On this final night of Chanukah, The Group discuss . . . the Jews. Are they smart? Are they a race? Are they ethnically nepotistic? Bret Stephens of the *New York Times* recently stirred up controversy by claiming that Jews as a race are highly intelligent and possess “bracing originality and high-minded purpose.” Or did the ancients have it right in viewing the Jews as conformist, obstinate, and dogmatic? We’ll find out. Joining the panel is the easily imitable Edward Dutton. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe
It's Monday, December 30th, 2019, and welcome back to the McSpencer Group.
On this final night of Hanukkah, we discuss the Jews.
Are they smart?
Are they a race?
Are they ethnically nepotistic?
Bret Stephens of the New York Times recently stirred up controversy by claiming that Jews as a race are highly intelligent and possess bracing originality and high-minded purpose.
Or did the ancients have it right in New York?
We'll find out.
Joining me, as always, is the easily imitable Edward Dutton.
All right, welcome back.
Ed, how are you?
Happy New Year.
I'm Ed K. Have you had a pleasant Christmas?
I have.
I have.
Someone on Twitter noted that between Christmas and New Year's, to quote Morrissey, every day is like Sunday.
So I have been enjoying this in-between time.
My kids have been here, so I have just been relaxing, doing a little work here and there.
Did your kids get any particularly pleasant presents from you for Christmas?
Oh, they have, yes.
They got a lot of great presents.
I think the one that won is not the one that I gave them.
It's an inflatable animal that's a massive blow-up rubber toy that they bounce around on.
It's pretty funny.
But yeah, I didn't come up with that one.
But a hat tip to the family member who did.
Well done.
How about you?
The winning present was a PlayStation Three or four or something.
Oh, no.
That was, unfortunately, yes, that was a very non-materialistic gift, and they enjoyed that a great deal, and they've been playing Minecraft, which is this...
Okay, well, Minecraft is kind of mind-expanding.
That's good for kids.
I guess.
I suppose so.
So, yes, they've been very happy about that.
So, the PlayStation, or Plaker, as they call it here, was extremely successful.
Well, I'm going to do a little skiing after this broadcast, so you can tell.
So, yes, the in-between time, Christmas time, is going well.
Well, let's talk about the Jews.
Speaking of Christmas time...
They are, I guess, the ultimate progenitors of the celebration of the birth of Christ.
But, so, it was either yesterday or the day before that New York Times op-ed columnist Brett Stevens, who is a former Wall Street Journal neocon op-ed columnist, and I believe he was at the Jerusalem Post before that, or a...
A similar Jewish newspaper like that.
And he waded into the troubled waters of HPD and IQ and race realism, you could say.
Just as a little bit of background, I have definitely seen this before.
So there is a huge literature on human biodiversity.
We could say literature that, Ed, you've contributed to, literature that you are a master of as well.
But this literature, unlike, say, literature on climate science or other things, very rarely reaches the mainstream.
Whereas we're not allowed to question global warming, you know, and we're told, at least, that there is this massive scientific consensus on this subject.
When it comes to race, we're in a bit of an...
The opposite situation, a bizarro world, where there actually is a tremendous amount of reasons to believe in race realism or IQ realism, heritability writ large.
But we're actually told by mainstream sources over and over again that no one actually believes this, and it's all wrong.
Or if they're a little bit smarter, they'll go in and deconstruct it.
And things like that.
So this is the situation we're in.
But every few years, some mainstream journalist wades into these troubled waters and usually gets smacked down on the blogs and on Twitter, etc., for doing so.
And the ones who have done this, I've noticed a trend.
Brett Stevens is the latest, but Andrew Sullivan has done this multiple times.
While Andrew Sullivan was the editor, I always mix those two up.
Also did a kind of race realism.
...ish article, and he was smacked down for it and actually apologized.
So I've noticed this trend where conservatives won't talk about this stuff, at least mainstream conservatives won't.
But you'll occasionally get the brave liberal centrist who has bona fides on his side as cover.
So it's I'm a Jewish neoconservative.
I'm a gay conservative who voted for Obama in the case of Andrew.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Usually there is a big firestorm and then it kind of dies down.
Maybe there's an apology, maybe a retraction.
But each of those people have maintained their careers, it's worth pointing out.
And Charles Murray has maintained his career in neocon think tanks.
But certainly others who pursue these ideas are cast to the margins or sometimes can have their careers ruined.
Sam Francis, who had a mainstream career.
And was pushed out to the margins is an excellent example of that.
Of course, he was a right-winger who was taking up many of these issues.
But Brett Stevens has done it, and he's done it in a kind of slippery way in the New York Times.
He's basically said that, yes, Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs on average.
However, that's not the real thing.
It's their ability to think differently.
Kind of Steve Jobs-esque, like that.
So what I wanted to do here, I think we can go in and talk about the article itself a little bit.
But to be honest, I don't think the article is terribly interesting.
I do want to jump on some of Brett Stevens'assertions.
I thought it would be a better idea to talk about the whole issue of IQ heritability.
You could say race realism, although it's a little bit different in this case, and also just Jewish genius and Jewish success, Jewish IQ, and all those issues.
So kind of like a big backgrounder for this debate and reasons why we should take these ideas seriously.
So, Ed, I think I'll just let you run with it from the start.
Is it true that those Jews are just so smart?
Yes.
When we're talking about Ashkenazi Jews, this is the case.
There are some people that I've read on the alt-right or whatever that have cast doubt on this.
But even in the 1930s, there were IQ tests that were published in Germany which showed that Jewish people had considerably higher, Ashkenazi Jewish people, considerably higher average IQ than Germans.
So it's not some new thing.
It's not some new phenomenon.
It doesn't solely relate to Jews, Ashkenazi Jews in the USA.
It's Ashkenazi Jews everywhere, which is one of the reasons why the high caste in Israel that runs Israel is Ashkenazi Jews.
And the other Jews, the Midrahim and so on, are in the middle.
Sephardic Jews generally have a little bit of a lower IQ, don't they, than Ashkenazi?
No, it depends on, oh, they have a lower IQ than Ashkenazi, yes, yes.
But one of the things that has been found is that, I mean, Richard Lynn has done a good book on this called The Chosen People.
And in every society where there have been, in the three kinds of Jew, the Mishra, the Sephardi, and the Ashkenazi, they all have higher IQs than their host societies.
So the average IQ of Western societies is around about 100.
The average IQ of the Ashkenazi is about 112.
The average IQ of Spain and Portugal and Southeast Europe is maybe around about 90-95.
The average IQ of the Sephardi is about 105.
The average IQ of the Middle East is 85. The average IQ of the Mishraim is about 95, something like that.
So inevitably it's higher.
But with the Ashkenazi, it's particularly pronounced.
Right.
A, because Ashkenazi Jews are about 40% white anyway, so they've accepted intermarriage from a highly intelligent race, and B, there's just various reasons behind it that we can look at that it's elevated their IQ, but it has.
And they have an average IQ, according to this is massive studies, massive numbers of participants of 112.
It's 117 on linguistic IQ, so they're particularly strong on linguistic IQ, which is consistent with the very high representation of Jews in things like law, and academia, journalism, politics.
I mean, look at the current cabinet in the United States.
How many of them are not Jewish?
Oh, right.
So it's Trump, Pence, maybe one or two other people that are not Jewish.
So you can see, and that is consistent with very high linguistic IQ, and there's a number of studies that have shown that this relationship, people would say, oh, well, it's to do with cultural factors and Jewish people being wealthier, and apparently that's taboo to even point that out, but Jewish people being wealthier or more educated or more urban or whatever.
No, the difference is on G. So when we look at intelligence, we divide between different kinds of intelligence, verbal, linguistic, mathematical, and these tend to intercorrelate in people.
So people that are good at one kind, people differ in these, but people that are good at one kind are good at the other kind and the other kind, and so there's an underlying factor which we call G. And this has been shown from twin studies and twin adoption studies and things like this to be highly heritable, highly genetic, in the region of 0.8 heritable.
So it's a strongly genetic thing that you inherit, G, and the difference between Gentiles and Jews on IQ is on G. It's what's called a Jensen effect.
So you could get that there's an IQ difference, but it's driven by massive differences in things that relate vaguely to G that are to do with, I don't know, being good at spotting patterns or something like that.
It could be that that's causing it.
It isn't.
It's on G. And there was a very interesting paper that was published.
No, this year.
2019.
Dunkel et al.
Curtis Dunkel is at the University of Western Illinois.
Polygenic scores mediate the Jewish phenotypic advantage in education, attainment and cognizability compared to Catholics and Lutherans.
And so what this shows is that it is definitely a genetic issue.
So Jewish people, Ashkenazi Jewish people, are more intelligent than white people, much more intelligent than white people, and it is almost half a standard deviation.
12 points.
That's the difference between the average office worker, whatever, and a schoolteacher, or the average schoolteacher and a university science professor.
That's the kind of difference we're talking about.
And so, yeah, they are more intelligent.
The question is, why?
But they are genetically more intelligent.
Before we talk about why, I just want to reiterate this IQ profile.
Certainly agree that the difference is G, general intelligence, which is kind of like if you're good at one thing, you're good at a lot of things.
It's true.
Some of us have talents and all these kinds of things.
But basically, a smart person can really...
I mean, if someone is great at problem-solving, he could be a good baseball coach.
He could be a good finance guru.
He could be a good poet, even.
He could probably learn to play a musical instrument, in the sense that if you have general intelligence, it can be applied everywhere.
But the Jewish...
The intelligence profile is a bit lopsided, you could say, in the sense that Jews excel at verbal ability.
You can think of this as the words, words, words, the verbal aspect of the SAT or IQ or GRE.
And they are not as good on the mathematics or spatial reasoning concept.
And actually, Asians have kind of the reverse profile in which they excel at spatial reasoning and so on, but then don't excel as much on verbal.
So your average East Asian has a higher IQ than your average white in the United States.
However, he has a different intelligence profile.
Or men and women.
You can make the comparison between.
What is the difference between Jewish men and Jewish women?
No, no, I mean between just men and women in general.
And you can say that the intelligence profile is different.
Women are, on average, a few points, in adult women, on average, a few points lower IQ than men, but they're higher in linguistics and they're better at learning languages and things like that.
So the intelligence, whereas the male intelligence is more spatial and mathematical.
So there's this different profile.
And it's the same, yeah, with the Jews and the East Asians.
And interestingly, when you get to, the higher is the level of G, the higher you are on G, so the higher your IQ is, The narrower your intelligence becomes, because the more it becomes related to G. And so you get these parts of the IQ test,
the things that it tests, which are only weakly measuring G. Any cognitive tasks you can think of, even driving a car or doing your shoelaces up or catching a ball or something, these are weak measures of G. And the more intelligent you are, the harder you are.
I or G is, then the more narrow is your intelligence, and often, therefore, you can be very bad at these weakly G-loaded things, like driving a car or doing your shoelaces up.
But that's brilliant at highly G-loaded things, such as quantum mechanics or whatever.
And it's the Sheldon Cooper stereotype.
And that's what a lot of these high IQ people like Einstein were like.
Einstein couldn't drive.
Einstein used to get lost.
There's this...
The absent-minded professor type thing.
Yeah, the absent-minded professor, this tale about him that he wandered into a shop in Princeton, just said, hi, I'm Einstein, can you take me home, please?
And so this is the phenomenon that you get.
But yeah, so it Right.
All right, so let's start to talk about why that is.
First off, Jews are a race in a way, but that's a bit of a blurry issue, to be honest, because Jews...
I mean...
Jews' entrance into Europe was an entrance into intermarriage with Gentiles.
The Mizorahim, the Oriental Jews, or whatever you want to call them, are similarly looking and have a similar intelligence profile as Arabs.
So Jews survive as a people through religion and a shared story and culture, etc.
But genetically speaking, they enter into larger host races and intermarry and interbreed and become...
They're not quite a race in the sense that African Americans, even though there clearly has been intermarriage and interbreeding rape and so on in earlier times, they are a distinct race.
You can define them.
Whereas Jews, it's a little bit...
But let's just think of them as that kind of amalgamized group.
But what are some of the reasons why they have I mean, the first one is obvious, and I'll just put it out there.
It's that they actually are breeding with Gentiles.
So whatever the IQ was of, say, ancient Jews or these Middle Eastern Jews who originally entered Europe, entered Southern Europe at the beginning, I believe, they were marrying into host communities that were boosting their IQ.
So that's step one.
But what are some other reasons why they have this higher IQ than their host population?
Kevin MacDonald pointed out that in ancient times there was no particular comment on the high intelligence of the Jews.
And the comment on the high intelligence of the Jews comes later.
So this would be consistent with some sort of breeding pattern that was going on that had started off then or a bit before then and wasn't really noticed substantially until later.
If you look at the Old Testament, in some ways it's a kind of a...
A manifesto for taking over the world, really, in terms of what we call group selection, which is ensuring that your group will beat the other group and outbreed the other group in the battle for survival.
So first of all, it very strongly promotes religiousness, obviously.
But what that religiousness is promoting as the will of God is basically ethnocentric things, things that are for the good of the group, that make the group more self-sacrificial, that you're more internally cooperative, that cast out and kill those who are disobedient to the group, which is manifested in them worshipping other gods or all kinds of law breakings of all kinds of minor laws.
They have to be cast out and removed, often in some depth.
I mean, even the villages where people have blasphemed, the whole village has to be destroyed.
You get these kinds of injunctions in various books in the Old Testament.
So it's making them more ethnocentric.
Another thing it seems to do is it seems to encourage people who are like the rabbis, for example, and those who are in positions of power, under these conditions that they were under.
We know that until the Industrial Revolution, And this was selecting for intelligence every generation because of the correlation between intelligence and socioeconomic status.
And what you see in the Old Testament as well are these injunctions where things are kind of relaxed.
Because when it comes to the rabbi, more food must go to the priest.
Things are done to make the priest even richer than he is already.
And by making him even richer than he is, then, of course, you're making him a better...
They're allowed to have children, which is the interesting thing, the priests.
And so, therefore, you're elevating the likelihood that it is their genes that are going to survive.
And they're going to be the most intelligent people in society.
And the religion is elevating the likelihood that those people, the rabbis, are going to be the ones that are going to pass on...
Real quick, do you think that the Catholic injunction against priest marrying was overall dysgenic, even if it did have some benefits, maybe some social benefits, maybe even some kind of intellectual benefits of these incels, you know, coming up with great ideas?
I've heard this.
I've never found it quite convincing.
But do you think it was an overall dysgenic effect?
There is some.
I would concur with the idea that in terms of group selection, there is some benefit to having a caste that is celibate, and then that caste pushes its energies into things which are for the good of the group, and therefore the group becomes more group-selected, and therefore it's more likely to survive.
Yeah, so the punishment for a daughter who's a bit of a slapper is worse if she's a priest's daughter.
So it's as if they realize that it's going to be that person's children that are going to be the future, because she's rich.
So we've got to make sure if she's a slapper, she's killed.
Whereas if she's working class, they're not doing what she likes.
Slapper, this is English slang for...
A woman of loose virtue.
That's a euphemistic way of...
So, in Deuteronomy, you have similar things.
I thought that was very interesting.
Right, anyway, let's get back to what we're talking about.
What were we on here?
Yes, the...
Catholic priest.
I agree with you.
I mean, I...
I also agree with group selection and that there should be some people who think for the group, and they might be incels, or perhaps even better if they're not.
But so I think there is some benefit on the whole of having a celibate cast if they're operating the right direction.
The other difference, though.
The other difference, though.
Can I just say?
The other difference is that the rabbis, who of course had children, were highly educated by the standards of their society.
They were well-read, they were literate, all this kind of thing.
If you look at research on what it was like in medieval Europe, I mean, I'm familiar with the research on medieval England.
Being a priest went well down the social hierarchy.
Working class priests.
You had what was called poor priests who would combine being a priest, like being a kind of freelance priest, basically.
The Catholic country, they were awash with priests because the belief is that you need these priests to say masses for your soul and for the souls of your relatives.
So there's so many priests everywhere.
And you get the priests that are at the top of society, that are the bishops and whatever, and that are the vicars and whatever.
They tend to be upper class and have degrees.
Then you have those that are the curates.
They don't tend to have been to university.
And the assistant priests.
They're kind of on the same level as the yeoman and the husbandman, the middling sort, basically.
And then you have those that are even further down, the so-called poor priests, which is most of them, that don't have a parish and just kind of save masses for people for money.
So...
They just knew a bit of Latin.
That was all.
So I don't think it would have had that much of a huge effect on reducing intelligence as is believed.
Okay.
All right.
So what about the argument of Jews and money in the sense that there's this...
Cliché of Jews weren't able to participate in many of the professions in medieval Europe, and indeed the Catholic Church was an absolutist against usury, and so Jews were kind of benignly forced into the occupations of moneylending.
There were Gentile moneylenders like the Medici and so on who would often come up with elaborate bookkeeping tricks to prove that they weren't actually engaging in usury.
I think that was done among Arabs or Muslims in the Middle East as well.
Yes, it does seem to be the case that when they were forced into the These were professions that required high
cognitive abilities.
And so, consequently, those that were not able...
To pursue those professions because they weren't clever enough, because you're going to get this effect whereby sometimes highly intelligent Jewish parents are going to have children that aren't particularly bright, and we're not able to do that kind of thing, then those children are either going to die, because there's no other profession they can do, or they're going to fall down into the Gentile classes.
In much the same way that if you look at the Irish gypsies...
They're not just pure-bred Irish gypsies.
There's a lot of just Irish people.
And what happened was that right at the bottom of Irish society would basically fall into the gypsy class and then sort of become gypsy.
So it's a similar kind of...
Greg Clark looks at this in one of his books.
So it's a similar kind of effect.
So, yeah, I think that is probably true, that they were bottlenecked into these professions.
These professions, and if you couldn't do those kinds of professions, then I'm afraid you weren't going to survive.
So you wouldn't pass on your genes.
So you would just die.
Let me add two things here.
First off, I guess I'm a financial realist to the extent that I think loans of some kind are going to need to take place in society.
There is a time element to money and so on, and that loans can certainly, at the very least, be quite powerful in terms of...
Wall Street or something.
I think that's true to a large extent.
However, I do think that loans, that no society can quite exist without some kind of time quality to money and that this is necessary.
But I just want to point out how devastating it was for these injunctions against money lending.
The fact that we went to the ghettos in order to get a loan, whether out of dire need or out of a future vision for a project, I think this was a pretty devastating effect for Europeans.
I wish there were a stronger white financial class.
It allowed them to feel that they were morally pure, if you like, while still doing the thing that was basically forbidden, which was engaging in history.
So goofy.
You can see why it was attractive in much the same way that they needed something.
They weren't supposed to go around killing people and whatever.
So they got around that problem with things like confession, where they could kill people as they wished and then confess the sin and then the slate was wiped clean.
So you'll always get around these things theologically eventually.
But anyway, I do think that one of the things was this focusing of them into these professions.
It is a stereotype, but I do think there's some truth in it.
And it built a racial profile.
I mean, in the sense that the white racial profile that our We have whites with IQs of 90, with IQs even lower than that.
We have whites of IQs of 100.
We have whites of extreme IQs and esoteric, eccentric brilliance.
And that is a real race in the sense that no society can function without laborers.
It can't function without people, janitors, without people doing this hard work.
Not fun, but necessary.
We also need a middle class to do the middling things.
And then we also need a upper elite that thinks and creates art and creates religion, etc.
So that is a full race.
The Jewish profile that has emerged is kind of a...
I've described it this way.
It's a head without a body.
In the sense that you're going to...
There are, you know, middling or dumb Jews out there, but the Jewish racial profile is of the kind of the eccentric intellectual type.
I'm not—well— I'm not 100% sure I follow this for a number of reasons.
I mean, first of all, the average IQ of the Japanese is 107.
That doesn't mean that they don't have, around there, 106.
That doesn't mean they don't have laborers and things.
It just means that everybody in the society is more intelligent.
The laborer.
I think that's great.
So what it means is it's going to be a more efficient society and fewer things are going to go wrong and fewer little mistakes are going to happen and less crime.
And equally with the Jews, if you've got a Jewish society with an average IQ of 112, all that means is that the people that are the office workers and I obviously want the IQ of labourers to go up, even though there actually is a...
It seems like once you have an IQ of, I don't know, 115, you kind of start thinking so much about yourself, and you're not willing to be a janitor, perhaps?
So there are maybe some problems to that.
But generally, all things being equal, I do want to raise everyone's IQ in our race.
What I'm saying is, to visualize it, you could think of it as the width of the bell curve in the sense that, where is the Jewish proletariat?
Where are the Jewish...
It seems like the Jewish racial profile is a narrow bell curve.
But that's because they are a minority.
They are a select racial minority in a country.
Even if they were a minority, you'd still just have fewer janitors, but you would have them.
I mean, am I wrong that the Jewish bell curve is not narrower?
I'm not aware of any evidence the Jewish bell curve is narrower.
I've not seen that.
In the same way that the Asian Americans, the Northeast Asian Americans do better than the whites, so you don't get much of an American, Northeast Asian working class.
You used to when they first came there to California in the 1850s or whatever, of course, because there was nothing else for them to do other than labor, and that's why they came.
But they will quickly rise up the society.
It's the same with the Jews.
And if you create a purely Jewish society, Then you will get a Jewish working class.
And the only thing that's militated against that is the presence of the Ethiopian Jews, who of course are from Ethiopia, the blacks, who of course have an average IQ of about 75, 80. Hasn't the Jewish...
Jews are not monolithic.
They have different impulses.
And hasn't the impulse towards Jewish nationalism, the idea that we're going to all go and farm in a kibbutz and live in a kind of communal society, hasn't that failed at some level?
And the other ideal of a global people that is...
...embedded in other societies, hasn't that been clearly the most successful version of Jews?
that Jews, Jews are, they have a different racial profile.
They have a different racial ideal than Gentiles who are landed We like to think of ourselves as having a nation.
It's a big swath of land.
There are people who grow out of the soil itself.
And then we also have elites and military people and so on.
Whereas the Jewish profile, it's a stereotype, but it says something true, which is rootless cosmopolitans.
And that is more intelligent groups that go different places and are embedded into these societies.
I mean, it's a stereotype, but isn't it?
That's fine.
I don't disagree with that.
But if you think that what are a lot of the sort of upper middle class in England or whatever, they are the nowheres, they are the rootless cosmopolitans.
And so it follows if a race has, well, just, okay, well, just if we're going to talk in stereotypes, then there's a degree to which that stereotype bears out.
And so...
And so these nowheres, these Brexit voters, these anti-Brexit voters, sorry, these people like that.
And so the Jews are simply a people who have...
An IQ that's almost a standard deviation higher than that of Europeans.
So it follows that far more of them are going to have these kinds of values that are associated with high intelligence Europeans, i.e.
to be rootless and open and, as you say.
So I think that kind of fits to some extent.
You'd expect it of them.
The thing that would militate against that, perhaps, would be things like very high levels of ethnocentrism or very high levels of conformism.
So with the Northeast Asians, I don't know if they have values that are more cosmopolitan, but then you could argue they've been more selected for this highly ethnocentric society, and also their intelligence is more bunched, and there's other factors that are involved there.
But yeah, I mean, the Jews are adapted to a different ecology from us.
So with reference to your comment about us being grounded in the soil and whatever, it would follow that they're adapted to a different ecology, and so they would see things differently.
The selection pressures have been different, and so, yeah, you would expect them, perhaps, to have a different modal nature.
Okay.
Well, we kind of agree.
We have a little bit of disagreement there.
I mean, one of the things that I took away from Richard Lenn's book that I believe he was...
Taking from the work of Harpending and Cochran, the late, sadly late, Henry Harpending, a man I knew quite well.
He was a very nice guy.
Did you ever meet him, by any chance?
No, I wrote his obituary for Matt Van Quarterly.
Yes, okay.
He was a very smart, but very down-to-earth, fun guy, who died four or five years ago, I think.
What was I saying?
Yes.
So they talked about actually the pogroms in Russia and in Central Europe as being eugenic at some level in the sense that the smarter, more intelligent ones had a better means of escaping, of paying off someone, of maybe reading a newspaper report about this happening elsewhere and leaving and so on.
and it was actually the lower class Jews who took the brunt of the pogroms and blood libel accusations and all that kind of stuff.
And that this aspect of their Yeah.
Yes, that would make a great deal of sense.
And also, interestingly, the difference in IQ between the whites, the Eastern Europeans and whatever, and the Ashkenazi, that's the biggest difference.
It's a difference of 12 points.
Whereas the difference between the Sephardi and the Spanish-Portuguese, whatever, there is the difference there, but it's not as substantial.
And the difference, there was not much pogroms in the Middle East, Mishraim, and that's where the difference is the smallest.
So it entirely makes sense.
Right.
Intelligence correlates with time preference, future orientation.
The more intelligent you are, the more inclined you are to think for the future, the more inclined you are to not just live for the now.
And that's going to have an effect in situations like that.
So you can think about it, the Holocaust would be therefore a very good example of a selection event.
And this is something that Richard Lynn argues in his book, because who were the people that are going to be that are going to be planning for the future and thinking to themselves in 1933 or even before that, even before the Nazis came to power?
I've got to get out of here.
This is going to get very, very bad.
And the less intelligent.
And so, it seems obvious that it would have had a very significant effect on...
The intelligence of the Ashkenazi, that would have been the more intelligent who would have been left behind.
And so in that sense, again, it's consistent with what you were saying, the lack of a Jewish working class, or whatever, that these kinds of people that had those kinds of IQs, although there would have been fewer of them in proportion to the Gentiles, the capita would have been much more likely to have been wiped out in these selective events, particularly the Holocaust.
Let's talk a little bit about Jewish genius.
And I want to push back a little bit on the quantitative view that, which is expressed by Brett Stevens, which is, look at all of these Jews winning Nobel Prizes or getting big university gigs and so on.
One of the quantitative conclusions reached by Richard Lynn was that, or empirical conclusions, you could say, reached by Richard Lynn, was that IQ actually didn't explain.
Jewish disproportionate success in things like Nobel Prizes or university positions, etc.
That just looking at a straight IQ...
We would imagine that, you know, if they're...
3% of the population, they might be 15% or 20% of the university professors or so on, but it's actually higher, and it's higher in terms of the Nobel Prizes.
So you could answer that in a couple of different ways.
You could say that, well, there's this extreme Jewish genius, actually.
So they might be outnumbered in terms of people with IQs of 115, but they're really outnumbered in terms of people with IQs of 130 or something like that.
Maybe there's some truth to that.
But I would actually push back a little bit on that and say that there is Jewish ethnocentric networking going on, something where their religion is a tremendous benefit to their people.
Quite unlike whites' religion, I would add, which is at least...
Ideologically, Christianity today is almost the opposite of ethnocentrism in its express views.
So there actually is a kind of ethnic nepotism taking place that promotes this.
And even Ron Unz, who a few years ago did a very important article on the Ivy League and Jews, was actually proving that whites and Asians are being discriminated against.
It's not just...
It's just a matter of, oh, well, Jews are smart.
Of course they're going to go to the Ivy League now that the Ivy League has been open to them since the 1960s or so, and that started to change.
It actually is a case that there is a nepotistic ethnocentrism going on in which Jews are outnumbered in the Ivy League in comparison to their IQ.
And this is important.
I think today, is there a Supreme Court justice?
That doesn't have an Ivy League degree.
There might be one or so.
But in terms of just getting a leg up into highly influential, or at the very least, highly symbolic political positions, having an Ivy League degree is a huge benefit.
And that there is a tremendous amount of networking going on behind the scenes that is silent to the outside world, but is quite loud to the inner group.
Yes, I make three points about that.
So firstly, there was a paper, I don't know if it's been replicated or anything, that was by Cochrane, Hardy and Harpending.
And it argued that the Jewish Jews are prone to these certain congenital conditions, such as schizo...
DNA repair, Goucher's disease, these kinds of things.
These conditions that are very prevalent among the Jews.
And what he showed is that these conditions correlate with IQ.
So people that have relatives with those conditions tend to have high IQ.
So the argument is that what's going on is that you get...
Conditions like this, where if you have one copy of the gene, you have something negative and awful that happens to you, let's say.
But if you have two copies, then something positive happens to you, something adaptive.
And the consequence of that is that the negative thing, the condition, stays in the population because the damage that's done by the condition is massively outweighed by the positive thing, i.e.
high intelligence.
So that could be one.
There's a condition where if you have the...
One copy, I think it is, you are resistant to malaria.
Brilliant.
And if you have two copies, then there's some terrible condition that you get.
It's a condition among black people.
And so the consequence of this is that it stays in the population.
So that's one possibility in terms of Jewish intelligence.
There are these peculiar genes for intelligence that have popped up because of the selection bottleneck that Jews were in and that they've stayed there.
Another issue in terms of understanding their over-representation is their personality.
So there was a study that was led by, again, this Curtis Dunkel fellow who I mentioned earlier, and he showed that what's called the general factor of personality of Jews is higher than that of white Gentiles.
The general factor of personality is basically the socially effective personality.
The aspects of what we call in psychology the big five personality traits, agreeableness, which is altruism and empathy, conscientiousness, which is rule following and impulse control, extroversion, which is feeling positive, feeling strongly, neuroticism, And
the general factor of personality predicts educational success, socioeconomic success, how much you earn, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The essence of it is being socially effective.
So you have these big personality traits, and there's a G factor, a general factor, which underpins those, where they intercorrelate.
And that is on whether you are socially effective or not socially effective.
And Jewish people score higher on the GFP than do white Gentiles.
And this social effectiveness predicts doing well in education, doing well in work, socioeconomically predicts making money, basically predicts getting on in life.
And that's what Jews are higher in.
And you are probably, I think, another thing that myself and this Curtis Dunkel fellow did a paper on was on Jewish ethnocentrism and what we proved using a sample of different white religious groups and Jews was that Jews, even controlling for things like intelligence, are the most ethnocentric.
They are the most group-centric of the different religious groups.
They are the most inclined to regard it as important that somebody who is their friend is a member of their group, i.e.
Jewish, and so on.
So they are the most ethnocentric.
Now, to follow from that, if we look at the research by J. Philippe Rushton on genetic similarity theory, that people act in their genetic interests, and you can act in your genetic interests by looking after your children and whatever, investing energy in them, as we've been doing at Christmas, investing in your kin, etc., And we know that people do that.
And so if the group is more ethnocentric than the other group, than whites, then you would expect them to disproportionately do that.
You would expect them to be highly ethnically nepotistic, more so than would be a less ethnic group.
I mean, this has been shown if you compare whites and Northeast Asians within the U.S. North-east Asian children are more...
Ethnically nepotistic.
They're more inclined to want friends that are of the same race as them.
They're more inclined to bond with people more so than whites are.
So I would suspect that this would be also the case when you compare Jews and whites.
And interestingly, in academia, there was a paper that was published about 20 or 25 years ago, or something was it now, at Schuwen-Greenwald, and they showed that people, they got Jewish academics and they got white academics, and then they got them to cite academic papers.
They found that, so when you've got to cite something, all else being equal, Jewish academics will cite other Jewish academics.
Let's say they need a random citation on whatever it is, you know, the politics of Spain.
Jewish academics will cite Jewish academics, and non-Jewish academics will cite non-Jewish academics.
So this again shows you that there is very real possibility for ethnic nepotism in academia.
And why wouldn't there be?
because you would expect ethnic nepotism in any area of life.
And particularly if they were a minority, then you would expect them to act in their own interests, ethnocentrically, until they were.
And it's both probably a little bit conscious and a little bit unconscious as well.
And you could add to that this...
Trend of, say, Jewish atheism, that is, Jews losing touch with their religion, becoming your average individualist liberal, but then maintaining what are effectively Jewish societies, Jewish groups that do intellectual work, Jewish academic circles, etc.
that a lot of these supposedly secular leftist organizations are in fact Jewish organizations, ethnically speaking, even if every single member of them is an agnostic atheist, etc.
All right.
We've been focusing on HBD, and maybe not...
Something that I think Jews excel at more than anything.
And this has something to do with their IQ profile being verbally adept.
But I think it's much deeper than that.
And that is they excel at morality.
And you can see this in Brett Stevens' article.
He begins the article with this amusing, but I find rather...
Stupid anecdote about a...
Some Jews in Lithuania who don't understand why their rabbi doesn't like soccer games.
And so they take him to a professional soccer match to see this.
And his response to this is, I know how to solve this problem.
Why don't we give each team their own ball?
So they stop fighting over the ball.
And this is, according to Brett Stevens, their amazing ability to think outside the box and question premises and so on.
I find this to be just utterly destructive and utterly childish moralism in the sense that there is an Aryan spirit writ large, but there's an Anglo-Saxon spirit.
Of fair play and competition and sport.
The idea that there are rules that you have to play by, and you play by these rules, you can excel.
There's a game and a competition, there are winners and losers, but actually, at the end of the day, the losers aren't killed.
They can fight another day, and the winner can actually go and shake hands with the loser and say, good sport.
You might have lost today, but you could win tomorrow.
And you are a decent person.
The spirit of fair play, which is, I think, actually quite unique to us.
And this is destroyed by the childish moralism of this stupid rabbi who wants to give each team their own ball.
It's the kind of thing I would expect from a three-year-old.
Jews don't so much think outside the box.
As much as they simply have a different box that they're thinking in.
And that this comes into conflict with their host groups.
And you could say it's, you know...
You know, real heady stuff.
You're mind-blowing.
You're questioning everything.
But it's actually just their own form of dogmatism.
Jews excel at moralism and at dogmatism and at in-group conformist thinking.
And this notion that they're idiosyncratic is ridiculous.
They're only idiosyncratic in the sense that they exist in a host society that thinks differently than they do.
And Jews would not exist.
I mean, to Nietzsche post here a little bit, since we've been science posting for a while, the greatest trans-evaluation of all values occurred at the very end of the ancient world with the...
Creation of Judaism and then ultimately a Jewish faith, that is Christianity, that valued the weak, that made being strong and beautiful and heroic and dominant a bad thing and reversed the morality of the Romans, reversed the morality of the ancient world, and ultimately structured what we could call liberalism and leftism.
So it is a...
Informist, dogmatic moralism that defines Jews.
It is not thinking outside the box.
It's simply in another box.
Yes, you can contrast the two.
They are a highly ethnocentric group, and they're evolved to be highly ethnocentric.
Europeans seem to be selected to be low in ethnocentrism, but high in basically genius.
So they have this, the consequence of this is that they produce these, they're lowered their centuries, and this allows them to trade, their gene pool gets larger, they throw up these geniuses by genetic chance, sort of this unlikely combination of high intelligence and moderately antisocial personality.
They come up with brilliant inventions.
This allows them to expand further and further and further and further and further.
And that is what the European man, particularly English man, has achieved.
Jews are not like that.
They are, more like the East Asians in that way, they are highly ethnocentric.
And what that would predict would be wanting everyone to get along, internal harmony, that kind of thing, no conflict, lack of conflict, lack of competition.
Within their group.
It would allow them, according to computer models, to better compete against other groups, all else being equal, intelligence being equal and whatever.
But within their group, they would want in-group harmony, and they wouldn't want people fighting each other.
And the kind of cut-and-thrust debate of ideas that goes with academia and genius and whatever would be more of a problem there.
So you can see why they would promote ethnocentrism within their own group.
You can see why they would act to undermine ethnocentrism with this kind of culture of critique, where you critique all values.
Right.
It's because, OK, that group is dominant because it has high genius and high intelligence, but ethnocentrism has to stay up above a certain level for it to be religious and for it to have meaning, for it to have a sense of itself.
So that has to make that goes lower.
Then you're winning in the battle of group selection against them if their ethnocentrism goes too low.
So, yeah, I would agree with that.
It's that they are a more ethnocentric society.
And also this verbalism, I mean, in the sense of this obsession with law, obsession with dogma that defines the Jews, as opposed to Europeans.
I mean, we are a people of representational art, of beauties expressing a kind of The Jews are a Semitic people of law and dogma, of the monotheism of the desert, and of unrepresentational art.
Indeed, one of the Ten Commandments, it's one that is either misunderstood or ignored, is that one will not make graven images of anything, whether it be a god or the fishes in the sea.
Whereas the European spirit is about making representation of...
And again, I think some of the worst people in our race really resonate with this obsession with text and verbalism, whether you call it logos, which is a stupid meme in the alt-right, or constitutional fetishism or biblical fetishism.
It is not us.
Those things are words, words, words.
Our culture is about something fundamentally different.
We've come into conflict, confrontation with these Jewish elements, and they have changed us.
I would also add, in terms of the Jewish genius, I mean, the story of philosophy...
It might include Spinoza as, you know, an eccentric addendum, but the story of philosophy does not involve Jewish thinkers up until the 20th century.
Well, no, because they weren't living in science or functioning with philosophy.
It doesn't.
And the story of music as well.
I mean, I actually like the music of Mendelssohn, but it is highly derivative, and Jewish influence into music in the 20th century has been entirely malign.
Canon of music would benefit a great deal by removing Schoenberg, who came up with these, you know, again, law-abiding, dogmatic, 12-tone system that is totally unmusical and kind of non-representational in the sense that it is about, it's like a mathematician's form of music and not someone who wants to represent emotions and spirit that you would see in Wagner or Pacini or Verdi or Mozart.
As you know, I have no interest in music of any kind, so I can't really comment on that.
But I'm sure...
I just know what I like.
That's all.
I'm not interested.
So, anyway, again, the history of the Jewish influence into philosophy has basically, in the 20th century, has basically been dogmatic Marxism of some kind, or neoconservatism, or whatever.
So, just the idea that Jews are...
It's been idealism.
I did a study on this.
It's been...
It proved that, actually.
Yeah, it's been idealism.
They are hugely overrepresented in idealists, and you don't get many of them comparatively among acknowledged great analytic.
Philosophers.
The only one really is A.J. Eyre.
So, that's it.
I mean, he was half Jewish, I suppose.
So, that's it.
That's true.
They're influences of a certain kind and they're geniuses of a certain kind.
