Closing in on the intelligence genes—at least some Jewish ones.

Posted by AD on June 18, 2005, 01:57 PM | #

Interesting article.

Does anybody know if there is a marked difference between East Asian and South-East Asian(as in Indonesian) IQ scores?

I often hear that Asians average higher than Europeans,but does this only apply to Chinese/Japanese?And does ‘white’ specifically mean Slav,Latin,Germanic or a combination of all?

Posted by jonjayray on June 18, 2005, 02:06 PM | #

I seem to remember that the Indonesians score pretty low

Posted by jonjayray on June 18, 2005, 02:11 PM | #

So Corcoran’s work does rather suggest that Jewish success and influence is the result of Jewish ability, not Jewish cospiratorialness. 

That must be why it is only now being noted here.  I reproduce below what I said about it on DL on 5th:

I mentioned yesterday the new findings tracing the genetic basis for high Jewish IQ.  There have been many summaries of the work in the media so I thought some people may wish to go past the summaries and look at the original report.  It is here (PDF).  Interesting that it is only the Ashkenazim (Western Jews) that show the high IQ and also interesting that persecution of Jews seems not to have been important.  The article is also a useful short introduction to the academic IQ literature for those unfamiliar with it.

Posted by john fitzgerald on June 18, 2005, 02:48 PM | #

Cochran obviously took the Bell Curve
seriously. My favourite quote from one of the reviews of TBC was “it takes away hope”,or something like that. More like it takes away wasters jobs I thought.
Over the years I’ve become more observant of verbal I.Q. the recent Taylor v Wise discussion at Amren is a good example of Jew/Gentile differences.
A quote from Brimelow’s Alien Nation preface:
My theory: Weisberg is one of those people whose verbal slickness exceeds his intellectual powers. Faced with an argument that disturbs him emotionally, he cannot confine himself to the truth, let alone logic.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 18, 2005, 03:11 PM | #

“I often hear that Asians average higher than Europeans,but does this only apply to Chinese/Japanese?” (—AD)

AD, the term “Asian” used to refer to ethnic groups, nationalities, or races, is a race-denial term, thought up by people who wanted to further the denial of the existence of races by simply refusing to name them.  “Asian” is about as useful for naming a race as, let’s say, “Eastern Hemispheran,” “Earthling,” “human being,” or “featherless biped” (which is exactly why it was thought up as a way to “designate race”—precisely in order to completely avoid any designation of race, to advance the cause of race-denial by obfuscating the reality of race):  the continent of Asia goes from the Ural Mountains, Turkey, and the Suez Canal eastward to the Pacific Ocean and is home to all sorts of races and sub-races.  There is no such race as “Asian.” That term, one-hundred-percent political-Marxist in origin when used as a racial designation, is to be avoided in favor of the name of the specific race you are talking about.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 18, 2005, 03:18 PM | #

Incidentally, AD, I don’t know the answer to your question, other than to say the Koreans are part of the group of Orientals who have higher average IQs than whites.  So, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans do.  Whether other Orientals, such as Indonesians, Burmese, Thais, Tibetans, Laotians, Vietnamese, Mongolians, Filipinos, and the others, do, I don’t know.  The Vietnamese are quite bright, something that impressed me when I came to know a ton of them in Europe.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they also had higher IQs than whites.

Posted by JW Holliday on June 18, 2005, 09:15 PM | #

John: So Corcoran’s work does rather suggest that Jewish success and influence is the result of Jewish ability, not Jewish cospiratorialness.

And John pokes fun at my typos!!

John’s comment is not logical, because it is not an either/or situation.  A group can be successful because they both have ability and they engage in rampant ethnic nepotism and/or sabatoge the efforts of others in an organised fashion.  Now, of course, I am not saying that Jews behave in such a fashion.  That’s for every reader to decide, looking at the facts.  I am merely pointing out that ability and success do not preclude unethical activity from being integral to that success.

We need more in-depth analyses here, not just facile, quick opinions (eg."that wicked old Bible” from another thread, etc).

Posted by jonjayray on June 19, 2005, 03:43 AM | #

LOL

Yes.  It was past my bedtime when I wrote that so I posted it without re-reading.

It is of course true that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive but Occam’s razor applies.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 19, 2005, 06:43 AM | #

Here is Steve Sailer’s summary of Lynn & Vanhanen’s table of average national IQ’s.

Now, of course, I am not saying that Jews behave in such a fashion.

No, JW you’re not.  But some rather impressive, not to say righteous, people do.  In my data base I have an article (sorry, author unknown) written from a Salterian perspective and referring to the remarks in this respect of Paul Gottfried.  I reproduce it here:-

A Thoughtful Jew Speaks His Mind

There are those who think that nationalism, particularly Western nationalism, must by its very nature, be anti-Semitic, or anti-Jewish.  However, Universal Nationalism (UN) – the political philosophy advocated by Dr. Frank Salter - applies to all peoples, including Jews.  Thus, UN is fully compatible with Zionist-Jewish interests in the survival and well being of the state of Israel (1).

There is a big IF in this however.  The IF involves application of the “golden rule.” If Jews continue opposing the nationalist racial-preservationist concerns of other peoples, especially European-derived peoples, then they should expect nothing less than the same opposition to their interests. 

This is made very clear by the following essays by Paul Gottfried – who is Jewish and is a supporter of Israel:-

http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/zionists.htm

http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/morris.htm

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/29/222213.shtml

Well said on each count.  Gottfried hits the nail on the head.  It should be clear to us that Western-nationalist hostility towards Israel is, of course, not due to concern for the Palestinians (however, see note 1), but simply due to anger at Jewish hostility toward the West and European-racial preservation and their hypocrisy in this regard.  Other issues are salient as well (2), but still, let us be honest and say that the real issue is what Gottfried says it is.

I strongly disagree with Gottfried though when he suggests that Israel not be made to “pay” for the anti-Western actions of Diaspora Jews.  I’m sorry, but in a fight for racial and cultural survival, the pro-Western forces have to use all ideological methodologies at their disposal.  If the survival of Israel as a Jewish state can be used as a bargaining chip to force Diaspora Jews to practice fairness in ethnic relations, so be it.  Why should Western nationalists support Israel if Diaspora Jews attack Western racial and cultural interests?  Is Israel itself supportive of Western biological and cultural preservation?  Or does Israel lie in bed with the anti-racist Diaspora Jewish organizations?

Unfortunately, the latter is apparently the case.  From what I have read and heard, the position of Israel with respect to Western nationalism doesn’t differ one iota from that of the ADL.  Thus, Western nationalists currently have no incentive to support Israel, and much incentive to critique that state.

But, these attitudes can change. The major point of this essay is to stress the writings of Paul Gottfried and suggest that both Jews and Gentiles share a common interest in survival; the demographic dangers to both peoples in their native lands are remarkably similar.

Thus, I would strongly suggest that Diaspora Jews, as well as Israelis, drop their opposition to European preservationism, and instead adopt the world-view of Mr Gottfried.

If they would do so, they may be surprised on how fast certain critics of Israel lose their hostility.  In the last analysis, hypocrisy about racial preservation will backfire, no matter who is the purveyor of the hypocrisy or what semantic tricks they use to justify it.  UN can be the key to the survival of all peoples – both Mr Gottfried’s and ours included.

Notes:

1. Of course, UN is also compatible with the rights and national aspirations of the Palestinians as well.  Thus, the conflict between the two peoples needs to be settled in such a way that conserves the basic ethnic genetic interests of both sides.

2. Western nationalists would also not want their nations’ foreign policies controlled by the pro-Israeli lobby, even if both sides of the Jewish-Gentile divide applied the “golden rule.”

Posted by Armasus on June 19, 2005, 08:18 AM | #

Though Jews have an average intelligence of 115, they have verbal skills closer to an average 127, with a more normal performance IQ closer to 100.

Jews do not have an average verbal IQ of 127! And the disparity is not primarily, if at all, between ‘verbal’ and ‘performance’ IQ but between ‘verbal’ and ‘visuo-spatial’ IQ. The average Jewish visuo-spatial IQ is actually slightly below the White mean (although some studies may contradict this).

Posted by jonjayray on June 19, 2005, 11:30 AM | #

“I would strongly suggest that Diaspora Jews, as well as Israelis, drop their opposition to European preservationism”

Given their experience of European nationalism, reality is that Jews are going to support internationalism until hell freezes over.

But in any case it is Gentile leftists who are the overwhelming base of antagonism to nationalism these days.  THEY are the people whose views you have to overcome

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 19, 2005, 01:25 PM | #

GW, that little essay (included in your comment of 6:43 AM), entitled “A Thoughtful Jew Speaks his Mind,” is important, and deserves perhaps to be a log entry in its own right.  It might serve quite well as an entry all by itself, no additional commentary needed by the one posting it as an entry, apart from a word of two simply saying what it is, as you’ve done here.  This is the first time I’m seeing that particular statement anywhere, and I feel it is very important and deserves maximum exposure. 

John Ray of course is completely right when he says (11:30 AM),

“But in any case it is Gentile leftists who are the overwhelming base of antagonism to [European] nationalism these days.  THEY are the people whose views you have to overcome.”

Nevertheless the importance of what “Thoughtful Jew” touches on can scarcely be overestimated.  It is a very big piece of the puzzle everyone is dancing around but few are coming openly, explicitly to grips with:  there’s a tribal war going on between white-Euro Christians on one side and Jews on the other and it’s causing no end of trouble for everybody and has the potential to lead to further trouble down the road, very serious trouble which everyone might bitterly regret one day, to say the least. 

“Thoughtful Jew’s” statement should be widely published.  (I’m of course saving it in my own “important documents” archive for future reference.)

Posted by Matt Nuenke on June 19, 2005, 05:55 PM | #

The following is from Kevin MacDonald’s book “A People That Shall Dwell Alone,” 1994. I was a couple points high on the verbal, but the rest you can read for yourself:

“Research suggests an average IQ of Ashkenazi Jewish children in the range of 117. In two studies of representative samples of Jewish children, Bachman (1970) and Vincent (1966) found an average IQ of 117 and 117.8, respectively, although Vincent’s results are said to be an underestimate because they excluded a large percentage of an elite group of Jewish children attending fee-paying schools.

“There is good evidence that Jewish children’s Verbal IQ is considerably higher than their Performance IQ. Brown (1944) found several sub-test differences compatible with the hypothesis that Jewish children are higher on verbal abilities, while Scandinavian children are higher on visuo-spatial abilities. Lesser, Fifer, and Clark (1965) found large differences favoring Jewish children over Chinese-American children on verbal ability, but insignificant differences in favor of Chinese-American children on visuo-spatial abilities. And Backman (1972) found that Jewish subjects were significantly higher than non-Jewish Caucasians on a measure of verbal knowledge but were significantly lower on visuo-spatial reasoning.

“Large verbal/performance IQ differences have been found within Jewish populations. Levinson (1958) studied a representative sample of yeshiva students and found an average Verbal IQ of 125.6, an average Performance IQ of 105.3, and an average Full Scale IQ of 117.86, although he suggests that there may have been a ceiling effect for some students on the verbal portion. Whereas in the general population there was a correlation of 0.77 between Verbal and Performance IQs, among Jewish children it was only 0.31. Finally, Levinson (1960b) found that a sample of Jewish boys (age 10-13) with an average Verbal IQ of 117 had a Performance IQ of 98, while Irish and Italian samples matched for Full Scale IQ had Verbal/Performance differences of only approximately 5 points (approximately 110-105). Levinson (1959) provides evidence that the Verbal/Performance difference for Jewish children increases from pre-school to young adulthood. When children were matched on the basis of full-scale Wechsler IQ, pre-school children showed a small (3-point) difference between Performance and Verbal IQ, while elementary school-age and college student subjects showed a difference of approximately 20 points.

“Taken together, the data suggest a mean IQ in the 117 range for Ashkenazi Jewish children, with a Verbal IQ in the range of 125 and a Performance IQ in the average range. These results, if correct, would indicate a difference of almost two standard deviations from the Caucasian mean in Verbal IQ exactly the type of intellectual ability that has been the focus of Jewish education and eugenic practices. While precise numerical estimates remain somewhat doubtful, there can be no doubt about the general superiority of the Ashkenazi Jewish children on measures of verbal intelligence (see also Patai & Patai 1989, 149).

“There are important implications of the finding of higher verbal intelligence among Jews. Lynn (1992) notes that higher socio-economic status groups tend to have high verbal intelligence, but these groups are not particularly high on Visuo-spatial abilities. This indicates that verbal intelligence is more important for upward mobility and success in contemporary societies, and this was undoubtedly the case in traditional stratified societies as well: Wilken (1983) notes that education in rhetoric was the key to upward mobility in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity.”

Also, with regards to East Asian intelligence versus South Asians in Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. the South Asians have an average IQ closer to 90. In fact, East Asian minorities economically dominate the South Asian countries (See “World on Fire” by Chua). Also, I have seen some genetic data that places East Asians closer to Europeans than to South Asians—but I have not seen any data that is conclusive.

Posted by Kubilai on June 19, 2005, 10:24 PM | #

Some interesting info I felt to be important to this site....

An article from the Globe and Mail via GnXp…

GNXP

Globe and Mail

The article goes into the science blasting through the Liberal dogma of race denial and how it is progressing by leaps and bounds.  The article goes into the H*pM*p (I did not want to write it out fully for what will be obvious) project and other things as well along this line etc.  Of particular note are quotes such as these from the article…

Dr. Scherer spent two days last August fielding media calls when the news first broke. He did most of the interviews by phone, but in a few cases it was easiest to respond by e-mail.

Then came a call from his Harvard collaborators informing him that one of those e-mail interviews had been with a writer who worked for a neo-Nazi website. The writer spun the news as scientific proof of genetic differences between races — without even misquoting or twisting Dr. Scherer’s words.

“As a geneticist,” the 41-year-old Dr. Scherer said, “it’s your worst nightmare.”

The H*pM*p’s Tom Hudson in Montreal has had the same one. A colleague recently referred him to an Internet hate site that declared the H*pM*p would finally prove the biological basis of race.

“It made me queasy, because they actually name the name of my friend, my colleague in Boston. And they actually say, ‘He’s going to prove us right.’

“I didn’t understand what I was reading when I first read it,” Dr. Hudson said. “I never read something that was so disgusting.”

It wasn’t an isolated incident.

Morris Foster, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma and one of the H*pM*p’s leaders, said researchers are tracking racist sites for references to the H*pM*p, which logs 20,000 downloads a week from its public database. They have amassed quite a collection.

Not only do the hate sites keep abreast of what H*pM*p information has become available (such as recent data on Japanese and Nigerians), but they anxiously await findings that will help unveil genetic traits linked to such things as crime and cognitive ability by race.

“Once it is scientifically demonstrated,” one web contributor writes, “that will be the beginning of the end for the Marxist-egalitarian argument over race. Personally, I can’t wait.”

GNXP’s comments section has these tidbits…

Right, the “hate site” listed in the article is obviously Gene Expression, seeing as how Godless has been pushing the Bell Curve implications of the HapMap for 3+ years now. Contrary to the article, I know of very few actual racist sites that have discussed the HapMap, and the ones that do got it from Godless. For instance, the “Marxist-Egalitarian” quote is from GuessedWorker, who was basically just parroting Godless in the comment section of another blog.

The quote was also an amazingly stupid example of racist extremism, seeing as how it isn’t racist or extremist (though GuessedWorker himself is both).
Jason Malloy | Email | Homepage | 06.18.05 - 11:01 pm | #

and this…

I’m not so sure they’re talking about Gene Expression, because the paper characterizes the site as “neo-Nazi.” That could be any number of the eugenicist sites out there, like Future Generations, Matt Nuenke’s site (I think that’s the one they’re talking about), and a slew of others.

If Scherer was referring to Gene Expression, then perhaps it’s time we started a dialogue with him.
Arcane | Email | Homepage | 06.19.05 - 7:55 am | #

So, I did Google search with “H*pM*p” and “hate sites” and we came up on the list on the first page though it did not list MR as a hate site specifically.  My self-preservation “radar” has been activated and I do think we need to be careful. 

GW, how “safe” is our ISP information if at all?

This is strictly an FYI and to do with the information as you see fit.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 02:27 AM | #

In re Kub’s post, above:

“ ‘Once it is scientifically demonstrated,’ one web contributor writes, ‘that will be the beginning of the end for the Marxist-egalitarian argument over race. Personally, I can’t wait.’ ”

That completely innocuous comment is supposed to be “hate”?  Funny, I can’t see a thing wrong with it.  Not a thing.  Not only that, it makes perfect sense to me!  Anyone who views that comment as “hate” is mentally unbalanced—and very likely some sort of “hater” himself.  Good lord, the psychos running around loose these days are positively frightening!

“Right, the ‘hate site’ listed in the article is obviously Gene Expression [...]”

That’s weird—I don’t view GnXp as a “hate site.” What it is is simply an anti-white site for non-whites to voice their anti-white feelings and views, including pro-race-replacement views.  I wouldn’t call it “hate”:  maybe they think they have good reasons for being anti-white—who knows?  Sheeeesh, these sickos who are obsessed with “hate,” calling everyone “a hater,” are really and truly unbalanced, scary people ...  I certainly hope someone can get them off the streets!

“I’m not so sure they’re talking about Gene Expression, because the paper characterizes the site as ‘neo-Nazi.’ That could be any number of the eugenicist sites [...]”

That’s funny—I don’t see in what way eugenics sites are “hate sites.” I happen to disagree with them—I think eugenics is unnecessary and, furthermore, it won’t give the results its partisans think it will, partly because we are simply too ignorant to know what we’re doing, “breeding-wise” ("breeding" should be done the old-fashioned way:  marry the one you love, love your children, and live a Christian life)—but “hate”?  Gee—I don’t think so.  I rather think the ones running around seeing “hate” everywhere are themselves walking infernos of seething, psychotic hate and need psychiatric help very badly and very soon.  In fact, they’re extremely dangerous, and are a threat to our democracy, to the free expression of ideas, and to our whole way of life.  They are unacceptable little totalitarians out to suppress free speech and impose thought-control.  Something should be done about them.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 20, 2005, 06:22 AM | #

Kub,

The journalism displayed in the Abraham article is very, very selective.  My remark, which is supposed to be “hate-site” stuff, from what I can see, was made in 2003 on the excellent, middle-of-the-road Brian’s Education Blog.  You can read it here.  You will see that I was engaged in a debate with a well-known libertarian on the net, who is also a very clever Jewish lawyer and present-day blogger at Samizdata (like Brian Micklethwaite).

Now, how or why Abraham picked this remark, in a traditional, specialist blog of race-blind demeanour, I don’t know.  I would have thought she could find many more “hateful” examples elsewhere.  In what sense, anyway, was what I said wrong or hateful?  (John Ray would be the best man to answer that - he know’s Brian Micklethwaite’s blog and, of course, he knows the subject matter of IQ, race and genetics).

Malloy, by the way, is not my cup of tea either.  During the time I commented at GNXP I found him aggressive but also insubstantial.  I remember debating him without much difficulty.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 12:28 PM | #

“In what sense, anyway, was what I said wrong or hateful?”

In no sense, GW—in no sense whatsoever.  It was a one-hundred-percent reasonable, normal, intelligent, and right point to make.  The wrong and hateful ones are the totalitarians running around accusing everyone they disagree with—meaning everyone who’s not a Marxist race-replacement advocate and genocide-supporter—of “hate.” They intimidate no one, and as goes without saying, should simply be completely ignored.  Ignoring them may become harder to do in the near future because, as our side, the side of normalness, right, and truth, becomes more and more generally accepted among the public these others will get more and more shrill and hysterical—they’re losing, you see.  They’ll learn, though, that their shrillness, hysteria, and totalitarian tactics aren’t going to impress anyone and certainly aren’t going to shut us up.

As for Jason Molloy, that comment he’s quoted as making did surprise and disgust me, for one—back when I frequented that site and had a major run-in with GC, Molloy (and Razib as well) treated me fairly and in a gentlemanly way.  But a lot can change in two years, I suppose.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 20, 2005, 12:48 PM | #

Kub,

“Safety” can never be a matter of guarantee.  If the CIA can’t keep hackers out nor can our hosting folks.  But what the hell?  We have a job to do.

Posted by Kubilai on June 20, 2005, 02:16 PM | #

GW,

Thanks for the reply.  I worry about these things, obviously.  The good news is the information about race is becoming more mainstream and the scientific data proves our position as we knew all along, however the bad news is that the Liberal anti-racists will not go down without a serious fight.  For the Globe and Mail to quote a portion of your comment that occured 2 years ago is shocking to say the least because it is such a mild statement.  My guess is they did a wide Google search on H*pM*p and weeded through all the postings.  To say the least, it was very “lucky” on your part to be picked so maybe a lottery ticket winner is in your future, or a lightning strike.  I think we all must do what is in our comfort zones and I intend to change a couple of things to increase mine. 

Fred, my good man.  We all know that the truth is no defense in our current society.  Ask Putin or even JP Rushton who spent a better part of 2-3 years defending himself against the thought police in Canada for his gall of stating scientific evidence.  They did not care about nor question his assertions.  They wanted to nail him on “hate speech” laws which transcend truth, literally.

Posted by Kubilai on June 20, 2005, 02:19 PM | #

As for Jason Malloy, he is an intolerant hack that could not defend his position against me and kept banning my ISP as he continued to delete my comments.  He also called me a “prick” as his initial volley.  LOL

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 02:53 PM | #

Well, I guess I just lucked out with Jason Molloy and Razib—neither one of them ever said a cross word to me, or made an unfair comment about a post of mine there, or deleted any of my posts, of which there were a great many.  I was banned twice at GnXp, both times by GC.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 04:17 PM | #

(For the record, incidentally, I posted there under the pen names “Cognassier,” and, later, “Unadorned.")

Posted by Guessedworker on June 20, 2005, 04:25 PM | #

Anyone who followed that link to BEB and read the thought of my interlocutor, Mr Guy Herbert, might like also to sample this, his view of the nation-state in Africa (from a current Samizdata thread):-

“Isn’t one of the problems of Africa that there aren’t nation states?”

In Britain we have seen a colonisation by the state of the non-state on an unprecedented scale. I wonder how long before the former problem is also very evident.

So, Salad Bowl Man - sorry, Guy - uses nationism as a bromide for nationalism which, in turn, is a bromide for mono-ethnicity.  No surprise there.  Guy’s Jewish.

Guy retails rank untruths about what is bad for , erm, his ... Salad Bowl.  For example: … national self-determination has killed and maimed more people and wasted more civilisation even than religion.

Still, he is an able adversary, which is more than can be said of Jason Malloy.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 05:00 PM | #

Thanks for posting that jaw-dropping exchange with Guy Herbert, GW.  Members and friends of traditonal white-Christian nation-states who want to see those nation-states preserved, and see nothing whatsoever wrong with wishing them preserved—including racially, of course, which is the most important dimension of their preservation—have to be aware that Jewish thinkers all too often view the subject as this Jewish person does, this hate-filled totalitarian degenerate whose probable motivation as a Jew—this cannot be denied, or simply dismissed—is anti-Christian hatred and genocidal fantasies of seeing white-Christian societies destroyed.  Who’s the “hater,” then?  Jewish hatred of white-Euro Christianity is going to have to be openly discussed and dealt with.  It can no longer be swept under the rug.  It’s out there and is without a doubt fueling at least a significant portion the Jewish community’s strong preference for race-replacement immigration everywhere in the white West where it’s taking place.

Incidentally, from now on whenever I refer to the ADL or the SPLC I’m going to include the fact that they are “Jewish hate-groups.” Two can play that game—two can play the name-calling-rather-than-debate game—Abe Foxman and Morris Disease aren’t the only ones who can play.  They think they’re going to suppress all debate by calling those they’re incapable of arguing against “haters,” and win that way—by default?  They’re going to find out different.  These people are totalitarian haters of white-hot incandescence—you’ve never seen real hate until you’ve encountered one of these rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth hate-filled, hate-obsessed, psychos.  They wrote the book on hate.  They’re consumed by it.  They’re the hate-masters.  And they’re going to push with all the strength they can muster and by any means they can get away with, fair or foul, for the genocidal elimination of those they view as their potential tribal enemies.

Posted by Svigor on June 20, 2005, 11:44 PM | #

So Corcoran’s work does rather suggest that Jewish success and influence is the result of Jewish ability, not Jewish cospiratorialness.

Jewish conspiracies are strawmen.

60% of the directors, producers, and writers of the top movies over at least 10 years (I can’t remember the exact dates) were Jews.

In describing what they see as the result of the Ashkenazic mutations, the researchers cite the fact that Ashkenazi Jews make up 3 percent of the American population but won 27 percent of its Nobel prizes, and account for more than half of world chess champions. They say that the reason for this unusual record may be that differences in Ashkenazic and northern European I.Q. are not large at the average, where most people fall, but become more noticeable at the extremes; for people with an I.Q. over 140, the proportion is 4 per 1,000 among northern Europeans but 23 per 1,000 with Ashkenazim.

“Researchers Say Intelligence and Diseases May Be Linked in Ashkenazic Genes,” Nicholas Wade, NYT, June 3, 2005.

Whites are about 60% of the population of the U.S.A. to the tune of 155 million or so.  Jews are about 2.5%, to the tune of 6 million or so.  That means we’ve got something like 620,000 white geniuses and 138,000 Jewish geniuses.

This doesn’t exactly endear me to any general, strictly IQ-oriented explanation of Jewish success.

It’s reasonable to suppose that behavior is significant.

Posted by Svigor on June 21, 2005, 12:02 AM | #

If Jews continue opposing the nationalist racial-preservationist concerns of other peoples, especially European-derived peoples, then they should expect nothing less than the same opposition to their interests.

I find insulting the pretense that Jewish opposition to white racial interests isn’t a given, or that it’s even on the table.

Posted by karen on June 10, 2007, 01:30 PM | #

The Asain white gap is actually to do with weighting in iq tests and what is actually qualified as white.

In IQ tests spatial and mathamatical ability is weighted higher than that of verbal and analytical so thats why asians may perform slightly better. If the weighting was leveled whites would score slightly over them or so i read.

The classification of “white” in the US also includes middle easterners and north africans so this could weigh it down also.

The way of which much of IQ data is collected in asia tends to come from large cities and these of which the wealthy and thus forth more intelligent would reside. These include Hong Kong, Singapore, shanghai etc. Though the average chinese score is around 100, the average german score is around 102. South east asians though tend to be around 10 points lower than the white mean.

Asians also tend to put a greater focus on school as for the parents this is an investment in their retirement. And the best test of IQ is history, whites are the most advanced race of people on the planet with societys enviable by the world.

IQ tests were made and designed for whites and their abilitys and they did not take into account that asians might be slightly better than whites in some areas and worse in others.

Posted by Jon on September 05, 2007, 02:43 AM | #

Like Karen said: history is a good test of IQ. Asians are indeed the smartest. Whites have dominated the last 300 years and they think they’re the best in the world? Who do you think dominated culture, economics, and technology 2000 years before that? SURPRISE: ITS THE CHINESE.

You Westerners put too much focus on yourselves, You gotta start looking at the BIG picture.

BTW, South Indians from India are the smartest people in the world. They produce even more geniuses than the Jews. They are currently leading the world in science and industry. And they are expected to continue that role for a long time. Good luck trying to beat them in IQ tests.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2007, 04:27 AM | #

But Jon we don’t want to turn into people smarter than we are (Orientals, Tamil Brahmins) any more than dumber (Negroes, Mexicans, North African Mulattoes).  We don’t want to turn into anybody.  You act as if we have to turn into somebody so might as well choose smarter.  What if we want to remain ourselves?  The fact is we don’t want to get changed into another race, whether it be in a spirit of racial self-improvement (Chinamen or South Indian Brahmins) or faux-Christian racial self-sacrifice/self-immolation (Negroes).  We want to stay white.  We like that.  Capiche? As for whether or not we’re smart enough to go it alone in today’s world without mulattoizing ourselves with this or that “smart non-white,” that’s a chance we’re more than willing to take, I can assure you.  But thanks again for faithfully looking out for white interests — I know it’s the thought that counts — and have a nice day.

Posted by Al Ross on September 05, 2007, 07:28 AM | #

South Indians, particularly Dravidian Aborigines or Tamils, as they are better known, are a low average IQ group with the exception of the partially Aryan-descended Brahmins who settled there and are Tamil-speaking but not of that ethnic group.

The South Indian Tamil diaspora in Malaysia is very poor and backward, score lower than the Malays scholastically (the Chinese are top as usual) and although they only account for about 9% of the population, they commit 40% of the nation’s crime.