Off

Democratic Coalition Crack-Up

Posted on May 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* South Asians think about politics the way Jews do because they are as clannish as Jews are. East Asians are less clannish than that. They would be more likely to enter into a coalition with whites. I’m not saying that they’re actually likely to do that. Just more likely than South Asians.

Hindu castes are extremely ancient, endogamous ethno-religious groups, just like traditional Judaism. Similar setups have produced similar mentalities.

* Asian American academics are working very hard to make sure that their brethren know that the White Man is the enemy, always has been and always will be.

* The whole motive behind the Left’s endorsement of mass immigration has been the belief that mass immigration will help leftist whites defeat conservative whites. What they never seem to have considered is that before racial minorities defeat conservative whites they will first defeat leftist whites within the Democratic Party. SWPL white Democrats get tingles up their legs with they get to occasionally embrace seemingly cool, hip black pols like Barack Obama. When grim reality sets in, however, and the Democrats become the party of Carrie Meek, Cynthia McKinney, Hank Johnson, and Luis Gutierrez, they will soon become disenchanted.

Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2008 primaries is a direct result of the racial policies of the Democratic Party. But rather than exhibit any self-awareness of how they’ve harmed her chances at the presidency, she appears to have doubled down on open borders.

In more and more states, the dynamics within the Democratic Party will become a vicious cycle: guys like Chris Van Hollen won’t won the primaries, so SWPL whites will abandon the Dems, so fewer and fewer whites will bother to run as Dems.

It may be that the best hope for racial sanity isn’t simply electing more Republican senators like Jeff Sessions, but electing more Democratic senators like Donna Edwards.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off

Jews Up, Christians Down In America According To Pew Research

Posted on May 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Jews did a better job emphasizing the social and cultural aspect and lifestyle benefits of their religion, like stable marriages and families, than Christian churches. Secular Jews identify as Jews, secular people raised as Christians rarely say they are “secular Christian” which is too bad since that is a perfectly respectable view. For example, Winston Churchill, typically non-observant WASP, said he was not a pillar of the church, but more like a flying buttress, supporting it from the outside.

* One of the benefits of having a religion that has race as its central tenet. It’s easy to stop believing in God. It’s much harder to stop believing in race.

* That young Orthodox Jews escaped from Orthodoxy to secularism in the past is no guarantee that it will happen in the future. You fail to take into account the increase in reactionary stridency among the ultra-Orthodoxy that has developed over the last 50 years, a response to what the ultra-Orthodox see as the threat of assimilation. To prevent assimilation, they limit the secular education of their children (in some cases leaving their English communication skills crippled), marry them off very young and encourage them to have children as soon as possible after marriage. Thus they are ill-equipped for life in the secular world and could even lose their families if they ever thought seriously about escape. Emigration to the U.S. also aided my own ancestors who wanted to secularize 100 years ago. For the most part, their parents stayed behind in Poland and the Pale, leaving them more free once they were here. If current day young hasidim or haredim ever emigrate, it will to be Israel where they will be smothered by the powerful local hasidic and haredi communities waiting to absorb them.

* The decline of Christianity will be bad for the Jews, very bad. Jews have thrived under Christianity: financially, professionally, politically, intellectually, and most importantly, demographically, like under no other suzerain, not even under their own organically developed leaders. Leave aside the distracting fog of “anti-semitism”, “pogroms”, “ghettos”, etc and focus on the numbers. Starting from a small kernel of several thousand, settled in northern Italy and southern France 1,000 years ago, Ashkenazim developed into one of the most numerous and powerful nations in Europe by the dawn of the 20th century. At the outbreak of the WWII the world Jewish population stood at close to 15,000,000. The vast majority of this population developed through centuries of Christian suzerainty. And despite the destruction of WWII the Jewish population is robust and growing.

The spectacular demographic, cultural, financial and political success of Jews could only have happened under Christian suzerainty. Behold the Jewish populations of the levant, controlled by their own community leaders for over 2,000 years, and under the suzerainty of Islam. By the dawn of the 20th century most of them were unremarkable and, excepting what was Iraqi, withered demographically. Some small populations, as in Yemen, could be classified as semi-mentally retarded, due to inbreeding and lack of any intellectual stimulation aside from rote recitations of scripture. And in the shtetls of Europe, what a dismal and futile experience it was for the hundreds of years that the Jews were tightly controlled in so many aspects of life by their rabbis. Christianity has been liberating for the Jews.

There are several explanations for why Christianity uniquely encourages Jews to thrive. I will emphasize one: Christianity is the only widespread ethical system that mandates an imperative to altruism. No other major, contending ethical system mandates this imperative to anything approaching the degree that Christianity does, not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not Judaism. None of them do. Yes, yes, wicked Christians have tortured, slaughtered, enslaved and genocided countless souls over the millennia, but such wickedness has always, ultimately been condemned by Christian society, contemporaneously and in posterity. White Christians of all sects feel great guilt over mistreatment of Jews (as they do of Africans and (Ha!) Muslims) today and in the past, and make great efforts to act on this guilt. Jews misconstrue these efforts as a reach for justice, a justice that any rational person would reach for. In the Christian mind, justice has nothing to do with it. It is guilt, a debt owed to the defiance of the Christian God’s will and law, what motivates. As recompense for perceived sins of the past white Christians do feel a responsibility to protect the Jews. Protect them socially, politically, militarily, etc… But when Christianity goes, this sense off altruism, guilt, obligation to protect will go with it. The Jews’ trump card in dealing with the white man will be rendered useless. From the Jews’ sense of particularism, appealing to the white man through a sense of rational justice at that point will be futile. The white man will be concerned solely with his own interest and well being.

As refutation of my point, one could point to Scandinavia, the Netherlands or Britain, almost post-Christian societies, and their suicidally altruistic and guilt-ridden policies regarding muslim immigration. Countries where writing on this blog could get one prosecuted. These societies, and others, are running on the fumes of Christian culture. Only the guilt and altruism remain, driving them towards disaster. In the not too distant future cold, hard, intransigent reality will compel these societies to truly understand Islam and the irredeemable danger their political leaders have put them in. Fifty years hence, Scandinavia will be a very different place. At that point, altruism and guilt will vanish like the previous years fashions. And when they vanish they will vanish for the Jew too.

Without Christianity, and its attendant morality, Jewish particularism will have a very tough time of it, dealing with the white man.

* The pleasure of reading Steve’s take on Times stories is that I go from feeling like I’m being lectured to by a jerky professor, to watching the smartalecky kid take on the professor and show him up.

* Liberals act so smug when they find proof of racism, but don’t understand–or pretend they don’t understand — one simple truth: You can’t eliminate racism b/c you can’t eliminate race. There is the major difference in racism. The difference among races.

And no matter how loudly the Jew screams “NOT EVERY!!!” these average differences will always resurface in peoples understanding and perception. When they do, this is nothing to feel smug about. Of course they have.

Posted in Christianity, Jews | Comments Off

Confessions Of A Hasidic New York Landlord

Posted on May 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

He tells nymag.com: “If there’s a black tenant in the house—in every building we have, I put in white tenants. They want to know if black people are going to be living there. So sometimes we have ten apartments and everything is white, and then all of the sudden one tenant comes in with one black roommate, and they don’t like it. They see black people and get all riled up, they call me: “We’re not paying that much money to have black people live in the building.” If it’s white tenants only, it’s clean. I know it’s a little bit racist but it’s not. They’re the ones that are paying and I have to give them what they want. Or I’m not going to get the tenants and the money is not going to be what it is.”

* Good White Liberal Translation Dictionary

“dangerous” = black
“bad” = black
“sketchy” = black
“marginal” = black
“touch and go” = black
“rough” = black
“crime prone” = black
“inconvenient” = no cabs = black
“gun free zone” = black, as translated from the MSM-ese
“no-go” = 100% black
“ghetto” = archaic, so black has become unacceptable as a euphemism
“teen gangs” = the blackest of black
“seedy” = black + street walkers
“scary” = witnessed a black committing a crime there
“tricky” = black, with some mestizos
“crazy” = more trannies than blacks
“edgy” = African immigrant blacks with jobs + overpaid gay web designers
“borderline” = black, but saw some white faces and exhaled with relief
“decent” = less black
“up and coming” = even less black
“expensive” = non-black
“yuppie” = been non-black so long forgot how bad black was
“boring” = asian

Comments to the article:

* Only idealistic-liberal-thinkers believe that racism has gone away. As an executive, I never have and never will hire a black candidate, regardless of credentials. I have sold a townhome I lived in because a black family moved in next door (a family who relocated from an urban setting).
My family acts non-racial in public because society expects us to. But we don’t help black people in any way. Simply put, I don’t see them as Americans and I only see them bringing problems into neighborhoods and schools. There are things that are ingrained in their DNA. Being aggressive. Acting on anger. Being sexually explicit and acting on those urges. Not being able to communicate in standard American English. I never found my black college “mates” to be particularly scholarly. I’ve seen them be tardy and lazy in a professional setting. They’re loud and don’t understand social boundaries and personal space like whites, and other educated minorities, do. I’ve seen executives adjust their behavior around black people, that is, we don’t like them in the upper echelons of corporation.

* Hasidic landlords and black tenants deserve each other. It’s a shame they’re parting ways.

Posted in Blacks, Hasidim, New York | Comments Off