Just hate this guy and everything will be fine.
On Thursday this week the well-known biologist, atheist and author Richard Dawkins tweeted,
All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.
The reactions to this true and easily verifiable statement have been pretty negative,
The Guardian: “as rational as the rantings of an extremist Muslim cleric”
Telegraph: “Dawkins has gone from criticising the religion itself to criticising Muslims, as a vast bloc.”
Daily Mail: “Half of the ten Muslim laureates were awarded the prize in the 21st century, during which Trinity College has only had one prize winner.”
New Statesman: “…on what planet are Nobel Prizes the best metric for achievement or progress?”
The blogosphere, being more representative of the Western population, is less polite but more balanced with people defending Dawkins.
Reality Bites
So why are the critics so angry with Dawkins? No one contests that his statement is true, indeed the truth of it may well be the source of their indignation. The politically correct people, common in the mainstream media, are not willing to give up on their vision of multiculturalism – and if Islam is intellectually barren then mass immigration of Muslims to the West may not be such a good idea. So if their political ideas clash with reality – then screw reality.
And the reality is actually much worse than Dawkins tweet suggests. Of the ten Muslim Nobel Prize winners, only two are in hard science. Six are in the controversial peace category and two are in literature. Furthermore, Orhan Pamuk, winner in the literature category, claims to be a “cultural Muslim”,
So I’m a Muslim who associates historical and cultural identification with this religion. I do not believe in a personal connection to God; that’s where it gets transcendental.
Which probably few of the world’s Muslims would acknowledge as a true Muslim. And the winner in physics, Abdus Salam belonged to the Ahmadiyya sect which most Muslims don’t recognize as part of their religion. That leaves us with two clear-cut Muslims winning outside the joke category of peace. On a population of 1.6 billion. Is this just a coincidence or in fact an indication of a bigger problem?
Not So Smart…
Of course, the Nobel Prize is not the only measure of intellectual achievement or level of civilization. All around the world psychologists have people take IQ tests to measure their cognitive abilities. The smartest predominantly Muslim country is Kazakhstan with a national average IQ of 94, followed by Malaysia at 92. These scores correlate strongly with a nation’s GDP. Basically, no country below 95 is doing well, unless it has enormous amounts of oil or if it’s a tax haven. And for anyone who thinks high IQs are the result of money rather than vice versa, the stats for super-rich Muslim oil countries tell a different story – Brunei 91, Qatar 78 and United Arab Emirates 84.
But Highly Corrupt…
The above mentioned United Arab Emirates and Qatar share the highest spot (being the least corrupt) at 27th on the Corruptions Perceptions Index. But overall, corruption is high in the entire Muslim world. Malaysia and Turkey share second place at 54th. Many of the countries now attempting to achieve democracy are among the most corrupt in the world – Egypt at 118, Syria at 144, and Libya at 160 of 174 nations.
And, Less Known, Very Inbred
Inbreeding is a topic rarely discussed in mainstream media even though it correlates strongly to both intelligence and corruption. I hope that we can all agree that having sex with your relatives is a bad idea and that having children with them is even worse. So how does this relate to Islam? If we compare PEW’s map of the percentage of Muslims by country with a map of the frequency of consanguineous marriages from Consang.net we can see that they are almost identical,
PEW’s map of Muslims by country.
Global frequency of marriages between first cousins or closer.
This may seem like a cheap shot, but inbreeding is also a correlate of intelligence, corruption and obviously congenital diseases. And it probably also contributes to a hostile tribalism or clanishness.
What to Do About It?
Some critics will blame the shortcomings of the Muslim world on the West, but intelligence is a highly inheritable trait which is very resistant to external influences. For instance, malnutrition has decreased drastically in recent decades around the world but it hasn’t had any big impact on IQ scores, and those super rich oil countries remain at a very low level. Corruption is a strong correlate of intelligence and can hardly be due to Western influence either. If it was we’d expect South America to be as corrupt as the Middle East. And Western oppression has probably not compelled Muslims to marry their cousins, uncles and nieces while leaving the oppressed of other faiths to decide for themselves.
Maybe we shouldn’t blame anyone. The problems of the Muslim world are no doubt a matter of both genes and religion, and date back a long time. Perhaps they should fix their own problems; and maybe we can help them, then again maybe we can’t. I don’t have the answers.
But I’m pretty sure that Dawkins is right that there is a big problem and that Islam is a threat to the West. If we import the people, we import their problems. Looking at the situation in my own country of Sweden this is very clear when you look at the situation in the town of Malmö, our Muslim murder capital. After several cases of assault, vandalism and harassment towards Jews making many leave the country, Ilmar Reepalu, the mayor of Malmö commented,
There haven’t been any attacks on Jewish people, and if Jews from the city want to move to Israel that is not a matter for Malmo.
Again, screw reality.
And honestly why aren’t the pundits who attack Dawkins doing the same to astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who says exactly the same thing? No, they wouldn’t attack a Black guy, especially not a smart and sympathetic one like Degrasse Tyson. That would look bad. And perception is at the heart of the attitude of the politically correct. They rather save face than save Western civilization.
Staffan's Personality Blog 
I like Dawkins and I think that he’s right, but the problem with all the religions is that they can’t use the logic, they use the faith and the fear. With the fear they oblige the people to believe the most absurds idea and in the muslim world if samebody isn’t religious is killed. (sorry for my english)
There is actually a similar mechanism among the politically correct. I’m certain many don’t believe in their dogma themselves but fear the consequences of opposing it. I believe it’s for this reason that the PC collective is sometimes referred to as the Cathedral.
It’s very likely that religion is human nature, we can’t escape it. It’s what we do with it that matters.
http://www.iqtestsidan.se
Reblogged this on The Syed Atheist.
I do not understand why HBD bloggers protect both the Jews, all right, I totally agree that Islam forced to disgenia and today most Muslims are the end result of these attitudes. However, in one text, saying he regretted the attacks of Muslims against Jews in Sweden is quite incongruous with the facts and reality, after all, were themselves Ashkenazi that has pushed a policy of genocide against all the Swedish people. And you ignore it.
The hostile ethnic tribalism happens also for the Jews and a macro level. I understand that the Jews ceased with consanguineous marriages in the same proportion as they did in the past, but it is interesting to see that continue committing attitudes quite pitiful how to architect bloody revolutions and dissolving ethnic and cultural Western nations.
Before we try to understand the attitude of the Western media about Dawkins, should read The Culture of Critic by Kevin Mcdonald or at least consider that the most intelligent people in the world can also be a pest and direct your intelligence to do evil.
The main reasons for the Swedish situation are false Swedes, blue-eyed, of Jewish heritage who pushed the multicultural agenda, even in a country with no history of colonization. Ie neither logical style sadomasochistic (atone for the evils of the past) there.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/the-jewish-origins-of-multiculturalism-in-sweden/
First off, I deleted the clip that looked porny, hope you don’t mind.
As for the Jews, they seem divided between tribals and secular/liberals who display the same naive attitude to Muslims in Israel as Swedes do to Muslims in Sweden.
But yes, I’m kind of protective of law-abiding citizens who get physically assaulted because of their religion. And I don’t see a big threat to the West coming from that direction. The Jews have been in Sweden for a long time, they have a lot of power for sure, but they haven’t influenced our culture. They paid enormous amounts of tax during the democratic socialist era and made significant contributions to research and higher education on top of that.
Then came the Muslims in the 1980s and everything changed for the worse, fast. You’ll find Muslims who even admit to reporters that raping Swedish girls is not a big deal. They are involved in all sorts of crime, especially violent crime, they patrol the streets in some areas and instruct women how to dress etc. Many want sharia laws.
Jews are nothing like that. Some are of course capitalists who like multiculturalism as a way to divide and conquer. But all capitalists do that. Some are tribal and oy too much about the Holocaust, but they don’t expect special benefits, they don’t feel entitled to do whatever they want. It’s a more defensive tribalism, trying to protect their own culture rather than impose it on others.
I do not care. I think I made a faux pas because it is available on you tube.
Well, there are several types of causalists, is the pro-white movement is in HBD.
Causalist The term was coined to express a variety of opinions regarding the decline of the West or at least at the beginning of a period rather severe for us all.
At most, I’m the kind that does not like to study details of the causes of this nature, I like where I should be detail better and where there is appropriate time for it. Not in the case of the decadence of the West.
As a result I came to the conclusion that the root of all evil that the West lives came the symbiosis of Western and Jewish elite. To me it is clear that the West is discarding the current working and middle classes of European descent, ie, the natives themselves, to accept a population of low intelligence and low levels of psychoticism, to better meet their aspirations slavers. They want to turn their country into a Brazil.
As you saw in the video, the Jews did not seem too concerned about hiding that fact, are shamelessly pushing globalist agenda for Western nations, aiming to undermine their ethnic and cultural identities.
And why do they do it? (of course, with the connivance of many white liberals)
First, historic grievance against white Europeans
Second, because it is good for the Jews (?)
They need to eliminate competition and whites are the only ones that can measure forces with them. It’s more like a tactic capitalist.
Third, because the undermining ethnic identities, Jews create companies focused on individualism supreme, destroying the cohesion of the group, which has been effective in expelling them (hundreds of times) of all European nations.
I disagree with you about the supposed differences between Jews. Jews were Americans and Europeans, who fought for the state of Israel. For me, the liberal Jews in Israel are many of them, pretending on immigration to the country, after all, they must form a bond of political similarity with Europeans, Americans and Canadians.
I do not think it is possible that a people who went through a drain numerous genetic and acquired genetic diseases and maintained a standard genetic mating endogamous, as high as the Muslims (the majority of Jews are cousins to each other) until the nineteenth century, can provide the same variety of types that have European Caucasians.
Jews act as genetic hives, you’ve read about the American meritocracy, and the way the double sense that Jews play on” white privilege” when they are convenient, always blaming the white man?
You’ve probably heard of the Holocaust denial as well as many other issues, extremely controversial, as their intense involvement in the bloody Russian revolution.
The Jews, in my opinion, using Muslims as scapegoats like the magicians do magic with your left hand and hide the secret of magic with the right hand.
All these behaviors are characteristic of psychopaths, cold people, highly intelligent and calculating and thinking in every detail for their criminal activities taking advantage of the naivete of others.
Do not just take a standard mating exogamic to stop this kind of behavior, it is also important to broaden the genetic diversity, which in my opinion, is quite low among Jews, particularly the Ashkenazi.
Marry within a small population where everyone is half cousins, is the same as marriage between cousins in fact, there is no difference.
When the European blames Muslim only, but not who pushed the mass immigration also tend to look favorably on the state of Israel.
You must think, this guy is paranoid …
Only the paranoid to understand the other. All self-respecting human being and especially European ones, tend to project their self consciousness on the other, waiting for him to act less like you. Simple as that.
I’m not trying to conclude here that all Jews are like that, but a good part of it is, it seems.
Barbara Lerner Spectre is not the official spokesperson for all Jews, Swedish or otherwise, regarding third-world immigration and multiculturalism. Has anyone invoking her name while verbally attacking Jews ever bothered to ask the beleaguered Malmo Jews what they think of her opinions?
They think
”It’s time to move to Israel”
Well, it was she who said that” the Jews will essential part of the transformation of Europe for multiculturalism”
Muslims do not promote ” anti Semitism ”, they promote what is happening in their nations. The rape of Palestine, the warlords in countries that are under the perimeter of the territory of the true ”promised land”.
It is not possible that so many geniuses of the past and many civilizations have been mistaken about the ”over” behavior of these people.
There are only two paths
Or Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, medieval Europeans, Ottomans, Muslims, Germans, French, English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and many others are wrong and the Jews are right (poor victims of envy of others) or is otherwise .
I don’t have any problem with it in principle, but as a stand alone statement it seems to show a bias. Does Dawkins pick on all inbred clannish people equally? Does he regularly point out the same type of things with the Scots-Irish, Scottish, Greeks, etc? If he is objective and fair in his statements, then he deserves no criticism. If not, then he deserves criticism.
I don’t think he has commented on the topic of clannishness, not sure he is even aware of that aspect of the problem. He only remarked on the lack of intellectual achievments and he has previously stated that Islam is a threat to the West.
But that could be seen as part of the issue itself. If that is the case, such lack of awareness about how clannishness exists within and is native to Western cultures would be problematic.
Seeing the problems of clannishness as only an alien, foreign invasive conflict would be incorrect. Also, not recognizing it as the conflict that it is doesn’t allow for the clannish and non-clannish to understand why they are conflicting. Knowledge of the real problem has to precede before a resolution can be found.
I find myself conflicted over this issue, as I have both clannish and non-clannish family lines. I’m particularly realizing how clannish my mom’s family is and they definitely aren’t a family that has prized great intellectual achievement. They are mostly simple folk. They worked hard to have a decent life and raise their families, but they never achieved much that society deems as being great, much less seen worthy of Nobel Prizes.
It could be interpreted that clannish people like the Scots-Irish (and other clannish people) have held America back all these centuries and slowed down our collective progress. Maybe America would have been so much greater without any clannish people lowering our average IQ, increasing violence and causing social problems. That might be true, but I don’t hear people like Dawkins making that argument.
I would guess that all Western countries have their own ‘backward’ clannish people that the elites judge as being inferior. And in the past the elites tried to get rid of most of them: Highland Clearances, starving the Irish until they emigrated or selling them into indentured servitude, destroying the homes and farms of Palatine Germans, etc. I understand the non-clannish suspicion of the clannish (as I understand the clannish suspicion of the non-clannish). And I understand the non-clannish not wanting to let even more clannish people into one’s country than already reside in their country.
I’m the first to point out the problems of clannish people. It would be helpful, though, if we could have a useful debate that looked at the bigger picture and at the root of the problem, beyond mere immigration. The Muslims become symbolic of problems we also have at home and so they become a convenient ‘other’ to project upon, instead of focusing on how this clannish vs non-clannish conflict exists everywhere in the world.
What is the real problem? If we don’t want more clannish immigrants, are we going to have a test for clannishness? Or do we just need to only let people of high IQ immigrate? It’s a good thing my family got in when they could because they wouldn’t be let in by any of these standards.
Or is the real problem that the Arabs aren’t the right kind of clannish people? Is it a clannish competition thing. The clannish have tended to be the ones who attack other clannish immigrants the most. Even among the non-clannish, is there something seen different about our homegrown clannish people that we like better, despite their having the same problems?
I don’t know much about Dawkins, but he probably doesn’t come from a clannish family. On the Wikipedia page, he apparently describes his childhood as “a normal Anglican upbringing” and it explains that he attended “an English public school with a distinct Church of England flavour”.
All of that might offer some background on his views. Anglicans historically have disliked the clannish people of the British Isles and the clannish people of the British Isles have disliked them. There is a long and dark history of oppression of clannish people by the Anglican Church and its members, especially as it relates to patriotic nationalism.
To me, this is where it gets interesting. I don’t just want to point out a conflict. I want to understand it.
I’d love to find out Dawkins opinions about the clannish people of the British Isles. What does he think about the Scotish? As I understand it, the Scottish still have many elements of clannishness remaining to their culture, including high rates of violence. Would Dawkins advise keeping the Scottish out of England?
This is a helpful view to take. Many of the earliest immigrants to America came because of the nationalist oppression of Anglicans. So, the attitude of Dawkins is at the foundation of American history and society. Such attitudes shift in their focus, but it is fascinating how such attitudes survive over centuries.
I also think about this in the context that all of humanity, all civilization arose out of clannishness. It is the original social order of the species.
It seems that we humans have yet to come to terms with our own clannish pasts and our continuing clannish natures. The clannishness never goes away, even among the less overtly clannish. It just takes on new forms, such as nation rather than tribe or kin.
The real conflict is this coming to terms with human nature for all of civilization is built on suppressing a major aspect of what it means to be human. We have gained much such as higher IQs, but in the race toward progress we have also lost a lot that the clannish still have such as close family relations (something I can see in my mom’s family that is already disappearing).
Maybe the issue isn’t how to protect ourselves against the clannishness. Rather, how do we understand what is worthy and what is less-than-worthy about clannish cultures and clannish human nature. How do we integrate the positive aspects of clannishness into modern society so that modern society doesn’t become dysfunctional by becoming detached from its own clannish roots.
Thanks for your interesting comment.
I still think Dawkins is brave for standing up against the PC establishment and pointing to an important problem. That’s the first step; making people understand that there is a real threat here. He appears unaware of clannishness and may not be all that into it since his grudge is with religion.
There are of course other non-Muslim peoples who are clannish. Belfast is the murder capital of Northwestern Europe. But the map of inbreeding shown above probably indicates where the problem is worst. It’s likely that non-clannish people can appreciate those clannish that are culturally similar. Because, as you point out, clannishness is where we all came from and most likely still inside us. Reading and watching documentaries of Appalachia, I’ve noticed that I sympathize strongly with them. Their racism is not very pleasant but their fierce will to maintain their identity strikes a cord in me.
I don’t know how the problem should be solved. We’ve had gypsies and travellers in Europe for centuries and we still have problems with them. But all the more reason to not add an extra burden of more clannish people via immigration. In a way this problem is also the fact that the majority of White people lack clannishness or even a basic ingroup loyalty. This whole multiculturalism nonsense would never have happened if we weren’t so detached from our roots. As you point out, we have lost the sense of family, and also nation, local community, history – all things that create an identity.
I guess the problem is that they have too much of it and we have too little.
I don’t have any real issue with Dawkins. I’m all for people pointing out inconvenient truths. It forces dialogue. It would be nicer if Dawkins brought in the larger context. Still, his comments create an opportunity for people to learn about that larger context and so it serves a purpose.
The Gypsies are a good example of a clannish people who have been involved in much conflict and experienced much oppression in Europe. The Gypsies are useful also as their culture originated outside of Europe. The Gypsies might be the closest equivalent in Europe to the Scots-Irish in America, although not a perfect comparison. Both were historically an unrooted people with no homeland, but they have increasingly settled down in modern society (or maybe forced to settle down).
Spain found a solution to the Gypsy problem. They have allowed for autonomous communities, including for the Basque which is a Celtic clannish group I’ve been fascinated with (they are the people the Irish originated from).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_communities_of_Spain
This Spanish solution allows for clannish people to exist separately within society. I was reading about this when I was trying to understand the origins of America’s Hispanic culture, specifically the concept of Mestizo. Because of its location, Spain has dealt with multiculturalism for millennia which I’ve speculated is why they were so good at being an empire ruling over diverse people.
I made the connection to the Quaker model for governing where they allowed ethnic groups to have their own separate settlements and expected them to govern themselves while leaving everyone else alone. This sometimes worked out and sometimes not (those Scots-Irish were the bane of Quakers), but the model still is in existence such as with the separate Amish Mennonites. The most clannish people left in America have only been able to maintain their cultures by maintaining separate communities mostly in the Quaker-founded Midlands. It’s odd that where multiculturalism was tolerated the most is also where clannishness survived in its most absolute form.
This solution maybe only works for certain kinds of societies. The Spanish had no choice but deal with diversity because that is their entire history. The Quakers adopted this way of thinking more willingly for whatever reason, but maybe the Quakers coming from a historical border region that was conquered by many people led them to have a different perspective on culture and oppressive governance. I’ve discussed with hbd chick about border people being a very different type, even when they are clannish.
The Quakers were English like the Anglicans, but the Anglicans were more like the Puritans in trying to force assimilation which ends up creating hybrid cultures. The unintended consequence of trying to force assimilation is that both groups end up merging to some extent which creates something that is not fully either culture. The Spanish and Quaker model might better allow for the respective cultures to survive as unique distinct cultures, but I’m biased as I’m so fond of the American Midlands where I live.
Northern Europe, however, is an entirely different situation. There never was as much diversity existing that far North as was experienced along the Mediterranean and in the British Isles. The Romans were never able to conquer beyond the Rhine and so never able to force their multiculturalist influence in Germany, Scanadanavia and Norway. I wouldn’t begin trying to tell Northern Europeans what to do about immigration. I see Northern Europe doing a lot of things right and so I hope the culture there survives and thrives.
I liked your concluding comment:
“I guess the problem is that they have too much of it and we have too little.”
That is definitely one way to think about it. I tend to be one who seeks balance, looking for the best wherever it can be found in order to counteract the less-than-best aspects. I do genuinely believe there are good things in clannish cultures that most of us have forgotten about and I think the surviving clannish cultures could teach us a few things, but maybe the best place to start is by looking to our own native clannish roots.
One of the things I like so much about the American Midwest is that some of those clannish elements have lasted the longest here. Clannish community-mindedness is much more common in the Midwest. However, even in my beloved Midwest, this is dying out. Over American history, the larger assimilationist model of nationalism has taken hold which unfortunately has the capacity of weakening local autonomous communities.
Balance is hard to find.
I would disagree with you when you say that the majority of white people lack clannishness. It really depends where you are. If you’re in Scandinavia, England, Germany or Amsterdam then you’re probably largely right, however in the U.S. we have large areas settled by immigrants from various more clannish areas of Europe such as Italy (large groups of Italians in and around New York City, Ireland (Boston), and Poland (Northern PA, Western NY, Chicago), etc. My Polish relatives do live in nuclear families but keep very close family ties and help each other financially in ways that my German/English descent relatives would never dream of. Heck, my first good job was due to a recommendation from a Polish relative… He had no idea whether I would be good at that job, he just knew I was struggling financially and helped me out.
These are the groups that I see spearheading new smaller states in the future North America. The sad part is that I love the highly out bred folks, I love their brains and their technological know how… but I don’t love their single minded, human reality blind idealism, and I am speaking both of the super liberals who see every human as loving, hard working, and itching for the chance to succeed if only they had enough of X or Y as well as the super libertarians who see humans as little rational machines who only need the perfect mechanistic system of incentives for utopian market based perfection to ensue. These are two sides of the same out bred coin in my mind: almost female vs male solutions and both impossible because they both assume that everyone else is just like them.
~S
Do not just be clanish, you also need to study the genetic variety.
For example, you may have a small population with little genetic diversity and are inbreeding , but not in the sense of marrying within families, after all, this population being very similar to each other, so even if they marry outside the family, continue marrying relative to relative. (all are half cousins) Very small populations with little genetic variation are the same thing that the inbred populations of the Middle East.
And once again, blame the Muslims for everything that happens in your country, is not the most interesting and comprehensive to understand the real question, why after all, who is bringing these immigrants to their country?
Well, apart from inbreeding and genetic variety is also very important to take into account other attributes such as personality and intelligence.
It’s just you see the example of dog breeds. If you select violent dogs to mate, then you will have a violent race, but if you select friendly dogs, so even with pedigree, most dogs are docile.
That discussion we had in another post about the hypothetical behavior of Amish in ” English” society (amish newspeak) is purely speculative. Admittedly if they wanted to take advantage of their non-Amish neighbors would already busy on their own niches within the larger American society and started its hostile tribalists.
And they do not seem to have a parasitic behavior.
About the scotch-irish. I think overkill by David say that these people are a delay to American society. Like the Amish, but to a lesser degree, these people just crave lead their lives according to their own way.
Probably because they are more tribalist than the rest of the American population, especially the urban white liberals, the scotch-irish probably arouses anger on the part of the American elite, since while the former only want to maintain their socio-biological habitat intact, without paying homage to the aristocracy globalist, has the second imperialist pretensions that targets every piece of the U.S., including the niche of occupation of these populations.
As Staffan himself made clear here that Nebraska has almost no drop in diversity, became a better place compared to the extremely liberal California, which is already at an advanced stage of decomposition.
“And once again, blame the Muslims for everything that happens in your country, is not the most interesting and comprehensive to understand the real question, why after all, who is bringing these immigrants to their country?”
Well, Jews are not committing the rapes and murders. But more to the point, Jews have not pushed for multiculturalism in Sweden, that article is not convincing. It started as late as the 1980s when the political left – which harbors a lot of anti-semites like for instance the mayor of Malmö – lost a lot of voters and decided to import new ones rather than win back those lost.
That’s what you think or want to think. Again, there is a fascination for many of the bloggers community HBD about Jews, a kind of blindness that prevents them from seeing the real nature (quite WEIRD) of Ashkenazi Jews as well as his actions during the twentieth century.
For example, the Ashkenazi Jews were overrepresented in the Russian revolution and themselves have admitted that. What happens is that when and where they admit few people Gentile have expressed interest in going.( Because because they’re busy with media distractions). Well, the question is not only unacceptable crimes they committed against innocent people in Russia and Ukraine during the first half of the twentieth century, but also that they hid and hide it until today the media and people. Continues to maintain the boring dialectic of Holocaust and anti racism.
This is almost a tactic with a strong style psychopath. Psychopaths never admit their mistakes and generally lay the blame on others.
The Jews were responsible for the formatting of communist ideology and also the caricature of neo Christianity that exists today and called cultural Marxism. However, not everything that you plan to work out.
The Jews have simply ignored their useful idiots on the left, but it looks like its double meaning is increasingly visible to a growing part of the population.
Just the ideas planted (based on collective psychological trauma) as anti-racism, mass immigration and diversity, Nazi style among others are turning against them in Israel. What is happening is that the left is becoming neo anti-Semitic (anti-israel mostly) while the right is returning to his old form classic anti-Semitic.
I try to understand why the HBD community continue to pretend that the vast majority of Jews in Western countries are ‘extremely liberal’ ( especially FOR the other) and are primarily responsible for mass immigration in their nations.
http://io9.com/5863666/why-inbreeding-really-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think-it-is
Benjamin, you are making assumptions about the amount of clannishness among the Scots-Irish. Ulster Scots are clannish only in comparison to NW Europe, not to the rest of the world. There was a Scottish Enlightenment, and they have produced top-flight thinkers – Adam Smith, for example. Appalachia is considered inbred by American standards, but we are the least-inbred people (though other Anglospheric colonies are essentially the same)
I realise the language barrier is making Gottlieb sound less intelligent than he is, but it is still appalling. I keep forgetting that the European Right is distinct from pretty much all North American conservative expressions: paleo, neo, social, libertarian. Get it straight: Since about 1920, no country in NW Europe has had many Jews in it and they just don’t know much accurate information about them. Theory seems to come before data – never wise.
”I realise the language barrier is making Gottlieb sound less intelligent than he is, but it is still appalling.”
What do you mean??
Good thing my lack foreign language becomes a false idea that I’m smarter than I look.
Assistant,
David makes insinuations directly related to the people who are closest to see your people as a threat in the U.S., than liberals naive San Diego.
In other words, it would be interesting to do away with the little clanishness what remains in the U.S., to turn all white Americans in minesotans.
Meanwhile, the Jews continue to marry among themselves, and how they are all cousins through, tribalism remain relatively strong among them.
I understand very well what a person as he aims to do, when you think of every detail in order to disarm the competitor and impose hegemonic your schedule.
They want to transform and are transforming the white man in pussies or foxes in Russia. It neoteny. But this is not a nice thing if these people were as good and capable as the Swedes. If it was the Scandinavians I would be happy.
But Ashkenazi Jews do not seem to be good vets.
@Assistant Village Idiot – “you are making assumptions about the amount of clannishness among the Scots-Irish.”
Yeah, I realize that the Scots-Irish are hard to compare with. I’ve discussed with hbd chick about the Scots-Irish. They are somewhat clannish, but they are more middling on the clannish scale. The Scottish and Irish seem more clannish. I’ve also theorized that there is something unique between border clannish people and non-border clannish people.
I must admit that I don’t know enough about the Gypsies to make any intelligent observations. My comparison to the Scots-Irish was just my connecting to what I’m familiar with. I should learn more about the Gypsies for I’m sure they have an interesting history.
About the British Celtic people, they are maybe hard to compare to other clannish groups. The most useful comparisons would simply be to other Celtic people on mainland Europe. I’d like to learn more about the Basque because of the British Celtic people originating from them. Like the British Celtic people, the Basque have been a successful group. The reason I originally became familiar with them is because of the Mondragon Corporation.
This gets to an aspect I’m often thinking about. There seems to be many important things going on beyond mere clannish vs non-clannish. Celtic people are historically inbreeding and have other characteristics typical of the clannish, but there is also something different about them from other clannish people. Maybe it has something to do with being in an area of millennia of seafaring and trading among diverse cultures. I suspect the Celtic people have been less able to remain as isolated as, for example, the landlocked mountainous Afghani people.
I don’t know enough about Muslims and Arabs in general to say much about them. One issue they have faced is their location is so central between Africa, Europe and Asia. The Middle East has maybe seen more war, invasions and conquerings than any other place on earth. The Afghani people hardly can catch their breath before the next global power is invading and trying to occupy them. That has to be extremely problematic for trying to develop a stable society. I could see how extreme clannishness would be an evolutionarily advantageous response to being the target of so much violence and oppression.
I wonder if the modern Middle East is a very modern creation. The Ottoman Empire demonstrates that it used to be a very different place. Empires can’t be built through clannishness. I wonder when the colonial powers carved up the Middle East that maybe the less clannish left in a mass exodus leaving behind the most clannish. There are many Arab-descended people living outside of the Middle East. It would be interesting to compare Arab people and communities outside of the Middle East, especially those that have been established for many generations. Arabs in the US have lower rates of violence in the US which probably relates to the US attracting more well-educated upper class Arabs (i.e., non-clannish or less clannish).
My cousin is married to a so-called princess of deposed Iranian royalty. They live in California. Her family is large and spread out all over the Western world. From what I understand, the family members are generally well-educated. The lady my cousin married is extremely smart and working in the top of her field in Silicon Valley.
So, it depends on which Arab and Muslims you’re speaking about and where.
Next: Atheists are quite fond of evolution, and thus Dawkins, solely as an attempt to kick Christians, lump them all together, and equate them with the most regressive elements of other religions. They start to dislike evolution when it is applied to any period more recent than 10,000 years ago, however. Thus, the attacks on Dawson. He doesn’t get the social implications. Or rather, he does get them but ignores them, which ticks off liberals.
“I try to understand why the HBD community continue to pretend that the vast majority of Jews in Western countries are ‘extremely liberal’ ( especially FOR the other) and are primarily responsible for mass immigration in their nations.”
I’m not sure that’s true. I and others have pointed out that their is tribalism among the Jews. Like I said earlier, they seem divided and a lot of what you perceive as hostile parasitism is capitalism. Regarding the situation in Sweden, I can only repeat what I’ve already said, Jews have been here for a long time and they haven’t pushed for multiculturalism, but the political left did so at a certain point in time when it gave them a strategic advantage.
Generally speaking, Jews seem to behave the way you’d expect a moderately tribal and highly intelligent group to behave. I don’t find them particularly fascinating.
That’s exactly what they want you to think. We know that besides blacks, gays and women, Jews are also the sacred cows of political correctness. As a result, much of what they really are is not shown. The same goes for the other groups. For example, I think that Schopenhauer described brilliantly defects of the feminine soul.
Unlike you I think the Ashkenazi extremely interesting.
Through my research on the internet everyday I have found some distinct pattern that make it special and different from the rest of other human beings.
Started by handedness.
I have compiled some studies that suggest that there are more left-handers among Ashkenazi Jews than in other populations. Maybe twice what was expected and it would explain the excess of genetic diseases as well as unusual intelligence and mental disorders that affect. The key to success Ashkenazi, for good or for bad, is in your hands (magicians).
I speak on my own, I myself am left handed and see me, several psychological traits that routinely found in Ashkenazi. Paranoia, high psychoticism traits, megalomania, bipolar tendencies etc.
Everything fits like a puzzle. We know that 30% of left-handers use more right brain in contrast to 5% of right-handers. If we stop to think, then there would be 100 million lefties in the world who use the right brain (which relate to creativity or divergent thinking), based on the idea that 6% of humans are left-handed, against 300 million handed over right -brained. Clearly not all of this group are more creative than others, but surely there is an overlap of left-handers in this group, this is clear.
This fact alone already shows us how interesting are Ashkenazi, since there is a tendency compliance handedness among humans with the highest IQ, especially among Asians.
http://www.humanevolution.net/humanevolution/a/jewish.html
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1945-02685-001
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03014467800002861
Maybe they are right-brained and certainly intelligent, but I can’t say I see any signs of extraordinary creativity. Their best composer to date is Mendelssohn and he is quite derivative. Looking at technological innovation it seems to me that Swedes are at least as prominent on a slightly smaller population. They seem to be good writers though – now I sound like Dawkins : )
It’s interesting to see you use the term ‘right brained’ with regard to creativity as most folks I know in the evidence based psych realm seem to eschew the left vs right brain popular characterization. I haven’t felt like the left vs right brained dichotomy/continuum brings much to the table, other than giving another label and telling me what I already know about myself (i.e. self directed, relaxed, like working on creative projects, etc.) Plus there’s the fact that I’ve met a lot of other left handed folks and they don’t seem to be any more creative than anyone else. In fact, I am currently on the board of a local arts organization and I am the only left handed painter/illustrator I’ve met yet, in the entire group. I used to think left handedness mattered in the arts but not so much anymore. Of course, there could be no connection between being left handed and right brain dominant.
On the topic of Jews I’ll say that working in the arts and being from New York has put me in contact with a great deal of them and I share the same perception as Staffan: smarter than average and that’s about it. I’ve never seen anything to justify the absurd amount of antisemitism out there. I wonder if this feeling may simply be rooted in envy.
~S
They use their creativity to political reasons as any philosophical dialectics of multiculturalism, modern mass culture. They are good at it and take advantage of the belief biological out-bred especially in north and northwest Europe.
They have completely changed the American culture, completely Judaized. What happens is that they are highly targeted to your co-ethnic interests hammering.
Well, I said that a good portion of Ashkenazi exhibit traits of psychopathy, we know that mental disorders are all spectrum where the disorder itself is accumulation of negative traits that reduce the fitness to sexual selection. We conclude that mental disorders continue to exist as a minority in society, because they offer an evolutionary advantage for those who have partially or diluted the disorder. so,
Psychopaths classics, as well as high intelligence and emotional coldness, also exhibit superficial charm and creativity.
In fact, in my opinion, liberals Caucasians are the most creative of the human species.
when you have two people with the recessive genes for bipolar disorder, for example, the complete phenotype of the disorder can manifest itself again.
And generally similar people are attracted to each other.
Sisyphean @
I’m not sure of what I’m talking about, but I think people who talk about ”Out bred and inbred” also do not have or ignore certain aspects that are very important for the theory. As I said before, that you have a population less prone to violence, the most important is the selection of personality. So it is not only Muslims who marry between families, they are more violent. But the personality type less flexible than the low iq, reinforced by drope of sub-Saharan blood, inherited by black slaves that were espoused by Muslims and also because the inbreeding. So what we’re seeing is a secondary phenomenon and not the main tribal violence that explains them.
On the theory of cerebral dominance, precisely that which said not sure. I read on the site neuropolitics which observations were made in relation to a patient (probably more than I, from that time to the present day) that for some reason health, presented a breakdown of the two sides of the brain. As a result, I could clearly see that there are important differences between the sides and that people who use more side probably can display certain characteristics, such as greater creativity.
Logically, I concluded that 30% of the population left handed, right brained is (ie, use more right brain than the left) then it could mean that they can be more creative. You used the example of painting as an example.
Today I found two studies which demonstrated exactly what you say, there are few left-handers among painters.
However, several other studies seem to show that lefties are better on tests of creativity (other studies also seem to prove otherwise).
Most psychologists not only avoid the term left brain and right brain, but also completely avoid evolutionary psychology. Psychologists as well as teachers, in their majority, are only diffusers of knowledge. Most of them do not produce them. Therefore, these issues have a tendency to be gradually popularized and most psychologists (who reject genetic, racial differences and IQ tests) are slowly becoming convinced that it might make sense, but first they need media experts and consensus in your group. Imagine what it would be if it were Tesla and Galileo expect popular consensus ..
About ”anti Semitism”, there has been no anti Semitism in the West since the end of WWII. Since Nazi Germany lost the war that very little anti Semitism, by 2010 it was reported. On the contrary, there are still a good number of Westerners who believe in totally stupid version of Jewish history that have always been the eternal victims.
I’m not believe there is envy, but it’s a matter of survival, pure and simple. If it was envy, then the elites who should hate the Jews and not the middle and lower classes.
Returning to the subject, lefties and arts. Well, there are several types of creative activities and the painting is just one more of them. To be a good painter is necessary to have good spatial IQ to understand about proportions. Speaking for myself I’m a lefty pure, have a low spatial ability. You also need good attention span and motor coordination. For me, I have a bad motor coordination and have a tendency to be multi task.
I believe there are types of intelligence, not only trivially known as verbal and math, but cognitive styles, I mean, you are not only good at mathematics than vocabulary (hypothetically speaking) but can also display unusual traits of intelligence, as some unusual type of long-term memory, for example.
How do you explain me the disproportionate number of left-handers in politics and in the performing arts?
@Gottlieb You have a point about left handers and the performing arts, (anecdotally) I recently noticed there are a ton of them in my local theater community, which I found odd. If left handers are truly more common in the theater arts that would explain in my mind why so many show up in politics (something I’ve noted as well, incredible the proportion of U.S. presidents who were left handed, especially recently). U.S. Politics is heavily slanted toward performing well on TV and in person so it’s natural better performers would end up in the important elected positions. If I were an oligarch selecting a candidate I’d be choosing a likeable actor with just enough brains not to look like a complete fool, but not quite enough to want to actually govern. I’m, not saying that’s what happens, just noting it. Don’t mind lil’ ole me.
~S
I have two theories. The first is that Western elites worship the devil and nothing more logical than selecting lefties, LOL, to occupy positions of leadership, because the demon would own one.
Now the theory of truth, ambidextrous seem more predisposed to psychopathy, ie most psychopaths are non- righthanders than right-handers. I see that some people (myself included) may be half psychopaths, the kind that has certain traits that are consistent with the psychiatric diagnosis of the typical psychopath, but that does not exhibit the most important traits such as emotional coldness complete and total lack of empathy. Many lefties then must share this advantage. (equivalent to creative optimum of positive traits, while affective disorders are excessive deposition of traits that causes psychosis and generates fall of fitness).
We see actors, costumes do not know.
Actors, as well as anyone in a position of power, generally exhibits several traits that are found in psychopaths, as egocentrism and high psychoticism.
I recently saw a list of hollywood actors, I do not know how many actors working in the californian studios officially, but it seems that many of the most important actors are left handed.
The same happens on a survey of tennis players. I mean, among the tennis players of high capacity, where the left-handed representation is not very high, but only among the top 20.
It seems that in terms of the group, lefties have large internal contrasts but we think that if the non-dexterism generates greater diversity of phenotypes and genotypes, very unusual combinations of intelligence or talent then there may be many left handed individuals extremely interesting to analyze.
It is also interesting to note the percentage of autistic lefties, it seems that is double the normal population.
To supplement my reasoning about lefties and visual arts. Besides having a good iq space (there are some studies that say it has an over representation of left-handers among architects) I believe it is necessary to have a brain structure more organized, so you can make these types of paintings, extremely detail oriented. I believe there are less left-handed and ambidextrous with normal brain structure. Precisely because of this anomalous nature I believe that among lefties natural, ie, those who had no traumatic event within the body that has changed their chirality, yes there is a greater propensity for creativity.
And complementing about Muslims. It seems they have low indicators of crime within their countries. Yes, they (can) are violent but it is of a nature essentially tribalist.
Elijah Armstrong @ ”I suspect that the psychological traits of the Ashkenazim – like psychological intensity, aggressiveness, psychoticism, and intellectual achievement when orthogonalized for g – can be explained by high levels of serum urate, which is a psychostimulant.”
How would that be possible.
I think one of the keys for the above average intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews is their pattern of laterality.
More lefties, more genetic diseases, alergies, autism, mental disorders, down syndrome and more creative intelligence and intelligence extremes.
But how would this be possible??
Yes, I already knew the intense selection for intelligence as well as the constant persecution during Jewish history and this could also explain the excess of left-handers in this population.
You’ve read the research on the percentage of left-handed and level of violence in society?
Then there was a study that found that in societies more violent lefties were much more common than in more peaceful. We can draw several conclusions about it. Or lefties as a minority element advantageous increased their numbers. Or they have tendencies to psychopathy and highlights. Or more violent societies, also the idea of keeping the element of surprise, lefties have adapted better because it has different cognitive styles and are better at multi task, responding best in complex environments.
Why are there twice as many lefties among Ashkenazi (seems to be)?
About your answer, actually I asked what would be the relationship between serum and intelligence, technical relationship. I’m not aware of these molecular interactions.
@gottlieb My understanding is that violent societies where hand to hand combat is common should have a higher proportion of left handers as we have an advantage in physical combat, being constantly exposed to the right handed majority and their fighting stance/style, while they rarely meet us. I’m inclined to believe it’s an effect more than a cause. Of course, I wouldn’t know, I chose to study Japanese Martial arts before I knew any better. It’s not the quality that’s off-putting, but the way they treat left handedness (i.e. like it doesn’t exist). I study with one of the best Katana teachers in my country but I can’t ever learn to do it with my dominant hand.
~S
Sisyphean @,
I think in addition to this advantage, another similar advantage can happen as unusual cognitive abilities. I thought I broke the same advantage in the fight.
In summary, the left-handed as a minority, have advantages both physical (in foraging societies) and cognitive (in civilized societies).
However, one should avoid a little, the tendency to reduce the exceptional present in subgroups of left-handers, and only because we are a minority. I think the population right brained, has extreme capabilities, ie, are the opposite of left brained tend to be more symmetrical.
Another advantage may be the heterozygote advantage as mental disorders. I mean, most lefties are prone to mental disorders, but I believe most are borderline for them, making it worthwhile to present some aspects eg, bipolar disorder, but have the ability to continue leading a functional life without the use of drugs.
Having lived in this part of the of the world for more than a decade, I do not understand the popularity of the meme that Muslims are violent. The Muslim countries where American drones are not active are not violent. I think that Swedes should pay attention to the national origins of their criminal Muslims. Of course, no proper Swede would have the guts to do that.
So raping women in Sweden is a normal response to being in military conflict with America in your home country? Perhaps you’ve been in that part of the world for too long.
I am suggesting that the rapists in Sweden may look quite different than the Omanis, Emiratis, and Saudis. The easily researched crime maps for the zip – postal codes in the United States suggest that violent crimes in the United States are concentrated in neighborhood where Palestinian shopkeepers are murdered by their customers who are not immigrants from the Arab world. I suggest this video might suggest lines of research. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6sab4snNnc
Almost none of the incidents you will see were mentioned on the national TV networks.
Crimes against whites by members of certain groups are almost never national news. The very rare violent crimes by whites against members of the most cherished minority group are reported on endlessly. If Anders Behring Breivik was black, the story might not even been mentioned twice in American
When I lived in Sweden the first time in 1966 I encountered only one black person – an American deserter. In 1974, I encountered my first mixed race Swedish child. She had been abandoned, like President Obama, by her father. In 1966, I could walk across Stockholm at 3AM without fear. I can still do this where I live. Sweden has voluntarily become what Chicago was in 1966 and still is: a place where violence reaches out to white people from the no-go zones.
There may be differences according to nationality, sure. It just seems a bit convenient that those Muslim nationalities that are absent in Sweden happen to be those who are supposedly not violent. Although if true then it’s highly interesting. Unfortunately Sweden doesn’t have statistics that identify specific nations, but the police have said more than once that a substantial amount of all murders in the south are committed by Palestinians.
You do not have the data because the traitors who rule your country do not want you to have the data. How would the police know and why should you believe anything that they say? Here, the laws are enforced. The death penalty has just been announced for a member of the royal family who killed another citizen over a parking place. The last time I was in Malmö, the only immigrants I saw were from Yugoslavia, Where I live, any foreign worker who commits a crime is deported if he survives his sentence. The only violence I have experienced has been at the hands of alcoholic western expats who supported open borders for countries like Sverige. The only Muslims I have met who hate the U.K. are U.K. natives whose parents immigrated to the U.K. The only large city in the West where I feel safe is Madrid. It reminds me of Stockholm in 1966. Of course, the traitors who rule Spain want to destroy it.
Good luck!
Yes, they still play gate keepers even though the internet is making that game increaslingly impossible; information leaks one way or another these days.
Malmö today is dominated by Muslims. Jews and other groups too are leaving. I think we’ll need more than luck, but thanks.
Dawkins is frequently criticised because he always appears to be self-righteously correct. Skimming through ‘The God Delusion’ Dawkins lists some conflicts which he blames on religion. He blames religion for ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, although it is primarily a conflict of national identity, between those who self-identify as exclusively Irish and those who consider themselves to be *both* Irish and British. Dawkins also falls into the biggest trap of all by failing to recognise that the Israel/Palestine conflict is primarily territorial not religious.
I agree regarding his demonization of religion, but at least he is consistent and includes Islam, unlike so many progs who somehow feel Christianity is the only problematic religion.
I can’t agree with either you or Dawkins regarding Northern Ireland. Keep in mind that the Ulster Scots were causing trouble for a long, long time before arriving in the country. There is plenty reason to suspect clannishness is at the root of The Troubles. For more on clannishness (worldwide) check out HBD Chick, https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/
You have agreed with my point without realising it, because you recognise that those who self-identify as ‘Ulster-Scots’ have an identity that does not depend on religious difference. I’m not sure for whom they were ‘causing trouble’ (each other?) as there has long been cross-migration between Northern Ireland and Western Scotland going back hundreds of years before the 17th century ‘Plantation’.
There aren’t that many Jews in the world so they must be somewhat inbred. They also have their own genetic diseases. But they’re very smart. Yet inbreeding in Muslims seems to cause low intelligence, genetic illness and misery. I saw this first hand in the U.K.. I’ve always wondered why this was.
Genetically, most Jews are 30-60% German, so probably not very inbred. One theory is that they picked up their genetic diseases by extreme selective pressure towards high intelligence. Their diseases often relate to the brain and the nervous system whereas Arab diseases simply reflect a custom of inbreeding.
Although the real IQ depressor may be related to the long-term consequences of inbreeding – clannishness. As described by HBD Chick, https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/start-here/ It might not pay off to be smart in a clannish culture.