The Relevance of Ethnocentrism

Posted by Bill Yancey on January 24, 2012, 02:21 AM | #

Are you discovering these things for the first time?

Posted by Papa Luigi on January 24, 2012, 03:48 AM | #

JR presents an interesting argument, and one which seeks to counter the argument that I have advanced previously that it is greater ethnocentrism that has enabled, not just Jews, but other ethnic minorities to gain an unfair advantage in our societies.

There are however two flaws in JR’s hypothesis:

Firstly, that Jewish control of the money supply does not explain for example, the rise of disproportionate Southern Asian ownership and control of various sections of industry and commerce;

Secondly, in the surveys that provide the material for his above essay, there is no objective scale of ethnocentrism used to measure the ethnocentrism of the respondents to the surveys. That is, the degree of ethnocentrism that might motivate a Jew to say he is ‘not very close’ to his ethnic group, might actually be greater and more intense than say, the degree of ethnocentrism that would cause an Englishman to say that he is ‘very close’ to his ethnic group.

The point here is that a Jew will primarily guage his feelings of ethnocentrity against the apparent level of ethnocentrism expressed by other Jews, and the more ethnocentric a person is, the more exclusively they will guage their ethnocentrity against other people of their own ethnicity. A White person however, will far more often tend to guage their level of ethnocentricity against the prevailing multicultural milieu as projected by the mass media.

I don’t think anyone here will buy into the suggestion that Jews are at most only very marginally more ethnocentric than Whites. Everyone of us will have anecdotal experience that will demonstrate the fallacy of JR’s assertion in this respect and furthermore, there is a mountain of objective empirical evidence demonstrating that Jews on average are significantly, nay dramatically, more ethnocentric than Europeans. Furthemore, when we look at other ethnic groups who do not have control of the money supply, we see that they enjoy disproportionate success in line with their expressed level of ethnocentricity also.

Lastly, to propose ‘gaining control of the money supply’ as a strategy for regaining control over our own destiny, is at this stage of the White man’s disempowerment, a little like suggesting that we attempt to leap tall buildings with a single bound. It took the Jews millenia to gain control of our money supply, they didn’t just do it overnight or even over the course of a few decades, and they were able to do it because they had the constant unwavering support of the organised Jewish community behind them. It is therefore the level of our people’s ethnocentrism that we must tackle first before we can even dream of taking control of the money supply.

Posted by Papa Luigi on January 24, 2012, 04:08 AM | #

A further consideration regarding JR’s hypothesis would be to consider the motivation of a minority group to act in a parasitic way?

If the members of that group were not highly ethnocentric, then they would simply act as parasitic individuals and the plethora of written and Internet based media and the plethora of Jewish intellectual discourse aimed at reinforcing group consciousness would not exist.

No, a highly developed sense of group consciousness and identity is required in order for a group to act in a co-ordinated way in advancing their parasitism as a group, and therefore high levels of ethnocentricity are a vital prerequisite of such parasitic action and not the irrelevance that JR claims.

Posted by Gold on January 24, 2012, 04:27 AM | #

J Richards,

Lately it was alleged that you are the author and proprietor of the website Feminine Beauty dot Info, and indeed, it bears a style most eerily similar to yours, and I do wonder if you would confirm or deny this allegation?

Sincerely,
Gold

Posted by daniel on January 24, 2012, 07:21 AM | #

J.Richards says:

The dupes need education about Jews being the engine behind the transatlantic slave trade of blacks; Jewish bankers being instrumental in England’s military pursuits ever since they had King Charles killed, re-entering England centuries after their explusion; the holy hoax; and Jews orchestrating 9/11.

The dupes aren’t deficient regarding own-race attitudes

In my estimation, if you are going to appeal to these folks, it probably would be more effective to adopt a more respectful tone, in general. Some of these “dupes” have been busy with work, school and circumstances where attendance to these matters are, unfortunately, not seen as their pressing concern.

Suppose that the H story as it is generally presented may be off the mark in terms of number and method. Nevertheless, most of the “dupes” have seen visual evidence of skeletal bodies, heaped enough to presume that there were mass civilian deaths of Jews. Alright, you may elect to present them to the dupes as an inherently enemy race, such that even civilians were a threat, such that their death through inability to feed them and keep them from disease was not a priority in the diversion of War. You may go onto explain why they were so hated, and the dupes may begin to listen. However, if you start by using the term “the holy hoax” it is probably going to come across to most of the dupes as if you are mocking the dead; and most of the dupes are probably not going to be receptive to you, the messenger, nor what you have to say. Mocking the dead is generically felt as a dangerous practice which will generate the most bitter and committed enemies, requiring an eternity of burdensome vigilance to defend against. Hence, they will think that they are hearing a callous and tactless fool.

Posted by Graham_Lister on January 24, 2012, 03:38 PM | #

Papa Luigi makes some excellent points:

What is the relevant baseline from which measurement was made – is the same for all groups?

What do differing groups mean by ethnocentrism?

Do all groups answer as honestly as each other?

A small minority groups that feels it itself to be under the threat of persecution and/or resented by the majority might, on average, be very wary of admitting ‘in public’ to high values of ethnocentric feeling despite having them – rather for public consumption they might typically play down any confession of ethnic feeling along the lines of “but we are just the same as the majority – we are not differentiated in any significant way including ethnocentric feeling”.

Daniel also makes an excellent point about language; who on Earth thinks bullshit phrases like ‘holy hoax’ is acceptable or persuasive for normal mainstream people? Say that to Mr & Mrs Average and they will assume the speaker is some repulsive nutjob and the speaker’s moral creditability (and every other type) will be zero.

Finally, in science one study is not enough – replication over multiple independent studies (not pseudo-replication) is the key to robust results. Even then poor methodology and so on might obscure the detection or complete understanding of real phenomena. Given it is human beings and their attitudes under consideration we have issues of honesty et al., to deal with.

If, for example, asked about their sexuality activity by a stranger, is anyone naïve enough to think most people are totally open and honest? The type of person who would be is probably not genuinely representative (selection bias anyone? Non-random sample anyone? Kinsey Reports anyone?).

Who typically takes part in psychological studies – undergraduates in need of some money? Furthermore, even with a genuine random and representative sample, individuals both actively and passively conceal all sorts of things from other people (and themselves). Psychologists might think their methods are so powerful that they can easily and with total clarity view into the murky depths of the human psyche, but forgive me if I’m slightly sceptical.

Given Mr. Richard’s habit of mind (confirmation bias and the asymmetric use of evidence) I doubt this is the only study on this topic. One swallow doesn’t make a summer. Oh and of course Euro-elites are entirely benevolent aren’t they? People we are now entering fairy-tale territory.

And if “in the data, Jews are coded as white” how precisely then have you identified them and their relevant stats? Either they were tracked as a distinct group or not? Did the survey have a separate Jewish section or not? All the other categories are by nation – why only one by religion? Did they track Catholics, Muslims etc., as well?

Posted by Dasein on January 24, 2012, 03:57 PM | #

Just a comment on the numbers: without knowing the variance, comparing averages is not very informative.

Previously it was shown that intelligence was of practically no relevance to explaining spectacular Jewish succes

That was not shown.  What was shown is that the absolute numbers of high-IQ people alone cannot explain the ethnic breakdown in industries dominated by jews.  You did not prove that concentration in ethnic groups is not important; you only provided an argument for it not being sufficient.  It could well have been necessary, let alone being of at least some relevance.  You also did not address the issue of regression to the mean affecting the populations differently.

Previously, some brought up the notion of concentration, but just look at the figures. The Jewish population has to far exceed the white population in major or relevant cities before ethnocentric Jews can manage to outcompete ethnocentric whites in the spectacular manner observed, such as ZOG.

JR, with due respect to your efforts, you’re committing the same mistake here as you did with your analysis of IQ.  You’re assuming that the much higher percentage of ethno-diffuse whites does not matter, or that ethnocentric whites deal mostly or exclusively with other ethnocentric whites.  Without evidence for that, we must assume that the odds of an ethnocentric white dealing with an ethno-diffuse white (e.g. as a business partner or family member) are much higher, so that the odds of their money and influence flowing out of the explicitly white community are much greater.  And even if a minority of whites do in fact exclude interactions with jews (be that in business, banking, academia, etc.), a majority of whites will not exclude them.

Assuming that implementing the parasitical mode of living dictated by the Talmud has led to jewish success, you haven’t shown that the same could have been accomplished with lower IQ and lower ethnocentrism.  This is a bare assertion on your part:

it only takes a normal level of ethnocentrism—where only a very small minority of people don’t feel at all close to their race/ethnic group—combined with Talmudism to explain the recurrent pattern of spectacular success the Jews have enjoyed shortly before their expulsion

I don’t think anyone who is aware of their preponderance of influence can honestly say that any one factor is sufficient to explain it.  But it doesn’t mean those factors are irrelevant or unnecessary, as your series has suggested.

Posted by Graham_Lister on January 24, 2012, 05:46 PM | #

Of course Dasein indirectly raises the general and important question of heteroscedasticity within observed phenomena/variables which is frequency ignored.

About this type of survey how precisely do they know they have a genuine random sample? If I were asked to take part I would refuse as I have much better things to do. Why is it not, in part, a test for and of those that would submit to being asked such questions (which obviously excludes people that would not wish to take part)?

In political science/polling there the well-know effect called the ‘spiral of silence’

The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory first propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. The theory asserts that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority.

See more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence

It’s a real-world phenomenon - opinion surveys are not as simple to do as one might assume and often can’t be taken at face value. On something as uncontroversial as voting preference opinion pollsters constantly have to take in account the spiral of silence effect - why should it not be a factor elsewhere?

As for why certain groups might have more leverage than others could it be the synergistic effects of many factors which are fairly weak when they are considered in isolation but when brought together do actually have a strong multiplying effect? So in fact there is no single ‘strong’ causal factor at work.

You know that idea (first introduced by Aristotle I believe) about ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.

Posted by Ivan on January 24, 2012, 07:18 PM | #

Attempting to make whites parasitic as a group is neither desirable nor, in my estimation, feasible.

I work for a big high tech company. Half of our group is Chinese, 40% Indians, there is one white who is most probably Jewish, there is another white with French sounding last name, who “works” most of the time from home, there is one American and that one is Black. Whites from other groups, I conduct business with at the company, are the most lazy and stupid. It is not a pretty situation.

I am afraid that whites, at least white Americans, have already become, to a large degree, parasitic. And that was not their conscious decision to become parasitic - it is rather a side effect of white elite’s alliance with the Jews. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that whites are not parasitic by nature, like Jews are. Parasitism is the mode of existence for Jews, while today’s white Americans are passive parasites that live on the fruits of labor of others, largely thanks to the Jewish genius for looting. A big chunk of the stolen wealth goes to white Americans, otherwise the alliance between Jews and white Americans would collapse.

One can hope only that it will collapse sooner rather than later for it is biologically unhealthy alliance for whites.

Posted by anon on January 24, 2012, 08:28 PM | #

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/tracing-the-roots-of-jewishness.html

Ashkenazi and Middle Eastern Jews in New York City and Sephardic Jews in Seattle, Washington; Greece; Italy; and Israel…Individuals within each Jewish group had high levels of IBD, roughly equivalent to that of fourth or fifth cousins...Ashkenazi Jews, whose genetic profiles indicated between 30% to 60% admixture with Europeans, nevertheless clustered more closely with Middle Eastern and Sephardic Jews

The Talmud…“views non-Jews as sub-human or non-human creatures”...is a product of their ethno-centrism.

The chutzpah is a product of their ethno-centrism i.e. all peoples have a moral balance weighted by blood, the Jewish weighting is simply much heavier.

The parasitism is a product of their ethno-centrism.

The successful seizure and defence of domination of banking and the money supply is a product of their ethno-centrism.

Posted by Dasein on January 25, 2012, 10:30 AM | #

One more comment on the data from Ron Guhname’s table:  calculating averages based on ordinal measures is very questionable.  Is someone who’s ‘very close’ (4) twice as ethnocentric as someone who’s ‘not very close’ (2)?

Here’s a simple analogy to make the point of concentration (frequency) clearer:

Imagine that there are 2 rowing clubs that compete against one another.  The first club has 1000 active members, 30% of whom can row competently, at different levels of ability.  The other 70% only stick their oar in the water and leave it there.  The second club has 100 members, 90% of whom can row competently, while 10% only stick their oar in the water.  The higher absolute number of competent rowers in the first club will not help it in competitions between the 2 clubs (when all members are competing).

Posted by Greg Johnson on January 25, 2012, 09:08 PM | #

If most Jews are highly ethnocentric, then when a Jew meets a Jew, he knows that his ethnocentric sentiments will likely be reciprocated, so he feels free to act upon them without penalty to his own interests.

If only 3 out of 10 whites are ethnocentric, then the chance that one’s ethnocentric sentiments will be reciprocated are very low. Therefore, they are unlikely to be expressed, and if they are expressed, they are unlikely to make a difference in competition between groups, where teams routinely outperform individuals.

The absolute size of populations, therefore, does not matter here. What matters is the relative proportion of ethnocentric individuals, which raises the likelihood of reciprocity, which raises the likelihood of productive cooperation. Jews fit that description, which is why they are able to out compete larger numbers of non-Jews, even larger numbers of ethnocentric non-Jews who are still a minority in the larger white population, which means that there is low likelihood of reciprocated ethnocentrism, which means that there is very little chance of productive cooperation in ethnic competition with other groups. 

Posted by Just-so on January 25, 2012, 09:24 PM | #

After so many generations and acceptance without question as superiors by gentiles, Jews themselves may not be self-conscious at all times about their privileged status.
Much in the same way that whites are blind to their so-called “white privilege” (which no longer exists) for which they are constantly rebuked by Jewish elites and nonwhites.

Progeny of Jews will be supported, mentored, accepted and hired based on who they know and since their own kind run dominant in all major institutions, it is fellow Jews that open doors for them. Goyim in high places may be more aware of who is Jew or not and who must be recognized and this would contribute to the less aware Jews need to be of their own Jewishness. This same phenomenon is reason that many no longer see themselves as religious but as secular and indeed ‘assimilated’.
In other words, Jews are so well entrenched into the hierarchy that they do not need to examine who they are or where they stand, all will be taken care of for them.

Posted by daniel on January 25, 2012, 10:40 PM | #

Greg Johnson,

You say:

“If most Jews are highly ethnocentric, then when a Jew meets a Jew, he knows that his ethnocentric sentiments will likely be reciprocated, so he feels free to act upon them without penalty to his own interests.

If only 3 out of 10 whites are ethnocentric, then the chance that one’s ethnocentric sentiments will be reciprocated are very low. Therefore, they are unlikely to be expressed, and if they are expressed, they are unlikely to make a difference in competition between groups, where teams routinely outperform individuals.

What matters is the relative proportion of ethnocentric individuals, which raises the likelihood of reciprocity, which raises the likelihood of productive cooperation.Jews fit that description, which is why they are able to out compete larger numbers of non-Jews, even larger numbers of ethnocentric non-Jews who are still a minority in the larger white population, which means that there is low likelihood of reciprocated ethnocentrism, which means that there is very little chance of productive cooperation in ethnic competition with other groups.”

It makes sense and bears upon my repeated experience as an ethnocentric White man who has attempted to bring cooperative White ethnocentrism into being on many occasions - not always, but normally, without success. However, the ratio may improve.

Posted by Graham_Lister on January 25, 2012, 10:45 PM | #

Might the different densities of social networks also be a factor?

Even if a specific group was not all that more ethnocentric than others (as such) but instead was a highly ‘inwardly’ directed group with much stronger intra-group interactions might this not also be of relevance? Especially if the resulting effects of the same baseline level of ethnocentric feeling was multiplied by being in a more ‘dense’ social network, hence having much greater efficacy relative to that of a diffuse ‘outward’ orientated group?

In general, social networks are self-organizing, emergent, and complex, such that a globally coherent pattern appears from the local interaction of the elements that make up the system (but those higher-level properties are really not reducible to the individual level as in the tradition of methodological individualism).

Quite interesting…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network

Good point on the invisibility of privilege - many privileged groups remarkable do not understand themselves to be so. Certain groups might be, by any objective standard, highly ethnocentric but from within their own self-understanding/calibration do not feel they act in any particularly unusual or atypical way.

Posted by J Richards on January 26, 2012, 12:14 AM | #

Papa Luigi @2, 3

Jewish control of the money supply does not explain for example, the rise of disproportionate Southern Asian ownership and control of various sections of industry and commerce;

...which isn’t the point of the post. 

And what exactly is the south Asian rise?  In the U.S., they dominate motels and convenience stores, but this isn’t inconsistent with Jewish control of the money supply as these endeavors aren’t especially lucrative given the time put in, and Jews have no problems with a south Asian takeover of these businesses.  The south Asians are used to living many to a room, they work long hours, they save more, and on top of this they’ve reduced profits to outcompete Americans.  In another example, silicon valley has lots of south Asians involved in IT, a direct result of Jewish domination of the money supply as displacing Americans with foreign workers/immigrants and outsourcing jobs works to their advantage in diminishing the odds of a successful revolt against them in America.   

Secondly, in the surveys that provide the material for his above essay, there is no objective scale of ethnocentrism used to measure the ethnocentrism of the respondents to the surveys.

What, pray, is this objective scale?  You have no citations! 

The survey asked a question that captures the core of ethnocentrism, as closeness to one’s group underlies ethnocentrism.  We go from there.

That is, the degree of ethnocentrism that might motivate a Jew to say he is ‘not very close’ to his ethnic group, might actually be greater and more intense than say, the degree of ethnocentrism that would cause an Englishman to say that he is ‘very close’ to his ethnic group.

It might, just as it might not.  How do we know?  We work with what’s on hand. 

The point here is that a Jew will primarily guage his feelings of ethnocentrity against the apparent level of ethnocentrism expressed by other Jews, and the more ethnocentric a person is, the more exclusively they will guage their ethnocentrity against other people of their own ethnicity. A White person however, will far more often tend to guage their level of ethnocentricity against the prevailing multicultural milieu as projected by the mass media.

This is an assertion, without documentation.  You assume that whites will be especially affected by the mass media, but if this were true, we should expect whites to become less close to their race over time, but no such trend is seen in the data.  The question also doesn’t ask people how close do you think you are to your racial/ethnic group in comparison to others in your racial/ethnic group.

I don’t think anyone here will buy into the suggestion that Jews are at most only very marginally more ethnocentric than Whites. Everyone of us will have anecdotal experience that will demonstrate the fallacy of JR’s assertion in this respect and

I have some hard data, you have anecdotes.  It’s one thing to supplement with anecdotes, another to build one’s case on anecdotes! 

furthermore, there is a mountain of objective empirical evidence demonstrating that Jews on average are significantly, nay dramatically, more ethnocentric than Europeans.

One wonders what the size of the mountain is as you’ve not cited any of the empirical evidence. 

Lastly, to propose ‘gaining control of the money supply’ as a strategy for regaining control over our own destiny, is at this stage of the White man’s disempowerment, a little like suggesting that we attempt to leap tall buildings with a single bound. It took the Jews millenia to gain control of our money supply, they didn’t just do it overnight or even over the course of a few decades, and they were able to do it because they had the constant unwavering support of the organised Jewish community behind them.

A false contention.  Focused mass protests will work; it’s a matter of educating others and organizing a genuine Occupy movement.  Alternatives such as deadly violence specifically targeted against the bankers will also work.

Jewish control of the money supply isn’t exactly a steadily built up outcome of millennia of work.  Their history is one of repeated expulsions.  There’s an ebb and flow along with build up over some stretches. 

It is therefore the level of our people’s ethnocentrism that we must tackle first before we can even dream of taking control of the money supply.

But there’s no documented deficiency in the level of ethnocentrism of whites.  On the contrary, the money situation affects the vast majority of humans for the worse, and efforts can be made to bring as many together as possible to get rid of the Jewish control of the money supply, an act that doesn’t require one to bother with ethnocentrism.

If the members of that group were not highly ethnocentric, then they would simply act as parasitic individuals

And the parasitic individuals wouldn’t get far if they acted by themselves.  To get far they have to cooperate.  Cooperation doesn’t require a sense of ethnocentrism as people of different races can work together to pull off criminal acts that benefit their heterogenous group.  Conversely, just because members of the same ethnic group are cooperating, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a highly developed sense of ethnocentrism.   

No, a highly developed sense of group consciousness and identity is required in order for a group to act in a co-ordinated way in advancing their parasitism as a group, and therefore high levels of ethnocentricity are a vital prerequisite of such parasitic action and not the irrelevance that JR claims.

Since a normal level of ethnocentrism means only a very small minority doesn’t feel at all close to its racial or ethnic group, no highly developed racial sense is required as normal levels will be directed, by the great majority, to what benefits the group, and if the benefit is sought from parasitic group behaviors, that’s what most of the group will be supporting as long as a large enough proportion of the leadership promotes parasitism.

Posted by J Richards on January 26, 2012, 12:17 AM | #

Gold @4

I don’t have authorship or proprietorship of that website.

Daniel @ 5

Nevertheless, most of the “dupes” have seen visual evidence of skeletal bodies, heaped enough to presume that there were mass civilian deaths of Jews.

And they should be asked where’s the evidence that the heaps are dead bodies of Jews?  The citation I gave you is scholarly, and this is what it has to say about pictures of the heaps of dead bodies: http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcffor.html

I directed the reader to a scholarly source in spite of using “holy hoax.”  I’m free to use holy hoax here because this isn’t a website aimed toward dupes.  I don’t recommend that people use this term.  People should use the scholarly information referenced to target the dupes on their own, using more appropriate terminology.

Posted by J Richards on January 26, 2012, 12:21 AM | #

Dr. Graham Lister @6, 8

A small minority groups that feels it itself to be under the threat of persecution and/or resented by the majority might, on average, be very wary of admitting ‘in public’ to high values of ethnocentric feeling…

Nobody asked the participants how ethnocentric are you.  They were asked how close are you to your ethnic or racial group, and they weren’t asked on TV.

I anticipated this kind of objection and showed that even if we assume that every single Jew is very close to his group, it’s a numbers game.  There are a lot more whites who are very close to their race, and when they notice Jews trying to undermine their success, they should come together and put an end to it, but this happens only every now and then (expulsions).  So is ethnocentrism the crucial variable or is a form of parasitism that catches whites unawares the culprit?  And when the awakening is widespread, how would one treat the expulsions, as something not indicative of a healthy level of ethnocentrism?

Daniel also makes an excellent point about language; who on Earth thinks bullshit phrases like ‘holy hoax’ is acceptable or persuasive for normal mainstream people? Say that to Mr & Mrs Average and they will assume the speaker is some repulsive nutjob and the speaker’s moral creditability (and every other type) will be zero.

Did I recommend that people use ‘holy hoax” to target the dupes?  The only way to convince is through the kind of arguments developed in the scholarly source linked, which I referred the reader to, not a superficial reference.

Oh and of course Euro-elites are entirely benevolent aren’t they? People we are now entering fairy-tale territory.

This is one vile straw man that you keep repeating.  Why don’t you have anything of substance to provide?  Let’s see why.

The rest of your comment is about replication (two surveys are included), methodology, honesty, bias, asymmetric use of evidence, randomness and sundry, but since you wonder how Jews were tracked and whether Catholics were tracked and even bring in nationality when we’re talking about an American survey (the ethnic groups are Americans reporting their familial origin), you’ve obviously not bothered to look into the surveys even though I provided the links and they’ll tell you all you need to know about methodology and variables assessed. 

You’re criticizing something not knowing what it is that you’re criticizing, displaying some fine scholarship in the process!

Posted by J Richards on January 26, 2012, 12:46 AM | #

Dasein @7, 11

without knowing the variance, comparing averages is not very informative.

We’re dealing with an ordinal variable.  You can look up what proportion picks each of the four choices.  Summing them up indicates which group has on average higher values.

calculating averages based on ordinal measures is very questionable.  Is someone who’s ‘very close’ (4) twice as ethnocentric as someone who’s ‘not very close’ (2)?

Neither Guhname nor I have said that level 4 is twice as level 2.  What we can agree on is that level 4 is greater than level 2.  This is why averages have some meaning. 

You think that I’ve not shown that intelligence isn’t practically relevant because I’ve not addressed concentration and regression to the mean.  I did address concentration and argued that if concentration is relevant, it isn’t concentration of intelligence but of something else.  Regression to the mean doesn’t have to be addressed because one need only look at history to see how Jews acquired their wealth.  You don’t need a high level of intelligence for it, period.

A good example is Jewish behaviors prior to the Khazars converting to Talmudism.  And another example is the behaviors of the Pharisees who eventually developed Talmudism.  The Middle Eastern Pharisee-derived Jews have an IQ that is in the 90s, lower than the European average, but this didn’t stop them from getting involved in money lending and the slave trade, exploiting others and periodically facing the consequences.  Contra your assertion that the adoption of Talmudism is just one factor, it isn’t.  How Talmudism came to characterize a community is a different ball game, not just a single factor.

You’re assuming that the much higher percentage of ethno-diffuse whites does not matter, or that ethnocentric whites deal mostly or exclusively with other ethnocentric whites.

No I’m not.  It doesn’t matter who you deal with.  If you notice another group undermine your own group, then the concerned will get together to do something about it.  Throughout history, whites have been caught unawares that Jews as a group don’t follow normal human rules, and sometimes this understanding has come too late (for the massacred) and at other times the Jews have been expelled.  The numerous expulsions are all indications of a healthy level of ethnocentrism in white populations.  So it wasn’t whites relatively lacking in ethnocentrism that led to their victimization prior to the expulsions but the Jews not behaving like normal humans, the parasitism part, which would be difficult to predict in advance since they look human and anecdotal experiences are insufficient.  For instance, if I relied on my personal experiences with Jews, I’d have nothing against their community to this day.   

Imagine that there are 2 rowing clubs that compete against one another.  The first club has 1000 active members, 30% of whom can row competently, at different levels of ability.  The other 70% only stick their oar in the water and leave it there.  The second club has 100 members, 90% of whom can row competently, while 10% only stick their oar in the water.  The higher absolute number of competent rowers in the first club will not help it in competitions between the 2 clubs (when all members are competing).

You have two fallacies.  The first is that we don’t have a 100-man boat compete with a 1000-man boat.  We have two 100-man teams.  Whites have 300 competents whereas Jews have 90.  So the 100-man white team will have 100% competents whereas the Jews are 90% competent.  So whites should win, but they don’t, and this is because of your second fallacy, which is the assumption that both teams abide by the same rules.  Jews don’t.  10 competents in the 100-man white team will be crypto-Jews that will row in the opposite direction, 3 whites will be blackmailed into rowing in the opposite direction, 5 whites will be bribed into rowing in the opposite direction and 6 whites will be plied with drugs to make them less competent rowers.  This is how the Jews win or attempt to win.

Even if you wish to compare a 100-man rowing team with a 1,000-man rowing team, of the 90 competent Jews, 45 will end up in the 1000-man group as crypto-Jews and bribe 45 incompetents from the 1000-man group to join their 100-member team and just leave the oar in the water.  So 45 out of 100 in the Jewish group are competent.  The other 45 competent Jews, in the 1000-man team, will be rowing in the opposite direction, after having plied a significant number of other competents with drugs to undermine them, blackmailing some competents into rowing in the opposite direction and bribing some incompetents into rowing in the opposite direction. 

So the difference in outcome doesn’t have anything to do with the proportion of competent rowers originally in each group [analogous to ethnocentrism] but to the Jews not following rules [analogous to parasitism].

Posted by uh on January 26, 2012, 12:54 AM | #

What matters is the relative proportion of ethnocentric individuals, which raises the likelihood of reciprocity, which raises the likelihood of productive cooperation.

As well as, and probably more critically, reproductive cooperation. We ought to view their productive cooperation as a function of reproductive strategy, i.e. nepotism, even where no filial relationship can be established, for as we know from various studies, Ashkenazi Jews (I hate making this distinction as those studies prove that “Sephardi” is mostly an historical identity) have closer genetic relatedness than northern / western Europeans, and anyhow the culture more than makes up for shortfall.

However, the ratio may improve.

Well, if ethnocentrism is a result of the degree of historical inbreeding and attendant attitudes / ideology, then a ratio is a more or less precise reflection of that and cannot simply “improve” without overhauling the sexual strategy, which is very far from possible given the fits of rage & terror the modern American experiences at consanguineous unions, underage girls with older men, arranged marriage, etc. In other words, to improve that ratio, we would have to begin arranging marriages for our underage cousins with other cousins, or selling our daughters to our buddies, essentially. There is no way to cook ethnocentrism in a test tube. High-strung types will blanch at that but it is the unvarnished truth of the origins of tighter ethnic game.

Certain groups might be, by any objective standard, highly ethnocentric but from within their own self-understanding/calibration do not feel they act in any particularly unusual or atypical way.

Ethnies high in ethnocentric (low trust) attitudes also happen to exhibit lower avg IQs, so in my opinion, it’s just a kind of stupidity — the inferior breed with more “vigor”, too dumb to understand that members behave more in concert than white “individuals”. So a Jewish movie producer will read a book called But Is It Good For Jews? and select his nephew’s or his nephew’s flatmate’s script for production and have no idea he’s being ethnocentric. This tallies with the “bumbling” character of many Jews; verbal intelligence is not strong presence — thus one of the sharpest tools in the PUA kit, for example, is the art of keeping silent when it counts. Ethnocentric peoples, which is to say nearly every one but ours, did not originate notions of “civic conscience” and “universal ethics”, so it isn’t surprising they don’t stay awake at night fretting about the contradictions of their behavior in the “open society”. It is not doublethink. There is no cognitive dissonance (except in some half-breeds I suppose). It is a reproductive strategy that has shrouded itself in an alien social code that, in the grand abstractions of theory, granted legitimacy & rights to everyone — and with very little pushing, did so in practice.

Even if a specific group was not all that more ethnocentric than others (as such) but instead was a highly ‘inwardly’ directed group with much stronger intra-group interactions might this not also be of relevance?

Of course, not all strong group identification is mediated by nearer genetic relatedness. There is also cult identification, Stockholm syndrome, bonding under stress — attachment theory is where you want to look for all that. There is also the huge 200-pound elephant of the role played by women in the modern kulchur war, which Greg just barely touched on in the interview with MacDonald by mentioning oxytocin; curiously, so did Donovan in the Stark interview linked to by one of my pals. I have made much of this fact on Roissy. It also happens, as Gustav Le Bon knew a century ago, that people acting in groups are stupider, especially women, which is why a woman will never beat you at a round of Scrabble, by the way, and nearly all winners of the Jeopardy! grand championship have been men. What I mean is that if the hypothesis above is correct — that the inability of the highly ethnocentric / low trust peoples is related to their lower IQs, making them literally too dumb to understand what they do in the terms laid bare by Anglo-American science — then women’s proclivity to conspire and tend-befriend is another species of stupidity that can be approached from the angle of attachment theory. In short the denser a network the stupider the individual, obviously, for after a point individual contributions, unless truly stellar, authoritative or authoritarian, simply cease to matter in the hubbub. There was a throw-away study recently about more Facebook frenz = higher intelligence, which of course referred to “social intelligence”, the sort of thing that makes one a competent speaker and so on, whereas lack of social interaction is correlated with high technical intelligence and of course resulting in piss-poor communication ability.

But I’m not Greg Johnson, I don’t talk evo-bio shop with Kevin MacDonald or read sophisticated PDFs from Dienekes or n/a, so wtf do I know.

Soren, if I read or hear you cadging any of this and taking credit as a guru, I will effing hurt you bro.

Sorry to break the silenzio but this was all too juicy to pass up. Can’t wait to meet you, Greggy.

Posted by uh on January 26, 2012, 01:08 AM | #

Regression to the mean doesn’t have to be addressed because one need only look at history to see how Jews acquired their wealth.  You don’t need a high level of intelligence for it, period.

I have to agree with you here. While probably more fruitful to speak, as some do, of different “intelligences”, or brain specializations or whatever one call it, Jewish success at absorbing money from host populations is not simply being “more intelligent”, which is probably why the IQ deviation isn’t great.

Look at the career of any moderately successful criminal, i.e. any criminal that is not black. There is always a degree of “street smarts”, which can sometimes carry them quite far. It’s the same problem-solving mind at work in the white yeoman inventing a new machine for crop sorting, but in an urban environment with completely different circumstances and outcomes.

Throughout history, whites have been caught unawares that Jews as a group don’t follow normal human rules, and sometimes this understanding has come too late (for the massacred) and at other times the Jews have been expelled.

Alex Linder has been saying this for over a decade, of course. Jews don’t play by white rules: therefore whites are at a perpetual disadvantage.

10 competents in the 100-man white team will be crypto-Jews that will row in the opposite direction, 3 whites will be blackmailed into rowing in the opposite direction, 5 whites will be bribed into rowing in the opposite direction and 6 whites will be plied with drugs to make them less competent rowers.

You leave out the whites who will mistake the other team for humans like themselves, because of course levels of white ethnocentrism were neither constant nor perfect, thus insufficient (with which you will disagree of course), but nicely done there. For the metaphor to reflect reality, the rules must be considered variables too. Standard game theory.

Posted by uh on January 26, 2012, 01:32 AM | #

But there’s no documented deficiency in the level of ethnocentrism of whites.

Lower consanguinity—high trust is precisely that deficiency. Preference for cohabiting among and mating with kin, even of the unspoken guilty sort practiced by DWLs, is not the same thing as the guilt-ideology which overlays it and the open society that made it necessary, both products of being more distantly related than Jews.

On the contrary, the money situation affects the vast majority of humans for the worse, and efforts can be made to bring as many together as possible to get rid of the Jewish control of the money supply, an act that doesn’t require one to bother with ethnocentrism.

Impossible when those others are also high consang—low trust types. Witness WN/German neo-nationalism’s failure to interest anyone in Palestine by sucking up to Palestinians. It is a bloodless intellectual border-crossing without real world significance.

I don’t see why (well, I see why) we can’t agree it’s both ethnocentrism and criminality (“marginalized” behaviors); the former is even a precondition of the latter, witnessing Italian, Russian and Jewish mafias, or ethnic holds upon certain unions. There are no very successful multiethnic gangs just as there are no stable multiethnic states. Ethnocentrism need not be conscious at all, and is perhaps only true ethnocentrism if it is unconscious — why the Englishman may identify another as nearer to him than a Jew who is genetically nearer to another Jew; and it’s this same openness, not grounded in the genes, that permits an Englishman to imagine a Somali to be “English” too, even if he secretly feel silly or unconscionable about it. The unspokenness of non-white ethnocentrism is the real deal.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 26, 2012, 03:11 AM | #

If most Jews are highly ethnocentric, then when a Jew meets a Jew, he knows that his ethnocentric sentiments will likely be reciprocated, so he feels free to act upon them without penalty to his own interests.

Additionally because Jews realize there will be nary a negative consequence under the extant political dispensation for acting on their ethnocentric inclinations.  Jews have more than seen to that; and, I hasten to add, this is in no small part due to their effective control of the money supply of the most powerful nation on earth.  The concentration of Jewish power in certain areas is strategic in the service of Jewish ethnocentrism, as you know full-well.

Correspondingly,  Whites realizes that under the extant political dispensation any minor assertion of what ethnocentric inclinations they may have could very well meet with ruinous consequences.  This, I should think, is a more decisive factor in preventing the assertion of a robust White ethnocentrism than the proportional rarity and diffusion of strongly ethnocentric Whites in a given population.  If there is a will, then a way shall be found.  Yet and still, if the price be martyrdom which profits the cause none at all, then there will be few takers.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 26, 2012, 03:56 AM | #

is perhaps only true ethnocentrism if it is unconscious

*yawn*

If the test of what is truly ethnocentric is the strength of its expression, then obviously this would entail it being manifested at both the unconscious and conscious level.  Why the latter too?  Because obviously, when manifested consciously the ability to plan in the service of one’s ethnocentrism is in play. 

Perhaps you should change your pseudo from “uh” to “duh”.  Italians may give us the best spaghetti, but not the best thinkers.  LOL

Posted by uh on January 26, 2012, 04:20 AM | #

Why the latter too?  Because obviously, when manifested consciously the ability to plan in the service of one’s ethnocentrism is in play.

At some order of remove — the tribal god, shared cultural events, or subtle social markers (the “antennae” Jews are said to have for each other). Deliberate racial nationalism of the sort White Nationalists believe viable it is not. It’s everything else but explicit ethnocentric ideology. Being “chosen by Yahweh” is not the same datum as being self-chosen, though that’s what happened, and this is the root of their famous self-deception. Also the strategically ambiguous (lolzoz) question of “who’s a Jew” exists in the goyish mind precisely to retard the connection of Jewish nepotism with the concept of ethnocentrism, being taboo. As soon as anyone alleges the obvious, that Jews are highly ethnocentric, a shabbat goy or yid rushes in to blow the smokescreen of Jewish identity being “fluid”, etc.

This may look like reaching to evade your assertion, but I don’t see it as nakedly conscious. Yes, there are Jews who acknowledge Jews to be a race. Yes, there are Jews who acknowledge Jews to be highly ethnocentric. There are even Jews who acknowledge that Israel is an apartheid state and Jews caused the trouble they met in host nations. There are Jews who will eye goyim suspiciously from the porch of a temple to ensure they do not transgress that symbolic border the Orthodox observe, whatever it’s called in Hebrew.

But all of this took shape long before deliberate ethnocentrism, i.e. racial nationalism, the pursuit of less consanguineous peoples (English and Germans). Remember how hard Chief Bad Guy had to sell the idea to Mussolini?

Perhaps you should change your pseudo from “uh” to “duh”.

Perhaps you should find a better way to get over being dumped by your girlfriend than writing wooden English.

Italians may give us the best spaghetti, but not the best thinkers.

You really need me to be “Italian”. As for Italian thinkers, we’ll talk when you’ve read Pareto and Gentile, at least. I trust you’ve already dabbled in Cavalli-Sforza.

By the way, where’d you get the silly idea that I have a fetish for Nordic women? don’t you remember mocking me for your other idea that I have a fetish for Jewish women? which is it, O arbiter of my taste?

One day I am going to challenge you to either come here or let me come there for some single combat. I hope you will oblige. My friends and I are dying to know how tough you really are. I will even pay for your flight and all your hospital fees.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 26, 2012, 04:28 AM | #

What, pray, is this objective scale?  You have no citations!

What citation does one really need, indeed what citation could objectively quantify, the obvious point that Whites who qualify their ethnocentrism as being “very close” to them is probably eclipsed by an order of magnitude (yes, so to speak) by the ethnocentrism experienced by, say, Adolf Hitler.  “Closeness” does not come near to doing the latter’s phenomenology justice - “all consuming, fiery obsession” is more like it.  I can promise you this, that there are proportionally far more many Jews who experience their ethnocentrism as an “all consuming, fiery obsession” during normal times than do Whites.  If this were not so, then why would Whites presumably need something like National Socialism, an ad hoc political religion, to get their blood up sufficiently to defend their race with necessary vigor?  Saying that Jews have their Talmudism to achieve this effect for them cannot be a full answer as doubtlessly proportionally many more thoroughly atheistic Jews experience their ethnocentrism with utmost psychological intensity than do atheistic Whites.

Anticipated rejoinder: some semantic quibbling about what precisely “religious belief” entails. 

Peremptory rejoinder to that anticipated rejoinder: *yawn*

Posted by Captainchaos on January 26, 2012, 05:22 AM | #

This may look like reaching to evade your assertion

You both reach to evade and misunderstand the issue.  Where one stops and the other begins only you can answer.

But all of this took shape long before deliberate ethnocentrism

It is Jews who no longer believe in a literal sense one lick of their ancestral religion who consciously plan for the ethnic interests of genetic Jewry that make up the decisive leadership element of the Jewish community.  That they are more coy about it at this time than Jabotinsky was is also a conscious part of their strategy.  Yet the veritable hero worship of Jabotinsky we see from Likudniks should certainly be instructive to you.

As for the rest of it: Keep your money and your health, neither interest me. 

And oh, is it that you await my permission for you to get yourself a Nordic concubine?  LOL

Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 26, 2012, 10:08 AM | #

I have an idea that may be more commonly held than I realize, but its new to me and I would appreciate any feedback or clarification.

I’m beginning to form a theory that the reason Jews have a higher average I.Q.  than Whites is related to the fact that the social identity of Jew/Gentile offspring is determined maternalistically, rather than paternalistically in Jewish culture.

XY = Jew. YX = Gentile.

If it’s true that women are more selective in their breeding habits than men. The process will function as a semipermeable membrane for the one way transmission of desirable genes from the Gentile population into the Jewish population. In which case, Jews are not merely financial parasites, but brain parasites as well.

?

Posted by uh on January 26, 2012, 11:43 AM | #

And oh, is it that you await my permission for you to get yourself a Nordic concubine?  LOL

Um, no, it is that I have no especial interest in Nordic concubines. Get that straight so in future your caricature bear some resemblance to me. You may for example stay with the fetish for Jewish girls, which is true enough. I think you confused me with Silver for a moment.

As for the rest of it: Keep your money and your health, neither interest me.

bawk bawk

It is Jews who no longer believe in a literal sense one lick of their ancestral religion who consciously plan for the ethnic interests of genetic Jewry that make up the decisive leadership element of the Jewish community.

Undeniable. But I am talking about a mental compartmentalization which separates very strong pro-ethnic activities from the conscious idea that what they are doing is ethnocentric. You essentially acknowledge this above:

I can promise you this, that there are proportionally far more many Jews who experience their ethnocentrism as an “all consuming, fiery obsession” during normal times than do Whites.  If this were not so, then why would Whites presumably need something like National Socialism, an ad hoc political religion, to get their blood up sufficiently to defend their race with necessary vigor?

Let me make a comparison. The Pashtun tribes (really family clans like the Mehsud) still form the core of the Taliban, and are consumed by the same fiery obsession to defend their land, race, and principles. But if you learned Pashto and told them that what they’re doing is racist or ethnocentric, somehow conveying the semantic weight of those concepts, they would say no, you idiot, we are defending our land and way of life, nothing more. And yet the truth is they are highly inbred and this alone is the surest guarantor of such passionate attachments outside of fanatical appeals to other interests (more land, more food, more honor as a nation).

Perhaps there was something deeper at work in National Socialism itself, however. Many of those guys were Bavarian Catholics, or Catholics from elsewhere; of course der Chef was an Austrian Catholic, and National Socialism actually began among ethnic Germans in Bohemia and Hungary. Both of these populations are known for higher average inbreeding coefficients, as are Catholic populations generally. I don’t think it is controversial to say that the early National Socialists acted rather like an ethnic mafia, drew fire from the Prussians as such, and the chief bad guy had a devil of a time convincing certain vaterlaendisch and old royalist types that separatism was not the answer to Germany’s problems — the compensation of an outsider.

That they are more coy about it at this time than Jabotinsky was is also a conscious part of their strategy.  Yet the veritable hero worship of Jabotinsky we see from Likudniks should certainly be instructive to you.

Everything they do at those levels is as viciously ethnocentric as you say. I do not dispute that. I dispute that they

understand

it as such; they don’t, and the reason is they don’t need to. This is important for despite the naked agitations of a Jabotinsky and the veneration he receives from conethnics, self-deception is a critical factor in Jew-Gentile relations which is only beginning to be explored, indeed mostly by White Nationalists. Kevin MacDonald, Tanstaafl and Svigor have treated it. So has Diamed, of all people, at his blog. You can’t ignore self-deception without deceiving yourself on the full picture of Jewish identity. That’s the whole point of Linder’s they scream at you to stop kicking them as they kick you: it derives its power from the fact of Jewish self-deception / mental compartmentalization.

Posted by daniel on January 26, 2012, 11:48 AM | #

J. Richards,

I said,

“Nevertheless, most of the “dupes” have seen visual evidence of skeletal bodies, heaped enough to presume that there were mass civilian deaths of Jews.”

You responded

“And they should be asked where’s the evidence that the heaps are dead bodies of Jews?”

Argue as you wish. For me it is a bore, a tedious and worse, unnecessary way of argument not likely to gain appreciation as it all to easily meets with alternative evidence of execution of Jewish civilians - see Christian Lindtner.

Why not say something more like, yes, Hitler and co. were driven up the wall by Jews and decided that they were going to get them come hell or high water?

I think the dupes might understand that kind of argument. Most of us know what it is like to be driven beyond our tolerance.

Instead, you use a Jewish way of argument, a “pilpol” (sp?) about details.

Keep “how?” to questions regarding the H to a minimum in favor or “why?” questions, unless you want to come across to normal people like some kind of hunch-backed, bald weirdo playing a harpsichord.

Even people who are Jew wise may, with good reason, not want to be associated with folks bandying an oafish term like holy hoax. Enough of these tedious, Jewish ways of argument .

Posted by Graham_Lister on January 26, 2012, 11:53 AM | #

Excellent comments from others…

@JRichards

The on the survey you cite the question is an obvious proxy for one’s level of ethnocentric feelings/attitude: that’s the whole damn basis of your commentary upon it you silly man. As for ‘in public’ anyone (outside of one’s most immediate and trustworthy circle) asking you an attitudinal/behaviourally revealing question is effectively an exchange ‘in public’ (even if the questioner says it is an anonymous exchange of information).

Some people will either consciously or sub-consciously worry about how their answers will reflect upon themselves – the spiral of silence and related phenomena (the wish to conform to social norms/expectations) are a reality. For someone with obviously such a fine understanding of the subtleties of human behaviour and personality you seem curiously naïve.

OK let’s return to the differences between people’s own self-description and self-understanding and the objective reality of their attitudes and behaviour.

Say an individual from ‘Group A’ scores lowly on the proxy for ethnocentric feelings and that a person from ‘Group B’ scores very highly on that index. The trouble is that the Group A guy thinks helping his co-ethnic into a job is entirely normal and non-ethnocentric behaviour. To an objective outsider his behaviour in the world and its consequences are highly ethnocentric but his self-understanding is “what I haven’t done anything wrong, everyone acts in this way”.

OK so returning to our Group B person. They may think their particular culture and people are the greatest in history but in the recruitment process would never bring ethnic considerations into it – he or she really believes in meritocracy and would never act otherwise. Rather different conceptions of what is or is not ethnocentric attitudes/behaviours correspond with very different (objectively different) real-world outcomes.

I mean it’s somewhat akin to asking people if they are ‘good and honest’ or ‘bad and dishonest’ most people will answer “yes I am a good and honest person” but surely no-one is naïve enough to believe that is the end of the matter. Human self-description/understanding and reality do not always correspond with each other.

For one if someone was an opportunistic liar and ‘cheater’ in their inter-personal exchanges it would hardly be effective to openly signal this is what you are and how you operate would it? A con-man that openly announced to his marks that he was going to swindle them out of much money as possible would probably have a very short and unsuccessful ‘career’. To be successful and effective our putative con-man requires subterfuge and plausible deniability.

Secondly, people are extremely good at rationalising their own self-serving behaviours as being generally right, proper, good or positive in some way. If you take Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ to extremes the people on Wall Street are the largest group of unwitting altruists on the planet acting for the real public-good through their own maximally enacted self-interest. I have no problem in saying that Goldman Sachs et al., are are quasi-criminal enterprises populated by rapacious scum and that in the narrow, ‘legal’ sense of the term are probably actually criminal in their conduct as companies. The self-serving rationalising of their conduct is bullshit.

In general, there is always an asymmetrical relationship being a minority group and a majority group (or between the ‘in-group’ and the ‘out-group’). Look at the cultural politics of say the Celts and the English.

For a very long time the English did not have to concern themselves with identity politics of any sort. The linguistic/cultural differentiation between English and British was non-existent. This cannot be and was not true for the Scots or the Welsh. After all if British was really another word for English (for the English) then those Celts (or the chattering classes of those groups at least) always had to tackle the issue of what the relationship between Britishness and their own prior Celtic identities was. If they did not pay strong interest in this issue (and some making the effect to protect those prior identities) one real possibility would have been to be overwhelmed by Britishness/Englishness and to actually become ‘North Britons’ or English by proxy etc.

That the question of what it means to be both say a Scot and British (but not definitely not English) was never one that strongly concerned English people (in a way why should it?). The question of what it means to be both British and English was, and some might suggest still largely is, an ‘invisible’ one in English politics and cultural life. The minority Celts have always, for obvious structural reasons, been more ‘alive’ to the same question for themselves.

Just on this note look at the Ulster Protestants who maintain that they are truly British. I have no problem with that but if we are being honest going around in a black suit, white gloves, a bowler hat and an orange collarette (all with added obsessing over, for most English people, long dead historical events) looks deeply foreign, weird and profoundly not English to the English themselves.

On the issue of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I am re-reading the excellent “A Secret History of the IRA” by Ed Moloney. The conflict in NI was in reality at or near to the list of significant global conflicts, a low intensity war that occasionally exploded into spectacular burst of violence. Yet the IRA, in its various forms, is one of the most enduring paramilitary movements and the conflict was (is?) marked by being extremely viscous and petty and was seemingly intractable.

One might ask why that is so? Do the people in Ireland have a much higher frequency of an allele for tribalism than other, more contemporaneously docile, Europeans? Very dubious as an explanation and somewhat lacking robust empirical evidence.

Nations in the jargon of sociology are ‘imagined communities’ – one cannot meet and personally know everyone in your group so they are not real communities in that sense. Instead you imagine and accept that those within your ‘in-group’ are basically the same as you and you are like them; that there exists an widespread communality of experience, values, outlook etc., within your group and a boundary condition(s) that differentiate it from other groups.

So communitarian identities such as nations are real-world phenomena that represent the coalescence of shared geography, history, culture, traditions, language and/or dialects, religiosity etc. Welshness is very real but its not primarily biological in its origins. The Welsh and English are not significantly (that is functionally) differentiated genetically – they are emphatically not different biological ‘races’. But they do expressively understand themselves to be differentiated in very important and concrete ways.

Returning to NI, the different identities mapped onto and amplified a real-world asymmetric power relationship (Irish Catholics really were treated badly, they didn’t make it up). Hence the problem was so difficult to resolve.

Instrumentally, it seems quite irrational – after all the Republic and the North in everyday life are not very different from each other and over time have become even less differentiated in many ways. Hence, the precise nature of Anglo-Irish political institutions and arrangements seem like small beer to any outsider; i.e. how different would life really be for most people under various minor constitutional changes?

Yet in the expressive domain the two communities were miles apart (and perhaps they are a little closer to each other but are still not the best of friends so to speak).
Furthermore any ‘normal’ political compromise would regularly be viewed through the prism of a betrayal of one’s core socio-political identity. No wonder progress towards a liveable solution was so slow.

One final note – the people that were most despised within the NI conflict were not the other side. No it was traitors and turncoats from within each side. When a self-identifying group feels under threat from a hostile world the rule of thumb is generally “stick together or else” and “don’t trust or be honest with outsiders”. The Omertà is not only for Italians.

Seriously can one imagine the opprobrium that a NI Catholic would face if they declared themselves a pro-British unionist Orangeman? It would not just being totally excluded from one’s own community that they would face (bad enough for most people) but also a bullet in the back of the head. Equally imagine a Jewish person genuinely renouncing Judaism and Jewish identity and becoming a ultra-traditionalist Catholic. They would face loathing and hatred from their former community and suspicion and distrust from their new one (and vice-versa if it were possible to convert to Judaism). No-one anywhere likes the inauthentic and untrustworthy ‘uncle Tom’ type.

And the British tribes are hardly, on a global scale, highly differentiated from each other (in any way) so why should anyone be shocked that minorities care more about maintaining identity that the majority does (with an unproblematic and unthoughtful ‘natural’ identity), especially under the background conditions of hyper-individualist ideology/cultural politics?

The contours of liberal modernity are highly individualist as expressed in normative assumption, description and prescription. The myth of the radically self-authored individual et al. Is it any wonder why collective/communitarian forms of identity are hard to foster in majority populations in such an ideologically hostile environment?

Now there are nuances – some on the left-side of liberalism have promoted identity politics for special ‘victim’ groups but this asymmetrical communtarianism is very superficial. It really is another expression of a teen-like antinomianism, being ‘subversive’ and sticking it to ‘the powers that be’ even if those doing the sticking are often ‘the powers that be’ themselves in academia and other ‘cultural industries’.

To sum up I do think different groups display and act upon the idea of “sticking together through thick and thin” especially if they are in a minority position and feel vulnerable to the majority in some way. This includes Jews as a group. Such groups solve the ‘intra-group coordination problem’ more effectively within the wider context of ‘inter-group competition’. A brilliant team of relatively ordinary individuals that are highly cooperative can often beat a very poor team of brilliant yet non-cooperative individuals. Every team-sports fans knows this. In terms of Aristotelian mereology the best teams act and foster a very tight inter-dependence of the well-being of the parts with the whole. The worse ‘teams’ act as mereological nihilists.

But I disagree that this explains very much about the contemporary world. European’s have and are quite capable of dreaming up absurd and distorted visions of the world. Locke, Kant and Mill are not ‘secretly’ Jewish thinkers. Liberalism and its misplaced ‘social ontology’ is the invention primarily of Europeans and our misplaced hubris that it is ‘universal’. Others might maximally exploit our folly (and run with it) but that is a secondary question.

But no Mr. Richards has his one solitary opinion survey which is so totally compelling and exhaustive that no further thought on the subject is required, yes? And I’m accused of being superficial? Why does the term chutzpah come to mind?

Posted by Graham_Lister on January 26, 2012, 12:12 PM | #

Sorry I had a typo.

Should read as:

The conflict in NI was in reality at or near to the bottom of the list of significant global conflicts, a low intensity war that occasionally exploded into spectacular burst of violence.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 26, 2012, 01:14 PM | #

Even people who are Jew wise may, with good reason, not want to be associated with folks bandying an oafish term like holy hoax.

Good point. I’m going to start referring the the Holy hoax as the Unholy hoax. It’s much more descriptive.

Posted by daniel on January 26, 2012, 01:34 PM | #

Jimmy,

Good thinking. You are a die hard…

Posted by Graham_Lister on January 26, 2012, 01:51 PM | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality

Many different groups appear to have had forms of matrilineality.

Jimmy is that what you had in mind or was it something along the lines of female mate-choice/sexual selection?

I guess transmission of an identity via the maternal line guarantees genetic continuity as females have no doubt that their genes are passed on in their offspring - the situation is rather different for males!

In the case of a Jewish male with a non-Jewish wife he could be cuckolded and duped into bringing up a child from a different ethnic group. With a Jewish mother at least her genes are going to be passed on even if she did play away.

From a collective perspective a minimum 50% genetic share in any offspring is far better than the possible alternatives. In say the case of obviously different phenotypic traits (such as skin tone) the cuckold possibility is less of an issue. White couples don’t normally have black babies. But in the absence of such clear-cut identifying traits other mechanisms might be required to ensure the minimizing of the effects of cuckoldry (upon the group) via preventative cultural tactics.

It would be that knowing to maximize paternity certainty is an very difficult task via cultural means, so for a tiny minority group it would be better overall to ignore any female out-group/male in-group pairings as otherwise this would be the most ‘open’ way for cuckoldry to effect them. Still why should in-group female/male out-group pairings be acceptable - a source of new genes for a restricted gene-pool? Possibly.

I have to say I’ve never actually thought about this potentially important topic in this context. Animals have sperm competition etc., and all the issues over paternity but usually resolve them in more obvious and brute ways. They typically don’t have cultural niceties or ‘invisible’ sub-populations.

Posted by Graham_Lister on January 26, 2012, 03:48 PM | #

Oh I just was re-reading the OP and had missed that this was a sample of Americans. Oh dear you do know Americans are not a representative sample of the world at large, right? America is not the world.

That reminds of an anecdote from a Russian academic.

During perestroika, he had an encounter with a husband and wife team of co-practising Californian therapists which provided a useful insight. This prosperous pair were early arrivals among the motley crew of missionaries who - earnestly, of course - sought to help improve the newly liberated Russia, after America’s own image. They had come to spread the word about a fashionable mental-wellness technique called neuro-linguistic programming, which involved the detection and evaluation of the interlocutor’s psychological defence mechanisms, before the therapist attempted to establish a rapport.

Ranging from jokes to facial expressions, body language and eye movement, such mechanisms are - as they explained to him over drinks on their last evening (he had been acting as their interpreter) - to be found in all socially-competent humans, serving to hide what one might feel like keeping to oneself. A ‘normal’ adult should have about eight such sub-conscious devices, used interchangeably; a reclusive personality might display a dozen; over twenty was clear cause for alarm.

Unfortunately in the car from the airport and over their first dinner, the Californians had counted twenty-seven defence mechanisms in their Russia interpretors behaviour; next morning at breakfast they detected a couple more. Within a few days, they realized that he, and all the natives, all possessed dozens of pre-rational tricks which they would casually wield in interactions with strangers, while remaining polite and intellectually engaged - if perhaps a little too cynical for American tastes. Their models, they came to understand, summarized not an abstract human norm but the modal measurements of their native Orange County. Young urban Soviets carried, on average, thrice thicker insulation.

Go figure! Americans are not always the measure of humanity.

These insulating layers, however, were worn situationally, like clothing; their thickness depended on the interaction’s setting. In the endless queues, or at official meetings, the therapists might have observed further defensive quirks of Soviet behaviour: they could go super-cynically chatty or, conversely, self-induce a deep trance state, which they regarded as simply falling asleep with their eyes open. But the carapace could also get much thinner, and then the clicks and sparks of human connection could fly in every direction.

In the informal circles of friends, and friends of friends - like-minded people, summarily referred to as vse svoi, ‘all ours’ - defences could be dropped altogether; and then what Saint-Exupéry, cult author for the educated Soviet generation of the sixties and seventies, termed the ‘sumptuousness of human interaction’ would freely flow. And here, most probably, lies the bug that so many Western Russophiles ‘catch’. A visiting scholar from Berkeley, of all places, expressed it to the Russian professor succinctly, if perhaps too sweepingly: “America is an emotional desert”.

Posted by anon on January 26, 2012, 04:48 PM | #

The absolute size of populations, therefore, does not matter here. What matters is the relative proportion of ethnocentric individuals, which raises the likelihood of reciprocity, which raises the likelihood of productive cooperation.

Yes, and if anything, maintaining that 95% level of reciprocal ethno-centricity would be much easier as a small minority.

.

Might the different densities of social networks also be a factor?

That would maximize the effect and focusing on a particular niche would be an easy way to achieve it e.g. if all the diamond merchants are ethno-centric Jews it makes it easier to keep it that way.

.

There is no way to cook ethnocentrism in a test tube.

You can leverage the actual level of blood-ties culturally. Euros did it successfully up until around the 1950s but it requires control of the cultural organs.

Posted by Ivan on January 28, 2012, 12:59 PM | #

Who is in charge there at the Occidental Observer? Dr Kevin MacDonald or his handlers?

Here is a piece of evidence J Richards can appreciate. There is an article by Michael Colhaze published at TOC which was followed by an interesting exchange of comments:

Protest Farce

I was just warming up, and all of a sadden those who are in charge at TOC have decided to start moderating my comments. Here is my last comment which is blocked at the moment:

@Jarvis Dingle-Daden:

Without trying to simplify a complex and enduring problem of corruption in Russia, if I were to summarize the chief difference between the judeo-gangster kleptocracy that was the regime of ‘Benny Eltzin’ and colonel Putin whose cabinet is literally jammed with former KGB types, then it would have to boil down to the issue of who does the actual stealing.

Very crafty statement there, Mr. Jarvis Dingle-Daden. Underneath the superficially correct sounding statement you have planted a bomb of mass distortion. It is certainly true that corruption was, and still is, a complex and enduring problem in Russia. But to imply that the difference between Eltzin and Putin regime boils down to the issue of who does the actual stealing is not only a gross simplification - it is a distortion of monumental proportions.

Eltzin was a puppet of a foreign and hostile power, hell bent and determined to destroy Russia; Putin is a shrewd statesman and a Russian patriot who is doing his best to preserve the Russian civilization and its vehicle - the Russian Federation. That’s why Eltzin with his ‘democracy’ was the darling of Jewdised West, while Putin is hated and vilified by it.

Giving György Schwartz too much credit for what happened to the USSR is another gross distortion. It is certainly true that his role and participation in the destruction of the great superpower wasn’t a minor one, but the tendency to push the childish view that Soros is the ultimate and main source of Jewish deviousness is alarming. Even in the US there is an attempt to make out of Soros a scapegoat and push the idea that he is to blame for what is happening to America. I’m talking about Glen Beck’s series about George. The idea is: let’s get rid of Soros, and maybe a few other prominent and evil Jews, then we can go on doing business as usual - very dangerous and misleading idea. In fact, smart George has never made money out of his machinations in Russia - just the opposite - he was taken for a ride there by his more crafty tribesmen like Berezovsky.

I’ll give you a profound hint demonstrating the difference between Eltzin and Putin regimes, if you can grasp it. We all know that Chechnya has de-facto won independence from Russia in the so-called First Chechen war at the apex of Eltzin frenzy of looting and destruction. How is it possible that a tiny Chechnya could defeat a mighty Russia? Do you know how long it took Stalin to uproot and deport Chechen people in its entirety (they have been suspected of collaboration with the Nazis - not because they liked the Nazis, but because they hated the Soviet regime) from the mountains of Caucasus to the steppes of Kazakhstan in 1944? The answer is staggering - just few days! So how is it possible for a Chechnya to fight a war for a few years against Russia and ultimately win that war in 1996? It does not make any sense, unless you know why did this happen. On the other hand, how long did it take to regain control of Chechnya and arrest the destruction and collapse of the Russian Federation shortly after Putin came to power?

Think about it, Mr. Jarvis Dingle-Daden.

Posted by Brand Reviews Lynn's The Chosen People on January 31, 2012, 05:57 AM | #

Pertinent to this thread (& to the Intell & Money Supply one) is a book review, by Chris BRAND, of: Richard LYNN (2011) “The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement”

Posted @ Pastebin because of its random location on Brand’s blog. It makes some amusing claims

“Thus is the puzzle of ‘Israeli IQ’ solved. The Jews of Israel – however racially pure and proud of Judaism they once were*—are not today one race but actually four different races; and the high IQ of the Ashkenazis is mainly attributable to a thousand years of Nordic persecution and discrimination that drove those Jews who would survive into emigration, hiding and financial chicanery – all requiring a passable IQ as well as occasional familial funding.”

and less amusing or intelligent ones

“At the same time, Lynn is optimistic that a new diaspora will help invigorate the Gentile gene pool – for 50% of Western Jews make mixed marriages and rear their children as semi-Christian or secular.”