About my choice of Anglo Saxons, Whites and White-Man


Reason Man

Recommended Posts

MSK: I only skimmed this article, but there is a fundamental flaw I kept seeing repeated. Did anyone actually read this thing?

Response: This is the biggest problem. There is so much of misunderstanding about racism in America, and it is being misused to the hilt by the Dems as part of their “destruction of America via welfare-state” agenda. The OP is meant to rectify the misunderstanding, BUT: Did anyone actually read this thing? With the necessary seriousness? The atmosphere the Dems have created is so very simple: anybody touching the topic from side of rationality is damned and blackened in advance, without inquiry / study. And I being a foreigner without any name / standing am not likely to get any attention.

Reason Man,

This is pure BS.

If you want to learn how to write persuasively, I can point you into some very good directions.

But if you do like you did here? Ramble out long, unfocused, meandering thoughts without any attempt to understand the basics of communication and getting a message across?

Then you blame the reader?

Victimization?

Keriiiiist!

How is it other people manage to get read and understood? Is it a conspiracy against you because you are a "foreigner without any name / standing" or because readers are not serious? That's your alternative?

Maybe they just hate you, huh?

Gimme a break!

Here's just one bestselling book that argues something similar to what I think you might be getting at: Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama by Ann Coulter. Note that I said bestseller. People are reading it. And liking it. Some hating it. And it is making a difference.

But Ann Coulter knows how to write persuasively.

You don't.

Sorry to be so blunt, but if you are serious, you will take this like tough love. If you are not, soon you will get bored here and move on.

Here's a site for you to learn a few things about persuasion: Changing Minds. It's only introductory, but it covers a lot of ground quickly. (Don't try to swallow it all in one gulp. It can't be done. Take your time and experiment one thing at a time with your own writing--and learn how to do it.)

There's even better stuff out there, but that's a good one for starters.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Funny you mention that. I've read elsewhere Jews being described as "high-functioning Gypsies" :laugh:

High functioning Gypsies that revolutionize physics and cure dreadful diseases.

Ba'al Chatzaf

There is a serious question as to whether today's Jews are from the "lost tribes of Israel" or other stock.

--Brant

What difference does it make? Jews of all "races" are part of the Tribe.

It is the values and the culture that make a Jew a Jew not who his ancestors were.

There is something to this, although I do not discount a biological stratum for the pattern. After going down into the "anti-semitic" rabbit-hole, one of the more fascinating things I learned were the tales of secular jews of various races, say in South America, who at some point in their lives, after having spent their previous decades inveighing against religion and "irrationality", suddenly find themselves "rediscovering" their Judaic roots, with a newfound appreciating for the "richness" of their past, and travelling to the Homeland, etc. (I'm sure Bob is smiling knowingly as he read this).

The "anti-semites" regard such individuals as "sleeper-cells", with some justification. :)

I am friends with Robert Baratheon and have a tenuous amity with Kolker; they are both on my "Good Jew" list alongside folks like Mickey Kaus and the venerable Paul Gottfried (PBUH). But I would ask them and any other Jews reading to take a look at Birdman Bryant's "Open Letter To Jews" and his "Challenge To Jewish Readers."

Stand up and be counted, Kolker. Make your voice known!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think of this subject because I have a passion for intelligence and naturally wonder where all those Jewish brains have come from.

--Brant

"This land is mine, God gave this land to me" is, of course, complete bunk

The van den Haag hypothesis is that the occurrence of high intelligence among Ashkenazic Jews was the accidental result of the way matches were made in the Jewish Shtetels (Jewish communities in eastern Europe). Men who mastered Talmud and Torah which involve very abstract principles were held in very high respect. They were considered proper matches with the daughters of prosperous and successful businessmen who have already demonstrated high practical intelligence. Meanwhile among the Catholic communities their brightest and best were shunted into the Priesthood and Monasteries where the chances of having reproductive success was minimal. In short Catholic culture developed a program of lowering IQ and Jewish culture developed (purely accidentally) a program for raising IQ. The rest is history.

This is more or less what I have read as well.

Brant, if you look further into it, you will see the Talmud considers Gentiles to be dumb cattle to be yoked by the superior Jewish race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if you look further into it, you will see the Talmud considers Gentiles to be dumb cattle to be yoked by the superior Jewish race.

SB,

Do you have a quote or something?

As I understand it. "God's Chosen People" does not equate to "superior race" in the minds of anyone except the fringe (on both sides).

It's one thing to feel privileged by grace of an authority or, maybe, cultural habits. It's another to feel like a superior life form.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, if you look further into it, you will see the Talmud considers Gentiles to be dumb cattle to be yoked by the superior Jewish race.

Have you are any of your gentile friends been yoked by a Jew lately?

During the dark ages Jews bathed regularly (the mikvah) and were literate while most of Europe was digging fleas from its collective scalp and living in filth and could barely grunt. So any low opinions of "the goyim" were well founded.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if you look further into it, you will see the Talmud considers Gentiles to be dumb cattle to be yoked by the superior Jewish race.

SB,

Do you have a quote or something?

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/toprabbigentilesexisttoserve.htm

But this is just a minor point -- religious Jews who take the Talmud seriously are only significant in the Middle East.

I only bring it up to buttress the point made by Ba'al that Jews were indeed bred to be smarter than most. Which is true, and a good thing. "The Chosen People" idea is not without foundation.

If only that advanced and restless brainpower were not so often put to use in meddlesome busy-bodiedness in our country.

They are all of them born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people [Jews] some day became deadly to the human race. --Voltaire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was much less impressed with those pieces than Birdman's piece on the importance of a high-trust culture, which at least made a number of salient broader points. Much of these pieces seems to be a thinly veiled exercise in irrational thinking, or more specifically, confirmation bias with regard to his arbitrary starting assumption that Jews are the fundamental problem in society. Jews participated in all of the pro-liberty, pro-civilization advancements he cites as evidence of ASP benevolence, but since most of the prominent figures were ASPs (unsurprising, since ASPs were 95%+ of the population and Jews around 1%), Jews were obviously just riding on ASP coattails in his view. An obvious counterpoint is that ASPs fought on both sides of each of the conflicts he cites (slavery/abolitionism, American Revolution, etc.), but he inexplicably credits ASPs on the right side while ignoring those in opposition. The holocaust is inconvenient to his position, so he just pretends it never happened despite the evidence. He acknowledges that Jews are disproportionately peaceful, honest, productive members of society, but then asks us to ignore all that because it's not really important (then what is?). One who honestly looks can find countless counterexamples of pro-liberty, conservative Jewish leaders in modern America, but all of those people are just outliers, he claims, so again, discount them.

The only point I found remotely persuasive was his point that most Jews are liberal, but this is true of the intellectual/academic/political class across the board, including ASPs, so it's much more likely correlation than causation. I wasn't persuaded by his numerous disclaimers that he has no deep-seeded bias against Jews (methinks he doth protest too much), and he seems extraordinarily light on the evidence side. I agree with him that there is a deep cultural problem developing in this country, but his simplistic solution of removing all Jews is going to leave him very disappointed when he realizes the fundamental problem has little to do with them. The Nazis and Soviets learned the hard way that bad things happen when you kill or exile a huge percentage of your best scientists and thinkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB,

In other words, this is not in the Torah, but the Talmud. And even then, out of over 6,000 pages of opinions by rabbis over centuries, a tiny number of comments are given that are pretty disgusting--presuming that they have been translated correctly and quoted in proper context. (And, given the tone of the article, I believe it would be a very good idea to check.)

Also, in the article you linked, the American Jewish Committee repudiated this and, practically, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef himself.

I looked up the good Rabbi and saw that he was the equivalent of a Jewish Taliban leader. And even though the Shas party to which he belongs is growing a little, his bigoted views do not seem to be an entrenched part of the Shas political group, but more centered on Yosef himself. (Granted, they seem like they don't mind, but I don't get the impression they preach this stuff.) In Wikipedia, he is mentioned several times calling for things like the annihilation of Palestinians, but then reversing himself.

I'll give you this--he sounds like a character.

But I don't think the vast, overwhelmingly disproportionate majority of Jews take those Talmudic opinions seriously, translated correctly or otherwise.

Jews are famous in the places I have lived and worked and read and seen on TV, etc., for being non-bigoted. I have seen them targeted by antisemitics, but I don't recall any criticism from these fine gentle folks about Jewish bigotry, but instead about Jewish inferiority and vileness. Once in a while I read stuff about the evils of Zionism, but on looking at it, I have found more an attitude of "Look who thinks they are actually human?" than complaints about Jewish bigotry.

The closest I get to bigotry is complaints about Israeli oppression of Palestinians, but that almost always comes off to me as a fight over land and not over which is a superior race.

On the other hand, I have read and heard MANY comments from several sources like Islamists, Nazis, KKK members, etc., about Jews being an inferior sub-human life form.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, if you look further into it, you will see the Talmud considers Gentiles to be dumb cattle to be yoked by the superior Jewish race.

Have you are any of your gentile friends been yoked by a Jew lately?

During the dark ages Jews bathed regularly (the mikvah) and were literate while most of Europe was digging fleas from its collective scalp and living in filth and could barely grunt. So any low opinions of "the goyim" were well founded.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I didn't know a Jew from a hole in the wall, although I had read about the Holocaust, until I went from Arizona to New Jersey for my last two years of high school. Suddenly they were everywhere. Nice kids, got along well. The male students of Italian extract were more problematical, to say the least. When I got to college I met a real nasty (to me) Jew, editor of the student paper, who referred to me as (Nazi) George Lincoln Rockwell because of my then very conservative views. I didn't hold it against the Jews, only him.

--Brant

moo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is where his thinking goes a bit awry: outperforming isn't "exploitation" per se. Exploitation has a specific meaning, which is that you are using, or especially harming, another person for personal advancement. It's an emotionally attractive position to take because it implies a simple solution (simply rid yourself of the exploiter).

Well, it is the very definition of "exploitation" upon which this discussion turns. In fairness to the Birdman, he does state in his essay, "In saying this, I am not necessarily using the term 'exploitation' in a pejorative sense: I could just as well say, "The Jews are good at seeing opportunities and making the most of them.""

So we are left with the question of just where "opportunism" turns into "exploitation." Or is the concept of "exploitation" an arbitrary concept in your lexicon?

Here is a recent article from the NYT on the "unethical" practices of lending agencies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/business/economy/pension-loans-drive-retirees-into-more-debt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Is this the sort of thing you would condone in your libertarian Utopia? (Note: I am not suggesting Jews have anything to do with this -- I'm just using this example to flesh out my point). Was there force or fraud involved? Is this not an example of free and uncoerced transactions among rational actors? Do you feel any sort of squeamishness about this?

Personally, I will have to don my liberal "care/harm" hat here and side with Kacy in being concerned about such exploitation/opportunism. Not because I'm a bleeding heart (I'm hardly bothered by folks going to psychics for some emotional booster-shots) but because this impacts very real, very material standards of living.

I suspect the libertarian response would be that such "victims" should have known better and read the fine print. Perhaps that's true, but we must keep in mind that in this rapidly progressing technological society, levels of complexity are reaching unprecedented heights and we have to wonder if all people are capable of staying abreast of it all, particularly in the realm of arcane financial instruments.

The typical rejoinder would be that people need to be responsible and educate themselves, no matter what particular novelty confronts them. But this response reflects the belief that intelligence is infinitely malleable and adaptive, and all that is required is more application of the self-responsibility of free-will. Notwithstanding the recent debates here on the topic of free will, is it really true that every individual on the planet is even capable of apprehending all the relevant factors involved? But this question raises the issue of whether intelligence is evenly distributed among the population and therefore strikes at the very foundation of libertarian theory. And I suspect most here on this forum don't want to "go there", least of all Michael E. Marotta.

Does "asymmetry of information" mean anything to you, RB?

His second, more critical mistake is the apparently assumption that Jews trust each other simply because of their "Jewness." This misses the point. The high-trust culture doesn't exist because person A happens to be X and person B happens to also be X. The high-trust culture exists because X actually means something and has been established as a reliable predictor of other qualities through thousands of years of cultural reinforcement.

I'm not sure he says that Jews consciously trust each other simply because of their Jewness. He merely reports that they do, in fact, exhibit a high degree of ethnocentrism (including nepotism), while at the same time treating outgroups differently. You seem to be implying that this ingroup trust among Jews (due to factor "X") means that Jews view outgroups as lacking "X", as if ALL Gentiles are underseving of such fair treatment. Surely, many Gentiles don't, but just as many do.

But the larger point he is making in this context (if you peruse his website), is that the attempt by ASP's to engender any sort of group solidarity or ethnic-consciousness has been thwarted, reviled, and systematically attacked by the Jewish intelligentsia in this country. You said:

He is also correct that Jews are doing a good job of out-competing most other cultural/ethnic groups because of said culture. Lastly, he is correct in concluding that this should be the end goal of other cultures that may not be performing as well.

Historically, Jews were the proginetors of utopian philosophies such as Communism and Socialism which eroded any sense of nationalism or cultural patriotism.

The Frankfurt School was founded by Jews and represented a concerted critique of the traditions, customs and homogeneity of Western culture.

Franz Boas (Jew) attacked the scientific method, hereditarianism, and poisoned the social sciences with his denial of biological explanations for human behavior.

Jews were instrumental in dissolving immigration restrictions in the U.S.

Jews were at the forefront of the civil rights movement which enforced desegregation and forced busing in schools.

Currently, Jews make up a large majority of pundits on such sites as the Huffington Post and Salon where "anti-racist", i.e., "anti-white" screeds regularly pepper their output. Susan JEW Sontag called the white race "the cancer of human history." Tim JEW Wise wrote in his notorious essay that "the clock is ticking" and gleefully celebrates the demise of whites and their nation.

I could continue. I'll get to your other post after I've finished working out the details of my Final Solution.

This is why his assumption that white Christians - or whoever - can just decide to band together one day and succeed on that basis - without doing any of that hard cultural work - rings hollow. It's the difference between assuming that Michael Jordan was a great basketball player because he was given the opportunity to play on a great team and recognizing that he became a good player first, through years of practice, and was then allowed to play on the team because of it.

Ah, but your conceit here is in assuming Michael Jordan is uniquely great because of his "hard work". I'm quite sure serious basketball aficionados like Kacy will be the first to admit that MJ's greatness is due to his superior genetics. Notwithstanding Malcom Gladwell's feelgood pablum about "10,000 hours of practice", most folks will NEVER reach MJ's kingship. I am quite sure that you, RB, are a hard worker and consciously self-directed, but are you unaware of the research which has demonstrated that Ashkenazim IQ is literally the highest on the PLANET?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, if you look further into it, you will see the Talmud considers Gentiles to be dumb cattle to be yoked by the superior Jewish race.

Have you are any of your gentile friends been yoked by a Jew lately?

Well, Robert Baratheon and I had our sexual roleplay "funtime" a few weeks ago where I got to be the collared slave...

JUST KIDDING!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jews are famous in the places I have lived and worked and read and seen on TV, etc., for being non-bigoted. I have seen them targeted by antisemitics, but I don't recall any criticism from these fine gentle folks about Jewish bigotry, but instead about Jewish inferiority and vileness...

On the other hand, I have read and heard MANY comments from several sources like Islamists, Nazis, KKK members, etc., about Jews being an inferior sub-human life form.

If all the anti-semitism you've encountered is knuckledragging claims about "subhuman Jewish vileness" then you are still fighting yesterday's battles...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a recent article from the NYT on the "unethical" practices of lending agencies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/business/economy/pension-loans-drive-retirees-into-more-debt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Is this the sort of thing you would condone in your libertarian Utopia?

I know it's not directly on topic, but if we're going to discuss the above story in terms of emotional leanings, I have a profoundly difficult time feeling sorry for the Greatest/Boomer generations who enjoyed a relatively higher standard of living than my generation can ever hope to have. The public and military pensions targeted by these firms (and to a lesser extent Social Security/Medicare) were functionally indistinguishable from Ponzi schemes operating at the expense of future taxpayers and retirees. Those redistributionist systems really were rank exploitation by borrowing an unsustainable standard of living through debt and compounding obligations. Public and military pensions have been drastically reformed since they were first implemented just to keep them solvent and paying out the disproportionally high benefits to those who got in early. One conservative commenter on a RI blog refers to this as the "union life cycle," which had much the same effect on private institutions, such as the airlines and steel and automotive industries. To take one example of the disparity between generations, Federal employees who entered the work force before 1987 were guaranteed a lifetime fixed pension based on highest salary - now Federal employees get the equivalent of a 401k. Note: I'm not complaining about the current system - I'm all about sustainability and solvency - just pointing out that I have little sympathy for those who got in early, were given a full ride on the gravy train, and yet somehow managed to fall off through their own poor planning and financial management. If I see anything out of Social Security/Medicare at all when I retire (I'm not counting on it), it will be nothing compared to what my grandparents' generation received for the pittance they paid into it, most of which ended up in Florida restaurants and casinos.

I suspect the libertarian response would be that such "victims" should have known better and read the fine print. Perhaps that's true, but we must keep in mind that in this rapidly progressing technological society, levels of complexity are reaching unprecedented heights and we have to wonder if all people are capable of staying abreast of it all, particularly in the realm of arcane financial instruments.

The typical rejoinder would be that people need to be responsible and educate themselves, no matter what particular novelty confronts them. But this response reflects the belief that intelligence is infinitely malleable and adaptive, and all that is required is more application of the self-responsibility of free-will. Notwithstanding the recent debates here on the topic of free will, is it really true that every individual on the planet is even capable of apprehending all the relevant factors involved? But this question raises the issue of whether intelligence is evenly distributed among the population and therefore strikes at the very foundation of libertarian theory. And I suspect most here on this forum don't want to "go there", least of all Michael E. Marotta.

Technology cuts both ways. It's no accident IT geeks are disproportionately libertarian since the internet is the greatest consumer empowering mechanism in history and has put many of those who previously relied on information asymmetry out of business. I don't see it as a problem that intelligence and other traits aren't divided evenly across the human species. I see that simply as reality, and the question then becomes what to do about it from a policy perspective. If the evidence were in favor of central planning as a fair and efficient method of resource allocation, then I'd be more amenable to it. But the evidence is overwhelmining on the side of markets precisely because they so efficiently allocate human capital and allow everyone some buy in. The poor today would be recognized as enjoying a remarkably high standard of living compared to the middle class of a century ago (even the illegals in my area have smart phones, etc.) so it's not like they get entirely left behind.

I'm not sure he says that Jews consciously trust each other simply because of their Jewness. He merely reports that they do, in fact, exhibit a high degree of ethnocentrism (including nepotism), while at the same time treating outgroups differently. You seem to be implying that this ingroup trust among Jews (due to factor "X") means that Jews view outgroups as lacking "X", as if ALL Gentiles are underseving of such fair treatment. Surely, many Gentiles don't, but just as many do.

But the larger point he is making in this context (if you peruse his website), is that the attempt by ASP's to engender any sort of group solidarity or ethnic-consciousness has been thwarted, reviled, and systematically attacked by the Jewish intelligentsia in this country.

I agree that ethnocentricism (what I call racial clansmanship) is a huge cultural problem - especially if you're the one being excluded from it - but my approach is the opposite of yours and Birdman's. I want all ethnocentricism equally shamed and shunned as violative of modern notions of fairness and opportunity. I don't see two wrongs as making a right, even if the discrimination is retaliatory. Nor do I see white pride, or whatever you want to call it, as a viable resurgent social movement. By contrast, the individual-empowerment approach I'm describing has gotten a lot of traction recently. For example, there has been a pretty significant backlash against affirmative action over the last decade, with many states going to far as to ban the practice by popular referendum, despite the wishes of their political elites.

Historically, Jews were the proginetors of utopian philosophies such as Communism and Socialism which eroded any sense of nationalism or cultural patriotism.

The Frankfurt School was founded by Jews and represented a concerted critique of the traditions, customs and homogeneity of Western culture.

Franz Boas (Jew) attacked the scientific method, hereditarianism, and poisoned the social sciences with his denial of biological explanations for human behavior.

Jews were instrumental in dissolving immigration restrictions in the U.S.

Jews were at the forefront of the civil rights movement which enforced desegregation and forced busing in schools.

Currently, Jews make up a large majority of pundits on such sites as the Huffington Post and Salon where "anti-racist", i.e., "anti-white" screeds regularly pepper their output. Susan JEW Sontag called the white race "the cancer of human history." Tim JEW Wise wrote in his notorious essay that "the clock is ticking" and gleefully celebrates the demise of whites and their nation. I could continue.

As I said earlier, I don't dispute that many Jews are liberals/progressives, but the argument that Jewishness is the root cause of societal problems confuses the correlation between Jewishness and intellectualism with some kind of inherent causal link between Jewishness and progressivism. Most intellectuals/academics/politicians are liberal/progressive, period. Listing specific Jews who have harmed our culture through progressive/statist influence just strikes me as an exercise in cherry-picking and confirmation bias - we could just as easily do the same with ASPs.

To take one example, there are two leading political bloggers in my perpetually depressed home state of Rhode Island (a case study in the folly of progressivism, if there ever was one). The leading liberal/progressive blogger is Jewish, but so is the leading conservative/libertarian blogger who has been dutifully documenting the decline and taking the ruling Democratic political class to task for the past decade.

Jewish economists like Rothbard and von Mises founded the Austrian (free market) school of economics that is the sole major opponent of Keynesianism today. Milton Friedman, another Jewish economist, was perhaps the most influentional advocate of markets and small-government in the 20th century. David Ricardo, yet another Jewish economist, was laying the foundation of laissez faire capitalism back in the 1700's before neoclassical economics were even on the radar. Two contemporary thinkers who have greatly influenced me are Russell Roberts, host of libertarian EconTalk, and Jonah Goldberg, conservative author of Liberal Fascism, which examines the historical foundation of modern progressivism. Both are Jewish. I could continue...

I'm sure Birdman could provide some convulted reasoning of how all these counterexamples are simply anomalies or exceptions, but the evidence is there for anyone who wants to find it. The problem is with human nature and intellectualism/academia generally, not with Jews specifically. Exiling or murdering such people would only eliminate many of the best thinkers and advocates the small-government movement has ever known, as well as the many scientific achievements they would have developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all the anti-semitism you've encountered is knuckledragging claims about "subhuman Jewish vileness" then you are still fighting yesterday's battles...

SB,

Really?

You mean like certain Islamic countries where Mein Kampf is still a bestseller? (Turkey, Bangladesh and the Muslim areas of India come to mind.) That's an easy example.

Or how about just any day on the stuff MENRITV compiles?

It's not that hard to go on.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

addendum:

I'm also sure he could dig up some offensive Biblical passage in support of his argument,

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, let me point out the Birdman is no Christian -- he's an atheist and a skeptic who has written articles/books eviscerating theism. He is a high-IQ member of Mensa who started something of a kerfuffle in that subcommunity by writing about the Jewish Question in one of their publications. He was predictably hanged in the public square (see here ) and responded to his critics in a later issue (here).

Like myself, he is simply someone who recognizes the social benefit of traditional norms like Christianity in an increasingly insane world where progressive utilitarian accounting is the order of the day.

(Going somewhat OT for a moment: I know you are a fan of Nassim Taleb. Here is a nice review/discussion of his Black Swan. It seems his ideas could do much for the conservative/right-libertarian cause, i.e., using science to show the limits of "Reason" and modern man's hubris in relation to such. Just some red meat for you to chew on as I prepare my next salvo in this thread.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't deny Birdman seems like an intelligent chap. However, some of the craziest lunatics I encountered in my chess tournament days were Mensa members. The relationship between intelligence and utility may not in fact be linear, but instead more of a bell-shaped curve with the maximum lying somewhere around 130.

I'm not going to blanket-dismiss his writings on an emotional basis as others have done. His ideas deserve to be discussed at face value (I hold some unpopular ones myself). I admit it's just a hunch, but I do think the "Jewish question" he posits was a starting point in his thinking instead of a conclusion he reached through objective analysis. Too much of his reasoning smacks of confirmation bias and cherry-picking, and I wasn't very impressed with his tautological central argument that basically boils down to "All Jews are bad, except for those who aren't."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think of this subject because I have a passion for intelligence and naturally wonder where all those Jewish brains have come from.

--Brant

"This land is mine, God gave this land to me" is, of course, complete bunk

The van den Haag hypothesis is that the occurrence of high intelligence among Ashkenazic Jews was the accidental result of the way matches were made in the Jewish Shtetels (Jewish communities in eastern Europe). Men who mastered Talmud and Torah which involve very abstract principles were held in very high respect. They were considered proper matches with the daughters of prosperous and successful businessmen who have already demonstrated high practical intelligence. Meanwhile among the Catholic communities their brightest and best were shunted into the Priesthood and Monasteries where the chances of having reproductive success was minimal. In short Catholic culture developed a program of lowering IQ and Jewish culture developed (purely accidentally) a program for raising IQ. The rest is history.

With the advent of the Protestant movement, the fortunes of men improved since material prosperity was regarded as a Sign that the Almighty had bestowed His favor. As a result the Protestants also developed a breeding program for maximizing practical intelligence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is a sensible analysis, except the |Protestant breeding program seemed to result in their running out of brains before they ran out of money in many instances. \I know of a few families myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's just one bestselling book that argues something similar to what I think you might be getting at: Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama by Ann Coulter. Note that I said bestseller. People are reading it. And liking it. Some hating it. And it is making a difference.

But Ann Coulter knows how to write persuasively.

You don't.

Sorry to be so blunt, but if you are serious, you will take this like tough love. If you are not, soon you will get bored here and move on.

Here's a site for you to learn a few things about persuasion: Changing Minds. It's only introductory, but it covers a lot of ground quickly. (Don't try to swallow it all in one gulp. It can't be done. Take your time and experiment one thing at a time with your own writing--and learn how to do it.)

There's even better stuff out there, but that's a good one for starters.

At this point in the discussion, I had to remove some bigotry from this thread and throw it where it belongs (see here).

But I notice that the Original Poster did not resonate with my suggestion.

I wonder why, I wonder?...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mensa members don't think the same but they think a lot? Is it smart to think a lot?

--Brant

just do it!

quality is more important than quantity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I notice that the Original Poster did not resonate with my suggestion.

I wonder why, I wonder?...

:smile:

Michael

MSK:

I got response of being unfriendly to the reader from two other sites. On giving a thought the following history came to my mind – I wrote a book titled “Anglo Saxon Protestant Revolution” (ASP-R) which got criticism that was substantially unwarranted. So I started a Prologue to it which ended in the book “Is Democracy the Nemesis of the ASPs?” and while uploading it on various forums I visit I got the news (much after the happening) that Obama invited the UN into internal matters of the US, like the monkey between the two fighting cats (he specifically invited UN against the Conservatives, i.e. ‘angry white men’!) I thought this was the last leg of US’ fall even if it may be stretched for decades. So I changed the Introduction of the 2nd book (during the process of uploading) and used the words whites, blacks etc in the new Intro. Now there are 1-2 sites that I categorized as ARI-Ditto-heads, almost no independent thinking and parrot even blunders of ARI self-righteously. They have the habit of ganging up against the ones who are not Ditto-heads, never any appreciation of good points but strong criticism of even minor points, etc. They too are useful – you know where you are wrong, or where even false criticism will come from. They strongly called me a racist, offered Peikoff’s book OP as masterpiece explaining how the mind of a racist works ….. etc. So I wrote another piece saying that politicians use every available tool to grab power in democracy (which continuously kills rationality leading to collapse), and race too will be strongly used in America; generally this was to justify my usage of words thought of as racial, wherein I said to compare American ASPs with Nazis would take a depraved mind because of ASPs’ strong individualism and magnanimity.

All this was done over a period of 2 – 3 months. Since I was the author, it was well-connected in my mind, but definitely the reader would lose continuity and context if posted as different parts after a long gap. I missed this point, so at 2 – 3 places they gave MSK-like response. On the other hand on one Libertarian site it led to a long discussion because there was no discontinuity but the 2 posts were one OP.

My dilemma is that I want comments, but entire books if uploaded are neglected as too long – and when posted as separate pieces this is what happened; (even these small pieces become too long on net discussions, others said that like Brant here). So I had withdrawn for some thinking (and the minor reason is that the comments to the OP became Jews vs non-Jews). I think I will now upload most of the book after giving it a small revision (1-2 months). Those who have the patience will read, others will not, that’s all that is possible.

But no malice for your comment, the mistake is basically due to the situation described above.

Marketing will be the real problem -- anybody has any advice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now