Not in our Genes?

Posted by Might makes Right on May 23, 2007, 11:47 PM | #

...we [all three of us Jews] also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant [WASP] class, gender, and race.

Status quo favors gentiles, Jews seek to tear it down. Big surprise? That’s very blunt admission of their motivation.

Posted by William on May 23, 2007, 11:59 PM | #

By the way, Chris Brand’s latest entry in his blog links to recent work identifying genes that influence IQ.

Posted by Daedalus on May 24, 2007, 12:06 AM | #

Richard Dawkins’ review of Not In Our Genes.

Posted by another commenter on May 24, 2007, 12:24 AM | #

The danger now is not denial of racial differences in IQ, but rather that Jews will use racial differences in IQ to justify their gains and current position in society.  The neo-conservative Commentary has published two articles detailing racial differences in IQ.
If the “paranoid” say that Jews occupy high positions in society, then they have the explanation about racial differences in IQ which “justifies” their position over us.

Posted by Daedalus on May 24, 2007, 12:43 AM | #

I don’t see Jews flocking to embrace race realism.

Posted by daniel j on May 24, 2007, 12:56 AM | #

they will when it becomes en vogue amongst a majority of average whites - a la Jared Taylor’s followers.

JewishandProud/JewamongYou/et al

Posted by Daedalus on May 24, 2007, 01:06 AM | #

The five or six Jews who used to post at Amren left and started Inverted World. Jared Taylor was too “extreme” for them.

Posted by daniel j on May 24, 2007, 06:01 AM | #

oh.

Posted by Amalek on May 24, 2007, 08:36 AM | #

The 1985 review of ‘Not In Our Genes’ by Richard Dawkins linked above concludes with this flourish:

To Leon Kamin belongs eternal credit for initiating the unmasking of Burt as a scientific criminal, and the chapters, presumably by Kamin, on IQ testing and similar topics, do partially redeem this otherwise fatuous book. Cyril Burt went to the extreme length of faking numerical data, but it can be argued that what lay behind his crime was an eagerness to give ideology priority over truth. If this is so, who are the Cyril Burts of today?

However, further investigations have tended to acquit Burt of this charge and to find that at worst he was muddled. Moreover, Burt was dealing with a then-monoracial English population, and used IQ to argue for meritocratic State schooling and the intellectual equality of men and women. That, such as it was, was the ‘ideology’ which informed this ‘criminal’s’ pioneering examination of mental processes and capacities.  Burt was mildly leftish, not very political; far less so than the Jewish Marxists Dawkins is criticising. In his eagerness not to appear like a nasty Nazi ‘determinist’ of sociobiology, Dawkins has smeared a dead man and ignorantly bought into the lie that belief in IQ entails a particular political slant. (Note too that the attack on Burt he cites was by one Leon Kamin.)

Since 1985 Burt’s findings have been replicated over and again, and corroborated by other forms of mental testing and MRI scans. So by anxiously trimming his sails to the PC wind, Dawkins wound up sounding more like a fellow traveller of the marxoid blank-slaters than a genuinely courageous champion of disinterested science. Would he be any bolder today? As bold, say, as Steven Pinker, who as a Jew on an American elite campus has more to lose by moving towards racial realism?

One wonders if Dawkins’s incessant, shallow and antiquated diatribes against religious faith are his way of dodging the hot potato of our time. Does his Darwinolatry extend to a full-hearted endorsement of, say, cap. VII of ‘The Races of Man’?

Posted by The Wit and Wisdom of Larry Auster, the Gentile's on May 24, 2007, 12:23 PM | #

...entire pre-occupation with the Jews, whether anti, neutral, or pro, is a diversion of attention away from the manifest forces of mass immigration that are rapidly dooming us… And of course neoconservatism came into being in large part in order to validate normal American life.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007815.html

Posted by a Finn on May 24, 2007, 02:07 PM | #

Off-topic: Interesting video indeed, Kgb methods and America etc.:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=915448763957391352

Posted by a Finn on May 24, 2007, 03:19 PM | #

Addition: There is other influences than Kgb starting e.g. 60-70 movement, but they threw in their own influence to the mess. Valuable lessons about individual and mass psychology.

Posted by Daedalus on May 24, 2007, 03:27 PM | #

However, further investigations have tended to acquit Burt of this charge and to find that at worst he was muddled.

Was the review written before or after Burt’s vindication?

Posted by Daedalus on May 24, 2007, 03:34 PM | #

One wonders if Dawkins’s incessant, shallow and antiquated diatribes against religious faith are his way of dodging the hot potato of our time.

Religion is the hot potato of our time. In case you haven’t noticed, millions of Muslims are colonizing Europe, and the U.S. is embroiled in a war with Islamic extremists.

Does his Darwinolatry extend to a full-hearted endorsement of, say, cap. VII of ‘The Races of Man’?

Dawkins believes that humans can be bred for intelligence and musical ability. That puts him in the hereditarian camp. Dawkins has stuck his neck out to attack the taboo against criticizing religious faith. I admire him for doing so.

Posted by Amalek on May 25, 2007, 11:58 AM | #

‘Taboo against criticising religious faith’, Daedalus? Since when? Not since c.1750! Not in ‘Old Yerrup’ anyhow. Maybe in Skunksville, Neb. And the war against faith in the USA, conducted under the phoney banner of ‘separation of church and state’, seems to be swerving pretty neatly round that taboo too. The infidels and pagans of white nationalism who inveigh indiscriminately against all religions old and ndw, native and alien, are useful idiots of the culture-destroyers juts as is Dawkins.

Europe’s problem is racial, not religious. It’s about Arabs, not Muslims. We’ve had Muslims on this continent since way back when and they haven’t given much trouble since the defence of Vienna except in their native Balkan habitat to the local Christian neighbours—and that’s mostly banditry and brigandry, not really religious warfare at all.

Islam and Christianity can and mostly do easily co-habit. The Jews want them to fall out as part of their divide-and-rule shtick, hating them as the successful supplanters of Judaism. There was little ‘antisemitism’, i.e. Ottoman persecution of Jews, in the Middle East until the empire and caliphate fell. Then modern Zionist nationalism clashed with emergent Arab nationalisms, just as Zionism picked a quarrel with European nationalisms—deliberately, to whip into line behind the would-be leaders of Jewry those emancipated souls who might otherwise have been fully assimilated into white societies.

The Dawkins review was published four years before the first weighty defences of Burt. See this bibliography, in particular Rushton’s article:

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

Posted by Daedalus on May 25, 2007, 05:10 PM | #

’Taboo against criticising religious faith’, Daedalus? Since when? Not since c.1750! Not in ‘Old Yerrup’ anyhow. Maybe in Skunksville, Neb.

You’re joking, right? Dawkins has been roundly criticized in the British and American press over the past five years. A quick Google search should turn up dozens upon dozens of negative reviews of The God Delusion. Religious nonsense in our society is respectable whereas other forms of ignorance are not. Only a single member of Congress is willing to admit being an atheist. Atheists are the most despised minority in the United States. More Americans are willing to vote for a homosexual than an atheist.

And the war against faith in the USA, conducted under the phoney banner of ‘separation of church and state’, seems to be swerving pretty neatly round that taboo too.

Secularism is not atheism.

The infidels and pagans of white nationalism who inveigh indiscriminately against all religions old and ndw, native and alien, are useful idiots of the culture-destroyers juts as is Dawkins.

I’m not a White Nationalist. Far from being a “useful idiot,” Dawkins passionate attack on religious tolerance and Islamic extremism is 1.) a blow against liberalism, 2.) a blow against multiculturalism, and 3.) and a blow against third world immigration. As for destroying Christianity, you speak as if this would be a bad thing. We would have fewer snake-handling evangelicals, fewer Catholic bishops with their treasonous sympathies for illegal aliens, and fewer Christian Zionists like Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee.

Europe’s problem is racial, not religious. It’s about Arabs, not Muslims. We’ve had Muslims on this continent since way back when and they haven’t given much trouble since the defence of Vienna except in their native Balkan habitat to the local Christian neighbours—and that’s mostly banditry and brigandry, not really religious warfare at all.

Insofar as Europe has a race problem, it is largely coterminous with “people of faith,” whether they are Muslim immigrants from the Middle East or black Christian immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa. Excluding foreigners on religious grounds would wipe out virtually all third world immigration to Europe overnight, and without falling foul of the taboo against racism.

Islam and Christianity can and mostly do easily co-habit. The Jews want them to fall out as part of their divide-and-rule shtick, hating them as the successful supplanters of Judaism. There was little ‘antisemitism’, i.e. Ottoman persecution of Jews, in the Middle East until the empire and caliphate fell. Then modern Zionist nationalism clashed with emergent Arab nationalisms, just as Zionism picked a quarrel with European nationalisms—deliberately, to whip into line behind the would-be leaders of Jewry those emancipated souls who might otherwise have been fully assimilated into white societies.

I’m not Jewish either.

The Dawkins review was published four years before the first weighty defences of Burt. See this bibliography, in particular Rushton’s article:

As I suspected.

Posted by Al Ross on May 25, 2007, 09:14 PM | #

Surely Amalek doesnt believe that “it’s about Arabs, not Muslims” when the ‘British’  Muslim terrorists were found to be of Paki parentage.

Also one of the reasons why American Arabs havent behaved in the same anti-host fashion as ‘British’ Paki Muslims is because a large number of the former are Arab Christians.

Posted by anon on May 28, 2007, 03:47 AM | #

I just caught the last minute so cannot vouch for its interest, but Today today…

The debate on the role of religion in public life is gathering steam; we debate the “God Delusion” versus the “Science Delusion” with Richard Dawkin and Lord Robert Winston, fertility expert.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

Posted by Daedalus on May 28, 2007, 05:10 AM | #

Dawkins recently had this to say about eugenics:

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as “these are not one-dimensional abilities” apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

Posted by Hektor on August 08, 2007, 04:26 PM | #

No, Hitler isn’t responsible for this change. It is those that made a “monster” of him, while he was just 100% human. The mythical Hitler of the pseudomoralists is however the tool with which they push through their ideological agenda. The Holocaust myth is the passion that gives the Hitler fethis its power. Solve for this and the cards will be mixed again….