What would the history of the past ~300 years have looked like if the Jews had never existed?

submitted by ChristianSonnenkreuz from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah but the English golden age and Eruopean Renaissance were before the Jews were "liberated" into gentile society, i.e. before 1800-1850 or so. They couldn't have made these contributions if they wanted to.

Jews make up 33% of US Noble Laureates in Chemistry, Medicine, and physics. Anecdotally we can mention Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, many others who made outstanding contributions to science. This fact also dovetails with the idea that Jews have an IQ of around 110 and Noble Prizes require and IQ of about 140 (I have written several posts on this, now shoah'd) It seems unlikely we could sustain the same level of technological advance without Jews. But, as a Ted-leaning WN, I don't see this as a serious drawback. We could also talk about the impact of higher interest rates which would almost certainly be a reality without Jews dominating a large part of our banking sector. But these impacts would be very complicated and highly speculative

The net negative influence of Jews in gentile society I think is uncontroversial to anyone to our camp. That's why I say these speculative alternative histories are just not that useful, we can never know

[–]ChristianSonnenkreuz[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Noble Prizes require and IQ of about 140 (I have written several posts on this, now shoah'd)

Do you have copies or the data you used saved anywhere? I'd like to see the evidence for this point in particular. Specifically I was trying to convince someone that it isn't meaningful to talk of IQs over 145 except in discontinuous cases of photographic memory megageniuses like von Neumann.

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah I do but not on me ATM, it's on my comp at home. I'll repost what I have soon so /ourguys/ can use it. There was one study in particular on Nobel laureates done around 1955 but I can't remember the author

that it isn't meaningful to talk of IQs over 145

This is true most of the time

[–]ChristianSonnenkreuz[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is true most of the time

Can you elaborate? Like when do you think it is and isn't true more specifically. Just curious

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It becomes less relevant for income (less predictive) although it is still a linear relationship. But it's probably still relevant for rare meritocratic contests and prizes like Nobel

There are few people with an IQ > 140. If we assume a SD of 15, mean 100, that's only .0.0038 of the population,.or .38%. That's 4 out of 1000 people.

Blacks and Hispanics, at 85 and 92, basically have 0 chance of being this intelligent, assuming same SD. This is also parsimonious with the fact blacks have won 0 prizes that weren't Literature or Peace (i.e., "fake" prizes)