|
|
|
Are Jews Immune to Demographics? Many people have said jews are genociding the white world, while fiendishly profiting from our loss themselves. Jews will stand above it all, refuse to practice what they preach, and emerge unscathed from the racial chaos. Is this supported by the data though? Or are jews caught in the same ideological trap as they’ve sprung on others? I thought a more thorough data crunch might reveal a different take on Jewish malfeasance. Instead of the ‘double standards’ theory where Jews have one, secret standard for themselves and another, intentionally malicious standard for others, the data better fits a single suicidal standard they apply to themselves and others in the genuine belief it is somehow a noble, moral ideal. This is not the first time religious enthusiasm has led to mass suicide. Jim Jones, the comet of Hale-Bopp, and the Shakers, are other well-known examples of this phenomena. If liberalism is simply a suicide cult, the destructive nature of Jews is revealed as a simple missionary fervor combined with an irrational idea. The only unique part of this cult was how persuasive and influential jews are, thus making it the largest suicide cult in world history, with the most adherents ever assembled. So which of the models makes more sense? If Jews have one standard meant to undercut the population of whites, and another standard for themselves meant to further their ethnic interests, then we should see a growing Jewish population and a shrinking white population. If Jews are suicidal fanatics with missionary zeal to drag others with them, we should see Jewish population falling at the highest rate and their roped-in lemmings falling alongside them, perhaps at a slower and less dramatic rate. Assuming nothing revolutionary happens in the world and current trends carry on as normal, how will things look in 2050? http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html The non-Hispanic, single-race white population is projected to be only slightly larger in 2050 (203.3 million) than in 2008 (199.8 million). In fact, this group is projected to lose population in the 2030s and 2040s and comprise 46 percent of the total population in 2050, down from 66 percent in 2008.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/106625 For the jews the situation is quite different. The demographic catastrophe presently decimating American Jewry is not in dispute. Without numbing you with statistics, the basic facts are absolutely clear and chilling. The 6 million Jews in America will probably number no more than a couple of million by midcentury. Until 1960 few Jews married non-Jews. Now more than half of the Jews who marry are marrying unconverted Christians. Only 30 percent of their children, and only 4 percent of their grandchildren are raised as Jews. Some demographers say our birthrate is the lowest of any group in America, so we are now older than any group in America. So here we have jews losing 2/3 of their population by 2050 while white population slightly grows. Are we looking at diabolical jewish malfeasance applying double standards to further their interests at our expense? Or insane idiots destroying themselves while the rest of America largely looks on with amusement? Another source for the same 2/3 prediction is at Amren: http://amren.com/ar/2008/05/index.html#article2 Ironically, as Mr. Entine notes, social acceptance and assimilation may yet destroy what pogroms could not. Except for the Orthodox, Jews have very small families, and about half of American and European Jews now marry outside the tribe. In 1920, fewer than 1 percent married out. At current intermarriage rates, notes Mr. Entine, two-thirds of Jews could be gone in a few generations. Amren is giving us a hint here. How do we get rid of our jews? Easy—watch them implode. If we wait just 40 more years the jewish problem will have largely erased itself. What about Israel? Is it growing in population such that Jewish ethnic interests are somehow still prospering by present Jewish conduct? Mind you they’re set to lose 4 million jews in America alone, so we’d have to see some dramatic growth in Israel’s jewish population to offset such a loss.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html#People Current jewish population in Israel is 5.4 million. So we are looking at a best case scenario, 4.3 million jew increase in Israel. Not only that, but they are continuously losing percentage ground to the arab Israelis within their borders: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm#_Toc26172079 The overall fertility rate of the Moslems is 4.6%, while that of Israeli Jews is 2.6%. The 110,000 Bedouins of the Negev have the highest fertility rate, with a 5.9% growth rate. Half the Bedouins are below the age of 13. The population doubles every 12 years. Excluding the Bedouins, the Moslem growth rate is 3.2%, still way above the 2.6% of the Jews. Put differently, there are 2.6 births per Jewish woman, against 4.6 births per Moslem woman. (In 1970, there were 9 births per Moslem woman.) The immigration policy of Israel also favors a demographic shift away from a Jewish population. It is generally believed that 60% of those who have made aliyah in the last ten years are not Jewish. Looking at world jewish populations then, 2050 will have fewer jews on earth than 2009, and the jews of Israel will be in an even more precarious position than ever. If this is a giant scheme to increase jewish population at the cost of the white host society, even by reaping the benefits in Israel while collecting the money elsewhere, jews are enacting it very poorly. The simpler explanation is Jews have bought into a death cult. The death cult reads like this: women should live sophisticated, self-satisfactory lives defined by their jobs and degrees. Childbirth should be avoided as distracting, a career cost, and generally too demeaning for a woman to do. Women should be wage earners and not rely on men to provide for them so that they can have children early. Instead women should trust no one, and make sure they are independently rich. Women should marry outside the race if this makes them happy, and pay no attention to whether they are preserving their genes, culture, or religion. Divorce should be the answer to all relationship difficulties, abortion should be the answer to all pregnancies. This single standard is being suggested as a wonderful idea for BOTH jews AND non-jews. They are applying it more strictly to themselves than anyone else. So long as whites successfully avoid embracing the death cult, there is no real need to take on the jews. The fact that our population will still be over 200 million by 2050 shows our race has the good sense to largely ignore the lifestyle jews have chosen for themselves. In conclusion, I suggest jews are not fiendishly pursuing their racial interests by applying double standards that all work to their own good. As far as I can tell, Jews have embraced a death cult and are destroying themselves, along with anyone foolish enough to listen to their siren song. If the white race simply ties ourselves to the mast and puts wax in our ears as we sail by the fading jewish race, if we simply wait them and their silly songs out and sail to the other side of the century, ignoring them for all we’re worth, jews will cease to be of any importance to us pro or con. This suggests an intellectual battle with jewish ideals, but a strategic refrainment from a physical battle that would give jews some new victimization card and slow down our intermarriage rates with jews (which, given their tiny numbers, is solely a biological weapon against them not us). From a moral standpoint, it’s always better when Nature genocides our enemies than when we do, and from a practical standpoint, the last time a country tried to drive out all its jews, it ended up in cinders, so it might not be a good idea to repeat. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:16 | # Once the Jews are out of the way, it’ll be time to sort out some of these impudent Third Worlders, that’s for damn sure. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:29 | # Single white men: none of you should take any but a white girl for your wife, and none of you should remain a bachelor. All of you should find a white woman to marry and should have at least one child if not lots more than that. Any white man who chooses a Filipino, Oriental, Asiatic, Subcon, Puerto Rican, or what-have-you, wife instead of doing your best to find a white one is failing in his duty (I know, American girls can be unfeminine domineering bitches thanks to their Jewish college professors — but there’s always Europe, especially Eastern Europe: go there for a bride if you have to. Just make sure she’s of the Euro race). DO YOUR PART. As goes without saying, no white woman should remain childless or bear children of any other race than white. The Jew wants us all to miscegenate but the Jew is not holding a gun to our heads forcing us to do it. Don’t do it, then. That’s the first step toward successfully thwarting the diabolical Jew: just say no to the miscegenation he, the Jew, craves for all white people everywhere (but not, of course, for himself: for his own procreation he wants only Jewish blood). 4
Posted by Sacharite on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:34 | # Diamed, The statistics cited are unreliable and probably flat incorrect. Just wishful thinking. Since independent, publicly available statistics do exist, it’s difficult to say for sure, but their population is probably expanding not only in Israel but also the United States. 5
Posted by Sacharite on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:39 | # And btw, no one should have any doubt as to the irrelevance of the Palestinian birthrate; at this point, it’s only a matter of ‘when’ the ragheads are physically eliminated from Israel proper, probably through expulsion to Jordan. 6
Posted by EA Steve on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:58 | # Diamed, this fits in well with my theory. Only a very small minority of Jews are ethnocentric. Jews are more likely to be honestly liberal than support a racial double-standard. Their (and our) liberal ideology is against their best interest, as well as ours. 7
Posted by Sacharite on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:07 | # Publicly available population statistics free of Jewish tampering do not exist. What tidbits are available (which requires time to summarize) suggests a steady, accelerating expansion of the Jewish population in the United States, at least in gene frequency, though maybe not in number of pure Jews. Perhaps Jewish women fell for the feminism nonsense in a big way in the 1960s and 1970s, but it looks as though they’ve pulled out of the nose-dive into above replacement terrain. Jewish male fertility probably exists Jewish female fertility. 8
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:39 | # Silly Jewish Propaganda! Diamed, I don’t know how you fell for what you wrote. This topic has been extensively addressed at MR in the past and the Jewish propaganda seen for what it is. Here’s a reiteration of the main points. Jewish lobbying and cooked statistics Svigor said - The Jews have lobbied their way out of the census and thus they can cook the statistics they would have the gullible believe. Kevin MacDonald in ‘Separation and Its Discontents’ He shows that the 50% figure is greatly exaggerated. Former MR blogger JWH (taking Jewish sources at face value, which are obvious exaggerations) http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/12872/edition_id/248/format/html/displaystory.html The following Jewish-racialist-style article – which sticks to the outmoded 52% data – shows that among the more observant Jews, intermarriage is markedly lower: Combined with differential birthrates, America’s Jews will become more Orthodox and, likely, more ethnocentric in coming decades. Even if the outmarriage rate is 50% that is still indicative of a resistance to assimilation. I combined Dr. Alba’s intermarriage data for white gentile ethnic groups with census data for ethnic group percentages. Plotting rates of intermarriage (to someone of completely different ethnicity) of white gentile groups vs. percent of US population yields a trendline formula of: If the Irish are 10.8% of the US population, they would be expected to have an outmarriage rate of 61.9%. The measured rate, by Alba = 64.9%. That’s a good match and probably within statistical error of the predicted. Jews? If Jews are 3% of the population, their predicted outmarriage rate would be 80.7% - a figure which can be compared to what is above, and which is obviously representative of a real, and wide, difference between predicted and actual. Despite the recent rise in Jewish intermarriage – and the outcry this has caused – the fact remains that Jews, compared to other groups considered white are resisting intermarriage and assimilation. Further, the combination of the increase in the more Orthodox, as well as “interventions” to inhibit the growth of intermarriage among the others, means that this resistance to assimilation is likely to harden in coming decades. Note as well that of America’s “white” groups, only Jews have prominent mainstream individuals and organizations denouncing intermarriage and doing so with impunity, the example of Elliot Abrams being instructive in this regard. Ben Tillman He cited studies showing a low intermarriage rate among American Jews, and noted that the intermarriages tended to occur later in life and hence would disproportionately not lead to offspring. Ben Tillman has also reiterated that the intermarriage rate in Israel is 0% (because of an official ban). I didn’t note down these studies, and maybe he can cite them here again. I have the following quote by him
Israeli demographics No big deal if Arabs are more prolific breeders. The Jews plan on exterminating them once their plan for total world domination and hence complete media control is complete. If they fail and lose Israel, their exit plan is to emigrate to the West. In the recent Gaza war, the Jews again exposed the Arabs to depleted uranium. You can see some grisly pictures (content warning!) of what the Jews’ previous exposing of Arabs to depleted uranium has done: http://jewishcrimenetwork.com/a-future-for-depleted-uranium/ Why are Jews lying? Very simple. This criminal community is trying to pretend that it isn’t effectively a cohesive organism scheming and conniving against others. 9
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:28 | # The real Jewish elites in our society are not in the Jewish Federation of B’nai Brith, the ADL or SPLC, the ACLU or the JDL. They aren’t even in government or finance anymore. They are in media - information, and most especially entertainment. Streisand and Spielberg, Eisner and Lear. And Hollywood has been pushing inter-religious marriage since the days of the Silents. Barbara Streisand alone can claim an entire corpus about a Jewish girl who beds some of the world’s most hunky goyim (Redford, Kristofferson, Nolte) and usually marries them…but never has kids. I don’t think comparing Jewish out-marriage rates with white Christian ethnics marrying each other is very relevant - unless you think of Jews as a white ethnic group. The comparison is with inter-racial marriage rates. 10
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:50 | #
I don’t know about data, but certainly by historical precedent. From the Amren article you linked,
Keep in mind that about 10 million of those 198 million Whites are actually jews, Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Egyptians and so on.
The way you phrased the above confuses me? As to the percentages, even if half of jews are marrying unconverted Christians, is that really something we want to be celebrating? That would mean a large number of them are marrying our people! ... 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:39 | #
But never with Negroes, you’ll notice. A female Jewish entertainment celebrity who took a Negro mate whether husband or boyfriend, or who flew to Africa to adopt a Negro baby as Madonna and Angelina Laide have done (and been hyped to the skies for by the SIMPLY DELIGHTED Jews) would be blacklisted and ruined instantly by the Jewish honchos who run Hollywood, TV, and to a large extent music: they would view her as a filthy Jewish race-traitor. This is why you will NEVER EVER EVER see a female Jewish movie star or TV star taking a Negro husband or boyfriend (or ostentatiously adopting a Negro baby): it would spell instant death for her career: the Jewish media honchos simply would NEVER TOLERATE IT. On the other hand, they lavishly reward female Euro celebrities with enhanced career success for making exactly those grave racial transgressions. Why the inconsistency? THREE GUESSES. (Or just two will suffice: if your first guess is “tribal” and second is “war” you’re damn close ....) 12
Posted by Englander on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:05 | # I don’t think you can calculate Jewish outmarriage rates without taking into consideration their distribution in the US (highly concentrated together in cities, especially New York and Los Angeles) as well as the fact that they will come into contact more through college. 13
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:12 | # Jewish population figured won’t stabilize due to orthodox birth rates alone, they are too small a % of jewish population. As to the figure of 50% being incorrect, according to your links among young people it is back up to 47% and the trend says it will only continue rising as time goes by. So, even if 50% is incorrect, it will be correct again soon, and thus waiting them out again seems advisable. White-jewish crossbreeds are not a damage to our gene pool because we outnumber them to the point we’ll never even notice the loss, whereas they’ll disappear entirely. It’s like a battle where the Union and the Confederacy take equal losses—-that’s a clear win for the Union since the Confederacy cannot afford a war of attrition. As a bonus, white-jewish kids (who 80% marry whites) won’t be ugly and stupid like say, a white-black kid. I wouldn’t say miscegenation is against our genetic interests in this case, we’re removing a threat from the gene pool in a way they haven’t yet detected and cannot easily stop. I think it’s great. @Narrator: When I posted it all my quoted portions were not shown in quotes, that’s why it looks confusing. Properly it should read like this:
So here we have jews losing 2/3 of their population by 2050 while white population slightly grows. (blah blah) It’s true that jews are resisting miscegenation at a higher rate than is mathematically expected, and that orthodox jews are trying to turn around the birth rate, and that Israel is trying to deal with the muslims in their midst—what I’m saying is they’ll fail. The trends are largely against them. Like South Africa, apartheid can’t be sustained forever. Israeli Askhenazi (the only smart ones) are just 37% of the population of Israel and falling fast, again because of their birth rates compared to the Orthodox jews and muslims. Once Israel has no IQ advantage over its neighbors, the next war won’t go as well as the previous ones did. They are surrounded and outnumbered after all. I believe the CIA World Factbook is a solid source but as for the rest I admit it’s all dubious. But even going by Richards’ data, I see more evidence for ‘true believer’ than ‘double standard’ jew. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:13 | # Further to my comment above Englander’s, the Jewish Hollywood honchos also will NEVER cast a Jewish actress as the love interest, sex partner, or wife of a Negro in a film. WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and for the reasons cited. All caucasian stars so casted will be shiksas. ALL. 16
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:56 | # White-jewish crossbreeds are not a damage to our gene pool because we outnumber them to the point we’ll never even notice the loss, whereas they’ll disappear entirely. It’s like a battle where the Union and the Confederacy take equal losses—-that’s a clear win for the Union since the Confederacy cannot afford a war of attrition. As a bonus, white-jewish kids (who 80% marry whites) won’t be ugly and stupid like say, a white-black kid. I wouldn’t say miscegenation is against our genetic interests in this case, we’re removing a threat from the gene pool in a way they haven’t yet detected and cannot easily stop. I think it’s great. (Diamed) To the extent that these mixed offspring are used as propaganda for miscegenation and are sympathetic to Jewish causes (which will be cultivated by the media), they can be harmful to White interests. As long as there is a hard kernel of ethnocentric Jews, this miscegenation will do little to alleviate the damage they can do to us. Is it better than miscegenation with Negroes? I don’t think many would dispute it. But I don’t think it’s all great. 17
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:17 | # I believe incorporating Ashkenazi Jews into the European gene pool would not only be possible, but probably a plus. After all, they DO have all those smart genes. Similarly quite a few near-cousin Caucasians like Turks, Greeks, Armenians, light-skinned Indians, Persians, lighter Arabs, Rom, etc. could probably be absorbed in measured doses…but to no particular advantage - Gypsies aren’t smart. 18
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:45 | # Homelander, the groups of near-cousins you mention have IQs ranging from the mid 80’s to low 90’s. If your measured dose is some small number that brings political advantage, then ok(?). But seems you may be getting a bit low down on that slippery slope… Intelligence is not the end all-be all. I’m sure there are other typically Jewish traits Whites would rather not have. And there are easier ways to create a boost in population IQ than encouraging Ashkenazi assimilation. Having said that, I don’t see how, with their small numbers, assimilating some or most of the Ashkenazim would produce much change in Europeans, unless you did it all within a place like Estonia. 19
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:13 | # Dasein - The main point is to make Jews, Gypsies and fourth-generation Arabs in Marseilles disappear…without perpetrating an injustice on peoples who indisputably have inhabited Europe for generations (some Arabs), centuries (Gypsies) or even millenia (Jews)...and who have nowhere else to go. AND we get to suckle the Einsteins at our breast. What’s the problem with that? Tay Sachs Disease? The “Torquemada Solution” worked, after all. Those recent gene studies unearthing conversos in the Spanish closet represent a cultural and genetic success. Like Diamed says above, the “Final Solution” got us…here. 20
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:34 | #
I can’t believe you wrote that. No. I’ll never advocate or approve of any such process. The offspring of Whites and jews are the same as the offspring of Whites and blacks or Whites and Asians.
There is absolutely no injustice in helping people who invaded your nation and/or its civilization to leave. It would be a gross injustice to allow those peoples to remain. ... 21
Posted by j on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:24 | # Is Judaism a “suicide cult”? The Qumran essenes, who did not marry and maintained their numbers by adoption, surely were. But the mainstream? It is a good question. In fact, in view of the strength of European antisemitism, many Jews decided they had enough of it and silently deleted their Jewish background and disappeared in the great masses of the White peoples. Only from a few salient failures to assimilate we know about the depth of this movement. One is Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State. Her parents decided to forget the whole Jewish thing and emigrated to the US and never told anyone not even their children about Europe. Another example is John Kerry, whose grandparents changed their name and invented a story. Both persons were genuinely surprised to learn about their true genealogy. I presume that for every one case there are hundreds that successfully managed to lose themselves in the mass of common humanity. From these examples it can be derived that yes, Judaism is a suicide cult, that leads its followers or their descendants to destruction, any sane person would try to escape from it. The same can be said of the Jews who came to Israel, it cannot be explained why they leave the safety and prosperity in Europe and America to live under the bombardment of HAMAS and irritating the millions of fanatical muslims, some of them already armed with nuclear bombs (Pakistan) and other like Ahmedenijad, soon to be ready. In summary, the question if Judaism is a suicide cult or not is legitimate and intelligent. However, regarding the dwinding number of Jews due to their refusal to reproduce, it has nothing to do with Judaism. Jewish reproduction is similar other highly educated, middle class people, be it Episcopalians or Catholics. In Northern Italy and Spain, the numbers are similar if not worse. The infertiity of European middle classes is general, not a specifically Jewish pehonomenon. 22
Posted by j on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30 | # If I wasnt clear enough, et me clarify that I do beieve that Judaism has the elements of a suicide cult. 23
Posted by Carl on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:41 | # Here is a joke on jewish double standards which I heard in Germany around 1970 (It was probably invented by a Jew, as many German jokes are: 24
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:50 | # j - I take it that Diamed is playfully employing the exagerrated assumptions of the “blame-Jews-exclusively-for-the-Decline-of-the-West” crowd. In this cramped world-view the decadent tendencies in our civilization are solely the concotions of the Jewish-Enemy…therefore, if Jews in their turn suffer from this decadence, they must ipso-facto be participating in a self-destructive cult, nicht wahr? Diamed is constructing a parody-extension of Jud-Hass hysteria. But also making some interesting observations on the future of the Jewish sub-culture in our society. In a previous comment I should have mentioned “Fiddler On The Roof”. Probably more central to Jewish identity in America than Holocaust memories (a LOT more American Jews are descended from 1890’s immigrants than 30’s refugees, or camp-survivors). And the story-line goes out of its way (and deviates from the folk-original) to feature a “standard” American inter-marriage sub-plot. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:13 | #
More like a genocide/extortion/protest-movement/organization-forming cult if you ask me. Jews are always committing genocide, protesting, extorting money, and forming organizations. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:17 | # If you have three Jews you instantly have fourteen thousand eight hundred and ninety six Jewish-interest and protest organizations, all expertly extorting money and/or pushing genocide in addition to aggressively protesting and jealously guarding Jewish interests. 27
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:21 | #
Just a quick correction, the trend is Not general, it varies widely between various, all equally middle class groups. http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/dec/20/0004/
My point being that fertility rates are not an inexorable law that exactly matches IQ, education, or socio-economic status. Culture also matters. A healthy culture can maintain a 1st world living standard with a high fertility rate, the mormons are a great and undefeatable example of this. Jewish culture, the culture of liberalism, however, is unhealthy and suicidal. They have no excuse just because they’re smart and rich to not have kids—-no one does. 28
Posted by apollonian2nd on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:44 | # Jew Demographics Must Be Understood In Proper Context Greetings comrades, Apollonian here once again, having re-emerged fm the “banishment” inflicted by “GuessedWorker,” that incredible psychopathic control-freak, back on previous Diamed blog. J Richards, I hope u rec’d my msg which I posted (attempted, at any rate) under the above “contact” button; thanks again for ur kind note u left which I was only able to read days later, as I explained in aforementioned msg. Regarding blog-topic, note comrades, u must ck and be sure of ur basic definitions—a “Jew” is fundamentally a Talmudist (see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo) and/or a descendent thereof. Most of all, note what Talmud actually is—a plan/strategy for war against gentile humanity for enslavement of such gentiles and their death/extermination—this is literally the truth/fact. Hence then the question naturally arises regarding what Talmudism itself actually is—thus obviously it is the conducting of this aforementioned Talmudic warfare, the Talmudic program/strategy—which then must NECESSARILY amount essentially to deception and disinformation, basically lying, natural part of obligatory war-program. Thus Jews are liars (see Gosp. JOHN 8:44), liars by religion, literally—though they seem to pledge to speak truth to one another, problematic as this is for them. And as one examines further the necessary implications of Talmud, one sees the fundamental SUBJECTIVISM which is advanced: Torah (putative subject of Talmud) means what Talmud and rabbis say it means—and all Jews are required to follow the instructions of the rabbi masterminds. Such is Talmudism, a collectivistic subjectivism oriented then in literal conspiracy against humankind. So when one considers what essentially Jews really are, u must finally conclude, they’re actually mere CRIMINAL gang and extended family thereof. Thus Jews, again, are subjectivists, hence basically quite nutty—it’s amazing these creatures survive at all. And note then how it is they, these Jews, actually DO survive: they’re a parasite, a disease-of-opportunity, who survive by means of the losers, weaklings, and inferiors of the gentile races Jews take advantage of and “feed” upon, like literal vampires, as it were. Thus it’s most important to understand basic socio-biologic (see again, KevinMacDonald.net) circumstances and fundamentals for these amazing Jew criminals, conspirators, and miscreants BEFORE one considers such an ancillary subject as demographics. It’s really best to consider Jews a parasite disease-of-opportunity—literally. CONCLUSION: Humankind will always suffer criminals and criminality: Judaism and Jews are merely a manifestation and institution thereof, success of which is cyclic phenomena in accord with corresponding cyclic counter-success of gentiles and their mental and socio-biologic HEALTH, as expounded (partially) in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 29
Posted by j on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:00 | # The host/parasite model does not hold water, as the parasite should be thriving while the host is weakening. That is not what is happening these days, American majority’s population is not growing, while Jewish population is collapsing. The model of a symbiotic relationship seems nearer to reality: Jews can survive only in a growing, prospering, tolerant society. 31
Posted by John on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:07 | #
Any amateur directors/producers/writers out there? I’m thinking a romantic comedy about an Israeli Askenazi who much to the chagrin of her parents marries a Falasha and has to deal with the racism of Israeli society. You could work in as a subplot the plight of the male lead’s brother-in-law who because of the moratorium on Ethopian Jew immigration to Israel can’t be with his ailing mother. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:32 | # “GuessedWorker,” that incredible psychopathic control-freak, His house his rules, dude. 33
Posted by Kurt on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:37 | # OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. To the New York Herald Tribune: Mr. Treister stated in his letter in your paper that the Jewish people form a very small percentage of the Communists in America. He states that “... in Chicago, with a Jewish population of 400,000, there are about 150 Communists.” I myself am Jewish, and I come from Chicago. I spent 13 years in that city. Approximately 98 percent of us are Communists, and we are not ashamed of it. It is a system laid down to us by our great leader, Karl Marx, and only the cowards hide behind “democracy” or “Americanism.” Furthermore, I think Mr. Treister should check up on his figures more closely if he would give out information. Sarah Finkelstein, Washington, DC, December 22, 1938 34
Posted by Kurt on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:42 | # Mr DIAMOND, er Diamed, what can one say, Kevin MacDonald, wrong, Lincoln Rockwell, wrong, William Pierce, wrong, only trust the Tribe. They know after all the POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS stats for them comes ONLY from them Mourant, himself a jew, said that jews had 5% negro blood, he as oxford scholar. Jew gals on tv with negro: NEW OLD CHRISTINE, with julia louise-dreyfuss with Blair Underwood as her f-boy.
Maury Povich fathered purebloods with his jewess wife then married Connie Chung. Ehud Olmert’s grandparents are from China.
35
Posted by apollonian2nd on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:46 | # Suck-Up Thinks He Scores Big Points Desmond, I can tell u’re really bright guy—as if u think u make pt.s affirming the control of the control-freak—which I’m sure he’ll appreciate so much. Way to go, Des. Hey Des, do u think “GuessedWorker” really just envies Jews for their moralism pretext and only wishes to arrogate it unto himself? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:26 | # Fuck-up, Desmond, I can tell u’re really bright guy—as if u think u make pt.s affirming the control of the control-freak—which I’m sure he’ll appreciate so much. You want to translate that to the Queen’s English, dude, or is Ebonics your mother tongue? 37
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:30 | # @Kurt: There is no reason to believe the statistics are wrong. If you question the statistics, supply your own. J Richards had the courtesy to supply alternate statistics which, though different, still confirm the larger trend that jews are dying out in America and will soon cease to be an issue for whites. If jews do have malicious double standards, then they were too clever even for themselves because their kids believe it and are all marrying out while pursuing educations and not having kids. It hardly matters what their intentions were because it obviously blew up in their faces, now they are the prime evolutionary losers of their own culture. I don’t think they do have malicious double standards however. I suspect jews pushed civil rights and pro-immigration to make whites more inclusive and tolerant towards jews, they knew the moment discrimination of any type were allowed, it would logically follow to discriminate against jews as well. Therefore they attacked all discrimination everywhere so that jews would not be discriminated against. They may have even internalized this into a moral code by thinking to themselves how horrible it would be to be discriminated against, and then felt it was a moral duty to make sure no one else felt this pain and injustice either. Thinking to themselves that they were discriminated against for no good reason and unjustly (after all they’re perfectly smart, have low crime rates, make plenty of money, etc whenever given the equal opportunity), they would assume this was true of everyone else as well. This has caused major problems for whites because people aren’t equal, cultures aren’t equal, genes aren’t equal, and discrimination is a necessary response to this fact. There is no way to reassure jews that they will not be persecuted in a pro-white society that acknowledges the innate differences between groups, because they will lash out in paranoid fear whether we do anything to them or not. ((What did the USA ever do to jews after all?)) Furthermore, it is right and just to discriminate against jews because they are not white, and thus a white country cannot be allowed to serve the interests of jews. When jews have such a natural knack for gaining wealth and power wherever they go, whites as a matter of racial self-defense must start discriminating against them. Therefore the jewish ideal of a ‘white society that does not discriminate against jews’ is IMPOSSIBLE as it either enslaves whites to a jewish controlled elite at the top, or creates such a hyper-tolerant society that all manner of subhuman beasts, maniacs, and idiots are allowed free entry. White and jewish interests can thus never meet and we must have a solution to the jewish question. Are you following me so far? that solution is staring us in the face. Intermarry with them and make jews white. Let the jewish population fade away on the trend it is already going. Eliminate all chance of a persecution complex as no one can tell the new people apart from the majority. Only 4% of the granchildren of white-jew couples self-identify as Jews. They don’t care, the ethnocentrism is GONE. Destroyed. And thus their ability and their motive to attack us is gone with it. Eliminate the ability for jews to cluster around all the top positions of power and wealth by making them into whites who in turn care about their fellow whites instead of fear them. Everyone here knows miscegenation is genocide, it’s not like I’m being easy on the jews. Miscegenate all jews into whites, just like we’re currently doing. Love them to death. Then all that power, intellect, etc is used for us instead of against us. If anyone can’t see what great news these statistics are and what a unique chance we have to solve our jewish question in a peaceful manner that liberals of all stripes can get behind and jews can’t even protest against. . .well what can I say? 38
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:13 | # Diamed and J Richards, Thank you for bringing these stats to my attention. Though I was aware of the jewish demographic decline, I did not realize that it was quite so serious. It also has major implications for the future of the Arab-Israeli struggle…Anyway, good food for thought. 39
Posted by Homelander on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:05 | # Barry Goldwater would serve as an example of such an assimilated Jew…also his running-mate Miller, if memory serves. Who wouldn’t have prefered Goldwater-Miller to the purely gentiles LBJ and Hubert Humphrey, who presided over the ‘65 Immigration “reform” and Reverse-Discrimination “civil rights” acts? I know Goldwater opposed the 1965 civil-rights bill, and without knowing anything specifically about it, I’d venture that the then-Senator from Arizona would at least have had some caveats on immigration “reform”. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:18 | # Diamed: Miscegenate all jews into whites, just like we’re currently doing. Love them to death. Then all that power, intellect, etc is used for us instead of against us. One minor problem. In equal measure to the power and intellect might you not get paranoia, supremacism and the urge to conquer by subversion. 41
Posted by Homelander on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:35 | #
And the problem here is…what? These are all qualities I’d love to see more of, among mainstream whites - everyone else is already there. This is a feature, not a defect! 42
Posted by pasta on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:35 | # That at least some influential Jews do have a malicious double standard regarding intermarriage is a demonstrable fact. Even if all secular Jews eventually died out, there would still be a Jewish Orthodox core group left with a healthy fertility rate and by that time the USA will be populated mostly by third-worlders anyway. In order to survive and in order to succeed in the eternal struggle for living space, White people need a fertility rate at least at replacement level. Most White people today have a fertility rate below replacement level, but the Mormons, whom you mentioned, as well as the Jewish Orthodox, demonstrate that a religious community can increase the fertility rate of its members significantly and even push it above replacement level. I don’t see a way around the fact that we need such core communities with high fertility. 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:49 | # Homelander: And the problem here is…what? The problem is that we would not be free of the present difficulties of the pathologies which beset us now. The fissure would merely be amongst ourselves. Class war rather than ethnic war, but still a deeply undesirable outcome, I would have thought. But, hey, if you like communism ... 44
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:02 | #
This is true. The bully LBJ and that snivelling wretch Humphrey were both holdovers from the FDR New Deal personality cult (the former was Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor). I think they weren’t exactly malicious, just clueless, idealistic dupes, but the damage they did was incalculable. And Goldwater is maybe the one Yid I’d ever had voted for, had I been around at the time. 45
Posted by Homelander on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:02 | # Whites are too naive about money/power these days. I used to live among Jews in Miami (actually worked for a family business). I heard the only “WASP” joke in my life - goes like this: Why did God make WASPS? Somebody has to pay Full Retail! ...and it’s true. I mean…the Fed is taking two to four trillion dollars of our future earnings, and giving it to bankers…and everyone goes “oh well”. 46
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:08 | # @Guessedworker: That would imply that we become as equally jewish as white, when in fact only a tiny percent of jewish genes would phenotypically express themselves in the vast dilution of the white genome. I do know there are a lot of subversive, obnoxious 1/2 jews and even 1/4 jews (like Lenin.) But 1/100th jews? 1/1,000th jews? Surely at some point they become a distant memory. That might also wipe out the high intelligence they bring to the table, but if high intelligence is evolutionarily fit, people with the jewish intellect genes would manage to reproduce, while other 1/4 jews with just the ‘jewish paranoia’ gene would have negative survival value and thus die out. Ideally. But more to the point, anything is better than the current situation so, viva la change. 47
Posted by Homelander on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:17 | # BTW - this was Nietsche’s solution to the Jewish Question - at least during one stretch of his intellectual career, and before he went nuts. 48
Posted by Armor on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:32 | # “One minor problem. In equal measure to the power and intellect might you not get paranoia, supremacism and the urge to conquer by subversion.” There is also the slight problem of their looks and physical ability. Diamed’s plan: I don’t like either part of that plan! 49
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:47 | #
Once again, the study that posited a 115 avg IQ was done by Romanoff, Backmann, and Levinson. Am I the only one who sees the writing on the wall here? If you’ve non-“culture-loaded” evidence that Jews are truly well above us in intellect, I’d be happy to take a gander at it and change my tune. But as for now? I don’t buy it. PS I never said that I believe Ashkenazim are not intelligent, but that 115 figure is just ridiculous. 50
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:54 | # Addendum: I am also aware that Herrnstein and Murray found an average IQ of 113-ish in a study where n=59. And who do you suppose they tested? Maybe all of their Jewish intellectual friends at Harvard or the AEI? Once again: “culture-loaded.” 51
Posted by Festus on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:23 | # Gudmund you are right. I can’t believe MacDonald buys the Big Lie of superior Jewish IQ. Having been around them in university settings I can say they are not the match of Aryans. Jews give each other prizes and congratulate themselves and the goyim believe it. They also believe Adam Sandler is a great talent. 52
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:44 | # You may be right, I’ve seen studies putting askhenazi IQ at 105, 108, etc. More testing is needed. One thing that is hard to fake is their fields medal winners, nobel prize (physics) winners, and inventors. http://www.jewishachievement.com/domains/sci.html
53
Posted by Ashkenazi Jews Not European on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:25 | # Verified once again that the Ashkenazim are not the same as White Europeans - they can easily be genetically distinguished from White Europeans and White Euro-Americans: - http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-paper-on-ashkenazi-jewish_23.html - http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/01/how_ashkenazi_jewish_are_you.php 54
Posted by Homelander on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:25 | # Gudmund - Hm?...you believe a tiny percentage of the world’s population can manipulate the planet - even to the extent of gaming peer-reviewed scientific research in the centers of Western civilisation - but you won’t credit them with even a standard deviation above the median the Intelligence Quotient is normed on? 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:17 | # Diamed: Of the 267 individual inventors, more than 13 were Jews If one can correct for any possibility of putting names to other’s work, and other forms of intellectual freeriding, and also correct for Jewish influence on the awards committee, yes OK the evidence for Ashkenazic intellect is there. 56
Posted by Sam on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:04 | # Two problems 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:47 | # Sam: “Euros with even a drop of filthy Jewish genes” We can manage without the adjectival desperation, Sam. Please post sang froid. The tendency of part-Jews and mullatoes to distinguish themselves from ethnic Europeans is a good thing, and clarifies any eventual racial settlement considerably. Your observation is completely true of mullatoes, for whom the option of identifying as white is not open. It is less than true of part-Jews, one of whom adorns this blog with his serial commentary and is as solid a comrade as one could hope for. 58
Posted by sootandashes on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29 | # Jews Tackle Intermarriage Debate - http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/10/jews_tackle_intermarriage_debate Excerpts: The statistic was startling: A study of the Jewish community in Greater Boston asserted that 60 percent of the children in interfaith families are being raised as Jews. The recent Brandeis University study’s number was so significantly higher than the fraction found in other studies around the nation, that Jewish community leaders here decided to push a little further in an effort to find out just how Jewish those children are. ... “Intermarriage has been an enormously controversial issue within the Jewish community,” said Christopher Winship, a professor of sociology at Harvard University, who converted to Judaism after marrying a Jewish woman. “Intermarriage has often been claimed to be a disease that’s slowly going to wipe out the American Jewish Community, but now you’ve got to do the math, and you see that if all the Jews that intermarried raised committed Jewish children, we could double the size of the Jewish population in one generation.” I’m a bit puzzled about how Jews get to be Jews in the eyes of even the most “out there” Reform types when the mother isn’t Jewish and has not converted, but that apparently isn’t much of an issue these days. In any event, figured I’d pass this article along as a bit of contrary data. How Jewish the products of these interfaith marriages will ultimately become still seems to be anybody’s guess, certainly, but it is quite possible the situation is neither as good nor as bad (depending on one’s perspective) as the links in the OP suggest. 59
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:17 | #
Man, you are credulous. Entine made this “fact” up, and you accept it at face value. 60
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:34 | # sootandashes, Thanks for the information. There are Jews and there are Cultural Jews, I suppose. It used to be said of Catholics that the converts were the most committed. So maybe the gain to Jewry looks acceptable in the short-term if one is not too picky about genes. I would guess that the committment for children of these marriages is much lower, though, and the native culture much more alluring. It means that Diamed’s vision of Jewry bleeding into the host is perhaps a longer process than he thought. And then we come up against our own problems with time. 61
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:56 | #
_________________________ http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769 Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. When one considers the definition of “parasite”, there can be no doubt that the Jewish community qualifies. 62
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:32 | # Don’t know if Ive mentioned this before but I possibly have some Jewish ancestry, a great-grandparent would be my guess, as my grandmother looked pretty Jewish. For a time I had a Jewish girlfriend and her grandma looked uncannily like my grandma! Thats when I first gave credence to the idea. That part of the family tree is somewhat murky! DNA testing might clarify it one way or the other. Hope I’m not damned by JWH (or Sam). 63
Posted by Darren on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:52 | # My opinion is that Jews, although a separate ethnic group, are close enough to us to be genetically assimilable. They are also way too small in numbers to have any major impact on the average phenotype. The fact that there remains a distinct Jewish ethnic group means that a sufficent number of Jews want to remain Jews, and for the few who don’t, they’ll “join” us. The issue with Jews is not so much their genes (although it is theorized that Jewish ethnocentricity is at least in part genetic, I have to wonder how much of it really is and how much of it is just historical/cultural legacy), but their cultural practices. I’m not saying that mixing with Jews is my answer to anything, but I’m just pointing out the larger fact that the “European” race of people is really a bunch of subgroups of people who mixed together, and that adding Jews to the mix would not likely cause any detrimental impact to our ability to maintain our traditional culture. This would be contrasted to the assimilation to large amounts of negro DNA that would lower the average IQ, among other things. Just my humble opinion on this topic. 64
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:16 | # There is no division between culture and genes. Your personality, your behavior, your beliefs, your desires and your ideals are all genetically based. Culture is the extended phenotype of your genotype. Rushton in Race, Evolution, and Behavior had a great chapter about this under ‘assortative mating.’ No singular belief or personality quirk was a good indicator of genetic similarity, but when you added them all up together it became a vastly different picture. People sorting by religion, beliefs, personality, or behavior are in fact sorting by genetic similarity. Just as insects can pick up invisible cues on who is genetically related to them and can even distinguish between sisters, cousins, etc —humans use their culture, language, religion, beliefs, as filters to find genetic similarity and thus the joys of kinship and tribe. Jews have a different culture because they have different genes. Half-jews raised as jews will never be as comfortable or approving of the culture they are taught, deep down inside it just won’t ‘feel’ right. Quarter jews raised as jews would feel this even moreso, eventually whites raised as jews would shuck the entire system like a dead snake skin. It has nothing to do with them, with their white souls. For the same reason, the originally jewish religion of Jesus and the apostles was transmogrified into an expression of European values and beliefs that fit the white spirit, and when it reached the nordic lands catholicism was again transformed into a culture more acceptable to that race and became protestantism. Change the genes and the culture will follow. 65
Posted by Darren on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:26 | # I agree with the general premise of biological determinism, but genes do not specify exactly what kind of culture that gets expressed, just general outlines or templates. Genetically similar groups of Europeans have expressed different kinds of cultures. While, yes, they tend to behave certain ways and express certain common traits, genes cannot explain the differences. While I do not dismiss a genetic component to Jewish behavior, I am just questioning how much of Jewish behavior is purely cultural - many aspects of Jewish culture and religion are a product of and reaction to the hostility of being people in diaspora - stuff that wouldn’t be there if the Jews were just confined to a particular region or land their entire existence. 66
Posted by duncan on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:32 | # Diamed “No singular belief or personality quirk was a good indicator of genetic similarity, but when you added them all up together it became a vastly different picture. People sorting by religion, beliefs, personality, or behavior are in fact sorting by genetic similarity” This is more faulty reasoning - you are assuming that the only homogeneity in a group is in it’s genetic make-up, which contradicts your assertion that people are sorted by “religion, beliefs” etc… The religion, beliefs and lifestyle they have are their choice, and are not gentically pre-determined - and in turn, these shared social choices are what give the group homogenity - not their genes. Their choices. Extending this argument, white supremacists will never be able to weld a single white nation containing the majority of whites, because our genetic similarity that gives us white skins is nothing more than a collection of amino acids that has no bearing on the choices we make, and most whites don’t and won’t choose to be paranoid rednecks. While the white population was more homogenous in the past (but never entirely homogenous), the homogeneity was a product of geography, not genes. As people have become less confined by their physical location, they have become less homogenous. Interesting to consider the role that rampant, expolitative colonialism by european and north american powers played in destroying the homogeneity of the white population. In the social, political and economic context, genes are irrelevant. 67
Posted by D.C. on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:38 | # Jewish people from families that are not extremely orthodox or traditional often convert to other religions, particularly South Asian ones like Buddhism and Hinduism (generally via yoga). What category would they fall in? 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:43 | # D.C.: they do that in youth — by they time they’re further on in years, retirement age, let’s say, they’re back to seeing themselves as Jews, 98% of them who do that. 69
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:45 | # Duncan this isn’t the right blog for pollutants like you. Go away. 70
Posted by Darren on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:56 | # Religion and cultural values are not mere individual choices; they are the product of (dun dun dun) SHARED VALUES PROMULGATED UPON AN ENTIRE GROUP. Many white nations with a totally white hegemony wielded a single unified cultural and value system among their people. The necessity for survival means that people tend to adopt a group’s values for the benefits that they confer on them. That isn’t even talking about genetics, that is just talking about group dynamics which you so carelessly throw out the door for your libertine notions of how cultures and societies are formed. Genetics plays a role by looking at the phenotype traits of a people and what they have in common - intelligence, IQ, social cohesiveness, and altruism are significant traits that both have genetically determined components and ultimately affect the sort of culture that is expressed on the group level. I’m still waiting for my “embarrassment”. 71
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:23 | # D.C. = The main religion of jews is secular humanism/egalitarianism/communism. The majority of jews don’t practice Judaism. Buddhism, Hinduism, and all that junk will be filtered through the prism of secular humanism/egalitarianism/communism and they will in truth be practicing the same religion as their atheist friends. 80% of jews voted for Obama, their beliefs are incredibly monolithic, the diversity is just a smokescreen, scratch it and the eternal jew shines forth. The eternal jew is the key to unlocking the mystery of jewish ‘capitalists’ cooperating with jewish ‘communists.’ Jewish ‘atheists’ cooperating with jewish ‘orthodox.’ Jewish ‘zionists’ cooperating with jewish ‘anti-racists.’ Jews are all the same no matter what overcoats they wear, scratch the surface and you’ll discover typical jewish behavior, typical jewish thinking, typical jewish desires. Not to say no jew could ever come to a different philosophy on life, but converting jews is ultimately a hopeless gesture. The vast majority of them are unreachable because our genes are too far apart for our ideals to ever be the same. Jews are a diaspora because they chose to be. Nothing is stopping them from moving back to Israel, or gathering together in some other land. They prefer to be the middle-man minority or ruling elite of other lands, it’s their preferred mode of existence. To say they only act so unnaturally because they are a diaspora ignores the fact that their genetic nature is what led them to choose to be that diaspora in the first place. Just like a bird instinctively creates a nest, an environment suitable to itself, jews instinctively create a cosmopolitan bustling high-finance hodgepodge, it’s like a bubble bath to them. They just can’t relax and be happy until their bird’s nest is completed, and the environment just right for jews has been completed. Unfortunately, this same environment is not amenable for anyone else on earth (except maybe armenians, lebanese, greeks and Chinese who have shown some of the same patterns in their diasporas) ((interestingly 3 of those 4 groups are very genetically similar to jews)). For us, it’s not a bubble bath, it’s a hell hole. Whites who insist in not living in jewish bird’s nests, but the open air and countryside of simple honest living, who wish to construct a good, pleasing environment for their lifestyle and children, are being sacrificed on the altar of jewish instincts. It must stop, and part of making it stop is realizing genetically unrelated people cannot both thrive in the same environment. We speak of ‘terraforming’ mars to make it suitable to human life. What we should be speaking of is the judeoforming of America that is making it suitable to jewish life—but absolutely unsuitable to our own. 72
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:53 | #
I say we don’t know for sure how much is Jewry, and how much is us. We need to allow Euros to separate away from Jews so we can answer the question. Opposition to this idea (or whistling past the graveyard like you don’ know nuttin’ from nuttin’) strikes me as evidence of foul play. 73
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:13 | #
No. Jews are the most extraordinary people in the history of the world. That will no doubt ruffle many feathers, but it’s true. Who TF DOES what Jews have done? No one. Of course, what makes them remarkable is not their intelligence*. It’s their will. They decided 3000+ years ago that they were going to rule the world/universe. And they did so in a way that lasted up to the present day. Who else has done this, and been remotely as reproductively successful as they? Suicide cult? *the irony is that 100% of what makes Jews remarkable will get you the “anti-Semite” label if you describe it.
This is not suicide, it’s the opposite of suicide. That’s one-way gene flow. The less-capable serve their tribe the best way they can, by serving as genetic cannon fodder. On the way out? We’ll see. Precedent certainly argues against it. 74
Posted by j on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:39 | # On the way out? No, no one said so. But certainly not immune to the dramatic demographic decline affecting midde class peoples. On the contrary. If it were not a “suicide cult”, Jews should be today a numerous people, at least 5% of humanity as they were in ancient times. But they are not one in twenty but one in six hundred. If not suicide, at least strongly harmful to the carrier. Regarding the one way outflow of genes. I dont think it is the less capable that leave the Jewish nation. Kerry Sr. and Albright Sr. were not rejects. 75
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:46 | #
Immune? No, no one said so. But certainly more resistant to the poison they spread. Like Wesley vs. the Sicilian in The Princess Bride. 76
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:50 | # Okay, bad analogy since Wesley said immunity not resistance, but you get the idea. Not saying all or even most Jewish malfeasance is deliberate. I think self-deception is how they get things done. Jews think they’re wonderful people, not cackling hand-rubbing villains. 77
Posted by Homelander on Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:08 | # It is counter-factual and silly to contend that Jews cannot live among Europeans without problems. THEY DID - for eighteen hundred years…until the French Revolution, and emancipation. Likewise it is silly to claim that, within any generation, Jews “never” assimilate to the larger Gentile culture and out-breed. The history of Jewish demographics indicate that this was a continuous event. The Jews who didn’t, of course, were “ethnocentric”...and those who did weren’t: the latter course was the more common one, although depending somewhat on the pressures and inducements. A similar regime prevailed in Islamic lands - with similar results. It is imaginable (but as of now, purely hypothetical) to suppose that resistance to assimilation selects for some kind of “stubborness” trait, and that this trait (being selected) is more concentrated among present-day identifiable Jews. But the demographic crisis Diamed sketched out above indicates that any such trait - IF it exists at all - doesn’t rule. 79
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:29 | #
Horseshit! 81
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:34 | # I meant, that’s a big, steaming, stinking pile of horeshit! 82
Posted by benzona on Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:24 | # As Kevin McDonald said, some evolutionary experiments succeed, some fail. Let me recount a story, when I first twigged that the Jews really may be fucked, longer-term. First some background: a US company, owned and run by Jews, that employs many very highly educated people of all nationalities (doctors, lawyers etc.). I go to the lunch room. There are around 6 males and females present. The individuals originated from China, India, Pakistan, Sweden, Britain and the US. A political discussion arises about Jews. Presumably all present were aware no Jews were in the room. And although an MR reader I kept my opinions to myself—so this incident was independent of me. For 10 minutes there occurred unabashed vituperation about the evils of Jews and their behavior. Particularly Hollywood, actually. I sat there listening with intent and a dropped jaw. It was then I knew Jews have a big problem. Think now of the problem in Gaza. If you want to get an objective opinion you don’t look to a Western media source do you. You’d be better to read an Asian newspaper, for example. 83
Posted by Homelander on Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:13 | # I guess there are two POV’s on this. One is that a group (Ashkenazi Jews) comprising something like .5 % of the world’s population has had an outsized (and all-too-often pernicious) effect on the recent course of civilization because they are REALLY, REALLY smart, and a little bit fucked-up. (OK…maybe MORE than a little bit.) Or. You may believe that this same group is just a shade smarter than the average bear - not significantly smarter than the far more numerous Asians, for example - but also really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY…really…really…really…EEEEE-vul!!! So, I think the first point of view explains a lot more…and is far more likely to be objective. 84
Posted by Diamed on Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:32 | # I think the jewish record of achievement supports the first explanation. Also, it’s always a good idea to not attribute evil motivations to people’s actions. Everyone thinks he is doing the right thing. I’ve given a variety of ‘unconscious’ jewish motivations — ‘I don’t like discrimination of any sort because jews are the inevitable victim’, ‘I like cosmopolitan bustling diversity because jews always thrive in those environments,’ and so on. Then they assume everyone is exactly like themselves and universalize their likes and dislikes as what should be the ideal law of the whole world. (typical fallacy.) Anti-racists always give us evil motivations and we constantly argue they’re wrong and treating us unfairly, the same can be said on their side. What I find is most liberals are genuinely convinced of their position, and the reason isn’t hatred of white people. The reason is three part: ‘If genes do matter, then a new period of violence, suffering, and bloodshed will sweep the earth, as we re-sort the earth along genetic lines. Given the horrific nature of this belief, if there’s any chance it is wrong, we should instead hope for the best and continue down the peaceful, loving path. No scientific evidence has proven genes determine the goodness or badness of an individual or a group, we have not yet ruled out all environmental factors or tried all environmental approaches which could also solve the problem.’ Crack this walnut and we will get somewhere. 85
Posted by Homelander on Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:04 | # I think a lot swings on how smart you estimate Jews to be. If you’re figuring Whites at 100, Asians at 103, and Ashkenazim at 105…then the degree - and perversity - of Jewish influence in our society (especially America where, for at least a generation now, the almost equally gifted- in this supposal - Asians have been both more numerous, and less troublesome) can only be attributed to relentless and conspiratorial self-premotion that invites comparison to the Demonic. But: Figure Jews for an average 115 IQ…and it looks a LOT more like Gulliver among the Lil Guys - if Gulliver is even mildly screwed up, the lil Guys have got a BIG problem. Jews are screwed up. Half the time, they’ll tell you that themselves. But except perhaps with each other, they actually DON’T like to talk about comparative IQ issues. It is nitroglycerin - they know this. 86
Posted by Arthur Pendleton on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:56 | # Something is wrong with the screen here. It has gotten annoyingly wide, so I have to scroll sideways as well as down. PLEASE FIX! 87
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:34 | # Click on your “enlarge” button at upper right, Arthur — it’ll expand the page of text you’re reading and in most cases do away with the problem you describe. 88
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:07 | #
Why would any of what you just said matter? 89
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:37 | #
It’s not “the less capable” alone, but some sort of combined function of the less capable and the less ethnocentric. By that notion, Kerry Sr., a self-made multi-millionaire and therefore capable, must have been all the less ethnocentric, while a Jew on welfare (of which there are said to be lots among the Ultra-Orthodox in places like Brooklyn for example) must be extremely ethnocentric, clearly the case in the example just cited. 90
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:41 | # Arthur, I used the wrong word — the “enlarge” button is actually called the “maximize” button. It’s at the upper right (next to the little red box with a white X that clicks you out of a site). 91
Posted by j on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:30 | # some sort of combined function of the less capable and the less ethnocentric Fred Scrooby We are speculating. I think we agree that many are not less but more capable. I have no idea of the percentages. And how do you measure etnocentrism? By their staying within the Jewish community? That is a tautology. 92
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:19 | #
I think by definition of ethnocentric we have to say someone who leaves the group will be found to be less ethnocentric, all other things being equal, than someone who stays. In other words, on average, those who leave will be less ethnocentric than those who stay. Otherwise the word “ethnocentric” doesn’t mean what we’re assuming it means. 93
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:40 | #
- Homelander What’s your problem, pal? Aren’t we on the same side? IQ is not the only determinant of success. In case you missed it, the Jews are also incredibly nepotistic, which gives them a tremendous advantage in any academic situation. People with an average IQ of 100+ (which I believe Ashkenazim have), combined with a strong nationalistic urge and a worldwide network of connections and allies can accomplish great things. By the way, haven’t we already covered that academia is massively infiltrated by Jews? Just what is your aim with this puerile comment? No, I do not believe that Ashkenazim have an IQ of a standard deviation above the White mean. I have met and known many, many Jews, likely more than you have - even my cousins are Jewish, for Pete’s sake (my aunt converted - blech!). Believe me when I say that not one of them intimidated me intellectually. You seem like the kind of person who wants to appear to be smart, and that urge leads you to “ridicule” (nice try) your “intellectual inferiors.” 94
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:45 | #
The same situation once existed with Darwinism. This walnut will be cracked. 95
Posted by Homelander on Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:09 | #
Really? I thought academia was massively infiltrated by hard-working, uncomplaining Goyim who allow their research to be stolen by Jewish colleagues! Seriously, stop and think about “academia is massively infiltrated by Jews”: you can’t game things like SAT’s, LSE’s and GRE’s - these are machine-scored paper-and-pencil tests taken by millions annually. (Which is why Barry Obama won’t release his scores.) Jewish academic attainment, in the aggregate CAN’T be faked. Academia is NOT populated with people (of any kind) with 100 IQ’s. It requires a minimum 115 to perform in grad-schools, no matter how much back-stairs influence you have. Socially-promoted Blacks flounder in environments where Jews have outpaced competitors since they began attending college. You can’t send virtually an entire generation to college, and put a quarter through grad school without a high base. Can Jews game the Bell Curve? I believe we are on the same side - but reductionist conspiracy theories and circular logic discredit any form of anti-semitism. You have to accept the rules of logical discourse. Why should Diamed have to prove every Fields prize was merited? Would not you be expected to supply a SINGLE example when it wasn’t…then follow-up with several more? 96
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:19 | #
The problem is it doesn’t make sense because even if the American population has only 16% of its people at or over the 115 mark, they should still vastly outnumber Jews in academia. Why aren’t high IQ Euro-Americans going to college? 97
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:05 | # Desmond Likely no one on this thread knows enough about it. I don’t think one could easily access reliable statistics for how many Jews in academia, but there is probably something on placement-test scores. Some thoughts: a lot depends on what you DO with your degree - stay in academia, or take work elsewhere. Jews have a taste for scholarship. About 40% (at least) of a generation attend college now. I should think that’s overwhelmingly Euros. College slots are virtually unlimited now - they will create as many slots as there are students willing to borrow money! But grad schools are highly competitive. A MINIMUM IQ of 115…but the best win out. Then again, the whole thing is knacked by Affirmative Action - both for women and minorities. I believe that for reasons cited in Diamed’s excellent article Jews are becoming too “thin” to cover all the elite places in our culture - and Affirmative Action can be seen as a project to fill in places abandoned by retreating Jews with dumbed-down, docile non-competitors. Anything but the dreaded WASP re-emergence! 98
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:13 | # Just to add some more numbers to Desmond’s. For the sake of argument, let’s assume 200 million White Americans (IQ 100), 6 million Jewish Americans (IQ 115), Normal distribution at the tail ends of the distribution, standard deviations for both populations of 15. That would give us roughly 32 million White Americans with IQ 115 or higher vs 3 million Jewish Americans with IQ 115 or higher. For IQ 130 or higher it is 4.6 million vs 950,000. For IQ 145 it is 270,000 vs 137,000. For IQ 160 it is 6,340 vs 8,100. (approximate calculations and apologies if there is a glaring error here). I would be interested to know the average IQ of a college professor, and how many there are in the US. I think the numbers at the tail end will surprise some (and the disparity is perhaps even greater if the non-Normal nature of the curve at the tail ends is considered). But I think Desmond’s point is valid. In the range that I would expect for most people in academia (130’s), Whites are still greatly outnumbering Jews. In the scientific fields I’ve worked in, you often hear that so and so is doing ‘good science’. People vouching for each other matters. If you’re writing a paper, you have a choice, to some extent, as to which other papers you reference. IIRC, MacDonald cites studies that show that Jews in academia are much more likely to cite each other than non-Jews. And of course, those numbers are based on a Jewish IQ of 115. If it is only 105, IQ 160 would be 6,340 vs 1,400. 99
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:13 | # Maybe no one on this thread knows enough about it. I don’t know whether there are real stats on Jews in Academia, but I should think someone’s done something on placement-test scores. Some thoughts: Much depends on what you do with a degree. Jews have a taste for schloarship. 40% of a generation attends college now. Mostly Euros I’d guess. College slots expand to cover the market. But Grad schools are a reducing valve. 115 is the minimum…but the best win out. The whole think is knacked by quotas nowadays. For reasons Diamed cited in his excellent post, I believe Jews are becoming too thin to cover all of America’s elite positions. Affirmative action could be seen as a strategy to replace retreating Jews with dumbed-down and docile non-competitors. Rather than a dreaded WASP re-emergence. 100
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:33 | # OUCH! Forgive me! Trouble posting…probably because of the page-flip. 101
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:35 | #
It still doesn’t make sense. According to La Griffe:
In measures La Griffe uses Jews comprise from 25-30%. Yet they acount for more than 50% of world ches champions.
Why the variation? Possibly Russians (other than AJs) don’t play chess or there is something else at play. 102
Posted by Armor on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:06 | #
It doesn’t explain how they are able to take over a public radio station or a newspaper. You don’t need to be extremely intelligent to be hired as a radio journalist. In the fields of cinema, journalism and politics, I would expect white people to work preferably with non-Jews, that is to say, with people who share the same sensibility, whatever their IQ. And I would expect white voters to have a preference for non-Jewish politicians whatever their IQ. Jews have other qualities that help them along besides intelligence: they are assertive, good at talking with people, things like that. 103
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:52 | # And Jones, if Jewish achievement appears out-sized for a population with a mean IQ of 115…how much more anomalous would it be for a population with an edge of 2-3 IQ points? Did mediocrities get SO far ahead merely because they were aggressive competitors - especially when so many other things about them are inherently unappealing, and the majority culture does not particularly like or trust them? I mean is the correlation of IQ with achievemant spurious? Or limited only to comparisons among Euros. If it breaks down with Jews, then maybe there’s no reason to think it measures the “true potential” of Blacks. Careful what you want to say here. 104
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:52 | # Jewish success and intelligence again! Intelligence or criminal orientation? This topic needs to be formally addressed, but I’ve discussed the basics of it. According to extensive reviews by Richard Lynn, the average Ashkenazi IQ in the U.S. is 110 whereas in Israel the average Ashkenazi IQ is barely above the European average. The important issue’s the absolute number of people with IQs in the 130-plus range, and in the U.S. alone, we have 9-10 times as many white people as Jews in this range. So one is wasting his time trying to explain Jewish achievement in terms of intelligence. As many people have pointed out, there’s no way Jewish domination of the media or Jewish control of Congress can be explained by the intelligence factor. The numbers don’t add up. LaGriffe makes the flawed assumption that awards granted to Jews reflect merit to arrive at an average Jewish IQ higher than Lynn’s literature review. The reality is that we have plagiarists undeserving of a Nobel prize being turned into a genius incarnate Nobel Laureate by the Jews: http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Einstein-fraud.html We have some Jews awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics but these ‘geniuses’ have not been able to offer us a solution to the debt-based economy that indebts the majority to a small number of bankers. Read the sick scheme proposed by Stiglitz before he was awarded the Nobel Prize: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/david_duke_kosher_nazi/ (scroll down to the part on the current banking crisis; also includes a discussion of Jewish intelligence in the comments) The Jews promote their own and award their own. Nepotism only goes so far in making your community dominate the upper echelons when you are living among a people so numerous that their people with high intelligence are more numerous than yours by the multiples. The crucial ingredient is a criminal orientation. Start with Jews acquiring control over issuing money
Once you’re able to issue money, you effectively own the government and control the media. Eisner of Disney could easily replace the high-ranked non-Jewish Disney employees with Jews without the non-Jews raising a fuss because the Jewish media control allows the Jews to ensure that disaffected individuals don’t have an outlet to complain about their unfair portrayal as anti-Semites and hence unworthy of their jobs. Special cases In a population of 5 million Jews and 190 million whites, with average IQs of 110 and 100 respectively, and a standard deviation of 15 in a normal distribution, we are looking at roughly 8 Jews and 9 whites in the 180-200 IQ range. So you could cite special cases of achievement requiring extremely high IQs where there will be very substantial Ashkenazi overrepresentation compared to their base prevalence in the general population, but, as a general rule, as it’s clear to numerous people, Jewish achievement has little to do with their small IQ advantage and mostly to do with their criminal orientation. Jews and Chess Diamed mentioned Jewish overrepresentation in Chess and said that this is unlikely to be due to nepotism or plagiarism. I ran into a quote by Booby Fischer, himself of Jewish background, about how the Jews had ruined chess but can’t seem to recall what it was. So there may be a Jewish thing going on, but here’s an interesting comment by someone.
The numbers may not be very precise since this individual may not have accounted for the 10% or so of Jews who are not Ashkenazi, but the Ashkenazi are the Khazar elite who converted to Judaism, and Khazaria was centered in and around the Armenia region. So there may be a regional feature that applies to the people indigenous to this region, but this specific ability need not have a bearing on other mental abilities or achievements. Australian aborigines have spatial location memory superior to Europeans but their average IQ is in the 60s. The Ashkenazi have mental rotation ability inferior to whites and don’t have a strong presence in engineering fields especially dependent on this ability. The verdict (though poorly substantiated here) The single most important factor behind the general success of the Jews is their criminal orientation or more precisely the high frequency of it in the Jewish community. Two important elements of this criminal orientation are parasitism and scavenging. Parasitism can be a very effective strategy. In nature, parasites are a very successful group of organisms. After all, free riding is a successful strategy as long as the host is alive and contributing. Scavenging refers to feeding on decay. The Jews create waste and decay and then effectively feed on it. A classic example is pitting two groups against each other and funding them both for a war. After the war, the Jews move in for the spoils, and both groups are indebted to them. In nature, parasitic animals are different from the scavengers, but among Jews we see lots of people that behave as parasites or scavengers, depending on the situation, and this gives the Jews a tremendous advantage over other groups where few such individuals are found. 105
Posted by Observer on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:28 | # Wow over 200 million white americans by 2050? Didn’t expect to hear that, but personally I’m quite happy to learn of this revelation. I believe that as white populations dwindle whites will become increasingly racially aware, ESPECIALLY once we hit the 50% mark in america and are no longer a majority. If things continue in this manner the Jews, in their attempt to destroy us, will have destroyed themselves because they bought into their own lies. Karma at its finest.. what goes around comes around. 107
Posted by Observer on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:41 | # By the way if I were to make an estimate I would say my genetic makeup is about 1/4 askenazi Jewish, the rest being Dutch and Swedish ancestry. To the world I look white, I have blue eyes, dark blond hair, and pale skin. Do you consider me an abomination or do you welcome my genetic contribution in a racially conscious America in the future? 108
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:12 | # Not trying to derail the thread here… The JQ seems to be a bit of a devil for your average left or right liberal. They simply cannot deny the success of Jews as a group right now. So how do they explain it, one way or another you’ve got them. 1) If we agree that Jews as a group are more intelligent on average. Bingo! Right there thats the death of racial egalitarianism, if one group can be more intelligent, then others can be, have to be, less. Don’t wanna go there, no sir! 2) So maybe Jews as a group value education, learning etc more than others, nothing to do with IQ? Thats still much the same problem as 1. If those attributes can apply positively to one group then it can apply positively (or negatively) to others. Can’t blame minority failure so easily on whitey under that paradigm either. 3) Maybe its not IQ, maybe its co-operation, criminality, Jewish conspiracy. Gulp, that sounds like it might be anti-semitic. Help, run away! If its not 1,2 or 3 what is it? (If anyone can think of 4, let me know, forewarned is forearmed) Your liberal sparring partner has to come up with an explanation that doesn’t include group IQ differences, positive group behaviour or negative group behaviour. Ive certainly managed to wrong foot a few liberals I know with that. Did it change their minds? Not yet, but you’ve got keep sowing the seeds. 109
Posted by Observer on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:27 | # Well even though I’m mostly white I can’t help but sometimes marvel at how much influence such a small group of people has had upon the direction of human history. I mean they even went so far as to create a religion out of their own narcissism proclaiming themselves the chosen people of God and that religion became the foundation for the major world religions Christianity and Islam. Don’t you feel the same way? 110
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:35 | # The correlation between various measures of educational attainment and occupational success forms the principal reason for believing IQ tests a.) measure ANY-thing, and b.) measure general intelligence. Now it appears that posters here believe educational attainment is heavily driven by things like “criminalism”, “scavenging” and “parasitism”. So, IQ tests measure criminalism, parasitism and scavenging perhaps? Are these the ways in which Whites exceed Blacks? Sounds like something Farrakan might say. 111
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:55 | # Homelander - In rural areas of Britain the ethnocentrism, parasitism and criminality of the Gypsy/travellers is well known. They are ‘good’ at those things but I doubt they score well on IQ tests. Jews may be ‘good’ at those things too, but higher IQ allows them to succeed all the more in those activities. 112
Posted by Henkipatto on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:22 | # For those who were wondering about the IQs in academia:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/CoxGroups.aspx
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Roe.aspx
And as a side note: many thanks to the site and the community for being an outstanding source of information, ideas and inspiration. 113
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:15 | # Thanks for those links. With regards to that estimate from Cox, it apparently comes from a book called ‘Volume II: The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses’. As such, I don’t think that IQ is typical for most scientists in academia (in fact, based on my experience there, I am certain of it). The last link suggest that the average IQ in academia is about 133. That’s about what I would have expected. 114
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:19 | # Sorry, just realized I misread the graph in that last link. If I’m reading it properly now, the average IQ for college profs is around 115. Seems quite low. 115
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:12 | # Lurker - You can make your case against Jews (if that’s your kind thing) on account of temperment and character. As you wish. But I don’t believe you can dismiss their IQ scores and educational attainments so easily. Someone ought to get some rough stats on the Jewish presence in American elites generally. How big of a “disproportion” needs to be accounted for, and how widely does it diverge from what one would expect, given an average IQ of (say) 115, and a propensity for attaining educational credentials? Does anything require a “special” explanation? (You know…like “racism” and “sexism” to account for white-male outperformance?) 116
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:52 | # Homelander, You seem to have a perverse desire to accord the Jew far more credit than he deserves for anything. How well does the ADL pay for consulting?
Let’s get something straight. In positing that the Jew has an average IQ of 115, you are saying that a dead-average Jew is smarter than 85% of the White population. Bull-effing-shit! There is not a chance in Hades of this being correct! You can condescend from your pillar of statistics all you bloody want. The fact is that I’ve known real Jews enough to know this is bollocks. Jews are well represented in the social sciences, as well as in the mathematics. This reflects the Jewish propensity for strong verbal and logical-mathematical skills. Never once have I disagreed that the Jews have these skills (there are Jew journalists, psychologists, economists, bankers, etc in superfluity). But explain to me, oh guru, why the Jews are poorly represented, even proportionally speaking, in the hard sciences if they are so much more brilliant than we lowly goyim? Why do Northern Europeans end up doing the bulk of society’s scientific research? You’ll probably say that Jews find more profitable avenues, and that is obviously true. But it also illustrates further the fact that these parasites need us more than we need them. We can have decent lives without treacherous, thieving Yids. But they can’t live without sucking our lifeblood. Wake up, will you? 117
Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:59 | # Sometimes I am just appalled by the opinions expressed here! The hard sciences, and only the hard sciences, can provide higher living standards than those we’ve had before. This progress comes almost exclusively from Whites and high-IQ East Asians. But we’re supposed to fellate Jews because they happen to be master sophists and illusionists? And in spite of the fact that they wait for us to accomplish things, and then vampirically try to profit from our discoveries? No thanks. 118
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:54 | # Why the differences in the periods? From 1901-1951 there were 9 Jews awarded and yet from 1952-2004 that number increased to 39. There is no doubt Jews are highly intelligent. However, are there not other considerations in the granting of the awards. Or are the awards granted to the highest IQ? How else can the discrepancy between the first and second part of the period be explained? In the first 25 years there were six awards. In the second twenty-five there were three. 119
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:07 | #
That’s fairly easy, Desmond. College attendence, to begin with. You do not perform award-winning work in the sciences (in the 20th century) without fairly prolonged professional training. Followed by the time consumed in the research and discovery process. Followed by the time required to obtain recognition. The first generations of Jews to reach our shores arrived in the 1890’s, and were scarce educated at all, still less in English. Next came some refugees in the 30’s and 40’s. Better-educated, but still lacking English, and British-American credentials. You do the math. 120
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:15 | # and Desmond you can imagine some reasons why Jewish achievements were disrupted between 1925 and 1950: the Russian Revolution, the rise of Hitler and WWII. 121
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:10 | #
Firstly, any reading of US history will show that statement to be untrue. Further, your point is that there were no Jews in Europe and, even if there were, that university education was not available to them?
Slezkine, auhtor, The Jewish Century
122
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:10 | # Desmond, you’re being deliberately obtuse. How many Jews attended American universities prior to say the ‘30s? If you’re puzzled as to how Jews could produce so much at 3% to 5% of the US population, what did you expect from before the 1890’s, at say .03%? How much world class scientific research was conducted in the Soviet state prior to WWII? The only thing that comes to mind is Pavlov. Otherwise…it was Lysenko. (If anything, after the war it was more likely that Jewish achievements would be credited to ethnic Great Russians. Probably not too many prizes anyway.) How many prizes were awarded before WWII? How do you know there’s a discrepency? Jews damn sure couldn’t get a university education in Germany after 1933. Nor in most of central Europe. Where were Jewish populations concentrated, do you think? An entire generation of educated Russians FLED the Soviet revolution…probably including most affluent Jews. Yes - the oncoming generation of Russian Jews were welcomed into the Soviet experiment…but not into lectures on higher mathematics and theoretical physics. 123
Posted by Henkipatto on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:29 | #
On the other hand, the gap (15 points) is one standard deviation - about the same as the difference between American Negroid and Europid averages (according to Lynn’s data). It also translates to proportionally more high-enders.
Pavlov’s research on the digestive system, for which he was credited the Nobel Prize, as well as classical conditioning was conducted prior to the Soviet era. 124
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:17 | #
You’re thinking of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. But those didn’t prevent Jews from going to university in Germany. What they did was place reasonable restrictions on Jews moving into élite positions in Germany in a manner exactly corresponding to the set-up, whether de jure or de facto, in Israel today: only Jews are allowed to occupy élite positions, positions of influence, within Israel today, which is exactly as it should be, and the Nuremberg Laws sought to bring the corresponding benefit to Germany. That’s all. Jews could still go to university. Homelander, do you oppose the forced race-replacement of whites? I ask because reading your comments here and at Ian’s blog I don’t feel certain where you stand on that, the key issue. If you’re sound on that, I don’t really care too much about all the other wrong crap you go around posting. 125
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:48 | # One among many instances of Homelander’s wrong crap: http://whiteamerica.us/forum/showpost.php?p=414&postcount=10 (Again, if he’s an unequivocal opponent, in principle, of forced race-replacement, even if he gets tons of other stuff wrong I’ll have no quarrel with him. I’ll just skip most of his posts.) 126
Posted by duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:53 | # Homelander I don’t think Desmond CAN do the math - or any math. Perhaps he is too busy fantasising about fellating Jews? Your point is very well made; thank goodness for some intelligent comment, which is surely what blogs are for, instead of Desmond’s paranoid frothing at the mouth. 127
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:00 | # Notice by the way that the affirmative action which whites are forced to endure in the States (and more and more also elsewhere around the Eurosphere) falls in the same category as both the Nuremberg Laws and Israel’s counterpart to the Nuremberg Laws (Israel’s rules both written and unwritten restricting the access of non-Jews to positions of influence in Israel are the exact counterpart to Germany’s Nuremberg Laws): affirmative action restricts access of Euros to élite positions and positions of influence in the U.S. Do the opinion-molding U.S. Jews oppose affirmative action? Quite the contrary, they’re its staunchest supporters. So it turns out the Jews support Nuremberg-Law-type arrangements, very much so. But not for everybody. 128
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:24 | # Taking a break from your PhD work, Duncan? You’ve made it obvious in another thread that you understand nothing about scientific research. Are you a mathematician? Duncan, what do you study? 129
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:32 | # Henkipatto, That’s not a bad way to think about it. Not all universities or faculties are created equal. Duncan, Is this where you study? 130
Posted by duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:47 | # Dear Dasein I can do two things at once, so I don’t need to “take a break” as you put it. I study economics, interestingly enough, having studied politics and philosophy in my undergrad degree. For a person who can’t spell “Occam’s Razor” correctly, you sure do have a lot of opinions on other people’s abilities. Now, since you are such an academic, why is it you are so resistant to views that don’t accord exactly with your own? Are you not in favour of debate? And before you come up with the obvious retort that you don’t feel my point of view is worth arguing with, my thoughts are… so what? The key thing is,you’re not the debate gatekeeper…. 131
Posted by duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:25 | # Dear Dasein I checked out the university link, but I’m not sure I have understood you… am I correct in understanding that you not only hate jews and blacks, you don’t like women either? Crikey, you must not have too many friends… 132
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:04 | # I see the mark of Zerro on Dasein! Zerro, and his rapier wit, must have been here! Champion of oppressed non-whites! 133
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:09 | # I wonder if “Duncan” isn’t the same witless non-white female who posted the other day as Leyla over at Ian Jobling’s, here: http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/blog/blog/am_i_an_equal_opportunist/#20055 134
Posted by duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:15 | # No, Fred, I am Duncan. You really do see conspiracy theories everywhere… are you wearing your tinfoil hat? 135
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:32 | # Homelander,
Despite the quotas Jews were definitely over represented even at prestige colleges like Harvard.
Prizes before 1939 in physics were 39 with 3 cash prizes awarded to special funds. Six were Jews. No one is saying there is a discrepancy, however, it is curious, considering the high AJ IQ, constant for the entire century, is rewarded much more frequently in the latter half of the century. Slezkine again: The story of the Jews in the early Soviet Union is similar to the story of the Jews in America. That is, they were especially successful in the realms of education, journalism, medicine, and other professions that were central to the functioning of Soviet society, including science. Duncan’s projecting again.
136
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:36 | # Yes, I’m trying to wash it off. Leyla, like Duncan, is a dimwit proud of being in grad school. You could be right, Fred. But I’m not sure. He/she/it used ‘fantasise’ and ‘favour’ earlier, making me think he/she/it is British or Scottish (name would fit). Leyla gave the impression she is American, and perhaps studying in NYC. I can’t imagine grad schools in NYC would have to go to the UK to fill their AA slots. Couldn’t help but notice that Homelander had also posted above her, talking about the ‘middle-men’ involved in the slave trade. Homelander, there is a reason that Farrakhan hates Jews. 137
Posted by Biased Jew Academia on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:58 | #
Western academia has indeed been massively infiltrated by Jews - once Jews became the main gatekeepers of Western (especially American) academia over the past few decades through high verbal IQ and good test scores, they have began to allow mostly just Jews and East Asians in to the tenured slots in many top universities, law/med schools, and other top academia-related positions. With Jews now doing most of the hiring and acceptance of new students in top-tier academia (look in to the names of the people in the admissions offices of top universities - at least 75% are Jews), they conduct interviews wherein the Jewish interviewers identify the Jews who are applying and hire or accept the Jewish applicants 99% of the time over the non-Jewish applicants in a twisted form of reverse affirmative action - they use ‘Jewdar’ during admissions interviews or Jewish surnames to identify fellow Jews and hire or accept them long before they will consider hiring or accepting a non-Jew, especially over intelligent and high achieving non-Jewish Whites who they perceive as a threat to Jewish hegemony. 138
Posted by duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:59 | # Dear Des It wasn’t me who first started talking about fellating Jews… Projecting? Not me. Sounds more like a Freudian slip on your part. 139
Posted by duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:05 | # Dear Fred and Dasein Further evidence of your paranoia is the fact that you are giving serious consideration to the fact that I might be someone other than a man calledn Duncan who is going to absurd lengths to camouflage my true identity in order to post on this blog. Now, seriously, why would I do that? Or is this just a diversionary tactic from you? 140
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:39 | # Duncan, what are these absurd lengths? Not giving us your last name and address? Is the temptation so great? Are you biking 10 miles to an internet cafe to keep your IP hidden? Not sure where the effort is.
Yes, it is interesting that you are doing a PhD in economics with that background. Not sure where I have written this, but you do know that there are alternate spellings? It’s ok Duncan, you’re not crazy. A question for Homelander and Diamed: Do you feel that Jewish IQ alone explains their over-representation as Nobel prize and Fields medal winners? If you were to build a model to explain it based on high IQ and ethnocentric ‘dirty’ tricks, what relative weight would you assign to each component? 141
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:47 | #
This is complete nonsense. Max Planck dwarfs Einstein in terms of impact on physics (but not popular culture). And his hairdo could give Einstein a run for his money:
142
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:55 | # I agree that dismissing Jewish accomplishment as solely, or even principally, the result of malfeasance is sour grapes. But I would add an asterisk of some size when presenting it. 143
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:59 | # Einstein and Bohr? Really? Charles Murray must be notified. Apparently he got it wrong. Physics Index score 144
Posted by Duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:09 | # OK Dasein, what’s you real name, surname and address? I’m sure your parents didn’t call you “the One”... Fairs fair. 145
Posted by Duncan on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:12 | # Dasein, I have just googled William of Occam and, starngely, threr are no alternate spellings. Curious. So, put your money where your mouth is and tell us about your background. 146
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:32 | #
Duncan, you’ve got to be kidding me. You did a degree in philosophy?
What are these absurd lengths of which you speak? I want to learn from the genius PhD candidate. Desmond, I think even Murray admits that some entries on that list get inflated ranks due in part to their constant reference in popular culture, M. Curie and Einstein being two that I would single out. Diamed, what matters is where the smart Whites are. If they’re in Belorussia, they’re not going to get the same chances to make groundbreaking discoveries as if they were at MIT or Harvard. I don’t think you’re giving enough consideration to the effect of networking in science. Pedigree, pedigree, pedigree. If you’re on personal terms with the editors of Science or Nature, they are more likely to invite a review from you than someone else in your field whom they don’t know. What I would like to see is more IQ testing on the American Jewish population. And I’d like to know to what extent the distribution is non-Normal at the upper tail end for both Whites and Jews. The success is due to some combination of high IQ and ethnocentric behaviour, I’m just not sure how much of each. 147
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:36 | # Modern is “of the present or very recent time;” which excludes both Einstein and Bohr. It would be helpful if you used the language to convey the appropriate meaning. If this is true,
then what was the point of posting
because its meaningless.
Being a righteous gentile will not gain you favour. Derbyshire’s Law:“ANYTHING WHATSOEVER said by a Gentile about Jews will be perceived as antisemitic by someone, somewhere.” 148
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:51 | # Bloody hell, Duncan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor And BTW, I am not the one who misspelled it. WTF are you talking about ‘put my money where my mouth is’? Duncan, your verbal IQ is too fucking low for me to even bother replying to you anymore. Begone, vile cretin! 149
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:36 | # To answer Fred Scrooby’s question…Diamed said it all:
My caveat there was really meant to cover both East Asians and Jews - two groups that exceed whites on average intelligence, but who are NOT (I would say) globally superior. E. Asians are only a shade smarter than all whites…but probably not even, compared to Nordics. Besides which, Asians lack qualities of creative vision, imagination and a sort of soulfulness found abundantly amongst whites. Jews are a LOT smarter than whites… but to me resemble what Buddhists call pretas - hell-beings. Not so much demons, as lost souls. The already-Damned. Lately I’ve been reading a lot of Belloc and Chesterton on Jews. I feel they have a good sense for the problem. If I were to know of a certainty that the human future would contain only non-Whites, I would prefer to see North Asians prevail. I would also prefer that we dragged the Jews off to Hell with us! 150
Posted by Homelander on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:07 | # To return to the original point of Diamed’s post, I believe he is quite right that Jewish elites are inevitably seeing their control of our culture and society decline. Partly this is due simply to dwindling numbers…but also to a sort of vicious dialectic: Non-whites are simpler, and less sensitive than whites…and Jews can’t dominate them, the way they can us. The very processes by which Jews have weakened the control Gentiles have over their own lives have turned on Jews themselves. We have seen something like this before. Jews were an important component of early Bolshevism. But even the Soviet regime had become fairly anti-Semitic under Stalin - please, let’s not argue about this! - and later still, forces have been set in motion which are extinquishing the underlying Russian nation altogether. Jews aren’t going to fare well under Kazakhs and Tatars! I really believe Affirmative Action was/is a desperate strategy by retreating Jewish elites - fill in the abandoned slots with non-threatening Latinos (blacks hardly matter) Asians, shiksas and queers. Probably accounts for SOME of the Jew/Goy discrepency. Asians aren’t numerous enough (yet) and otherwise only straight white non-Hispanic males can really compete with Jews. But an America with declining Jewish influence isn’t going to just revert to 1910, with cell-phones. It’s sort of like an Old-Growth Forest. Once the old growth has been razed by development or catastrophe…even left fallow, the abandoned tract will be invaded by persistent scrubs and weeds. It is this “new growth” we need to focus on - not the previous, and now retreating vermin. 151
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:02 | #
It may be for you, Diamed, but not for me. Homelander, do you oppose government-enforced race-replacement of white people, yes or no? Regarding Einstein: he wasn’t the first to propose the Special Theory of Relativity. That honor belongs to Frenchman Henri Poincaré and Dutchman Hendrik Lorentz who finally deduced it in its entirety — in its entirety — after working on the problem for something like fifteen years or more (more like twenty, actually, along with other scientists). Einstein was the first to propose the General Theory of Relativity, as well as other firsts having to do, if memory serves, with the Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect. Einstein was a great physicist. But Poincaré deduced the entire Theory of Special Relativity before Einstein published his 1905 paper and should get credit as its discoverer. The Special Theory of Relativity should be known as the Poincaré Theory (or the Poincaré-Lorentz Theory, or the Poincaré-Lorentz-Einstein Theory). It is false and wrong to call it the Einstein Theory of Relativity. It’s almost an outrage. I’ve discussed this elsewhere at this site. The Special Theory of Relativity is Poincaré‘s. For further information simply do a web-search on the Theory of Relativity and Henri Poincaré and follow the links on this subject of priority whereever they take you. It’s also discussed quite a bit at Wikipedia, under I forget which heading but simply go to the article on Special Relativity and there’s bound to be a paragraph on the dispute as to priority of discovery, then you can get into that set of links and follow them around the web. If you have a physics background you’ll be able to read the more technical discussions. About three hours following the links and reading will show anyone unequivocally that Poincaré was the discoverer of Special Relativity, not Einstein. In my other discussions of this I posted the 1905 papers themselves, of both Einstein and Poincaré (one of the latter’s was submitted in the summer of ‘05 then published in January 1906. If you have a physics background yo can read the papers themselves. 152
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:15 | # Henri Poincaré, incidentally, was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, on the level of men like Gauss and Euler. This was an extremely prolific, powerful, and deep mathematician and thinker. He was also one of the greatest mathematical physicists of all time. Hendrik Lorentz was renowned as THE greatest theoretical physicist in the world during his time. These two were not obscure men; quite the contrary, they were giants. 153
Posted by Homelander on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:35 | #
Yes. I oppose government-enforced race-replacement of white people. In fact, I oppose NON-government-enforced race-replacement of white people, also. I oppose race-replacement of white people. I believe whites should live in all-White societies. I don’t suppose ALL whites can be compelled to live in all-White societies - but I am sure that many whites (and, in time, most) will prefer to live in such societies. Therefore we must create these Homelands. Some potential Homelands already exist, in the sense that some traditional European societies still contain close to 85% whites, and can easily be purged of non-whites. Others (including America) are so badly compromised that probably only some kind of partition could create all-white nations out of the traditional entities. Whites have screwed themselves bad…and there’s a price to be paid. 154
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:19 | # Thank you for replying, Homelander. Getting back to priority for Special Relativity: The question is why did Einstein get all the credit, and the real discoverer none? I think it may have had to do with the fact that Relativity was unknown to the public until Sir Arthur Edington confirmed General Relativity with his solar eclipse observations in 1919. With his findings, knowledge of Einstein spread, because what Edington’s observations confirmed was General Relativity. Then, in people’s minds both Relativities became associated with Einstein, not just General. Why didn’t Poincaré step forward? Because at the time he died (he died young of cancer) in, I think, 1909, neither his name nor Einstein’s had been widely associated with Relativity since it was known only to a handful of specialists, so there was no reason for him to make any claims as to priority: anyone looking into it would have seen the record of his and Lorentz’s work. Also, Poincaré was apparently an extremely modest man, not in the habit of promoting himself. Why didn’t Einstein step forward later when he started getting all the credit, and make sure Poincaré received credit as the discoverer? I don’t know. He certainly knew all about Poincare’s work. It’s a mystery. I think mainly what happened was Edington’s work made Einstein famous for General Relativity, then everyone assumed Einstein had come with both General and Special, not being familiar enough with the history of the theory or with the publications themselves to know Einstein was a Johnny-come-lately with his 1905 paper: the theory had already been fully worked out and published. Whatever the reasons for the misattribution it’s never too late to correct the mistake: it should be called the Poincaré Special Theory of Relativity (or the other names I proposed in my earlier comment). 155
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:23 | # Correcting the mistake would actually simplify the terminology: the Special Theory could be called Poincaré‘s Theory of Relativity and the General Theory Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. That way you wouldn’t need to always put “Special” and “General,” just “Poincaré” and “Einstein.” 156
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:14 | # I just skimmed the Wiki article on priority — it contains some weird stuff. Look at this for example:
So, Poincaré was the first to publish E = mc^2 and Einstein was the first to publish ... that’s right, E = mc^2 but five years after Poincaré published it. But Einstein “was the first” to publish it. Interesting. 157
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:40 | # Again, what’s the Special Theory of Relativity? It’s: a) nothing can go faster than light; b) E = mc^2; c) time dilation, length contraction in the direction of motion (the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction), and mass increase with speed; d) there are no absolute inertial frames of reference. But based on the Lorentz transformations and Poincaré‘s work (as well as the work of others, all building on the implications of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Maxwell’s Equations) all this was known and published prior to Einstein’s 1905 paper. Question: All of it? Answer: All of it. Question: Nothing was new with Einstein? Answer: Nothing was new with Einstein. Question: So, what did Einstein do to deserve the credit for the theory? Answer: nothing anyone can determine. Question: Why did he get the credit then? Answer: That’s what lots of people are trying to figure out. No one seems to know. Question: Are we talking about anything other than the Special Theory here? Answer: No, only the Special Theory. 159
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:09 | #
Where? Media is still dominated by them.
So where is this decline? 160
Posted by danielj on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:50 | # Here is the Jewish version of Hufschmid’s biography of Einstein that makes many of the points Fred makes: THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SAINT EINSTEIN by Christopher Jon Bjerknes. 161
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:33 | #
Salk didn’t cure polio. He took credit for the work of others. 162
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:37 | #
There most certasinly ARE alternate spellings, such as Ockham. 163
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:40 | # In fact, it is more fair to say that Ockham is the generally accepted name, while Occam is an alternate spelling. 164
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:49 | #
And what about Olinto de Pretto, whose paper Einstein presumably read in 1903? 165
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:55 | #
“Dasein” doesn’t mean “the One”; it means existence (literally, “being there”), as in “Der Kampf ums Dasein”. 166
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:23 | # He could be forgiven, except he claims to have a degree in philosophy. Not sure how he’s going to manage with this PhD in economics if he can’t even use Google. First hit for Dasein for me is to Wikipedia entry explaining its use in philosophy (in particular Heidegger’s). Top hit for Occam’s Razor is, again, to Wikipedia entry whose first line says there are alternate spellings. Duncan, no hard feelings. I wish you well. 167
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:42 | # I propose the following: the Special Theory of Relativity henceforth be called “The Poincaré-Lorentz Theory of Relativity” and the General Theory of Relativity “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity” (largely worked out and handed to Einstein on a silver platter, around 95% complete, by David Hilbert and Herman Minkowski, the latter being Hibert’s good buddy from their undergraduate days together at the Albertina University of Königsberg.) (By the way, remember Leonard Euler’s “The Seven Bridges of Königsberg” problem? In high school I used to wonder where Königsberg was because you couldn’t find it on maps. Likewise, I used to wonder where Prussia was — you couldn’t find that on maps either. Much later I learned — both had been erased. And I learned the reasons why. People who know my commentary from this blog know my feelings about that.) 168
Posted by duncan on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:31 | # Like poking crabs with a stick So long again suckers, again Sarah, aka Duncan 169
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:59 | # Looks like Sarah’s another mal-baisée (Armor will know what that means) who comes here to take out her frustrations. What’s the matter, Sarah, no decent white guy will touch you with a ten-foot pole? Don’t fret dear, there are tons of Negro dregs who’d give you a tumble — it’s just a question of you facing reality about yourself, hun. Now run along, darling, and try to locate one. 170
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:56 | #
Any evidence that he did? 171
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:05 | # Salk was working with (or for) the people who developed the first polio vaccince. He “discovered” the vaccine in the same sense that Columbus “discovered” America, Einstein “discovered” the theory of special relativity, or Al Kooper “discovered” Lynyrd Skynyrd: he was the first to plug it into the Jewish neural network. Salk is acclaimed for not patenting the vaccine, but the reason was not philanthropy; it was that the patent office and courts do not make rulings based on media reports. 172
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:23 | # This is not the full story, but this AP article gives some of the flavor of what happened: Salk took all the credit, but others helped him develop polio vaccine 173
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:07 | # I didn’t know Jonas Salk was so ungenerous with crediting the work of the other polio researchers including, apparently, his own professor. That article is very persuasive. In regard to the Einstein Special Relativity (SR) issue, however, I want to make clear that, while priority claims in science often clash (Newton and Leibnitz over calculus, Bell and whoever over the telephone, so-and-so and so-and-so over television, over the jet engine, and so on) and we often hear of resentment over the lack of acknowledgement of key contributions of others (Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray crystallographic results in Watson & Crick’s discovery of DNA’s structure, so-and-so’s (was it Sir Martin Reese’s?) female graduate student in the discovery of the quasar according to a “scandalized” Fred Hoyle, Rutherford’s grad students in the discovery of the dense atomic nuclei with the alpha-particle scattering, etc), the Poincaré-Lorentz-Einstein thing is, I would say, unique in the annals of science in the total lack, literally the total lack, of anything significant contributed by the Einstein paper that was new. In it Einstein gave a derivation of certain equations, such as the famous E = mc^2, which had already been worked out and published — ALL OF THE EQUATIONS OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY, NO EXCEPTIONS, ALREADY WORKED OUT AND PUBLISHED — by Poincaré and Lorentz BEFORE EINSTEIN. It’s as if your math teacher assigned the class to derive the Law of Cosines and you did it a slightly different way, and everyone then gave you credit for discovering the Law of cosines. Sorry, the Law of Cosines was already known. If you saw a way to prove it using vectors or whatever, great. You’re a clever student. BUT YOU DIDN’T DISCOVER THE LAW OF COSINES. It was already known and published. Somebody else discovered it and was the first to write it down, not you. Well, somebody else was the first to discover and write down the Theory of SR, not Einstein. It’s that simple. Building on the work of others is what all scientists do. Isaac Newton actually got the inverse-square law from Halley, the Astronmer Royal or whatever. One of Newton’s Laws was merely a word-for-word re-statement of Galileo (moving bodies keep moving unless acted on by a force) and he relied heavily on Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion. But Newton also made huge original contributions of his own. Copernicus was indebted to Nicolas of Cusa. But Copernicus also made huge original contributions of his own. Einstein was a great physicist and made huge original contributions of his own in a few areas. But not in SR. In SR he added nothing significant to Poincaré. So, why did he get all the credit? My theory, again, is people assumed the creator of General Relativity also created SR. He didn’t, and that needs to be rectified. Yes there was Voigt, Fitzgerald, di Pretto, etc., as well as Poincaré and Lorentz, but the bulk of the work was done by this last pair, Poincaré and Lorentz. Einstein contributed nothing of significance to SR in his 1905 paper. 174
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:25 | #
I have some problems with the “whites sound like the blacks they deride when they talk about Jews” thing: 1) Jews blame the white man for everything, especially Jewish malfeasance. 2 is something your typical lemming/black/Jew REALLY REALLY doesn’t like hearing. I’ve had this idea censored everywhere, consistently, except in free speech zones like MR and, formerly, Taki’s. Steve Sailer doesn’t like it, much less your average lemming. 175
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:59 | # Fascinating discussions about the particulars of the history of science, btw. Gotta love the Internet. Freedom of information = Jewish kryptonite. 176
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:06 | # One one hand, the Jewish question is impossible to disentangle. It’s obvious to anyone who’s interested and honest that the question is compelling. It’s also obvious that experimentation is the only way to get an answer. But oddly, one side of the debate doesn’t want any experimentation. They don’t even want the debate. Which brings me to the other hand; the Jewish question is easily answered. Jews are fanatical about sticking close by their golden goose, and do not tolerate dissent; they obviously need us a whole hell of a lot more than we need them (no comparison at all, really). Am I missing something? Question seems answered. Obviously we can go on about details, as we have here, but the question’s been answered. 177
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:11 | # Oh, it’s been mentioned already no doubt, but I was just thinking that Jews are flexible enough to roll with admixture. Their identity is tribal. That argues against Judaism as an EGS, in a way, but as JWH has pointed out (may be misattributing that), EGI is far less about one’s genetic history than it is about a people’s genetic present. 178
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:06 | #
I disagree. In The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation, Matt Ridley refers to humans as “societies of genes”. The same notion applies equally well to organized groups of humans, and it is theoretically possible that certain core genes shared by all or most humans within the group can secure their continuity by sacrificing less-common genes whose lobby, if you will, is less powerful. The core genes can temporarily ally themselves with other genes and then cut their ties when a different alliance seems more profitable. In that way, admixture is not inconsistent with a group evolutionary strategy. 179
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:08 | #
Excuse me, not Reese but Hewish; the grad student was Jocelyn Bell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsars Sir Fred Hoyle (who was an impressive great genius in my view, notwithstanding that he never got a Nobel), perhaps out of jealousy of Hewish’s Nobel Prize, leveled accusations of impropriety against Hewish for not seeing to it Bell shared the award. Look at the Nobel awarded to Penzias and Wilson: when they couldn’t rid a radio antenna of annoying static, they asked John Wheeler (or was it Robert Dicke? I forget) at Princeton, right nearby, what it was, and Wheeler (or Dicke?) told them it was the microwave background left over from the big bang, a subject he’d done pioneering research on. Penzias and Wilson, who had no idea what they were picking up on their antenna until they were told, got the Nobel Prize. You wonder why Wheeler, the guy who told them, and who’d done all the original research on the subject, didn’t at least share the Prize with them, but he didn’t. 180
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:21 | #
Quite true, and that’s crucial and should never be lost sight of. Including the “no comparison” part — it’s not even close. They need us. We don’t need them. 181
Posted by skye on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:32 | # Fred et al., interesting. What if Jews have evolved as a small group to exploit a larger group. Therefore they’re specialised to that group (eg Euros), right. Now imagine they find themselves within an even bigger group (say Chinese), who have different head space (eg more orientated to spatial thinking and less susceptible to verbal manipulation). 182
Posted by Homelander on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:42 | #
This feels intuitively right - as regards Ashkenazi Jews. Long-term parasites…and perhaps by now, symbionts? Nature suggests few examples of a host losing a long-term rider, save under circumstances which are disastrous for the host. Better to evolve a symbiosis…or at least a high tolerance. Jews aren’t numerous enough to be competitors. Other races are. 183
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:22 | # Jews play three roles: parasite, HIV-like immunosuppressant opening the way to opportunistic infections, and predator. Notice that if Jews were a parasite but a helpful one, like those birds that peck the ticks off rhinoceros hides, for which the rhinoceroses are very grateful, we’d have no complaint and wouldn’t be calling them names like bloodsucker and parasite. So you have to wonder why they first harm, then try to kill the host species. It must be they cannot make a living as parasite alone, but for some reason as yet poorly understood must actually finish by exterminating the host. (I defy anyone on the planet to come to this thead and maintain that the 1965 immigration law was not a Jewish attempt to exterminate the United States.) I agree with skye, though, to the effect they’ve almost certainly evolved to selectively infect Euro societies, so their tricks wouldn’t work on the Chinese for example. That they don’t work on other Semites is by now crystal-clear as well. They’ve evolved to selectively parasitize Euro societies. Take a tapeworm. A tapeworm cannot make a living outside someone’s intestine. It just can’t, it’s too specialized as a parasite. Pull it out of a person’s intestine, and it’ll fight tooth-and-nail to get back in. The Jews are like that — they cannot tolerate being expelled from any Euro country. Euros could tolerate being expelled from Israel; Euros would have very little problem with that — but Jews cannot tolerate being expelled from a Euro country. That’s because they’re geared to a parasitical existence. 184
Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:02 | # “Jews cannot tolerate being expelled from a Euro country.” In fact, they can. Some of them have moved to Israel. 185
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:44 | #
The Jews as a whole cannot tolerate living apart from Euros. Euros can tolerate living apart from Jews (and from each other: Frenchmen can tolerate living apart from Englishmen and vice-versa). Jews can’t reciprocate. How do the Jews plan on living when, thanks to them, where Euros once stood there remains only mystery meat? Will they enmesh themselves in mystery-meat “society” as they did in Euro society, then go about methodically destroying it? How will they destroy it, given that their preferred method is always turning the target population into mystery meat, and it’s already mystery meat? Will they risk turning into mystery meat themselves? Will they prosper as well in mystery-meat society? So, these are questions. We’ll have to wait and see. There are seeming paradoxes associated with the broad phenomenon of parasite host-destruction. 186
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:24 | # On the topic of Jewish destructiveness of their hosts, here’s Zionism Founding Father Theodor Herzl talking about Zionism Founding Father Max Nordau:
(Hat tip: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jaime_le_nuif/#c54317 ) (Max Nordau: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Nordau ) On the subject of seemingly paradoxical Jewish behavior: Canada’s own version of Bull Foxman is apparently someone named Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC): http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jaime_le_nuif/#c54646 . Publisher and Canadian Human Rights Commission target Ezra Levant shows, in the concluding paragraphs of this next log entry, http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/jews-and-censorship.html , that Bernie Farber and the CJC are paradoxically supporting the Canadian Moslem “Human Rights” plaintiffs against, in effect, the Jews. Why? It may simply be that it’s like the fable of the scorpion who stings the frog in the middle of the Euphrates: because they have to; it’s in their nature: they have no possibility of acting otherwise. (Hat tip for the second Ezra Levant link above: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-GASR.html ) 187
Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:59 | #
This is why Jewish supremacists should be called supremacists, while white nationalists should be recognized as survivalists. We want to be left alone, whereas the Jews want to be around us, boss us around, race-replace and race-mix us, as if we were their pets. Whereas third-world immigrants see white society as a giant fridge where they can help themselves, Jewish supremacists see us as their pets. 188
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:53 | # n/a compiles some interesting data.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/01/wasps-vs-jews-notes-2.html And from a Michael Jones article;
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/01/wasps-vs-jews-notes-3.html Post a comment:
Next entry: From today’s papers ...
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
In any case, I needn’t play your game.
&filetimestamp=20060318142259
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:14 | #
Hoist on their own petard! Serves the god damned bastards right!