Saletan's assertion that Jews don't mention that they are a race out of politeness -- because gentiles would find the idea of Jews being a race offensive and Jews never want to cause offense -- is pretty funny. In reality, of course, gentiles seldom mention that Jews are, more or less, a hereditary racial group because they don't want to be denounced for it by hotly offended, verbally facile, high IQ, argumentatively tireless Jewish intellectuals.Are Jews a race? Is Jewish intelligence genetic?
If these notions make you cringe, you're not alone. Many non-Jews find them offensive. Actually, scratch that. I have no idea whether non-Jews find them offensive. But I imagine that they do, which is why Jews like me wince at any suggestion of Jewish genetic superiority. We don't even want to talk about it.
Actually, a bunch of us did talk about it, three days ago at a forum at the American Enterprise Institute. The main speaker was Jon Entine, an AEI fellow and author of a new book, Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People. He was joined by fellow AEI scholar Charles Murray and by Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University. Entine and Zoloth are Jewish. Murray isn't but talks as though he wishes he were. "One of my thesis advisers at MIT was a Sephardic Jew," he announced proudly, turning the old "some of my best friends" cliché upside down.
My pet theory has long been that one important reason that Ashkenazi Jews are so suited to triumphing via argument in the modern world is because they developed for centuries in a largely unarmed shtetl culture where to argue aggressively didn't put your life at risk. Heinlein famously asserted that "An armed society is a polite society," but the inverse would seem also to be true: "An unarmed society is an argumentative society."
In contrast, gentlemen in England wore swords until some point in the 18th Century (and England was a fairly low violence society compared to the rest of Europe). Alexander Hamilton was removed from the gene pool in a duel in 1804, and a U.S. Senator was killed in a duel in San Francisco as late as 1859.
Argument is a two edged sword. Without arguing, you can't make as much progress as fast in understanding the world (as the enormous number of hard science Nobel Prizes won by Jews attests). But, you can also use your ardor for verbal combat to browbeat others who lack your love of endless argument into either acquiescence or silence, as shown by the long history of bad ideas such as Freudianism that Jewish advocates have verbally badgered much of the rest of the world into at least temporarily conceding.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
66 comments:
I like your idea (a lot) but I'm not so sure about it. Back in Yeshiva (talmudic academy for boys) we would regularly look each other in the face while sitting over a couple of sforim (jewish law-texts) and loudly pronounce, "YOU - ARE - A - MORON!", if we thought that our chavrusa (study partner) had wrong pshat (the wrong analysis of the text). There wasn't anything impolite about it. In fact, the Babylonian Talmud itself proudly references such a culture among Jewish study-partners as far back as 1500 years ago. Nevertheless, since leaving the world of the Yeshiva, I've discovered that such unapologetic discussion doesn't quite live on anywhere else in the Jewish world. In fact, it doesn't even live in the Yeshiva itself when discussing pancakes or showers. I, myself, happen to intellectually engage others without bothering to skirt around any issue but I can tell you for a fact, and with a great deal of sorrow, that Jewish revelry in open debate lives only in the Beis Medrash (study hall) and even there, only with regards to the sugya (textual subject) at hand.
Furthermore, the debate that roils in the Beis Medrash is hardly intellectually honest. WITHIN THE RULES of Jewish-law debates it's savagely honest but the rules themselves are largely laughably illogical and petrified in thousands of years worth of tradition. Anyone attempting to discover some as-yet undiscovered law of physics would hardly be well-served by the reverence for textual authority that is the very soul of "learning" (rough trans: Jewish-law debating).
Cheers and a non-ironic Gut Shabbos y'all,
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
Steve -- the rise of Freudianism was because of lack of anything ELSE to explain psychological issues. Not "Jewish Argumentiveness" but rather an early pioneer setting up intellectual ranches on the empty conceptual land.
Moreover, Jews in Western Europe were quite different than those in Eastern Europe where the ghettoized features led to separate lives. Jews in Western Europe were mostly second-class citizens who would handle "untouchable" occupations during the Medieval-Early Modern Era and became more or less assimilated from the 1700's onward. There were Jews for example in the Southern Colonies and also in Rhode Island from the 1650's onward. In Europe they were found in many respectable trades -- silver and goldsmithing, coachwork, typesetting, and so on. Heinrich Heine, the romantic poet/writer, for example, was an assimilated Jew.
The verbal confrontational culture mnuez describes exists in a lot high-profile and or highly paid professions where Jews concentrate. Think of:
- Top law schools, journal staff, Big Firms
- Surgical medical residencies
- Wall Street/Finance
- Math/Physics grad students
- Academics in general
- Extreme ideological politics (neocons and lefties)
A much smaller percentage of Gentiles, especially women, relish like or can deal with these abrasive social macrocosms.
On the opposite end of Jewish argumentativeness is Japanese stoicism. It's been said that the Japanese today are inscrutable today because anyone betraying and private feeling or words would risk death in Japan's feudal militaristic and strictly hierarchal society.
Saletan's assertion that Jews don't mention that they are a race out of politeness -- because gentiles would find the idea of Jews being a race offensive and Jews never want to cause offense -- is pretty funny. In reality, of course, gentiles seldom mention that Jews are, more or less, a hereditary racial group because they don't want to be denounced for it by hotly offended, verbally facile, high IQ, argumentatively tireless Jewish intellectuals.
Very funny, indeed! Jewish intellectuals have done more than anyone else to poison the well of honest scientific discussion of race. Think of Franz Boas, Ashley Montagu, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Peter Schonemann (Jewish, I assume), and Robert Sternberg among too many others. The idea that all these people's efforts were motivated by a desire to please non-Jews is so much nonsense. The "Race Is Real, So Is IQ" side has noticeably fewer Jews and those Jews are less prominent in the debate: Murray, Hernstein (Jewish and hesitant to talk about Jewish intelligence), Jensen, Rushton, Gottfredson (Scandinavian?), Lynn, Vanhanen, Chris Brand, Carleton S. Coon, Shockley, Wilson, Watson, Glayde Whitney, Dan Seligman (Jewish), Michael Levin (Jewish), Seymour Itzkoff (Jewish, I would assume) and Vincent Sarich come to mind.
When it comes to race and IQ realism - a necessary prerequisite to tackling the problems caused by race differences in intelligence - we might speak of the "Gentile Advantage."
"the rise of Freudianism was because of lack of anything ELSE to explain psychological issues."
Actually, the psychometrics of trait psychology were already underway by the time Freud hit the scene. Freudianism set back the field of psychology for a generation at least.
probably off topic, but i laugh when nobel prizes are used as evidence of superior jewish intelligence.
nobel prizes also say that europeans are dramatically more intelligent than east asians. by at least 1 standard deviation, maybe more depending on the numbers.
the evidence can't be used one way, but not the other. nobel prizes are total garbage as far as data goes, and have zero validity in a proper statistical sense.
nobel prizes seem to be more closely connected to smart people living among europeans.
Arthur Jensen is half-Jewish.
David Wechsler, who between 1939 and 1967 composed the various IQ tests still widely used today, was Jewish.
the blog author here puts jews on a pedestal for genetic reasons. but it does not compute. steve sailer you are close but not quite at the heart of the hebrew strategy.
the main method that the tribe employs to "win the argument" is to control the purse strings of an organization and bring to bear financial pressure on dissenters. this website is a great example of jews being unable to refute arguments coherently. the phillip weiss and lawrence auster websites also demonstrate this.
jews don't win the argument with an elevated genetic debating prowess. high iq gentiles are perfectly capable of debating them successfully. therefore the jewish debate strategy against opposition high iq gentiles is to 1. not give them a place at the table in the first place and 2. overwhelm them with a "chorus".
with enough financial support any magazine can be infiltrated then tilted in any political direction no matter the magazine's history. the same is true for all media, universities, political parties etc.
the jews have disseminated the worst ideas in many fields of intellectual inquiry by using group strategy and financial leverage. money enables the creation of a "chorus" voices. more than one voice repeating the same idea generates "authority" in the public perception.
the tribe's latest batch of genius ideas is modern political correctness which is cultural marxism. once again they never "won the argument"; they simply gained control of the required media outlets.
the national dialog and conventional wisdom is largely controlled through money and not by winning the argument.
Arthur Jensen is half-Jewish.
You learn something new every day - or at least 11:40 at night.
a psychologist,
Actually, the psychometrics of trait psychology were already underway by the time Freud hit the scene. Freudianism set back the field of psychology for a generation at least.
Yes. A very hard experimental psychology already existed with the likes of Wundt before Freud came around with his untestable, anti-empirical pseudoscience. Freud, Jung, and the rest need to be consigned to the dustbin of history and, outside of university English Lit departments, I'm optimistic they soon will be.
Hmmm. By this theory there must be a point in most wives' lives when they become honorary Ashkenazim...
Kind of an honorary bat mitzvah...
Or maybe it is called a wedding. ;-p
Arthur Jensen is half-Jewish.
According to Wikipedia, Jensen is one-quarter Jewish.
"In contrast, gentlemen in England wore swords until some point in the 18th Century (and England was a fairly low violence society compared to the rest of Europe). Alexander Hamilton was removed from the gene pool in a duel in 1804, and a U.S. Senator was killed in a duel in San Francisco as late as 1859."
Europe's greatest fencers in the late 19th century were Jews in Austro-Hungary; Jews had taken up the sport to defend challenges to their honor. Fencing fraternities then banned Jews, sparing Jew-haters the humiliation of fighting superior opponents.
Dan Seligman, author of the excellent 1992 introduction to modern IQ research, "A Question of Intelligence," is, I believe, Jewish on his father's side, Irish on his mother's side.
Francis, you're a pip-squeak who feel himself under siege and therefore has to go about creating Vast Conspiracies to explain his personal failure as a human being. Anyone who knows anything about Jews knows that successful Jews HATE finding themselves at the head of some discipline or business only to be surrounded by more Jews. Successful Jews VERY OFTEN go out of their way (and have for over a hundred years) to promote non-Jews over Jews, even where a Jewish candidate might be better suited.
Though old-boys-clubs do exist to some degree or another in every discernible community on the face of the Earth, among successful Jews the predominant drive is NOT to "help a brother out" but rather to prove to the world that you're a NON-Jewish success by doing what you can to see that few of the tribe are standing next to you at the front of the office.
By and large (and only "by and large", in NO way is this absolute - but it most certainly IS the general rule) successful Jews reached their pinnacles of success DESPITE the prior existence of successful Jews in those fields (if any DID priorly exist in those fields) rather than OWING to some Yiddishe cabal.
So Francy, take your psychological impotence and little-man rage elsewhere.
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
"An armed society is a polite society,"
Why do people still say this when its empirically not true? Or is south central LA a polite society?
This makes the internet a major area of social (though not genetic) growth since it is very difficult to engage in fisticuffs through a computer screen & one is stuck with intelligent argument.
Steve, your Alexander Hamilton example isn't so hot. Sure, Alexander Hamilton was removed from the gene pool in a dual, but only after passing along his genes to TEN children. His eldest son Phillip though, was killed in a dual 4 years before Alexander.
Now that Lynn's latest numbers have come out, it appears that Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is not too far from the gentile norm where it developed.
Didn't Germany and the Netherlands come to 107 and Poland 106 in his latest study of European IQ?
High Jewish IQ can be explained at least in part (mostly IMO) by Jewish law. If a given Jewish community followed the law for 10 generations, those who were incapable of following the law due to stupidity (a common reason for not following the law) would have significantly fewer children, due to difficulty in getting married I'd imagine, thus raising the average intelligence.
Think about this:
If you set the bar for getting married a few IQ points higher in one society than in the next, the former will become more intelligent and the latter more numerous. Isn't this a familiar situation in Eastern Europe?
So really, the method for raising IQ is clear, but we are arguing over how it was implemented. I say it was Jewish law, which has eugenic elements. If you study Torah, you probably know more than I do about eugenic tendencies of Jewish law, but I know enough from reading the Mitzvot and the Old Testament to be confident that this is a feature of Judaism. In fact, merely being intelligent enough to learn and follow 613 laws probably requires an IQ near 100. Understanding them probably requires something like 115.
Here's an article written by a rabbi on this subject that I'm sure a few here have already read:
Jewish Eugenics
"Many non-Jews find them offensive"
Among whites only neo-Nazis and cultural Marxists find them offensive. Most of us have no trouble with the notion that Jews are somewhat smarter on average. It explains Jewish success without need for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
My pet theory has long been that one important reason that Ashkenazi Jews are so suited to triumphing via argument in the modern world is because they developed for centuries in a largely unarmed shtetl culture where to argue aggressively didn't put your life at risk.
Hey, wait a minute that's my pet theory that I emailed to you a long time ago. Theft! Robbery! Where's my gun!
Hans Eysenck, mother Jewish.
Hamilton had already fathered a number of kids by the time of his death (although one of them was killed in a duel also). As a general rule your point holds, of course.
Freudianism was a success story because Freud had litarary talent, and he was great at popularizing his ideas. Artists and writers embraced his theories, and Freudian explanations became all the rage among the chatterati, even though there was no empirical proof of them.
This meant that absurd ideas became widely accepted even when more likely hypotheses and theories were available. People believed in the Oedipus complex, even as the Westermarck effect had already been postulated (Westermarck and Freud actually had a debate on this subject, Freud putting forth his usual sophisms, while Westermarck said that he cannot accept the Oedipus complex due to a lack of empirical evidence).
Some of Freud's predecessors and contempories were making genuine progress in understanding the human mind. For example, Jean-Martin Charcot, with whom the young Freud studied, posited that some mental illnesses were hereditary neurological disorders, whereas Freud claimed that mental disorders derived from a desire to boink one's own parents.
Newer psychology has rejected Freud, and prefers the experimental method, but unfortunately Freudianism lives on among scientifically illiterate humanists.
I wonder if half-Jews are more open to the IQ arguments? They find them complimentary but don't have the strong ethnic identification that would scare them off...
"But, you can also use your ardor for verbal combat to browbeat others who lack your love of endless argument into either acquiescence or silence, as shown by the long history of bad ideas such as Freudianism that Jewish advocates have verbally badgered much of the rest of the world into at least temporarily conceding."
How was Freud a bad idea for the Jews? Jews liked him and helped advance his ideas because they knew he was good for their community.
I'm incredibly sympathetic to Jewish intellectuals because they CARE, they are passionate, they fight. I'm so sick of listening to these boring - I'd rather quit than fight - goys. Or even worse, the pompous faux aristocrats who don't believe "gentlemen" argue.
Jewish Intellectuals have taken over the conservative movement for a lot of reasons, but primarily because they attack and are passionate, while their goys counterparts just find it all too tiring to fight back.
with enough financial support any magazine can be infiltrated then tilted in any political direction...
Jews are ubiquitious in intellectual fields because they are intellectually active, period. It's not so much argumentation their culture celebrates as intellectual curiousity. Most cultures, including my own Scotch-Irish one, don't. Most of my people would prefer talking about football or Britney Spears. Of course IQ probably plays a role - it's easier to have a discussion about some opaque topic when you can have an intelligent one. But I wonder if there's a separate gene for that sort of curiousity, and if so if it came first.
the jews have disseminated the worst ideas in many fields of intellectual inquiry by using group strategy and financial leverage...
Yep, they've disseminated lots of bad ideas - LOTS. But, as above, that's because they've been generating lots of ideas, period.
money enables the creation of a "chorus" voices. more than one voice repeating the same idea generates "authority" in the public perception.
That part I really can't dispute. And so it goes for the left today.
the tribe's latest batch of genius ideas is modern political correctness which is cultural marxism.
99.9% of the cultural Marxists I've known and met aren't Jewish.
once again they never "won the argument"; they simply gained control of the required media outlets.
In some cases true.
the national dialog and conventional wisdom is largely controlled through money and not by winning the argument.
It's controlled through the ability to shame people. The left is more adept at tha, though they have more reason to be ashamed than we.
Freudianism set back the field of psychology for a generation at least.
Some of the theoretical aspects of Freudiansim did. But things like subconscious motives, repressed memory, and, especially, psychoanalysis, have become important parts of psychological theory and practice.
Jews never want to cause offense
Sorry, but that one's a chuckle. I'm sure that's why New Yorkers are known as being so polite. Jews have lots of fine qualities, but politeness ain't one.
Ashkenazi Jews are a race like Irish are a different race than Polish. In other words, not really.
Steve,
Are you part-Jewish ethnically? What's the deal with those rumors?
And if you are part Jewish, how has that informed your views on Jews?
I am a white non-Jew who doesn't find it offensive in the least that Jews would discuss and research why they are smarter than the mean. The same for Asians, who are also smarter than my own ethnic group.
Jewish worries about riling about the gentile masses are silly and vain. Most people take Jewish intelligence as a given and don't care to think about it much one way or another.
Who wins the next American Idol is about 200 times more important for the average American than resentment of uppity Jews who think they're smarter than everyone else, to the extent the resentment even exists at all.
My encounters with verbally facile, high-g Ashkenazim have been curiously disillusioning. They make elementary errors in logic, refuse to admit them and simply repeat their exploded point. Chutzpah is more important in Jewish success than g. There are more high-g gentiles, but few gentiles have both high g and chutzpah.
Arthur Jensen is half-Jewish.
Hans Eysenck, one of the greatest of all proponents of race realism, was maternally Jewish, but tried to pretend he wasn't. That is the pattern. Jews who identify as Jews oppose race realism; Jews who don't don't. Jewish organizations are overwhelmingly against race realism.
They make elementary errors in logic, refuse to admit them and simply repeat their exploded point.
This is my observation as well.
I think it's instructive to note that two forms of moral reasoning in the Abrahamic tradition have come to be synonymous with the most abject form of lying: Talmudism and Jesuitry. I hardly think that can be an accient.
In the ancient world, you have Sophistry, the art of self-advancement through the use of rhetorical legerdemain, but it hardly flew under the flag of piety and morality. In fact, it more or less flew under the flag of "self-advancement through rhetorical legerdemain".
The names of other ancient schools have come to mean something other than their founders practiced, such as Cynics or Epicurians, but those terms haven't come to mean the twisting of words and concepts to seek ignoble ends.
As an interesting but only partially related aside, the ancient Cretans have a repuation as liars, but the claim rests on a hilarious logical contradiction in Titus 1:12-14:
Even one of their own Prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth
More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox
My encounters with verbally facile, high-g Ashkenazim have been curiously disillusioning. They make elementary errors in logic, refuse to admit them and simply repeat their exploded point. Chutzpah is more important in Jewish success than g.
Ditto.
Arthur Jensen is half-Jewish.
Again, this is incorrect. Steve has been spreading this misinformation for years. Jensen had exactly one Jewish grandparent.
My encounters with verbally facile, high-g Ashkenazim have been curiously disillusioning. They make elementary errors in logic, refuse to admit them and simply repeat their exploded point.
You were probably dealing with left-wing Jews. Left-wing gentiles are just as annoying.
in the whole debate about what causes jewish success, i think that natural intelligence as measured by iq represents a less significant part than culture does. it seems jews understand this, but non-jews get hung up on the whole iq thing.
take for instance catholics (i'm irish-german catholic catholic so i'm not dumping on catholics - you could probably use other large christian denominations, too). not to rehash weber's protestant work ethic, i think most people would agree jews have achieved more than catholics in the us. based on a normal distribution of intelligence and an average 100 iq catholics/115 iq for jews and a 15 standard deviation, the absolute number of catholics with a >120 iq is far greater than that of jews due to the much larger population of catholics (i'll show the #s below). all else equal, the high iq catholics should have a much greater overall impact on the us than the small numerically number of jews. of course because of the higher average, there will be more jews are the far right of the bell curve (i estimate by about 2.5 to 1), but i would suspect that most people who gain success in business or politics are not at the super high part (>145 iq) of the range. not a new thought, but number of super high iq jews probably accounts for their over representation as nobel winners.
maybe there are other genetic traits that account for the success of jews in the us, but i think their greater natural intelligence is not the key driver.
any feedback on where this analysis is wrong would be appreciated, but to get the numbers, i assumed that the us population was 300 mil, with catholics representing 24.5% of the population and jews 1.4%. to use the average 100 iq for catholics, i subtracted the 44.3 mil hispanics. for a catholic to have an iq of at least 120, he/she would have to be 1.33 st devs above the average, which is about 9.1% of the population. a jew with an iq of 120 would be 0.33 st devs above their 115 average, so about 37% of the jewish population would have an iq >120. these numbers suggest that there are 2.7 mil catholics and 1.6 mil jews with iqs > 120.
What's the source for Eysenck's mother being Jewish? According to Portraits of pioneers in psychology, she wasn't:
"Eysenck's mother, who had divorced Eysenck's father and married a movie producer who was Jewish, emigrated to France when Hitler came to power. Sensing the unhappy prospects of living under the political conditions in Nazi Germany, Eysenck soon followed. -- Because of his defection from Hitler's Germany, many have mistakenly believed that Eysenck himself was Jewish. Actually, his parents were Lutheran Christians and he never adopted any religion. His only Jewish relatives were his stepfather and his second wife, Sybil --"
when i read francis k's comment, it made me think of some of the think i hear from the radical black fringe, like there is a world wide conspiracy of whites to keep blacks down. most whites that i know are mostly focused on their own personal lives and don't have a lot of time to conspire to keep blacks down.
when i hear these comments, i think about the 85 average iq for blacks (one standard deviation below the whites). i often wonder if jews think something similar (given their iqs are one standard deviation higher than the white average) when they here comments about the jewish conspiracy against christians.
i does seem to me that there is a radical fringe in the jewish society that does hate white christians, but i would think the majority would have greater concerns.
am i the only person here who thinks ashkenazi jews living among europeans have used both
1) higher intelligence, man for man
2) nepotism
to their advantage?
they are not mutually exclusive. this is not an either/or situation.
jews would still be reduced to doing almost nothing in science if they were removed from european nations and forced to rely on themselves. their nobel prize count would be cut 90%.
anybody who thinks otherwise has probably not done any math on the HUGE, ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS raw intelligence advantange that the han chinese have over every other group, and contrasted it with how they do ALMOST NOTHING related to groundbreaking science on their own.
it's extremely hard to overstate how big the chinese intelligence advantage supposedly is, and how little they have to show for it by not having the benefit of living among europeans.
Bill said:
"Now that Lynn's latest numbers have come out, it appears that Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is not too far from the gentile norm where it developed.
Didn't Germany and the Netherlands come to 107 and Poland 106 in his latest study of European IQ?"
Lynn and Vanhanen's overall assessment, based on many studies, for IQs in Germany, Holland and Poland are around 100. The 106-107 figures come from Buj's 1981 study that was done on the populations of various European Capitals. Bonn, Warsaw and the Hague were unlikely to have been representative of the nations as a whole (urban areas usually score higher than rural, etc.). Generally, mose white populations score within a couple of points of the British mean (set at 100). The two major exception in Europe seem to be Ireland and the Balkan regions, which are about 1/2 S.D. lower (i.e., low 90s). (Lynn conjectures that the later is due to Near Eastern admixture and the former due to Ireland's massive outmigration in the 18th and 19th centuries where the most able left). If there is any trend for IQs higher than 100 among white gentile populations, it appears to be among Southern Germans and Northern Italians (data taken from Volkmar Weiss website). It appears that Swiss, Austrians, Germans from Baden-Wuertemburg and Bavaria as well as Norther Italians have IQs as high as 102. These populations are what Anthropologists used to call Alpines. I remember reading in my gradmother's college anthropology textbooks from the 1930s that the broad-headed Alpines, despite there smaller stature, had larger cranial capacities than Nordic populations. IQ does correlate with cranial capacity and the IQs of "Nordic populations" estimated by Lynn and Vanhannen seem to be in the high 90s, so maybe there are some differences here - just a thought.
Re Ashkenazi IQ, many of the studies citing IQs of around 115 are not representative of the Jewish population (e.g., come from private Jewish schools). Project Talent from the 1970s, is the largest and most representative sample we have for US Jewish IQ. According the this study, Jews average around 109, which is what Lynn currently seems to think is the best estimate for Ashkenazi Jewish IQ in the US. He estimates UK Jewish IQ at 110.
Jews do not hold any blame for the situation that Europeans are facing. The White gentile leadership is 100% to blame.
Me and my family live in a house. Lets say a thief and I make a deal. He asks me to leave the side door open of my house, so that he can steal my family's belongings. He promises to give me half whatever he steals, I just need to leave the side door open so he can get in. He even offers to pawn my families belongings at his brothers pawnshop. After my family's belongs are sold, he gives me half of the money.
Who should my family be mad at? The thief, or me? Of course they should blame me for this, as the thief is just doing what thief's do. I, on the other-hand, am supposed be loyal to my family.
Remember, a thief is a thief, he steals. If you let him steal, he's going to steal. But no one should blame him when it was me who left the side door open.
I hope this clears things up.
Steve, Your criticism of the notion that Jewish reticence in discussing Jewish/Gentile group intelligence differences might be due to fear of giving offense is both inconsistent and unfair.
In previous posts you have intimated that it is far more dangerous to be notably smarter than everyone else than to be dumber. Though one might question this (it is certainly more dangerous to be black and than to be Jewish in much of the world -in terms of life expectancy for obvious reasons) I believe what was intended by your remark is basically correct: that ire at Jewish intellectual prominence in Germany was one of the causes of the holocaust. Their intelligence made them very conspicuous in German society and it no doubt irritated the Germans.
While it may be irrational in American society today to be concerned about the return of the pogroms or whatever, it isn't preposterous to think that many Jews are motivated to suppress talk of intelligence difference because it is this intelligence difference (coupled with an argumentative nature) that has gotten them into so much trouble over the years.
Who should my family be mad at? The thief, or me? Of course they should blame me for this, as the thief is just doing what thief's do. I, on the other-hand, am supposed be loyal to my family.
I'm not allowed to be mad at both? Can't they both be considered thieves?
I really don't see much reason why 75%-acculterated Jews, should say, value potentially personal-status-infringing arguments significantly more, culturally, unless there's some individual then community-established then individual (i.e., genetic) tendency to value the practice. Unless your mind drips out a little independent reward from thinking, satisfaction from such material's as rarely endowed as having huge genitals. Otherwise the feeling's intuitively uncomfortable and alien, unlike cultures of honor and dueling, which pop up, generally comprehended, everywhere. Look at the TV line-up: you can't sell two geniuses debating uncomfortable topics for a half-hour: if aliens invaded. It has no "personal" content, though if you watched, you might be constantly preoccupied by watching those potential personal-status indications, which only distract. Largely "dispassionate" discussion is irrelevent to the intuitively-engaged popular psychology, even if vast swathes of ideological combat directly cover the viewer's interests.
It's like non-alcoholic beer tastes to an eight-year old, and is documentably, widely regarded as such. Unless you have unique chips in the game: brains, debate's a feeble little ego-avatar doing an emotionally-emaciated dance, like World of Warcraft or the Internet or ninth grade; totally incoherent to 3/4 people (mainly boring to the next 3/4), unless immediate personal consequences are palpable (see: your job).
To explain the huge and monstrously disproportionate numbers of Jewish geniuses outside of genetics, you better do better than "they have good schools in Brooklyn and their parents were smart and yelled." Jesus, does it need to be said the burden of proof would be on the Jewgenics scoffers? I guess it needs to be said.
"My encounters with verbally facile, high-g Ashkenazim have been curiously disillusioning. They make elementary errors in logic, refuse to admit them and simply repeat their exploded point."
What were you discussing? In my experience, smart people (Jewish or Gentile) become pretty stupid when their judgment is clouded by wishful thinking, self-interest, or other bias.
"Anyone who knows anything about Jews knows that successful Jews HATE finding themselves at the head of some discipline or business only to be surrounded by more Jews."
Thus the well known Jewish dislike for working in the entertainment industry.
>Francis, you're a pip-squeak who feel himself under siege and therefore has to go about creating Vast Conspiracies<
mnuez, your reply just makes my points as posted early in this thread.
ad hominem attacks mixed with tin foil hat accusations are not a coherent argument. intelligent people can deal with the concept that possibly, just possibly, history itself is actually a record of successful conspiracies.
hey, i just remembered that ben stein wrote a book way back in the 1970's describing the tribe's very tribal control over hollywood and television. you'd better get on the phone to that publisher right away! sure in the past it was okay for jews to talk about these things. but we can't have that kind of conspiracy talk floating around the internet for all to see, can we?
>Anyone who knows anything about Jews knows that successful Jews<
your anecdotes of jewish high achievers are accurate but do not represent the whole picture. there are several million jews in the united states and the great majority obviously are fine people who are not personally involved in non-violent tribal warfare. on the other hand, many jews do behave as tribal warriors in the marketplace of ideas.
i won't bother to list the people who edit, produce (control), hire and fire in the mainstream media industry. and the huge dominance therein of a tiny 2% minority. it is obvious to me that positions of power that function as choke points in our media have been targeted by the tribe in a manner similar to the targeting of military objectives.
>rather than OWING to some Yiddishe cabal<
it is understood that non-jews are not supposed to notice jewish networking, and if they do notice it, they better keep schtum or else the code words appear (cabal, canard, blonde & blue-eyed!) and the "branding" of the speaker results. which leads all moral observers dutifully toward a verdict of anti-semitism. we get it already! we get that jews absolutely do not pursue a group strategy. the myriad jewish organizations (declared) and networks (undeclared) are religious in nature only and benign. whatever you say!
>So Francy, take your psychological impotence and little-man rage elsewhere.<
"take elsewhere"? are you policing this blog? that sounds like an attempt to deny the opponent a place at the table. you proved my initial point again. in fact, you're making this too easy. and the more i think about it, it seems your reply is suspiciously low iq overall. are you a "righteous" gentile? is your real name charles johnson?
maybe next you will fire off an email to mr sailer demanding that he block me? and, failing that, then will you summon a few comrades in order to generate a "chorus"?
mnuez, you are the one raging. and that is what's known as projection.
You were probably dealing with left-wing Jews. Left-wing gentiles are just as annoying.
It wasn't always left-wingers and though gentiles can behave like that too, the Ashkenazim who get it wrong are more brazen in their denials and don't seem to feel the embarrassment of the gentiles in repeating something you've shown to be wrong. There's also an arrogance in the Ashkenazim that Steve Sailer indirectly discussed here:
Sontag's fame in the intellectual world didn't depend on her writings -- what did she ever write that was memorable besides "The white race is the cancer of human history?" -- but on her personal charisma. Indeed, much of what we are taught as the high intellectual history of the human race is based more on the magnetism and impenetrable self-assurance of thinkers than on minor issues like whether they were right or not. Freud is a perfect example, a charlatan who befuddled two generations via his implacable self-esteem. Marx was similar, and Ayn Rand was cut from the same cloth but fortunately never had as deleteriously wide an impact as Marx or Freud.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_archive.html
What's the source for Eysenck's mother being Jewish?
See Chris Brand's obituary of Eysenck:
1916 Born March 4 to Eduard Anton Eysenck (actor, d. 1972) and Ruth Eysenck (née Werner, stage name Helga Molander, d. 1986). The marriage soon collapsed; Hans was entrusted to Ruth's mother (Frau Werner, once an opera singer); and Ruth married Max Glass (film producer and writer). As the Nazi influence grew, Ruth and Max (who were Jewish) were forced to leave Germany for France.
http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/eysenckob.htm
IIRC, Eysenck disliked his Jewish stepfather, so pretended later on that he, Eysenck, wasn't Jewish too.
Re Jody on Nobel Prizes: If the Peace Prize is any indication,you're prob right! Look who gets it. Latest,Al Gore. OK,I guess hes as deserving as anyone,he IS trying to help fix the environmental problems. But what about that old murderer Menachem Begin?? Or the Viet guy,Le Duc Tho? Or Kissinger?? Or Arafat. (snicker) Or the Irish women who tried to stop the war in Ireland...
How come when people discuss Jewish intelligence it seems that everyone wants to talk about Jews and nobody wants to talk about Judaism? This is a misallocation of mental effort IMO, but I guess an inevitable one given human nature.
I can't believe this discussion has occurred without any reference to Prof. Kevin MacDonald's scholarly work on Jews which reinforces with a huge amount of data Steve's thesis.
And before Kevin Mac there was John Murray Cuddihy's Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity
Cuddihy shows that these leading Jewish intellectuals succeeded as apologists for what Gentile society viewed as coarse behavior and assimilated Jews were embarrassed by.
Take Freud's reaction to privacy (or politeness, or manners). Within the insulated Jewish community of the shtetl,privacy was seen as abnormal -- anyone desiring to keep certain topics private must be hiding something and is suspect. Freud rejected rationales as rationalizations for respecting the personal space of others.
In the nineteenth century, Eastern European Jewry "mistakes privacy for secrecy." The ways in which European Gentiles institutionalized the need to be private in public, or the need for decorum, is "lost on the Jewish intelligentsia of the nineteenth century. To them, it appears as so much hypocrisy."
Cuddihy quotes Philip Rieff's Freud: The Mind of the Moralist: "What is for Freud 'repression' psychologically understood, is 'secrecy' morally understood. Secrecy is the category moral illness, for it provides a hiding place for false motives."
Cuddihy also quotes Howard Morley Sacher on "the unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the European society which closed them out."
When Freud notes that Gentiles are embarrassed by sex and need to be "unmasked," Cuddihy explains that Freud is endeavoring to strip all humanity to basic commonalities in an effort to allow his cruder/ruder fellow Jews to feel more acceptable.
Vienna's Victorians who subscribed to Freudianism are left shamed and confused , counseled to let it all hang out in order to achieve mental health. Freud pulled the Gentile's pants down to point out to the assembled crowd that, like other mammals, this one's got genitalia.
Wow. There's a lotta nuts here.
Let me be clear in saying that I agree with the fact that many Jewish "leaders", often heads of famous Jewish organizations, try to guilt/threaten the medley of public voices into not pointing out that there are a lot of Jews among "successful" categories of people.
Yes, that's true and that's obvious. Both that there are more Jewish billionaires per capita than of any other major ethnicity and that people like Abraham Foxman would love for nobody to talk about that.
I could spend a day analyzing these people and their reasons but, in truth, they don't interest me. Neither I, nor any other Jew I know (who are mostly Orthodox, formerly Orthodox or Conservative) cares a whit about these people who claim to be our leaders and none of us respect their opinions, pronouncements or "grave worries". We consider these people self-important ignoramuses who - throughout all of history! (for these types have always been around) - have caused more harm than good to Jewish people and whom the Jewish people would be far better off without than with.
These are Jews' leaders for Goyim. They're Jews who the non-Jewish leadership feels comfortable dealing with as supposed "Jewish leaders". We don't give a fuck for them and the money that sustains them does not come from us.
So enough about them.
As for me.
Well, I could talk for hours about me, how interested are you? Let's start with the fact that what I'm saying now is something that I've always said and not something that I'm whimpering as a last line of defense against the goyische hordes who have finally caught on to all of our Jewish shenanigans. One reference of mine is here, feel free to read through more of my writings on the subject if you're so inclined. There are probably more references elsewhere.
More to the point, on Steve's prior post regarding Jews (some two posts back or so) I commented early on with a few questions of mine regarding Jewish uniqueness and referenced the fact that I'm open to any (preferably unified) explanation for them but have yet to find any and therefore consider it slightly likely that some Traditionally-Jewish/Biblical explanation might have some merit. That comment thread, like this one, quickly attracted responders with the passionate explanation that it's all owing to some vast Jewish conspiracy. As with the subject of "leaders" like Foxman I could speak on the subject of these people's fantasies for some time but honestly don't quite care to. On the aforementioned comment thread and elsewhere I've already given their Vast Conspiracies enough of my time.
What I WOULD like to point out however is that I only wish it were so.
Not for the sake of ruling all of the world so that we chosen few could exploit them. Only a goy could think like that. Sick as Rand was (and by God she was one sick bitch!) even she (to the best of my knowledge) never harbored such sick fantasies. This 'conquer and exploit' thing is the signature of a great many nations. Most of you guys in fact have antecedents who engaged in such (or who cheered on their compatriots as they engaged in such) within the past ten generations - and often within the past four. With Jews by contrast you'll have to reach back to King David to find any such massive naked-aggression of the sort that 1984's O'Brien advocates. To reiterate, with you goyim, reaching back to 1850 should suffice.
But by Lord, how much more MY OWN life would be improved were Jews to believe in the traditional Jewish values of helping each other achieve all sorts of success. How wonderful it would be to be able to apply at companies with Jews in prominent positions and for them to hold my tribal background an asset rather than a demerit as they seek to "diversify" (a process that prefers a "Jeffries" butt hat will happily take a Wong or a McCormick over a Greenberg).
And besides, given the Jewish penchant for caring about the underprivileged and for theorizing about systems of governance, medicine and science, the world itself might appreciate some Jewish takeover...
But fuck the world. I wish there were a Jewish conspiracy for my own sake.
So -
Anyone annoyed with the taboo regarding mentioning Jewish accomplishment. I'm with you. In fact, I'm more annoyed about it than you are. I believe that Jewish cringing leads to gas chambers whereas Jewish "Oooorraaahhhh!!!"s leads to a sovereign state.
Anyone looking for someone to hate and thinking that the Jews are a good target - fuck you. And keep in mind that lots of Jews keep guns nowadays and aren't afraid to shoot first.
Anyone believing that being Jewish JUST TOTALLY ROCKS, MAN! as it automatically opens the doors of opportunity and would honestly like to know whether or not that's the case. I can tell you for a fact that, much as I personally wish it were (and for personal and historical reasons would love to ADVOCATE for), it unfortunately is NOT the case that being named Greenberg is the golden key. Or even a wooden key for that matter. In fact, more often than not, when dealing with fellow members of the tribe, it's like halitosis.
But thanks for the good wishes!
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
I hope this clears things up.
It does: you're either engaging in hyperbole for effect, or you're battling moral retardation (sorry Steve, but really, is there any other way to characterize the option?).
To be explicit: YES, the thief deserves much of the blame, and YES, I'd be mad at him too, and NO, I wouldn't want to let him off the hook just because his partner in crime was a family member.
I think it has a lot to do that intelligent, educated men were allowed to procreate with the youngest, prettiest most nubile girls. In western society for a long time that was the privilege of the warrior class (feudals).
But, you can also use your ardor for verbal combat to browbeat others who lack your love of endless argument into either acquiescence or silence, as shown by the long history of bad ideas such as Freudianism that Jewish advocates have verbally badgered much of the rest of the world into at least temporarily conceding.
And don't forget Marxism, Neo-conservatism and multiculturalism.
And keep in mind that lots of Jews keep guns nowadays and aren't afraid to shoot first.
Bernhard Goetz, the subway "vigilante," is half Jewish - and my frickin' hero (seriously). I keep a photo of him near the entrance to my house, with an eternal flame burning right beneath (not seriously). He turns 60 on Wednesday, so let's all remember in 2 days to celebrate a true American hero.
Only a goy could think like that.
Ahhh, this just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The very behavior that endears people the world over to Jews.
Jews have a name - 2 actually - for non-Jews - Goy, gentile. I don't know that my people have a word for "everybody other than us." These days, we aren't even allowed to have an "us."
This 'conquer and exploit' thing is the signature of a great many nations. Most of you guys in fact have antecedents who engaged in such...With Jews by contrast you'll have to reach back to King David to find any such massive naked-aggression
Because for 2,000 years Jews didn't have a nation to conquer and exploit with, and at the times they did they were too small to be much use, always surrounded by larger empires like the Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Romans, etc.
Jews may not have been doing the conquering, but the nobles who did do the conquering loved the Jews. The nobility were the first people they ran to when they were suffering persecution.
And besides, given the Jewish penchant for caring about the underprivileged and for theorizing about systems of governance, medicine and science, the world itself might appreciate some Jewish takeover...
Which underprivileged do they care about? UJC gives much of its money to Jewish causes. I'm not aware of Jewish billionaires being any more generous than non-Jewish ones (and probably less). George Soros, by far the biggest Jewish philanthropist, has given most of his "philanthropy" towards groups that seek to impose his leftist views on the world.
They're Jews who the non-Jewish leadership feels comfortable dealing with as supposed "Jewish leaders". We don't give a fuck for them and the money that sustains them does not come from us.
So where does the money come from? And who listens - the media? And isn't the media made disproportionately of...
Ah, what the hell, I give up.
mnuez said...
Wow. There's a lotta nuts here.
you reflexively resort to ad hom attacks. stand back and take a look at yourself.
you appear on this blog and decry the "nuts". perhaps it is you who cannot handle politically incorrect discourse. a little self-examination is in order so stop the name-calling and dramatically increase your credibility.
btw this blog is tame on your pet issue compared to phil weiss. don't go over there or you will have an embolism.
Mnuez, while you're correct to excoriate genuine anti-Semites, I think a cooling down is in order. Like it or not, they are reasons for the existence (and persistence) of anti-Semitism. Such phenomena don't exist without reason, and it ain't just the fault of "the goys."
I can think of a few reasons for its existence:
1) Historical mistreatment ran both ways
Historically, Jews were often treated better than gentiles in their own countries. Laws allowed Jews to lend money, but not Christians. Jews in many countries were used as tax farmers (a remunerative task, but not one inclined to generate love by the people). In England pre-expulsion Jews were treated as having baronial rank, having rights of travel that others did not have, and money lent by Jewish lenders would be recovered by the government, but not money lent by Christians. In fact, when Jews were being persecuted the first place they often fled was to the local lord or bishop.
It's always important to remember that in feudal Europe, over half the population was essentially treated as slaves. Jews were not part of that half. The oppression of Jews in Medieval Europe was only a very small fraction of the overall oppression taking place.
2) Jewish selfishness and arrogance today
The arguments related to WW2 provide the best glimpse of this. Jews and Jewish groups often talk about WW2 as if the only thing bad that happened was the Holocaust.
Over 50 million people died in WW2. More Ukrainians (8 million) died in WW2 than Jews, but you almost never hear about them, nor about the 3 million non-Jewish Poles that died.
The talk surrounding entry into the war is even more arrogant. I've heard Jews talk as if Britain is responsible for the death of Jews because they didn't enter the war earlier. Nevermind that Britain was still smarting from the death of too many young men from the first World War, for some reason they were supposed to throw themselves on the fire in self-sacrifice to another group of people.
3) Blaming the USA for the Holocaust
Just last week we were arguing about the SS St Louis, the ship with 900+ Jewish passengers fleeing Germany in 1939. Everytime I've heard the story (including last week) the implication was that thanks to rgaing anti-Semitism, 900 Jews went to the gas chambers.
Not true, nor even close. The fact is that every single person on that ship eventually found refuge somewhere: 22 in Cuba, 288 in Britain, and the rest in France, Belgium, and Holland. 227 perished, but that was because Hitler invaded France and the rest, not because they had to go back to Germany.
Also not mentioned is the fact that the US that year had already taken in 27,000 German immigrants, mostly Jews; and Britain took in over 100,000 Jews leading up to WW2. But somehow Jews think that the USA and its allies had some moral obligation to take in every last damn Jew who wanted out of Europe.
Sorry, but no thanks. We can't take in every population fleeing oppression, nor are we responsible if some of them end up dying. Or do Jews think we only have to take in them?
4) Jews who act like a persecuted group (Pt 1)
Sorry, but they're not. Not in this country, nor anywhere in the Anglo-Saxon world - nor have they been persecuted in nearly 800 years. Stop blaming us.
5) Jews acting as though we "goys" will turn into a raging mob of murderous thugs at the slightest provocation
I find this offensive. I find this racist. Sorry, but it hasn't happened in my people's lands in 800 years.
5) Jewish exemption from the arguments of de fecto racism
We all know the arguments: "Blacks are twice as likely to be poor as whites are. Blacks are less likely to graduate from college than whites. White incomes are 40% higher than blacks. That proves whites are racists!"
These arguments are often hauled out by liberals, including Jewish ones.
Sorry, but if differences in income, graduation rates, and poverty rates prove racism, then Jews are racists even more than whites. Make the argument for all or don't make it at all.
6) Jews who act like a persecuted group (Pt 2)
There are 14 ethnically Jewish senators and two Jewish Supreme Court jusices - which doesn't count all the other Jews in positions of power. Don't act as if it ain't so.
Jews have political influence out of all proportion to their numbers. Politics affects people's lives, and when people don't like the way the politics is going...
So please, please, please stop blaming every Jewish trouble on the "Goys." It's annoying when an individual blames all his problems on someone lese, and it's annoying when a group does it, too.
There's no one lonelier than a Jew who shares Sailer's views on blacks and Latinos but not on Jews: He'll find no friends here, or anywhere else. He might as well just pretend he doesn't believe the stuff about blacks and Latinos, so he can have friends in polite society who don't hate him for being a Jew.
"I think the "Jewish Advantage" as well as the Asian are often reduced by something I'd call a coefficient of friction for personality or even a coefficient of inanity where one's intellectual gifts are wasted on a penchant for endless debate over things both meaningless and petty."
In contrast, you hone your "White Nationalist Advantage" by wasting your prodigious intellectual gifts in endless debate about nefarious Jewish conspiracies. How's that working out for you?
nmuez said: "Francis, you're a pip-squeak who feel himself under siege and therefore has to go about creating Vast Conspiracies to explain his personal failure as a human being.
and
So Francy, take your psychological impotence and little-man rage elsewhere."
When I read Francis' comments I thought they were excellent, and was about to post to say just that. Then, scrolling down a bit, I found mnuez' response.
Bookending his reply with insults was like sealing the lid to his own coffin. A clear sign of emotional weakness and intellectual corruption to a man-boy who's clearly lost an argument and is a bad sport about it (because, of course, the argument hits too close to home). So he is reduced to engaging in a cheap Lawyers trick, ie; When your opponent is winning the argument and has ample evidence to back it up, simply attack his character.
The fact of the matter was Francis hit the nail on the head so hard it made me want to stand and cheer.
But let's give a couple of quick examples to fit the two strategies Francis listed for Jewish debate.
1- never give them a place at the table.
Kevin MacDonald
2- overwhelm them with a "chorus".
Jared Taylor's appearance on the Paula Zahn program (CNN)
Oh, and mnuez, I have to ask you; Exactly how long have you been under the delusion that we need your approval?
Mark,
Thanks for explaining the "reasons for the existence (and persistence) of anti-Semitism." For years after the Kishinev Pogram, Jewish writers and thinkers wondered what could have motivated their non-Jewish neighbors to kill them like that, like animals. If only they could have read your last comment, they would have known that the pogram was motivated by "Jewish selfishness and arrogance today", 14 "ethnically Jewish" Senators, Jews being treated better than non-Jews during the Middle Ages, etc. Thanks for clearing that up.
As for your final paragraph:
"So please, please, please stop blaming every Jewish trouble on the "Goys.""
I don't recall blaming any Jewish troubles on "Goys" in any of my comments here, but I will be happy to agree not to do so in the future.
"It's annoying when an individual blames all his problems on someone lese, and it's annoying when a group does it, too."
I agree. I assume you find it annoying as well, then, when soi disant "white nationalists" blame their problems on other groups.
There's no one lonelier than a Jew who shares Sailer's views on blacks and Latinos but not on Jews: He'll find no friends here, or anywhere else. He might as well just pretend he doesn't believe the stuff about blacks and Latinos, so he can have friends in polite society who don't hate him for being a Jew.
No one here agrees on everything. You can disagree with others about Jews (I sometimes do and with either side) and still find friends. Try finding people in the real world with whom you can politely disagree when it comes to standard PC views on black and Hispanic intelligence: that's loneliness.
Steve & co seem to be arguing from 4 unproven hypotheses:
(1) Intelligence is a thing;
(2) IQ tests measure it;
(3) It's hereditary;
(4) Having lots of it leads to success.
How about a cultural explanation for Jewish success in the US? In the late 1850s, the Northern branch of the Know-Nothings, or American Party, considered theoretically whether Jewish immigration to the US would be a good thing (since there weren't enough actual Jewish immigrants to draw conclusions from). They concluded that Jews would make excellent citizens of the Republic, and described Judaism as "the first republican religion".
The book where I read that didn't say how the KNs reached their conclusion. The certainly had no notions of genetic advantages, so it must have been something about Judaism. Maybe having a contract with God? Does anyone know what the arguments were?
On another topic, "Lynn conjectures that the later is due to Near Eastern admixture and the former due to Ireland's massive outmigration in the 18th and 19th centuries where the most able left." How can anyone, even an IQ theorist,not know that the circumstances of Irish mass emigration did not select "the most able". Famine victims didn't want to emigrate, and most Irish emigrants were pushed, not pulled.
Hey, I love my Jewish friends, even though they are Reform and might as well be Episcopalians! I love to tell them that I never had to watch Seinfeld because I already have an entertaining collection of neurotic Semites!
But seriously, to question the existence of Jewish "cabals" in many facets of the business world is ludicrous. What do the initials in Dreamworks SKG stand for? What family has published this country's newspaper of record for what seems like forever? One of my Jewish friends has had trouble keeping jobs because of his abrasiveness, but his sister was there with a well-paying job for him. I think that most ethnic groups have a sort of family network that tries to help all members, but it's almost always family driven, as opposed to Jews, where it's more of a tribal thing.
The elephant in the room, though, is the attitude of some Jewish business leaders to what they consider interlopers. Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who has come out of nowhere over the last couple years to become one of the world's richest people, derided the Indian casino movement as essentially a bunch of ignorant savages way back back in 1993. I remember Menachem Begin being quoted as saying it's not Israel's problem when "Goyim kills goyim" after he and Sharon sicked the Christian Phalangists on the Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres.
The Jews are sort of like the New England Patriots in the NFL this year-gifted and successful, but winning doesn't seem to give them the same buzz as crushing the opposition. Not a way to make friends...
"Try finding people in the real world with whom you can politely disagree when it comes to standard PC views on black and Hispanic intelligence: that's loneliness."
You must not know any white cops.
Cuddihy also quotes Howard Morley Sacher on "the unconscious desire of Jews, as social pariahs, to unmask the respectability of the European society which closed them out."
You couldn't summarize "Caddyshack" more succinctly.
So does that mean if I argue and troll a lot on the internet, that I'm actually a pussy? Because I feel the opposite. I want to bash my opponents' heads open like pumpkins cracked down on with M-1 rifle butts. But I'm fat and out of shape. Hmmmm.
Post a Comment