From my new column in Taki's Magazine:
Forbes Israel, the Tel Aviv offshoot of the American business magazine, has a cover story on Jewish billionaires. The Israeli edition has made up a list, drawn from Forbes‘s overall ranking of the world’s 1,426 billionaires, of the 165 richest Jews in the world.
In America, this just isn’t done in the mainstream media, even though it’s obviously interesting and important, and fairly easy to do.
Here’s my count of Forbes Israel‘s list, with Jewish billionaires as a fraction of the country’s total number of billionaires:
US 105 / 442 = 24%
Israel 16 / 16 = 100%
Russia 12 / 99 = 12%
Canada 6 / 29 = 21%
Brazil 6 / 45 = 13%
UK 5 / 37 = 14%
Ukraine 3 / 10 = 30%
Monaco 3 / 3 = 100%
Australia 3 / 22 = 14%
Spain 2 / 20 = 10%
France 2 / 24 = 8%
Germany 1 / 58 = 2%
Hong Kong 1 / 39 = 3%
Read the whole thing there. By the way, before quoting the numbers in this posting, please read the article because it reveals a more accurate source than Forbes Israel.
Posts
75 comments:
Looks like Morticia Adams might be the next Republican candidate for mayor in Philly:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/U-TURN/A-dark-horse-emerges-as-a-potential-GOP-mayoral-candidate.html
Why aren't the Rothschilds on the list?
Good taste?
Check out this graphic. I wonder how many are crosslisted
http://stopsyjonizmowi.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bilderberg.jpg
Most of the Rothschilds aren't on the list because the family fortune has been split up among so many people that not many even come close to being billionaires. Most of them aren't actively generating new wealth. There are, of course exceptions, the wealthiest of whom is Benjamin de Rothschild, descended from the youngest son of the Paris-based banker James de Rothschild. Others making active attempts at bringing in new wealth include David de Rothschild of the French branch and Nat Rothschild of the UK branch (only one-quarter Jewish by ancestry and grandson of a Scottish-Canadian magnate on his mother's side).
I was surprised how low the Russian figure was considering the common inference on blogs around here that notable Russian -> Jewish. I was also surprised that Hong Kong had a higher percentage than Germany. I thought the Holocaust was long enough ago that more would have moved back.
Steve, you wrote at Taki, "Page’s conclusion brings up an obvious question: Who is a Jew?"
Did you mean to write 'inclusion' instead of 'conclusion'?
Japan 0/28.
Another reason the Washington Consensus/Chicago School/WSJ/Neoconnery so reviles Japan?
Steve Sailer said...
Good taste?
Haha. Droll answer, Steve. Do you mean that having good taste gets you ejected from the rich Jewish guy club or that mentioning the Rothschilds is too gauche for print? The family's per capita fortunes dropped bellow the billion dollar mark a while ago, as far as I know.
I wonder how the percentages by country would change if different wealth cut-offs were used to build a rich list?
I would guess that most of the Jews that show up on the list for nations like Monaco, Hong Kong etc. don't really represent localized versions of American-style Jewish power so much as the relocation of individual billionaires for business, tax, or political reasons.
Obviously being a billionaire has it's perks regardless of locale, but there is a huge difference between having extended, multigenerational ties to the local elites and just being another foreign rich guy.
I'm also curious about the differences between the elite Jews from around the globe. Are they equal in magnitude to differences between non-elite communities? Like the differences between the fleece clad Hebrew SWPLs of the Northwest, the pot-smoking Jews of SoCal, and their Atlantic cousins?
-The Judean People's Front
A typo: conclusion/inclusion.
On an aggregate basis, it seems sensible enough to count partial ancestry based on whatever proportion it happens to be...
A free Coursera Data Science course starts May 1st; might be of interest to iStevers. Latest tools, data sources - just interesting anyway. The prof. mentions Google's n-gram collection in the intro.
"Why aren't the Rothschilds on the list?"
There is a significant fraction of wealthy people who choose not to reveal their wealth publicly, preferring to keep a low profile. Lowers kidnapping risk and such. Maybe some of the Rothschilds choose that option.
Ron Lauder is a collector of German and Austrian art, and co-founded a museum in New York dedicated to it, Neue Galerie.
Most of the Rothschilds aren't on the list because the family fortune has been split up among so many people that not many even come close to being billionaires
None are on the list, while a simple Google search can find at least 10 that should be. This leads me to believe that they are still so filthy rich and powerful, that they're able to shield themselves from such publicity.
TGGP,
"I was surprised how low the Russian figure was considering the common inference on blogs around here that notable Russian -> Jewish."
A better estimate for Russia is probably twice the 12% Forbes Israel came up with.
200 rich Russia: Jews and Ukrainians as the engines of capitalism: "We decided to look at those characteristics of Russian nouveau riche from the list of \”Forbes\”, which is usually left out of economic analysis – a nationality, a native of any class, the number of children. For example, Jews, among them nearly 25%, but the public security forces – only 3%. [. . .]
We have divided the business into four groups – Russian Jews, Ukrainians, and \”other nationalities\”. This division proved to be true – for the first three groups had 75.5% of businessmen.
Thus, among the largest Russian businessmen was 74 people, or 37%. I wonder what they (and other nationalities) were distributed very evenly in the first and second hundred – each for 37 people.
Jews in the list of \”Forbes\” – 49 people, or 24.5% (25 and 24 in the first and second hundred).
Ukrainians – 28 people or 14% (14 in each of the hundreds).
Among the \”other nationalities\” – to 49 – there is no predominance of any nation. There are Uzbeks, the representatives of the North Caucasus, Tatars, Azeris, Lithuanians, Germans, etc.
That shows us that list? 37% Russian – is 2.2 times smaller than the number in the total population (variously estimated at them from 78% to 83%). It is obvious that the Russian – this is not an entrepreneurial nation.
But the Jews in their numbers in the population from 0.15% (data from the Census-2010) to 1.5% (2 million Russians have the right to be called halachic Jew – these heads Chabad Rabbi Lazar) at least 16 times.
Ukrainians make up about 1.4% of Russia\’s population (1.9 million for the Census 2010). But among big businessmen they – exactly 10 times."
I came up with 20/110 Russian billionaires being Jewish or having known Jewish ancestry, but that's with very minimal effort and still knowing nothing about the backgrounds of a significant fraction of Russians on the list.
"On an aggregate basis, it seems sensible enough to count partial ancestry based on whatever proportion it happens to be..."
Where that would make sense yet where I don't recall hearing too much niggling of this sort: in discussing, say, the Jewish proportion of Nobel prize winners. Quantitative traits will tend to reflect aggregate genetic proportions.
But there's nothing that says identity is diluted in direct proportion to genes, or that minority and non-minority identities are on average equally salient in people of mixed background.
From a 2010 WSJ article on the Census and Religion
Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist at Hebrew Union College who has worked on estimates of the Jewish population, would like to see the U.S. Census ask about religion, but said some Jewish groups’ fears of anti-Semitism helped pass the 1976 law that bans such a question. “It’s the Jewish agencies that have been among the most vociferous in opposing asking about religion on the U.S. census,” Cohen said. “It’s a misapplication of a tragic history to the American circumstance.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/elusive-numbers-us-population-by-religion-978/
What is obviously needed is an Affirmative Action program for non-Jews.
'No Gentile Left Behind!'
For example when a Jew and a non-Jew are trying to create a search engine, the Jew must face away from the computer screen for at least 10% of his work time.
I think we can all agree that would level the playing field, and correct for past injustices.
They're still trying to get lists of disobedient non-Jews to persecute.
The comments there are interesting.
In a world where trillions are squirreled away in the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, etc., and where bank secrecy is still the law in Switzerland, and where corporate ownership can easily be concealed using private holding companies, it seems to me that any billionaire who does not want to be on Forbes' list can easily avoid being on it.
I view these lists as a form of popular entertainment, on the order of "The Ten Best Dressed."
It seems likely to me that the real, unobtainable list would include billionaires wealthier than Buffett and Gates.
Would be interesting to see Steve blog about what qualifies as antisemitism. I don't think this article does, but it's pretty obvious that n/a hates Jews. So why does Steve cite him?
'No Gentile Left Behind'
You made a typo. Please let me correct.
'No Gentile Behind Left'
*rimshot*
Israel discusses it and America doesn't for the same reason: Jews control the media in both nations.
It's odd that no one comments on why all these Jews are so rich. I suggest a some cheek swabbing.
Presumably we are smart or dumb according to our particular genetic diseases. Ashkenazi Jews often have Sphingolipidoses. It would be interesting to know about these billionaires.
Personally I figure I have two diseases that have boosted my brain - myopia and gout. Not enough it would seem to get me in the Forbes 400.
Albertosaurus
Have any other iSteveniks received one of these Obamaphone coupons?
Obamaphone supermarket coupon
O.T: Hate Crime Hoax.
per capita, Jews are a little over 100 times more likely to become billionaires than the rest of the human race.
Which only serves to illustrate the importance of comparing like to like instead of like to unlike. Without even bothering to check I'm already certain that Americans and/or Europeans are disproportionately likely to become billionaires compared to "the rest of the human race".
Breaking: Pentagon Confirms [That It] May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith
1 May 2013, 8:12 AM PDT
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...".
The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith...
"Why aren't the Rothschilds on the list?"
The short-sighted Rothschild men chose to interbreed with the brain-dead daughters of European nobility, consequently, they are no longer Jewish and their IQ's have regressed to the European mean. What is left of the Rothschilds is nothing but a bunch of Paris Hiltons and Donald Trumps, relying purely on name recognition and inheritance to put bread on the table. If you want to find Rothschilds, don't bother looking in Forbes, check the European tabloids.
"Jeff W. said...
In a world where trillions are squirreled away in the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, etc., and where bank secrecy is still the law in Switzerland, and where corporate ownership can easily be concealed using private holding companies, it seems to me that any billionaire who does not want to be on Forbes' list can easily avoid being on it.
I view these lists as a form of popular entertainment, on the order of "The Ten Best Dressed.""
To some extent I agree, but I think Forbes takes the list pretty seriously ... and even assigns reporters to do some digging because they are aware that many people might prefer to stay off the list (on the other hand there are a few, such as Donald Trump and others, who have complained about where they were ranked!)
A couple of years ago Forbes discovered a secretive lady in South America who was a billionaire(inherited father's construction company) and a couple of years before that they uncovered another secretive Hong Kong billionaire.
I am sure there are plenty more out there though.
@ JPF -
The Jewish billionaire in Hong Kong is Michael Kadoorie of the family that controls the Peninsula Hotel chain. His family has been there for a long time.
Typically the nouveau riche make a lot of mistakes in transitioning from a life of modest means to a life of wealth. Appearing on these lists is perhaps one of those mistakes. This especially applies to those who actually care about their kids or at least care about their kids to the extent that they want to found a dynasty (for the ego trip) as well as a very successful business.
Marrying for looks rather than considering the whole package including pedigree is one of these mistakes. Intelligence is a very important part of that package.
Another mistake is to not invest in security and safety, for self and family. What is all the money worth if you or your family aren't around to benefit from it? Underestimating security risk is a common failing. You and your family become a target. Security against the common burglar vs a targeted attack are two completely different tasks, with vastly different associated costs.
Lack of succession planning is another very common mistake, both in the family and within the business.
People may ridicule the idea of "trust fund babies", but to a certain extent the idea is useful to allow the next generation some ability to deal with their own security issues, which the founder usually will not have the time to see to.
Though these mistakes are common, they are easy to understand. Just building up the wealth in the first place requires an almost monomaniacal focus to the exclusion of everything else, and usually a miserly attitude with all non-essential expenses. If they were too much of a perfectionist the business wouldn't have gotten built in the first place.
"Why aren't the Rothschilds on the list?"
Are there any families that were super-wealthy in the 19th century that include billionaires today? I can't think of any offhand. Just thinking of billionaires in America, most of the wealth was built by someone still living (Bloomberg, Gates, Buffett), or one generation back (the Walton heirs). There aren't any billionaire Rockefellers today, are there?
"The short-sighted Rothschild men chose to interbreed with the brain-dead daughters of European nobility, consequently, they are no longer Jewish and their IQ's have regressed to the European mean."
Brain dead royalty? What planet are you from? I remember reading about Churchill meeting a toddler Queen Elizabeth and he said that she was obviously very, very bright. And you have only to listen to interviews with Prince Harry and William to know that they are also very sharp.
ot - the republican party is so waaaaycist (according to this hispanic):
The GOP Doesn't Need Hispanic Outreach—It Needs a Hispanic Takeover
A makeover will fail unless it roots out the discrimination and racism embedded within the party, and Latino candidates are the best way to do that.
This is interesting:
n/a has been following up. Of the two American billionaires out of the first 20 in dispute that I couldn't I find documentation for, Bernie Saul and Ed Ansin, I figured the first one had to be Jewish and the latter seemed no more than half Jewish. But, it turns out I got it backwards. n/a had Ansin's parents wedding announcement in a Jewish newspaper, while the Saul name comes from Ireland and the Saul family built a lot of Catholic churches in the D.C. area.
There are four Hearsts on the Forbes 400. That wealth goes back before the Civil War to W.R. Heart's dad's mining bonanza.
David Rockefeller is on the list.
No Du Ponts -- that was a famously prolific family with the wealth spread among many heirs.
In their prime, the Rotschilds practiced extreme inbreeding with many first cousin marriages and two uncle-niece marraiges. Kept the money in the family.
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/05/01/1945601/paul-ryan-anchor-babies/
How Jews play the game. Truth and accuracy are now 'derogatory'.
Jews have been so spoiled by monopoly power and our obsequiousness that they expect us to submit to their fantasies.
So, Jewish power is a 'antisemitic' fiction, and truth about illegal aliens is now 'derogatory'.
Something has to be done about Jewish power before all else as Jewish control of media--and terminology--prohibits honest talk and debate.
Ryan has committed a 'derogotory crime'.
We need to deal with 'gay' as well. Homosexuality is about guys doing fecal penetration; it's not about being happy.
Just call it HOMO.
Anonydroid at 7:37 AM: So why does Steve cite him?
Hunsdon: Maybe the research was good?
"Brain dead royalty? What planet are you from? I remember reading about Churchill meeting a toddler Queen Elizabeth and he said that she was obviously very, very bright. And you have only to listen to interviews with Prince Harry and William to know that they are also very sharp."
Churchill was not at liberty to give an honest assessment of young Elizabeth's intelligence. The European nobility was originally a military aristocracy, they were simply not under strong selective pressure for high intelligence, that is why they were so easily swept aside by the brighter bourgeois during the 19th century. Any yeshiva student in the Williamsburg shtetl is brighter than Elizabeth's progeny. If Charles and his sons seem intellectually sharp to you, give them another look, their grades are public knowledge. Churchill himself is a great exception, being an deep and energetic intellectual, although, the exception may prove the rule, since his mother was born in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, to a businessman of Huguenot extraction.
"In America, this just isn’t done in the mainstream media, even though it’s obviously interesting and important, and fairly easy to do. "
I get that it's interesting, but why important? Serious question.
-Jew
Pat/Albertosaurus:
"Personally I figure I have two diseases that have boosted my brain - myopia and gout. Not enough it would seem to get me in the Forbes 400."
LOL! Personally, I find this to be a fascinating topic and would love to see it discussed more at blogs like Steve's, GNXP, etc. I think you once said that your were Irish?
One odd possible condition that may beneficial for intelligence...If my memory serves, Pconroy (is that how he spelled it?) once at GNXP proffered a theory that gingerism's effect on the nervous system raised IQ. It sure sounded plausible to me. Are you by chance a ginger? Since then I've been very curious to know if it's true and have wondered about now gray geniuses like Gregory Cochran (well, he's got the personality down... and then some). My dear Isaac seems to definitely have been a brunet, but maybe he had some ginger, but it was just hidden (three of my kids are like this).... I just know he's really one of ours!
"The short-sighted Rothschild men chose to interbreed with the brain-dead daughters of European nobility, consequently, they are no longer Jewish and their IQ's have regressed to the European mean."
What's the average IQ of the right half of the white bell curve?
In a world where trillions are squirreled away in the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, etc., and where bank secrecy is still the law in Switzerland, and where corporate ownership can easily be concealed using private holding companies, it seems to me that any billionaire who does not want to be on Forbes' list can easily avoid being on it.
Most billionaires want to be on this list because it's the ultimate status symbol. Anyone not on this list is considered a loser.
But even if one wants to hide their wealth it would be pretty hard to make and keep that much money and have no one else notice, especially when wealth typically depends on having a business which requires customers. You might be able to hide your money but it's pretty hard to hide the fact that you made it in the first place and in the age of the internet, it's getting harder and harder. Stolen money might be harder to track but if you steal it, it's technically not yours, and thus you're not a billionaire which by definition is the OWNER of the billion. You might hide hide your money by putting it in a loved one's name, but then technically it belongs to them.
It's possible that there are huge amounts of money that Forbes has missed but it's about as likely as there being a huge species of animal like a Sasquatch that biologists have missed.
Most of the Rockerfeller money is tied up in the 1934 trust and it is huge in value. Maybe $10 billion 20 years ago. Today, who knows...
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/16/us/rockefeller-family-tries-to-keep-a-vast-fortune-from-dissipating.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
And no tag days for the Rothschilds either...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9300205/Rothschild-and-Rockefeller-their-family-fortunes.html
Personally I figure I have two diseases that have boosted my brain - myopia and gout. Not enough it would seem to get me in the Forbes 400
Jews are so spectacularly overrepresented among the Forbes 400 that I doubt IQ alone can explain it. Jews probably needed both high IQ + high ethnocentrism to become so wealthy. Blacks by contrast are terrible at becoming rich because they are both low on IQ and low on ethnocentrism (look at all the black on black crime)and perhaps because they face more discrimination.
However when it comes to social capital (fame, popularity) blacks are more successful than Jews. I find it very strange that blacks are so good at being famous but so bad at being rich while Jews are so good at being rich and so mediocre at being famous. I guess making money is more g loaded than making friends.
I get that it's interesting, but why important? Serious question.
Because the rich through their media ownership and political lobbying wield wildly disproportionate influence in what is supposed to be a democracy, and if one ethnic group is wildly disproportionately rich, it's even less of a democracy, and we end up with policies that benefit Jews at the expense of gentiles (i.e. invading & inviting the world)
Anonymous 6:35-- it's not important. Rich guys in any given age are evidently creatures of circumstance. If you yourself are, as claimed, of the tribe this quite probably helps your (still infinitesimal) chance of becoming a billionaire that a lot of other modern Croesuses are Jewish. And then shoehorn in the inherited IQ pixie dust or failing that, "verbal dexterity" to give you an edge; and then maybe further Spencerian brownie points for membership in a diasporic outgroup (see Armenians during the Ottoman Empire). And no doubt then a fine HBD explanation of the legendary "not blowing your new fortune on drugs & hookers" gene is available; certainly that's got to inhere (not "cultural factors" heavens to Betsy, no, BEGONE FOUL SPRITE)
However: does it really matter at all that you've stumbled on this heretofore-totally-unknown fact, only ever noticed before in all history by "curious" web pontificators who are just so much more danged curious than everyone else, don't you know? Note we are talking about the selfsame big primetime reveal here: that you and certain select of the most renowned hoarders going have a statistically significant overlap in pool of common ancestors--yeah, how does that stack against someone doing cold fusion out of his garage? To a normal person who doesn't have Jews on the brain (i.e. unlike Sailer) it may be equally "interesting" and relatively unimportant. To Sailer and his matzoh-addict e-friends it's a sacred commandment to compulsively fuss over the most beat of beaten-path genetic happenstance e-subjects in a manner like comics experts debating Batman's odds against Superman. Surely there is an astonishing scientific breakthrough hidden in it somewhere, it'll be like the next Euler constant or something...
Steve, I'm shocked you haven't looked at the exodus of Israeli billionaires, including Israel's richest, to London.
The FT has full details, basically the economic hammering Israel has experienced resulted in the populist revolt against the family oligarchs that run Israeli business, in bed with government (all parties). Israel's richest has left, for London, after populist revolts and the press excoriating him.
Israel seems to be reverting to it Zionist and collective roots, no top guys standing out. The central tenet of Zionism is that there were no top guys in the death camps. It did not matter how much money you had, or whatever. Flatness of social and economic hierarchy was a result of banding together against people who want to kill you: see Greece against Xerxes, or Rome against Carthage.
Having lots of billionaires creates a huge GINI coefficient and guarantees class warfare. So far, Isrealis have decided they can't afford that.
Most billionaires want to be on this list because it's the ultimate status symbol. Anyone not on this list is considered a loser.
LOL. I'm sure there are circles in which being put on the list marks one as a loser. And lots of billionaires acquired their wealth in shady or overtly illegal ways that would lead them to downplay their wealth.
But even if one wants to hide their wealth it would be pretty hard to make and keep that much money and have no one else notice, especially when wealth typically depends on having a business which requires customers.
Double LOL. Wealth typically involves owning real estate. And it doesn't matter whether SOMEONE notices a billionaire's wealth; it matters whether Forbes notices. Every billionaire I know (n=1) is not on the list.
"There are four Hearsts on the Forbes 400. That wealth goes back before the Civil War to W.R. Heart's dad's mining bonanza.
David Rockefeller is on the list."
Interesting. I learn something new.
Every billionaire I know (n=1) is not on the list.
How the heck do you know this person's a billionaire? Are you his accountant? If I had a nickel for ever person who lied about being rich, I'd be a billionaire.
"Ukrainians make up about 1.4% of Russia’s population (1.9 million for the Census 2010). But among big businessmen they – exactly 10 times."
Interesting. I wonder what is behind the seemingly disproportionate success of Ukrainians in Russia? I can't imagine there is much of difference genetically between Slavic Ukrainians and Russians.
Interesting. I wonder what is behind the seemingly disproportionate success of Ukrainians in Russia? I can't imagine there is much of difference genetically between Slavic Ukrainians and Russians.
Maybe the ones that "immigrate" to Russia are more motivated.
I get that it's interesting, but why important? Serious question.
1. Important facts about the billionaire club are ipso facto important.
2. One of the facts Jews typically find most important about themselves is their Jewishness.
"Animals exploit plants. It's the law of nature."
Plants exploit animals too. They use them to facilitate their reproduction.
Many of the arguments that WN's make against Jews are nearly identical to the arguments blacks make against whites e.g. "they are unfairly excluding us, g is not that important".
If by "nearly identical" you mean "exactly the opposite", then you have a point.
Blacks to Whites: We can't live without you.
WNs to Jews: We can't live with you.
"But Jews are arguably more ethnocentric because they're more genetically homogeneous than other peoples."
American Jews out-marry at a rate of 25-50%, higher than any other ethnic group.
"There's ethnocentrism in academia too; look at all the Jews who get into Harvard ahead of more deserving East Asian students."
Asians are discriminated against by the ivy league because they are cookie-cutter cram schoolers. They don't win Nobels and don't become billionaires. They are naturally conformist and submissive, that's why they make good wives and bad academics.
"And those arguments were historically very true. Smart races exploit less smart races. Jews exploit whites and Arabs; Whites and Arabs exploit East/West Africans. East/West Africans exploit Bushmen/pygmies. Bushmen/pygmies exploit animals. Animals exploit plants. It's the law of nature.
I hope you can sit down for a while and quietly ruminate on the truth of this statement. I stand by my claim that the goyim are getting it easy.
"The average American Jew has an IQ around 110. A mere 10 point IQ advantage can not explain why Jews are 35% of American billionaires and 50% of media elites. Indian Americans average IQ 110 and they're virtually 0% of media elites."
It is important to be aware of heterogeneity among Indian Americans and Indians in general. The only Indian ethno-religious group that can claim to be intellectually competitive with Ashkenazi Jews are south Indian Brahmins, like Srinivasa Ramanujan. SIB's are a tiny minority within a minority. Unfortunately, I could not find a good source for the caste breakdown of Indian Americans, although I believe there are about 400,000 ~85 IQ dalits in the UK.
A mere ~1 SD seems to be enough to explain the almost complete absence of Mestizos and African Americans from all cognitively demanding areas, why should it be insufficient to explain Ashkenazi over-representation in these fields?
Many of the arguments that WN's make against Jews are nearly identical to the arguments blacks make against whites e.g. "they are unfairly excluding us.
No they're not. It's actually Jews that are analogous to blacks making these kinds of arguments because it's both Jews and blacks that have complained/do complain about "exclusion".
And those arguments were historically very true. Smart races exploit less smart races. Jews exploit whites and Arabs; Whites and Arabs exploit East/West Africans.
The arguments aren't historically true because the analogy is false. Whites exploiting black labor is not analogous to Jews in white societies. Whites have done things independent of black labor. Jews haven't done anything independent of whites.
Regarding Ansin, I see you found conclusive proof that he was Jewish, but just the factoid that you gave earlier - that his family had left Ukraine and started a textile mill in Massachusetts - was enough to establish that. The # of ethnic (non-Jewish) Ukrainians who did that is approximately equal to the # of Zulus who did the same.
The Dukes of Westminster were one of the richest families in Britain 150 years ago, and are still worth a billion or two.
The Marquesses of Bute (Catholic, and thus, unlike the Westminsters, not granted ducal rank) were at least as rich then, but are now down to their last hundred million.
But Jews are arguably more ethnocentric because they're more genetically homogenous than other peoples.
Jews are obviously more ethnocentric than western Europeans. Anyone who doesn't know this either isn't paying attention, or refuses to know.
Israel seems to be reverting to it Zionist and collective roots, no top guys standing out. The central tenet of Zionism is that there were no top guys in the death camps. It did not matter how much money you had, or whatever. Flatness of social and economic hierarchy was a result of banding together against people who want to kill you: see Greece against Xerxes, or Rome against Carthage.
Having lots of billionaires creates a huge GINI coefficient and guarantees class warfare. So far, Isrealis have decided they can't afford that.
All that to say Jews are born socialists.
Many of the arguments that WN's make against Jews are nearly identical to the arguments blacks make against whites
Blacks and Jews are pretty similar, after one excludes IQ. They vote the same, they have similar attitudes toward ethics, they're both faux-liberal, both practice identity politics themselves but scream bloody murder when whites do it, both have an ethno-state (Liberia and Israel), both blame whitey for everything, both fly off the handle when whitey blames them for anything, both display sociopathic tendencies while defending their group, as anon pointed out, both think every area inhabited by whites must be accessible to their group but don't reciprocate, and both groups seem to depend on whites for best results, while the reverse is not true. Et cetera. I made a list once; it was pretty long.
"Blacks and Jews are pretty similar, after one excludes IQ."
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?
Read Louis Armstrong's reminiscence about the Karnofsky family for a clear eyed and politically incorrect view of the very important differences between blacks and Jews.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?
They vote the same, they have similar attitudes toward ethics, they're both faux-liberal, both practice identity politics themselves but scream bloody murder when whites do it, both have an ethno-state (Liberia and Israel), both blame whitey for everything, both fly off the handle when whitey blames them for anything, both display sociopathic tendencies while defending their group, as anon pointed out, both think every area inhabited by whites must be accessible to their group but don't reciprocate, and both groups seem to depend on whites for best results, while the reverse is not true.
Then there's how enamored both are of big gov't, gun control, open borders, multiculturalism, anarcho-tyranny, etc.
"The average Harvard undergrads IQ is 130 and thus non-Jewish whites should dominate the Ivy League schools, however, that is not the case. Why?"
There are explanations that do not rely on a Jewish conspiracy, for example; Anglo-Saxon New Englanders hate the Germanic Midwesterners and Norman Southerners. Including all whites in the running for Harvard is a non-starter. New Englanders and their Pacific colonists are the preferred candidates, with a few right thinking non Anglo-Saxon whites thrown in. Jews of course, won the trust of the Anglo-Saxon elite after events in Europe ensured that they would never support a shift in American political power to the Germanic Midwest. If one comes at the problem from this direction, Jewish representation in the ivy league is much closer to proportional.
"American Jews out-marry at a rate of 25-50%, higher than any other ethnic group."
"If that's true it's likely because Jews are such a tiny population that it's harder for Jews to hook up."
That's not it, you are merely projecting your own thought processes on a population that you do not understand. While it is true that orthodox Jews encourage endogamy, how many well known secular Jews have you seen marry within the tribe recently?
"I stand by my claim that the goyim are getting it easy."
"Tell that to the Gentiles who got killed and injured in Iraq and all the Gentiles killed on sept 11 by terrorists angry about america's support for Israel and sanctions against israel's enemy Iraq."
That is a very weak argument. Please name the Israelis who supported the Iraq war. The general consensus of the Israeli security establishment was that a weak Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran was preferable to an Iraq dominated by Iran. As for your belief that Islamic hatred for all non-Muslims is merely a misunderstanding caused by the Jews, I am simply not equal to the task of convincing you otherwise, I recommend you consult with European WN's about that matter.
"So factors other than IQ influence success for non-Jews but for Jews IQ alone explains their achievements?"
There are certainly non-intelligence related factors that influence your eligibility to attend an ivy league school, such as the willingness of your parents to horsewhip you. Asian parenting techniques are simply non-transferable into Western families, leading to an inflation of Asian grades, but not IQ's. This is the rationalization that admissions staff use to discriminate against Asian applicants.
"Only study I've seen suggests children of Indian Americans as a whole average IQ 110 on a crude IQ test. This makes sense because there are so many Indians that only the brightest tend to get accepted by America and once here, their kids enjoy first world nutrition which boosts brain size and development."
Either this study is not representative of the 3 million Indian Americans, or the Brahmins still need more time to settle in and make their presence felt.
"So being an influential pundit requires far more brains than winning a Nobel prize in physics? If IQ alone explains the fact that 50% of influential pundits are Jewish, than elite pundits must have FAR higher IQ's than the greatest physicists because Jews have far higher representation among the most powerful opinion makers."
It may very well be that Jews gravitate toward the media, given the negative consequences a hostile media has on market dominant minorities. I would like to see the evidence that Jews make up 50% of influential pundits, if this is true, you may as well convert to Judaism right now.
Svigor -
The behaviors you've cited as similar between Jews and blacks are focused on politics and inter-group relations. They could be ascribed to other minority groups with a history of ill-treatment at the hands of a majority population, and they don't convey the full scope of Jewish or black culture, which are not very similar. Besides average IQ, other points of difference between the two groups include average degree of conscientiousness and future time orientation, aesthetic sense, attitudes towards family, learning and work, relative tendency to anxiety, and many other things. If you were to live with a secular Jewish family and a black family for a year, you likely wouldn't consider them very similar afterwards.
You don't really understand the situation of Jewish intermarriage either. Some Jews are highly religious and ethnocentric, other Jews are less so. The latter don't worry as much about intermarriage. The former group doesn't like it and wants to stop it. The intermarriage issue should be viewed as a conflict within the Jewish community as much as it should be viewed as a reflection of Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews.
That is a very weak argument. Please name the Israelis who supported the Iraq war. The general consensus of the Israeli security establishment was that a weak Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran was preferable to an Iraq dominated by Iran.
Nice revisionist history, but here's what CBS reported during the actual run-up to war:
Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack
Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam
JERUSALEM, Aug. 16, 2002
(CBS) Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/israel-did-urge-the-u-s-to-invade-iraq/
"Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack
Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam
JERUSALEM, Aug. 16, 2002
(CBS) Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin."
The decision had already been made, after that point, delays put Israel at risk of chemical attack. Link
"There are explanations that do not rely on a Jewish conspiracy, for example; Anglo-Saxon New Englanders hate the Germanic Midwesterners and Norman Southerners. Including all whites in the running for Harvard is a non-starter."
The current president of Harvard is a Southerner. She was preceded by a Jew, who was preceded by a Pennsylvanian, who was preceded by a Midwesterner.
The current president of Yale is a Jew. He was preceded by a Southerner, who was preceded by the son of a German-surnamed Texan, who was preceded by an Italian.
The current president of Princeton is the Canadian ex-wife of a Jew. She was preceded by a Jew, who was preceded by a Midwesterner.
The decision had already been made, after that point, delays put Israel at risk of chemical attack
The decision had already been made? Someone should have informed congress since they didn't even vote until a month later. But then the Israel lobby had already decided that America would be invading Iraq back in the 1990s:
The neoconservatives began their campaign to use military force to topple Saddam well before Bush became president. They caused a stir in early 1998 by organizjng two letters to President Clinton calling for Saddam's removal from power. The first letter (January 26, 1998) was written under the
{p. 244} auspices of the Project for the New American Century and was signed by Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. The second letter (February 19, 1998) was written under the auspices of the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, the organization set up in 1990 by Perle, Ann Lewis (the former political director of the Democratic National Committee), and former Congressman Stephen J. Solarz (D-NY), to lobby for the first Gulf War. It was signed by the individuals mentioned above who signed the first letter as well as Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Martin Peretz, and David Wurmser, just to name a few.85
ln addition to these two high-profile letters, the neoconservatives and their allies in the lobby worked assiduously in 1998 to get Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act, which mandated that "it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." The neoconservatives were especially enthusiastic about this legislation not only because it sanctioned regime change in Iraq, but also because it provided $97 million to fund groups committed to overthrowing Saddam.86 The main group they had in mind was the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which was headed by their close associate, Ahmed Chalabi. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Woolsey all lobbied hard on behalf of the legislation, as did JINSA.87 The act passed in the House by a vote of 360-38 and by unanimous consent in the Senate. President Clinton then signed it on October 31, 1998.
http://mailstar.net/iraq-war.html
The behaviors you've cited [...] don't convey the full scope of Jewish or black culture, which are not very similar.
True, what I said did depend on the context, i.e., politics. It's my usual response when philo-Semites point out the supposed political similarities between blacks and racialist whites; I point out the far greater political similarities between blacks and Jews.
You don't really understand the situation of Jewish intermarriage either. Some Jews are highly religious and ethnocentric, other Jews are less so. The latter don't worry as much about intermarriage. The former group doesn't like it and wants to stop it. The intermarriage issue should be viewed as a conflict within the Jewish community as much as it should be viewed as a reflection of Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews.
None of that contradicts, or really even addresses, the points I made.
In my opinion, as a predictor of wealth attainment, some minimum level of observed IQ is probably important. High levels of IQ, with expected correlate high levels of inversion and self absorbtion may discourage the outcome.
Important predictors are probably high tolerance for concentrations of people, antipathy for isolation, and genuine affection for the company of others. Anglo-Celtic pioneers need not apply.
Neil Templeton
I think my name is logical.
Your number are wrong. Hong Kong has two jewish billionaires
Michael kadoorie
Richard elman
Post a Comment