Ethnocentrism and neoconservatism vs. Islamism

[nuenke]

A just published article by Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist researcher who specializes in group evolutionary strategies including Jewish-gentile conflicts, is the best compilation available of the neoconservatives' influence on the Bush war agenda. Unfortunately, even if Kerry wins the election, the war in Iraq will continue on pretty much the same, leaving Europe as the only force that will prevent us all from sliding into another world war.

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html

For a summary of MacDonald's trilogy on group evolutionary strategies, see:

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm

 

[Aquamarine]

So the Jews are behind both the liberal left, Communism and the neoconservatives?

As I have asked before in the thread below, is there any evidence that different races vary in "ethnocentrism"? And that is genetic?

History seems to indicate that societies that have persecuted Jews have declined in economic and political power. Is there any contrary evidence?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45071

 

[selfAdjoint]

History seems to indicate that societies that have persecuted Jews have declined in economic and political power. Is there any contrary evidence?

Germany is the great counterexample to this. No nation was worse in persecuting its Jews, and before it began that it was weak and poor (Weimar republic) and now it is the most powerful country in Europe. Of course that's cherry picking the stages, but they are the natural ones too.

 

[Selbstüberschätzug]

Yes they started on the left and went then to the right. Both reasoned in there religious world view. Their religion is also the base of there community. So it is easy to mix things up… They believe they are with god, and that’s one of the most dangerous things in history. (But Mr. Bush isn’t a Jew….)… Thinking is doubting.

That the Jews is connected with a positive Impact on a society as a hole has to do with the fact that a state witch hasn’t trouble hasn’t to find after a patsy. (How many Jews are in the USA?). Ore / and with the openness in thinking of the stats leaders. You can compare this with the openness of Islamic ore Japanese leaders adverse Christian communities.

 

[Aquamarine]

Germany is the great counterexample to this. No nation was worse in persecuting its Jews, and before it began that it was weak and poor (Weimar republic) and now it is the most powerful country in Europe. Of course that's cherry picking the stages, but they are the natural ones too.

The Weimar republic existed only for a short time after the WWI. A better comparison should instead be to the German Reich before WWI. It was the greatest economic and military power in Europe, something Germany today has yet to achieve.

But more importantly, Hitler killed most of the Jews in Europe and many of the rest moved to the United States. So one cannot compare Germany to the rest of Europe. The best comparison should instead be between Germany or Europe and the United States. And the center of power has certainly moved from Europe after WWII, both economically and politically.

 

[Aquamarine]

It is true that the Jews have traditionally been left liberals. For some good explanations of this:

http://www.mises.org/etexts/Mishnah.pdf

And it is true that many of leading left intellectuals have been Jews. But this is also true of many of the leading right intellectuals. In fact, there are many, many Jews in all the different fields of science.

http://www.jinfo.org

 

[nuenke]

So the Jews are behind both the liberal left, Communism and the neoconservatives?

If you read the article it clearly points out that most Jews are liberal. The neocons are a very small group of intellectuals who happen to be primarily Jewish - and as MacDonald points out - are a quite diverse group except in a couple of areas, one of them being 100% supporters of the Likud party in Israel. That is, they are Jewish hardliners. He goes into the history of these shakers and movers, including Cheney and Rumsfeldt, and discusses how they came to take these positions, how they meandered from the Democratic Party to influencing Bush, etc. No conspiracies, just a history of a movement.

As I have asked before in the thread below, is there any evidence that different races vary in "ethnocentrism"? And that is genetic?

Whether ethnocentrism is environmental or genetic isn't the issue. Humans are very groupish, and they will turn on their own or become very ethnocentric under varying conditions. Most behavioral traits are about 50% genetic, I would be surprised if ethnocentrism was much different. But unfortunately, because of political correctness, behavioral geneticists have not studied ethnocentrism as deeply as they have intelligence and behavioral traits.

History seems to indicate that societies that have persecuted Jews have declined in economic and political power. Is there any contrary evidence?

I have also heard just the reverse. I am not aware of any sincere and unbiased research proving either side, so it seems we should be concerned with human behavior and what is coming at us in the future based on expectations. To me that indicates that the hatred between the Islamists and the Jews is real, formidable, and will persist now for a very long time. And as a nation, where do our interests lie? How will Europe react to the unfolding events, or China and Japan? It is important therefore to understand who the players are that are pushing for war. That includes the neocons, Hamas, etc.

We seem to take great delight in psychoanalyzing the mind of the Islamist, and then we shriek with horror when we similarly look at the motives of Jews. Why is one encouraged and the other off-limits?

 

[Aquamarine]

Most behavioral traits are about 50% genetic, I would be surprised if ethnocentrism was much different. But unfortunately, because of political correctness, behavioral geneticists have not studied ethnocentrism as deeply as they have intelligence and behavioral traits.

I have yet to any evidence that "ethnocentrism" is a "behavioral trait" that varies between races, genetic or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Aquamarine
History seems to indicate that societies that have persecuted Jews have declined in economic and political power. Is there any contrary evidence?

I have also heard just the reverse.

Can you give any historical examples? And an explanation for the historical examples that points in the opposite direction.

Any Jewish "ethnocentrism" seems to be utterly failing today, probably due to the fact that they are no longer forced to be "A People That Shall Dwell Alone":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Holocaust

 

[nuenke]

I have yet to any evidence that "ethnocentrism" is a "behavioral trait" that varies between races, genetic or otherwise.

Whether ethnocentrism is genetic or environmental is not the issue and was not proposed by me in this post. You are straying off topic. If you want to debate its genetic versus environmental components take it to another thread.

Can you give any historical examples? And an explanation for the historical examples that points in the opposite direction.

I think there is very little evidence one way or the other, and I fail to see what it has to do with neocons involvement in promoting a war in the Middle East.

Any Jewish "ethnocentrism" seems to be utterly failing today, probably due to the fact that they are no longer forced to be "A People That Shall Dwell Alone":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Holocaust

Are the Gypsies, another group that lives a diaspora lifestyle, also forced to dwell alone? Are you claiming that the Jews were "forced" not to assimilate? I'm not sure why or where you are going with this, and what it has to do with the issue of whether the neocons are allied with the Likud Party, and that Bush is surrounded by neocons? That is the issue, and it is not a Jewish issue since very few Jews are neocons. The only link between Jews and neocons just happens to be that neocons just happen to be Likud sympathizers, and any neocon that deviates from 100% support for Israel (and open borders in the United States and Europe), is purged from the movement. That is, it is rigidly ideological on those two issues alone. That is what is interesting: most of the people around Bush are neocons, yet there are only a handful of neocons active in politics. It is not a "Jewish" issue as you are trying to make it. I would guess that most Jews do not like the war in Iraq anymore than I do.

 

[Aquamarine]

Originally Posted by Aquamarine
I have yet to any evidence that "ethnocentrism" is a "behavioral trait" that varies between races, genetic or otherwise.

Whether ethnocentrism is genetic or environmental is not the issue and was not proposed by me in this post. You are straying off topic. If you want to debate its genetic versus environmental components take it to another thread.

The question is whether there even is a trait called "ethnocentrism" that vary between races, not primarily if it is genetic or not. Your title refer to "ethnocentrism" but you seem unable to provide any evidence that this exists.

Can you give any historical examples? And an explanation for the historical examples that points in the opposite direction.

I think there is very little evidence one way or the other, and I fail to see what it has to do with neocons involvement in promoting a war in the Middle East.

So you cannot explain the historical examples I give.

It way you who introduced "MacDonald's trilogy on group evolutionary strategies", not I.

I'm not sure why or where you are going with this, and what it has to do with the issue of whether the neocons are allied with the Likud Party, and that Bush is surrounded by neocons? That is the issue, and it is not a Jewish issue since very few Jews are neocons. The only link between Jews and neocons just happens to be that neocons just happen to be Likud sympathizers, and any neocon that deviates from 100% support for Israel (and open borders in the United States and Europe), is purged from the movement. That is, it is rigidly ideological on those two issues alone. That is what is interesting: most of the people around Bush are neocons, yet there are only a handful of neocons active in politics. It is not a "Jewish" issue as you are trying to make it. I would guess that most Jews do not like the war in Iraq anymore than I do.

So why do you have the word "ethnocentrism" in the title? And refer to "group evolutionary strategies" for Jews? Why didn't you post in the political forum that Jews may have undue influence on foreign policy (like many other special interest groups, racial or not)?

If you want to link the Jews with various behavioral/genetic traits, you have to accept criticism. Even if you don't like it and can't answer.

 

[Aquamarine]

Are the Gypsies, another group that lives a diaspora lifestyle, also forced to dwell alone? Are you claiming that the Jews were "forced" not to assimilate?

The Jews were forced to "live alone" if they didn't want to give up their religion. Now they no longer have to make that choice. If the trait "ethnocentrism" were the causal factor, they would still be separated from the rest of society.

The Gypsies may have an IQ of about 85. Their separation and lifestyle may very well be an adaption to this and not primarily a voluntary choice due to the trait "ethnocentrism". Why assume that they differ on two variables when one is enough?

socially upward mobile Gypsies are assimilated to a certain extent and no longer designate themselves as Gypsies, and on the contrary during each generation a few downward mobile individuals of other populations become integrated into Gypsy tribes since centuries

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/elite.html

 

[sourmonkey]

Hey all, I'm new to the forum but I'm a student of anthropology and I'd like to offer another perspective.

Ethnocentrism and neoconservatism vs. Islamism

1- If Cultural Ideology A is ethnocentric, and Cultural Ideology B is also ethnocentric, and this behavior is genetically motivated, how are they genetically different?

Does Neocon ethnocentrism= Islamic ethnocentrism= Jewish ethnocentrism?

The colors might be different, but the underlining patterns are nearly identical.

2- If ethnocentrism is a cultural trait, then egocentrism would be the individual trait. Naturally, this behavior is a double edged sword. On the one hand, this behavior trait favors environmental and sexual "fittness", thus, this behavior trait could originate genetically. On the other hand, humans need other humans for survival. Any human individual with too many egocentric behavior alleles would represent a potential danger to itself and the human community/ culture around it. This becomes true macroscopically as the human individual projects personal identity upon a community. Cultures become ethnocentric, and when these spheres of influence overlap, if conflict isn't resolved symbolically, war ensues. Hence, our "war on terrorism." In this way, cultures evolve, and it might be said that egocentric behavior alleles, and therefore ethnocentrism, vary according to natural selection.

I hope this wasn't a meaningless ramble. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Good to see this perspective. On your item one, genes might not be quite so deterministic as you suppose since they are observed to act on rates and propensities and not just as on-off switches.

 

[nuenke]

The question is whether there even is a trait called "ethnocentrism" that vary between races, not primarily if it is genetic or not. Your title refer to "ethnocentrism" but you seem unable to provide any evidence that this exists.

Ethnocentrism does not have to "vary between races" for the Jewish neocons in the U.S. to try and manipulate politics for the benefit of Israel. I would also try to manipulate the political system to benefit Europeans over any other race. The article has to do with who the neocons are, along with their motives. It is not an indictment of their actions - every ethnic group should work for bettering their own kind.

As to ethnocentrism, I do not want to get into a debate about as it is off topic. But within the biological sciences it is a fundamental component of all studies dealing with cooperation, altruism, etc. Two books I recently obtained deal with it at length: "Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation" and "Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Findings in Evolutionary Theory." Both books are research summations that came out of conferences by leading academics in the subject. Not only is ethnocentrism real, it is a fundamental principle of evolutionary psychology.

So you cannot explain the historical examples I give. It way you who introduced "MacDonald's trilogy on group evolutionary strategies", not I.

What historical examples are you talking about?

So why do you have the word "ethnocentrism" in the title? And refer to "group evolutionary strategies" for Jews? Why didn't you post in the political forum that Jews may have undue influence on foreign policy (like many other special interest groups, racial or not)?

I didn't say Jews have "undue" influence on foreign policy, though Jews do say something similar. In the recent book "Jews in American Politics," written by a number of Jewish scholars, they discuss at length how Jews have far more economic, political and media power than any other group in the United States in terms of the small number of Jews in the U.S.

If you want to link the Jews with various behavioral/genetic traits, you have to accept criticism. Even if you don't like it and can't answer.

I can answer, but you were off topic. I takes time to do searches for a single person who won't even read the original linked article. You have not responded to one part of the original article, instead you have tried to take the debate in numerous directions that have nothing to do with the article.

 

[nuenke]

The Jews were forced to "live alone" if they didn't want to give up their religion. Now they no longer have to make that choice. If the trait "ethnocentrism" were the causal factor, they would still be separated from the rest of society.

The Jews were not "forced" to live alone. They could have intermarried with those around them as much as they liked. Everyone else was marrying others as they chose. How were the Jews "forced" to form enclaves separate from everyone else?

The Gypsies may have an IQ of about 85. Their separation and lifestyle may very well be an adaption to this and not primarily a voluntary choice due to the trait "ethnocentrism". Why assume that they differ on two variables when one is enough?

Because their diaspora patterns of living indicate that it is ethnocentrism and not IQ, though it is low, that makes them a people who dwell alone. They, like Jews, have chosen separation because of ethnocentrism. I am not aware of any study that shows that there is a correlation between intelligence and ethnocentrism.

 

[nuenke]

1- If Cultural Ideology A is ethnocentric, and Cultural Ideology B is also ethnocentric, and this behavior is genetically motivated, how are they genetically different?

Does Neocon ethnocentrism= Islamic ethnocentrism= Jewish ethnocentrism?

Ethnocentrism underlies all human behavior as a genetic trait. It varies markedly between individuals and between races. It also varies through indoctrination. Patriotism is a form of maladaptive ethnocentrism when governments can convince young men to become suicide bombers or die in battle. These old tribal instincts will continue to confound modern human social structures unless we can understand them better.

 

[Aquamarine]

You referenced the following article in your introductory statement, so obviously it is important to this thread:
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/mac.htm

When we look at the Jewish culture in depth, and note the contradictions with other religions, it becomes apparent that as a facultative group they are more like the Freemasons, Gypsies, the Mafia, or even the modern day militias that form around blood or racialism without any real identifiable ideology outside of whatever strategizing is required for domination and control over the cultures they live amongst.

1. Society does not gain from persecution of Jews. Europe has declined in economic, politic and scientific power after the holocaust. Se also the examples in this thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45071

2 Jews do not aim "to impose a medieval anti-scientific orthodoxy on much of the contemporary intellectual world".

The contributions of Jews to science:
http://www.jinfo.org

3. "And how many millions of people died because of the Jewish promotion of Marxism just to keep their blood pure". Jews have supported the left for entirely different reasons:
http://www.mises.org/etexts/Mishnah.pdf

4. The Jews have not chosen voluntarily to be "A People That Shall Dwell Alone"

Roman empire, Constantine the Great, Roman emperor

This prohibition [of intermarriage] is to be preserved for the future lest the Jews induce Christian women to share their shameful lives. If they do this they will subject themselves to a sentence of death.

Moreover, if anyone of the population should join their abominable sect and attend their meetings, he will bear with them the deserved penalties

Catholic Church, Pope Innocent

In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress.

Luther

their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of us incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

passport and traveling privileges should he absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, not officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home.

http://www.aihgs.com/GSTDdoc1.htm

When they now have been given the chance, they are rapidly losing their identity and marrying outside their group. This contradicts the predictions of the "ethnocentrism" theory.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/intermarriage-statistics.htm

 

[Aquamarine]

The Gypsies may have an IQ of about 85. Their separation and lifestyle may very well be an adaption to this and not primarily a voluntary choice due to the trait "ethnocentrism". Why assume that they differ on two variables when one is enough?

Because their diaspora patterns of living indicate that it is ethnocentrism and not IQ, though it is low, that makes them a people who dwell alone. They, like Jews, have chosen separation because of ethnocentrism. I am not aware of any study that shows that there is a correlation between intelligence and ethnocentrism.

If so, why do they who have the ability leave the group? And why do they accept outsiders?

socially upward mobile Gypsies are assimilated to a certain extent and no longer designate themselves as Gypsies, and on the contrary during each generation a few downward mobile individuals of other populations become integrated into Gypsy tribes since centuries

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstrea...y/IQ/elite.html

 

[Aquamarine]

Ethnocentrism underlies all human behavior as a genetic trait. It varies markedly between individuals and between races. It also varies through indoctrination. Patriotism is a form of maladaptive ethnocentrism when governments can convince young men to become suicide bombers or die in battle. These old tribal instincts will continue to confound modern human social structures unless we can understand them better.

What are the studies in peer-reviewed journals that support your claim that it is genetic?

Obviously different groups can feel an internal identity and have a bias against outside groups. For example, Republicans, sport teams, sport fans, military units, nerds, nations or unions. Or groups formed by language or religion. But what is the evidence that groups formed by race have a stronger internal and external bias than the other kinds of groups?

 

[sourmonkey]

Aquamarine:

But what is the evidence that groups formed by race have a stronger internal and external bias than the other kinds of groups?

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think the term "race" is a valid qualifier for distinguishing human ethnic groups. If this is true, then your question has no real world answer. Perhaps (nuenke) means genetic lineage, but then again, being that enthocentrism varies across ALL cultures and ALL lineages, I think the level of ethnocentrism within any group varies according to relative cultural ideology, as opposed to any specific behavior allel.

Here, it is interesting to note that cultural ideologies are subjective and cognitively synthetic realtive to the natural world.

nuenke:

These old tribal instincts will continue to confound modern human social structures unless we can understand them better.

I'm all for that. The human predisposition towards displacement in thought has allowed human culture to evolve beyond the environmental boundaries of our world, as in, we primates now have the ability to build entirely synthetic environments and store environmental information outside of the biological parameters of our limited brains.

Our Reality is subjective... this statement tends to piss people off but it's true. The universe provides the fabric, and our minds create the meaning. Although I think enthnocentrism might have a minor genetic origin (as in reproductive "fittness") ultimately, the level of bias within ethnocentric perspectives is determined by cultural imprinting which, although the neural infrastructure for cultural programming is genetic in origin, the actual mechanisms which influence cultural perspective are subjective, i.e. created by the human mind.

Does this make sense? I'm sure I'm a small fish in a big pond here at physicsforums but this is something I given a lot of thought and research to and I would certainly like to know more about what other people think.

 

[nuenke]

1. Society does not gain from persecution of Jews. Europe has declined in economic, politic and scientific power after the holocaust.

Group conflict is not premised on whether or not societies gain from it or not. There is a great deal of evolutionary evidence that indicates that what motivates humans is ethnocentrism and that evolution of humans was in large part driven by tribal conflict. That is, humans are not economically rational in how they behave, and there is more to life than "societies gain" when it comes to human behavior. You could just as well tell Blacks that they should stop complaining, they are much better off having been born to ex-slaves who were brought here by force. Somehow, that argument just does not satisfy them. And nor will the argument that this or that race or minority helps a country. Conflict will follow in the footsteps of heterogeneous nations. You as much stated as much yourself when you listed the conflicts as reported by Chua from her book "World on Fire."

As for Europe's decline, I was not aware that they were in decline. And what is the reference you are using? I think Europe is troubled like every country/coalition, but I have never seen any evidence that it is because of the Holocaust.

2 Jews do not aim "to impose a medieval anti-scientific orthodoxy on much of the contemporary intellectual world".

3. "And how many millions of people died because of the Jewish promotion of Marxism just to keep their blood pure". Jews have supported the left for entirely different reasons.

4. The Jews have not chosen voluntarily to be "A People That Shall Dwell Alone"
Roman empire, Constantine the Great, Roman emperor
Catholic Church, Pope Innocent
Luther

When they now have been given the chance, they are rapidly losing their identity and marrying outside their group. This contradicts the predictions of the "ethnocentrism" theory.

You are using a lot of snippets from history and Jewish apologia to try and deflect their extreme ethnocentrism. Yes, for 3,000 years they have been in conflict with those around them because they are so genetically tribal or as some would state it moral particularists. They are genetically the same as Arabs, and we can see just how well they get along with each other: they are all extremely tribal. There seems to be a continuum of extreme tribalism (ethnocentrism) from the Middle East, through the Balkans and then decreasing in Western Europe.

The explanation for this has been that Europeans evolved in a sparsely populated part of the world during glaciations, and cooperation, universal moralism, was more critical to survival than warfare between tribes. Having just read Mithen's "After the Ice: A Global Human History - 20,000 to 5,000 BC" I can see these differences. The way the dead were buried, symbolism, the structure of sites for hunting, they all varied a great deal between different parts of the world. In the Middle East for example, the dead were buried inside homes, the bodies dug up later and the skulls worshipped, like ancestor worship. Ancestry worship is closely related to ethnocentrism, and we would expect it to predominate where tribalism is salient to survival. In Europe, cooperation during hunts, trading, etc. was more important than killing your competitors - so ethnocentrism was attenuated.

I was wondering why I could not state more definitively that ethnocentrism was genetic, it seemed so obvious. About a year ago I searched Questia and I could not find as much research material as I would have expected. But since your questions, it has occurred to me that it goes by many different names, and it is found meandering through all of universal Darwinism. Hamilton and Trivers opened up the discussion with altruism. Then it moved to denial of group selection, to again embracing it over the last decade or so. Now I realize that ethnocentrism is a fundamental part of the foundation of the science of "human" evolution, and without it none of the rest of it makes any sense. The reason that humans differ is because we are capable of punishing defectors - no other organism can do that. So group selection is now accepted orthodoxy - without it human behavior cannot even be begun to be explained. I referenced two books toward the beginning of this thread that shows how fundamental ethnocentrism, or ethnic nepotism as it is sometimes called, is to researching all kinds of human behaviors.

Now back to your assertions. If Jews were less ethnocentric than Europeans, then like Europeans they would not be concerned with intermarriage. Now, is that in fact the case? Well, let's get back to Chua's "World on Fire." She states that Lebanese Christians (Semites) who have come to dominate many African and Latin American countries do not intermarry. I believe she stated that this was especially so for the women, but not always the men. That would lead me to believe that they are an extremely ethnocentric race. How about Jews, who are also Semites, are they similar? It would seem so, because Jews are obsessed with "the Silent Holocaust." That is, where Jews marry non-Jews. There is no equivalency among European Whites for shunning interracial marriage as long as the other race is not considered low quality like Blacks or Amerindians. Most Whites consider marrying East Asians as very acceptable. In fact, a study in Hawaii where showed that Whites and East Asians easily intermarried, but not Blacks and Whites - Blacks having a low average IQ.

Israel is another example. I am not aware of any nation that is promoting "only Whites need enter." Yet Israel is based on the premise that it is to be the homeland of the Jewish race. The Kurds likewise want their own nation - they do not want to share it with other Muslims that are not their kin. The same is true in the Balkans. In my opinion then, the default hypotheses are this: ethnocentrism/cooperation is fundamental to human evolution and it varied in different parts of the world under varying ecologies. If we look at different races, because of their evolutionary past, it seems that they differ on a number of behavioral traits including intelligence and ethnocentrism, among others. There is no evidence that humans have evolved to fixation when it comes to these behavioral traits, so I must assume that they are deep structures in our mental armamentarium and differ according to the needs required by different races to survive.

Now, if Semites are equally ethnocentric to other races, we need to determine this by using the methodology of behavior genetics. I think the evidence so far from MacDonald, Rushton, and a number of other researchers suggest Whites tend towards universalistic versus particularistic moralism, while Semites are more particularist. What do you think?

 

[Aquamarine]

"Jewish apologia"? Should they apologize for creating wealth and science useful for the whole of society and in return being murdered, robbed and tortured?

Persecution and forced isolation:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers3.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers2.htm

You avoid answering most of my critique. Concerning the points you make:

Serious group conflicts in heterogenous nations is certainly not inevitable. One example is Jews in the U.S. Anyhow, genetic engineering will make race irrelevant.

Europe has declined relatively to the U.S after Holocaust, although certainly still making economic and scientific progress.

Whites have certainly also been extremely "tribal" in their history. Look at enormous numbers of wars and states in European history. At times hundreds of small warring states in Germany alone. The recent peace in Europe is an extreme historical anomaly.

Whites have certainly also shunned intermarriage through history, also especially for women. This has weakened recently, as it have for Jews.
http://slate.msn.com/id/30352/

Israel's immigration policy is no evidence that "Semites" have more "ethnocentrism". Japan and Finland are also examples of nations that today are extremely selective about who are allowed to immigrate. Earlier, the U.S. policy on immigration was "whites only".

 

[nuenke]

"Jewish apologia"? Should they apologize for creating wealth and science useful for the whole of society and in return being murdered, robbed and tortured?

Jewish apologia is usually aimed at deflecting charges of Jewish superiority - "The Chosen People." It has little to do with their contributions to science or wealth accumulation. Over and over again, the Jews were emancipated and expected to assimilate. Instead, they maintained their separateness - that is what kept getting them into trouble. Of course, the fact that they have such a high IQ added salt to the wound of those who envied them.

You avoid answering most of my critique. Concerning the points you make:

Serious group conflicts in heterogenous nations is certainly not inevitable. One example is Jews in the U.S. Anyhow, genetic engineering will make race irrelevant.

There are only tendencies. Under Communism, the state forced Balkan races to get along. It was later they started fighting again. And how will genetic engineering make race irrelevant? It may create new races, or even new species, as humans begin a genetic arms race. If anything, humans are set to begin a new speciation process.

Europe has declined relatively to the U.S after Holocaust, although certainly still making economic and scientific progress.

You said this before, but you have provided no proof. The EU seems to be doing very well, while the US is bogged down in a nasty war. But to compare nations, you first need to lay down some criteria. Is it GDP, quality of life, longevity, education, happiness, what?

Whites have certainly also been extremely "tribal" in their history. Look at enormous numbers of wars and states in European history. At times hundreds of small warring states in Germany alone. The recent peace in Europe is an extreme historical anomaly.

Just like in Iraq, modern wars are started by the elite, and that includes a great deal of Jewish influence. As a starting point to this thread, the reason we went into Iraq was at the behest of the Jewish neocons. That is what MacDonald clearly shows in his article, and it is being discussed by many academics and activists, and can be found in mainstream publications buried within lengthy articles.

Whites have certainly also shunned intermarriage through history, also especially for women. This has weakened recently, as it have for Jews.

Of course, culture is very influential in setting up value systems, and intermarriage between races is tolerated more now than before. But Jews still are obsessed with the "Silent Holocaust" whereas Whites have no equivalent lamentations on a collective basis.

Israel's immigration policy is no evidence that "Semites" have more "ethnocentrism". Japan and Finland are also examples of nations that today are extremely selective about who are allowed to immigrate. Earlier, the U.S. policy on immigration was "whites only".

However, if you look at what nations are the most tolerant, take in the largest number of displaced persons, asylum seekers, etc. it is only those nations that are predominantly European. If I look at all of the indicators that indicates differences in ethnocentrism between races, Whites seem to stand out as being far less ethnocentric than any other. World relief, disarmament, environmentalism, open borders, laws against hate speech, etc. This level of moral universalism is only found in European nations. That leads me to believe that the evidence is overwhelming that Whites are very maladaptive in their lack of ethnocentrism, which will lead to their eventual decline. But, Whites deserve what they get if they are too blind to take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

 

[Aquamarine]

Europe has not gained since killing it's Jews.

Scientifically,

The percentage of Americans receiving Nobel prizes in Science (chemistry, physics, physiology or medicine) increased dramatically from the first to the second half of the twentieth century.

The Europeans completely dominated the winning of Nobel prizes for the first 30 years (Germans and British were the biggest winners). Americans won only 6 prizes in the first 30 years (Europeans earned 86) and Americans didn't receive their first prizes in Physics until 1907, Chemistry until 1914 and Physiology or Medicine until 1930.

Since 1950 Americans have dominated the winning of Nobel prizes in Physics and Physiology or Medicine, and have been about equal in Chemistry. However, since 1980 Americans have won 20 Chemistry prizes while all of Europe has won 10.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/nobels.htm

Politically, Europa in 1945 controlled most of the world's population and natural resources. Those colonies are gone now. Today, the U.S. is the world's only superpower.

In the military arena, the United States is poised to spend more on defense in 2003 than the next 15-20 biggest spenders combined. The United States has overwhelming nuclear superiority, the world's dominant air force, the only truly blue-water navy, and a unique capability to project power around the globe. And its military advantage is even more apparent in quality than in quantity

the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries

http://iona.ghandchi.com/brooks.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/17563

Economically,

This sustained outperformance by the
U.S. has reversed the earlier trend of European convergence of GDP/capita with the U.S.
Looking forward, standard estimates of potential growth in the U.S. are significantly
higher than those for the EU--perhaps 3-3.25 percent compared to 2-2.25 percent--and
Germany's potential growth is below 2 percent. If sustained, the cumulative impacts of
these differences on economic performance, job creation and standards of living are
startling.

http://www.oenb.at/de/img/paper_levy_tcm14-16017.pdf

And higher GDP/capita means more income for all, even the poorest:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vas-0109.html

For a comparison between Europe and the U.S relevant to this forum, look at the income of engineers:
http://www.eetuk.com/bus/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=46800282

 

[Aquamarine]

Whites have not been less "ethnocentric" than others races historically. People all over the world have participated in genocides, and whites seems to have done their fair share:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Concerning displaced persons and refugees,

The poorest countries have provided asylum and shelter for almost three-quarters of the world's refugees over the past decade

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/298c153e3125468649256c6b001e619b?OpenDocument

Concerning intermarriage, some white supremacist and religious groups are lamenting this, as are some Jewish groups. That there still today may be stronger sense of identity among Askenazy Jews than among the much larger population of whites, should not be surprising considering sociological factors like the Holocaust, common religion and their history of genocides and forced isolation. Anyhow, this identity is vanishing quite rapidly.

Jews through most of history found refugee in Arabic countries, until the state of Israel was created. This speaks against the theory that "Semites" have high ethnocentrism. In fact, that Sephardic Jews have much lower intelligence than Askenazy Jews is another indication that the theory of voluntary isolation and selective breeding for intelligence is wrong. The Askenazy Jews developed high intelligence primarily from natural selection due to the forced isolation and repeated slaughters of Jews that only took place in Europe. It there was a master breeding plan, it should have been successful also among the Sephardic Jews.

 

[nuenke]

Whites have not been less "ethnocentric" than others races historically. People all over the world have participated in genocides, and whites seems to have done their fair share:

War and genocide during the 20th century was greatly reduced from what it was during the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness. But in addition, it was not people who fought but nations. When the elite can get their subjects to die for a cause, that does not mean that the people are necessarily ethnocentric. Humans everywhere are also easily indoctrinated. As the first thread linked to the premise that the Noeconservatives have directed the United States into a war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, to the detriment of American citizens, it is easy to see that large human collectives can be manipulated into actions that are maladaptive. In order to determine how strong the ethnocentric component is between different races, we need to look at various proxies for ethnocentrism such as intermarriage under equal opportunities, willingness to allow other races into one's country, aid to from one country to another where the giving country has one race and the receiving country another, and the racial distance between the two. And of course, and inability of closely related groups to get along, such as tribes in Iraq, India, etc.

Concerning intermarriage, some white supremacist and religious groups are lamenting this, as are some Jewish groups. That there still today may be stronger sense of identity among Askenazy Jews than among the much larger population of whites, should not be surprising considering sociological factors like the Holocaust, common religion and their history of genocides and forced isolation. Anyhow, this identity is vanishing quite rapidly.

Jews have a history of persecution BECAUSE of their xenophobia and self-imposed isolation. Their persecution followed from their behavior. You take snippets of Jewish apologia but you do not look at the history of gentile-Jewish antagonisms as they unraveled over 3000 years. The best book I have found on this subject is "Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews" by Lindemann. But there are many other very good academic books on the subject. As to White supremacists opposed to miscegenation, they are very few in number. While Jewish obsession with "The Silent Holocaust" is substantial. You need to look at the two sides based on numbers. How many Jews lament intermarriage between Jews and Whites versus how many Whites lament intermarriage between Whites and Jews.

This type of data has to be obtained using multiple studies, across nations, by many researchers, etc. to try to measure ethnocentrism. To date, we have some data that indicates that Northern Europeans are very low on ethnocentrism and that Semites are high. But of course it is the same old bell curve like intelligence, with extremes within both races. But the academics consensus again is that Europeans evolved in a hostile ecology where cooperation was more important than hostility between neighbors, while tribalism flourished in the more densely populated Middle East. So as it stands, it seems that Whites tend to be far less ethnocentric, but can become so made to be so when both indoctrinated into it and when extreme poverty is present, such as Germany in 1933. Remember, it was other Whites who killed their own kind to overthrow the Nazis. Whites are universal moralists and will go to war even when it is against their own best interests and when they are killing their own people in the name of principles. That is hardly a sign of ethnocentrism.

An ethnocentric race would be happy to get into wars but conveniently stay out of the fighting and let others die.

Jews through most of history found refugee in Arabic countries, until the state of Israel was created. This speaks against the theory that "Semites" have high ethnocentrism. In fact, that Sephardic Jews have much lower intelligence than Askenazy Jews is another indication that the theory of voluntary isolation and selective breeding for intelligence is wrong. The Askenazy Jews developed high intelligence primarily from natural selection due to the forced isolation and repeated slaughters of Jews that only took place in Europe. It there was a master breeding plan, it should have been successful also among the Sephardic Jews.

There was not a "master breeding plan." There is clearly tons of research showing that Jews in the Middle East had different breeding patterns, including low levels of literacy, due to being suppressed and of course in some locations little opportunity like Yemen which is just naturally poor. The Ashkenazi eugenics program, that raised their average intelligence up to 115, took place in Europe where they had opportunity and a culture of learning and breeding that coevolved together. It is all well documented and the story unfolds quite tightly for those who care to look at the data.

I would like to quote you the Foreword from "Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Findings and Evolutionary Theory," 2004. Edited by Salter with 17 contributors:

" This book deals with the relationship between ethnicity and public policy. It consists of a number of original studies by a distinguished interdisciplinary group of contributors, whose researches bridge the gap between the social and biological sciences. The focus is on a "sociobiologically informed social policy," which reflects a differential altruism. The major thesis, which is likely to provoke controversy, is that ethnically heterogeneous societies are not only prone to conflict, but tend also to be hostile to welfare policies. Group loyalties, based essentially on kinship relationships, are of paramount importance both for public welfare schemes and private charitable giving, which are directed as much as possible at ethnically specific groups. As ascriptive connections thin out, intergroup antagonisms grow, and altruism becomes weaker: in short, there are lower performance levels in ethnolinguistically plural societies. There is thus a direct relationship between the decline of homogeneity and a more selective social policy. To make the point about what they call 'selfish cooperation' a primordialist aspect of civic culture - the authors elaborate on the importance of ethnic solidarity, group-level nepotism, and the racialist aspects of anti-welfare attitudes, which complement and go beyond traditional libertarian anti-welfare ideology, and which modify socialist pro-welfare attitudes. In substantiating the behavioral aspect of what amounts to an organic model of the State, the authors lean upon social, psychological, and biological approaches to group behavior, including analogies from the animal kingdom, and they subject their contentions to empirical tests. The studies are voluminously documented and buttressed by in-depth discussions of the United States, Canada, and Russia, and by extensive and cross-national survey data."

Today, there are numerous studies undertaken that look at within country and between country behaviors, and these studies are compared against each other. For every study, there may be confounding parameters and data.

For example, one researcher in this book used the United Way as an indicator of giving in the United States by region. I felt that they did not understand that the United Way undertakes to collect money through coercion by setting up competition between companies for number of people giving. This is a confounding factor that seems to have been overlooked by the authors. That is why, the only way to show such things as ethnocentrism, intelligence differences, whether democracy is applicable to all countries, why some countries fail and others succeed, etc. it is necessary to give up using anecdotal examples and turn to the hard data.

Of course, it has only been the last thirty years or so, but accelerating in the last ten years, as universal Darwinism is being used in economics, political studies, health care modalities between races, differences in intelligence, religious beliefs, human rationality, etc. that we are finally able to look at human behavior using empirical data.

 

[Aquamarine]

What is the evidence for the incredible statement that the Sephardic Jews were more suppressed than the Ashkenazi Jews? The Jews fled to the Ottoman empire to find refugee from the persecutions in Europe, I have never seen anything to the contrary.

Concerning the altruistic stone age, the Europeans probably accomplished the most complete genocide in the history of the world: The Neanderthals.

Enough anecdotes. They and theories are easy to find and make. Especially in the social sciences, any crackpot theory can always find some facts that seems to fit the theory. And a crank can make some easy money or prestige writing a book. So, where is the hard evidence for "ethnocentrism", similar to the evidence for IQ? Specifically, what are the peer-reviewed studies on the following:

1. A good test that measures "ethnocentrism".
2. Evidence that what is measured is genetic. For example, studies on twins and adaptions.
3. Evidence that what is measured has consequences in the real world. For example, that others become poorer if there are more "ethnocentrism" in a group.
4. Evidence that it varies between races and that this also is due to genetic factors. Evidence that Jews have high ethnocentrism.

 

[Aquamarine]

And how will genetic engineering make race irrelevant? It may create new races, or even new species, as humans begin a genetic arms race. If anything, humans are set to begin a new speciation process.

It will make the current judgment of humans primarily on skin color irrelevant. Which is completely irrational, there are many blacks more intelligent than many whites.

I fail to see how a new genetic arms race could be any more cruel than the current one. It will eliminate the worst sides of current genetic lottery that condemns some people to lifelong physical or mental pain. Health, longevity, happiness and intelligence will be much more common.

If the demand is in the hundreds of millions each year, the technology will probably become relatively cheap.

There is nothing wrong with competition. Often it is impossible to determine the long-term consequences, then competition is the best way to find a good long-term solution. It will impossible to determine the long-term effects of many genetic improvements, so competition is necessary. Although obviously many improvements are completely safe, like eliminating genetic diseases.

I find McDonald's suggestion that we should create a superior white race by eliminating altruism, empathy and love as strange as his theories on "ethnocentrism" and Jews. For a more positive view on the future of humanity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

 

[nuenke]

What is the evidence for the incredible statement that the Sephardic Jews were more suppressed than the Ashkenazi Jews? The Jews fled to the Ottoman empire to find refugee from the persecutions in Europe, I have never seen anything to the contrary.

You take one brief period, make a statement, and ignore 3,000 years of history. The Sephardic Jews, did not do well AT TIMES in Islamic enclaves, even though the Ottoman Empire forced peace between peoples. But there were many periods, governments, etc. For the best overview see MacDonald's "A People That Shall Dwell Alone." It is available on-line at Questia. My point was, you can't say one group was oppressed and the other was not. It all depends on the place, the time, and what you mean by oppressed. Being oppressed does not necessarily mean not doing well. We try to suppress capitalists, but they still manage to do very well.

Concerning the altruistic stone age, the Europeans probably accomplished the most complete genocide in the history of the world: The Neanderthals.

I wasn't aware that killing off of a species was genocide, nor that the Neanderthals were killed off in Europe rather than the Middle East? Or that they were in fact killed off by Homo sapiens! You will put forth any story, even a speculative one that is 30,000 years old, to attack Whites. Do you have any references that show that they were killed off by humans? That last I looked, no one is sure why they went extinct.

Enough anecdotes. They and theories are easy to find and make. Especially in the social sciences, any crackpot theory can always find some facts that seems to fit the theory. And a crank can make some easy money or prestige writing a book. So, where is the hard evidence for "ethnocentrism", similar to the evidence for IQ? Specifically, what are the peer-reviewed studies on the following:

1. A good test that measures "ethnocentrism".

I discuss what is available in my books "Shattering the Myth of Racism." You will see that there is little in the way of GOOD tests for racism, they are extremely biased, and they usually are meant to show only that Whites are racists. So you are right about well developed tests for levels of racism or ethnocentrism, but they have been used primarily by the Left to show that only Whites are racist. If you deny ethnocentrism you also throw out racism - they are the same. The books are available at http://www.neoeugenics.com and are PDF files. You can download and review my treatment of ethnocentrism studies.

2. Evidence that what is measured is genetic. For example, studies on twins and adaptions.

Again, see my books. I discuss several tests. But I also gave you references and quotes that discuss ethnocentrism: " Thus, group selection models are widely judged to have failed to explain evolutionary success of individually costly forms of group-beneficial sociality. But group selection operating on genetic and cultural variation may be of considerably greater importance among humans than other animals. Among the distinctive human characteristics that enhance the relevance of group selection is our capacity to suppress within-group phenotypic differences (e.g., via resource sharing, co-insurance, consensus decision making), conformist cultural transmission, ethnocentrism (which supports positive assortation within groups and helps maintain group boundaries), and the high frequency of intergroup conflict." (From Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, Edited by Peter Hammerstein, 2003.)

Also: "According to van den Berghe, who coined the term 'Ethnic Nepotism Theory' in 1981, ethnic groups develop solidarity when they come to think of themselves as families. This makes sense from van den Berghe's kin-selection perspective, but also fits with classical ethological theory as expounded by Eibl-Eibesfeldt who, as early as 1970, observed that national solidarity is based on family feeling. A similar point is made by Horowitz in his major 1985 treatment of ethnic conflict. Horowitz concurs with van den Berghe and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (though without referencing them) that ethnicity is based on a 'family resemblance'; that kinship is crucial to understanding the central role of family structure in determining ethnic identity and in explaining the intensity of ethnic conflict." (Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Findings and Evolutionary Theory, edited by Frank Kemp Salter, 2004.)

As you can see, any book on evolution includes assumptions that ethnocentrism is part of our genetic make-up. It is the default hypothesis, not some hair brained notion. Without it, the whole biological sciences would vanish in meaning. Every organism acts in such a way as to pass on its genetic code to the next generation. This simple rule means that without ethnocentrism, we would not have altruism, warfare, cooperation, guilt, anger, etc. The very notion of ethnocentrism, or ethnic nepotism, is necessary to understand most of human behavior - or we would not be social animals.

3. Evidence that what is measured has consequences in the real world. For example, that others become poorer if there are more "ethnocentrism" in a group.

I think there is little evidence that ethnocentrism by itself is good or bad for a people. Many of our behavioral modules or algorithms are now maladaptive. For example, nature used the desire for sex to have children, not love of children. Now, many people just don't bother having children, they just have sex. Ethnocentrism is like that - it was a fundamental component of our hunter-gatherer past, but may not be beneficial today. But again, it may be very beneficial 100 years from now. Who is to say?

4. Evidence that it varies between races and that this also is due to genetic factors. Evidence that Jews have high ethnocentrism.

I already gave you factors that you can research, but again, I will reference my own article that includes a table showing differences between Europeans and Semites - it is about 2/3 through the article:

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/ethnic.htm

 

[nuenke]

It will make the current judgment of humans primarily on skin color irrelevant. Which is completely irrational, there are many blacks more intelligent than many whites.

I don't think people should judge others based on skin color either. However, affirmative action is all about making sure "races" have equal outcomes, not "individuals" based on a meritocracy. Why do you think that is? Explain to me why anyone would care that group X does better or worse in an area than group Y? I think virtually everyone on the Right would agree with you that people should be judged as individuals, but that is what most Western democracies are advocating. They usually look at each race, and if they do not come out equal on average they intervene in some way to make people equal. Again, I would like you to explain to me why anyone would care about a races average anything versus an individuals talent or attributes when it comes to jobs, education, etc.?

I find McDonald's suggestion that we should create a superior white race by eliminating altruism, empathy and love as strange as his theories on "ethnocentrism" and Jews. For a more positive view on the future of humanity.

Where did you get such an odd notion about MacDonald? Where has he advocated eliminating anything like altruism or creating a superior White race? How did you come to that determination from his work? As an evolutionary psychologist, like most in that field, he does not set or advocate much in the way of policy, but is an observer of human behavior based on our evolutionary past.

 

[Aquamarine]

You have failed to produce a single peer-reviewed study that shows that ethnocentrism by different races are genetic or that whites have low and Jews high. Books and articles that have theories are no evidence. In fact, you ignore the studies available that show that whites have high. These studies should be criticized and shows nothing about genetics, but they certainly do not support your theory.

Neither have you shown any support for the theory that Jews make other people poorer. In fact, you have not answered to the historical examples given before in this thread that persecution have had the opposite effect.

Nor can the theory about voluntary separation and selective breeding by the Jews explain why the 500 years that Jews lived in relative peace in the Ottoman empire (and much longer if also those who lived for a long time before that in Islamic Spain are counted), produced a much lower IQ than among the Jews who survived the persecutions in Europe. A much better explanation is that a harsher environment selected for a higher IQ, as it may have done in whites and East Asians who survived the ice age.

More anecdotes: Living in a very sparsely populated area will not automatically make people more altruistic. The Yanomami indians in the Amazonas live in a very sparsely populated area but no one would describe them as altruistic:

In general, warring villages are usually several days walk from each other, where as tranquil ones may be less than a day.

About 40% of adult males have killed another person and about 25% of adult males will die from some form of violence. Violence will vary from chest pounding, in which opponents take turns hitting each others on the chest, to club fights, to raids which may involve the killing of individuals and abducting the women, to all out warfare.

http://www.crystalinks.com/yanomami.html

 

[nuenke]

You have failed to produce a single peer-reviewed study that shows that ethnocentrism by different races are genetic or that whites have low and Jews high. Books and articles that have theories are no evidence. In fact, you ignore the studies available that show that whites have high. These studies should be criticized and shows nothing about genetics, but they certainly do not support your theory.

You seem to fail to understand the scientific method. When you are in college, you read books, not research papers. Likewise, I rely on books, not as simplistic or biased as textbooks, but books that are produced from symposiums by researchers, who critique each other's research papers. I especially like books from the American Psychological Association where numerous researchers contribute to a subject, and all sides are heard. When you want to get the latest research, bound in a single source where you can see differences between researchers, rather than rely on one researchers position, it becomes far more reliable. Any one research paper is usually highly biased and flawed in some respects, whereas academically sponsored symposiums tend to be more unbiased because of divergent views. When a view cannot be supported, it is appended as an area requiring more research. I provided you with two books by numerous researchers, that believe that ethnocentrism is in fact a combination of genes and culture, you then reject these results from symposiums that are in fact a result of research papers, and feel somehow you have deflected an observation. I have seen this tactic used too many times. Mostly in the area of human differences like IQ, behavioral differences, when life begins, etc. These highly contentious areas are constantly being reported on by the media that uses single studies for a splash effect, only to find out that there are numerous studies that show just the opposite. Academically reviewed books are in fact much more reliable than research papers, especially books compiled by the leading researchers in an area of study.

Of course, there are some areas of study that are in fact being attacked for not being scientific at all. Social scientists and cultural anthropologists, as well as many postmodernist studies, have taken the positions of naïve environmentalism - they totally ignore any genetic component in their studies.

Now, for that research paper you wanted, I will provide you with a recent one on ethnocentrism show you why it is invalid. http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/6/749

Note first that it is from Sage Publications, and Sage is noted for taking the naïve environmental stance. In the paper, they use questions like "Do you think Blacks are less intelligent than other groups?" Of course, if Blacks are in fact less intelligent than other groups, which is the position of the APA and behavior geneticists, then it is not biased but truthful. But social scientists repeatedly use this technique to show bias, by assuming that there is no difference in average intelligence between races. That is, the research is flawed. This is the most common flaw on the part of the Left when it comes to research of this kind, genetic components are not only left out, they are assumed not to exist.

Now, in my original post "Understanding Jewish Influence III" by Kevin MacDonald, there are provided 450 references and endnotes. Some of them are Internet links and you are free to do what anyone does who needs to refute a position or attack the data. That is usually done not by amateurs, but by other academics who have access to large databases and the research staff to try and find flaws in the data. I am unaware of very many people who have these types of resources or time. Again, for me, I then rely on books by researchers, preferably very reputable ones. But a final note on ethnocentrism. I too find very little in the way of hard data showing how races differ. But that is only because this type of data is hard to collect. But the little data there is, seems to show what MacDonald has described as differences between Europeans and Semites. His 1994 book references the some of the same researchers who contributed to "Welfare, Ethnicity, and Altruism: New Findings and Evolutionary Theory" edited by Frank Salter, 2004. The book is based on over 40 years of research, and again it is far more substantial than relying on a couple of studies that may or may not be free of extreme bias.

Neither have you shown any support for the theory that Jews make other people poorer. In fact, you have not answered to the historical examples given before in this thread that persecution have had the opposite effect.

I don't think I stated that "Jews make other people poorer." That assumption would be highly contingent on the place, time and circumstances. I would be far more inclined to think that Blacks in the U.S. make the average American poorer, by transferring funds from the well-off to the underclass. As a race, they seem to bring any economy down rather than improving it. On the other hand, I see little data on the influence of minorities impact on societies economic positions when those minorities have most of the wealth, like the East Asians in the Philippines.

Nor can the theory about voluntary separation and selective breeding by the Jews explain why the 500 years that Jews lived in relative peace in the Ottoman empire (and much longer if also those who lived for a long time before that in Islamic Spain are counted), produced a much lower IQ than among the Jews who survived the persecutions in Europe. A much better explanation is that a harsher environment selected for a higher IQ, as it may have done in whites and East Asians who survived the ice age.

I agree. But in addition, culture as well as natural ecologies can have selection pressures. I just saw a documentary on the Amish. Apparently they are allowed to do what ever they like when they turn 16, and must return to the church and make a full commitment to conform to the ways of the church or leave it altogether. The Amish also try to under educate their children, believing hard work is far more useful than academic studies. It then becomes extremely difficult for the young to leave their communities, they are not equipped educationally. However, the most intelligent (and less religious) probably do leave proportionately more than the others, and over time, this will have a genetic impact on those left behind.

If you want to understand these cultural impacts of breeding patterns, you have to consider the population group as a coevolving one, where many factors are taken into consideration. MacDonald has done this in greater depth, using mostly Jewish resources and references, to explain the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews. For ethnocentrism, we need to do similar studies.

I will say that indoctrination does have a significant impact on ethnocentrism. Whites seem to be highly tolerant of other races in the last fifty plus years because of the medias impact on our culture. That is, we are highly indoctrinated into naïve environmentalists positions of looking at people, believing in the blank slate, all races are equal, etc. That is starting to erode now with our increasing understanding of genetic influences, but it is slow to trickle down to the masses. For example, I have not seen even one even minor insinuation that the No Child Left Behind disparities between races might be due to genetic differences. Every story I have read conveniently leaves out any reference to genetic differences, even though it is firmly established within academic circles that dare to look at the data, including the APA.

More anecdotes: Living in a very sparsely populated area will not automatically make people more altruistic. The Yanomami indians in the Amazonas live in a very sparsely populated area but no one would describe them as altruistic:

http://www.crystalinks.com/yanomami.html

This again is why I do not like to rely on a single researcher's position. Chagnon's work was the first to reveal the violent nature of the Yanomamon people, but then his research was attacked by others as highly flawed. It was asserted that Chagnon actually supplied them with weapons and encouraged them to fight. If I remember right, Chagnon was finally vindicated. However, it is just as likely that the Yanomamon people fight not because of dense populations and a lack of resources, but it is more a "sexy son" phenomenon like the peacock's tail. Tribal men, individuals, who kill other men have more mates and leave more children, thus selecting for brutality. That is, it may have evolved into an arms race. Once started, it escalates on its own. The females preferably mate with those who murder others. This may not be anything like ethnocentrism, because they are just as happy killing one of their own - just like Blacks in the hood.

 

[ke1n]

i have not read the entire thread, but for those who use the term 'islamists' and 'jews' whe n reffering to enemies:--

Islam is a religion. Muslims are followers of Islam. Now there are muslims, then there are fanatic, extremist muslims. You must know the difference.

I doubt all Jews hate muslims, Zionists certainly do.

Learn the difference between extremism and moderation.

 

[nuenke]

Islam is a religion. Muslims are followers of Islam. Now there are Muslims, then there are fanatic, extremist Muslims. You must know the difference.

Over the weekend I read a good book on Islam, but then I left it at work because I want to scan in excerpts. However, from the very beginning, Mohammad's religion is based on war, genocide, rape, pillage and plunder in the name of Allah. That is, true Islam is extremist. You either fight infidels to convert them or kill them - and the spoils of a jihad rightly belongs to Muslims who undertake such wars.

Actually Islam and Judaism are more similar to each other than to Christianity when it comes to tolerance for genocide, slavery, spoils of warfare, etc. The primary difference is that Judaism is a particularist, non-proselytizing religion. Islam is similarly a particularist religion but it is hyper-proselytizing - become a Muslim or die. If you read about the life of Mohammad it is a real hoot. He basically (though he was also epileptic) used religion for conquest (sex, money, power, etc.). So in reality, a peaceful and tolerant Muslim would in fact be the extremist because they do not adhere to the tenets of Islam.

 

[ke1n]

Over the weekend I read a good book on Islam, but then I left it at work because I want to scan in excerpts. However, from the very beginning, Mohammad's religion is based on war, genocide, rape, pillage and plunder in the name of Allah. That is, true Islam is extremist. You either fight infidels to convert them or kill them - and the spoils of a jihad rightly belongs to Muslims who undertake such wars.

Actually Islam and Judaism are more similar to each other than to Christianity when it comes to tolerance for genocide, slavery, spoils of warfare, etc. The primary difference is that Judaism is a particularist, non-proselytizing religion. Islam is similarly a particularist religion but it is hyper-proselytizing - become a Muslim or die. If you read about the life of Mohammad it is a real hoot. He basically (though he was also epileptic) used religion for conquest (sex, money, power, etc.). So in reality, a peaceful and tolerant Muslim would in fact be the extremist because they do not adhere to the tenets of Islam.

That is Insane!

Mohammed dealt with war during his time because at the time people who rejected his beleifs wanted him dead. Do you know what Jihad means? Not Holy War or some stupid crap like that. It simply states that muslims have the right to defend their country and/or their religion and if they die while doing so they go to heaven.

I bet your book didn't tell you that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Quran, huh? The Quran and a book of quotes from Prophet Mohamaed would be heavily hypocracized if what you are saying is true.

So NO, Islam is not extremist. Unfortuantly there are too many brainwashed muslims who are mislead to believe that what you are saying is partially true. While in reality, people such as my father and so many others are moderate, true muslims who are respected.

The word Allah simply means God; the same God Judaism and Christianity believe in (but no Holy Trinity). In fact, when I took Islam in school in english the teacher just reffered to Allah as God because it is the same thing. there is a huge similarity between Islam Judaism, and old-fashioned Christinanity.

Not once was I encouraged to commit violence, rape, pilage, or plunder in the name of Allah because I was taught Allah rewards those who are good.

Take your head out of your ass.