all 12 comments

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ridiculous caricature of his opponents position on the issue, a lot of unprovable assertions and a big old unfalsifiable and personal attack in the form of 'y'all just jealous of jews'. (Honestly never got that one. For thousands of years people have been saying the same thing very clearly over and over again that they don't like the Jews and are disgusted by their behaviour yet in the head of the likes of Reed this is just Freudian code for 'you Jews are so awesome!'??)

Another Fred Reed special then. Of course he doesn't touch on the fact that even granting the 115 number in terms of total numbers whites still should be absolutely dominating every single cognitively demanding occupation in the country because of our larger population size. That little inconvenient fact tends to be ignored by iq absolutists and philo-semitic nutjobs -- well represented in the comments section.

This is also a great example of why the HBD movement so often turns hostile to white interests. Reed actually usually writes articles scoffing at his readers for believing that Mexicans are shiftless and low IQ and basically denying the validity of it when it comes to his beloved Mexico. Now here he is taking an IQ absolutist position to explain to whites why they're just jealous, whiny little freaks who should bow to their jewish superiors. You can't win with a guy like this and he'll use any method from one article to the next to tell whites why they're wrong and need to just shut up.

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

even granting the 115 number

Didn't the same study showed a white Lutheran IQ of 112?

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It wouldn't surprise me. I've seen testing data that shows Episcopalians have 115 avg as well. As always IQ is a very poor and incomplete explanation for the ways jews behave and their dominance of certain fields.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He's a boomer married to a mexican

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

I read this and almost made the same post here, it's a crock. Henry Ford noted long ago in "The International Jew" that the accusation that we're just jealous of their success is bullshit. The issues in The Culture of Critique are what's important, not THAT they're in the media but what they do with that, for example. It's not that Soros is rich, it's what he does with that money and why

from NYT: "But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected. Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”

vs. say Andrew Carnegie.

[–]SincereDiscussion 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Completely disingenuous article.

>you don't want your country run by people who hate you and openly say as much? guess you're just jelly bro.

  1. Jews are influential well beyond their numbers, particularly due to their over-representation in mass media (news and entertainment), academia, and NGOs;

  2. Jews are highly ethnocentric and keenly aware of their interests, and their influence is used to further their goals (no, this does not mean they are a monolith, but it does mean that disagreements between Jews are frequently about "What's good for the Jews?");

  3. Their interests conflict with Whites.

If you stop at the first point, the 'envy' hypothesis has some surface-level plausibility, but then you miss the most important reasons for the JQ to be a thing in the first place. Honestly, even then 'envy' is a dumb explanation, unless one thinks that the desire for nation states is inherently about envy. I don't want Jews running the country any more than I want Africans or Asians running it.

By making it solely about the representation levels (instead of the consequences), he's able to more or less imply that that Whites who are sick of Jewish rule are comparable to blacks who want to parasitize off of us indefinitely. It also ignores how we can literally just look at places where Jews were removed from power (one particularly striking example comes to mind!) or simply times when they were less influential than today...and then examine the consequences. Coming to the conclusion that less (or no) Jewish influence is preferable than more has nothing to do with envy.

[–]MosheCircumshteynRabbi Moshe Schlomo Circumshteyn of Tel Avi 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Where does this moronic Ashkenazi 115 IQ figure even come from?

Israel's average IQ is literally 92 according to this map, for example: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

So if Ashkenazi have an '115 IQ'... does this just mean that Sephardic and other Jews are just so woefully low IQ, such that this very low IQ and the 115 Ashkenazi IQ meet up in the middle at 92?

Of course, if non-Ashkenazi Jews really are that stupid, then 'Jewish' intelligence is again just a myth. It's only this subset of Ashkenazi Jews who could conceivably be some sort of 'cognitive elite'.

The fact that there's something very wrong with the Jewish intelligence myth just flies over the head of these worthless cretins like Engelman and whoever the hell Fred Reed is.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is 103, as measured by the Israeli military

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Where does this moronic Ashkenazi 115 IQ figure even come from?

https://www.intelligence-humaine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Chosen-People.pdf https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

The Psychometric Evidence about Ashkenazi IQ

Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data. They score 0.75 to 1.0 standard deviations above the general European average, corresponding to an IQ 112-115. This has been seen in many studies (Backman, 1972; Levinson, 1959; Romanoff, 1976), although a recent review concludes that the advantage is slightly less, only half a standard deviation Lynn (2004).

Backman 1972 paper https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312009001001, done in high school students, Jewish students were only above in verbal knowledge and math in males

Levinson 1959 paper https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(195901)15:1%3C74::aid-jclp2270150122%3E3.0.co;2-y, done in 5 year olds, probably disregard.

Not a paper Romanoff 1976

Publisher ‏ : ‎ B'nai B'rith Career Counseling Services (January 1, 1978)

It's available at a few places (Cincinatti, New York City, Washington, and Cambridge) if anyone lives near there and wouldn't mind uploading some screenshots/photos of the paper, 22 pages.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/birth-order-family-size-and-sibling-spacing-as-influences-on-intelligence-and-academic-abilities-of-jewish-adolescents/oclc/5979395

Lynn 2004 paper https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/s0191-8869(03)00079-5

Fourth, an average verbal IQ of 107.5 would confer a considerable advantage for American Jews in obtaining success in professional work. There would be approximately four times as many Jews with IQs above 130, compared with gentile whites.

This just seems wrong when comparing the difference in population sizes. Also the sample size differences (150 vs. 5300) are more than an order of magnitude different.

[–]MosheCircumshteynRabbi Moshe Schlomo Circumshteyn of Tel Avi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A better link for Cochran, Hardy and Harpending (2006) is this one here (not a draft): https://booksc.org/book/11348250/d2fa70 This one is final and has the proper page numbers, whereas for some reason that draft copy and another non-final version still lacking the final page numbers are easy to find.

Let's have a look at Levinson (1959) and Backman (1972) (for the 112-115 claim) and Lynn (2004) (for the 107.8 claim).

There is no 112-115 claim in Backman (1972). Rather, Backman (1972) as interpreted through Lynn (2004) makes a 107.8 claim. There is no mention of 107.8 whatsoever in Backman (1972), so Lynn seems to be making this calculation out of the provided tables. He was doubtful about the accuracy of these tables himself:

The Backman (1972) study provides IQs for several of the second order factors (given in the introduction to this paper) but these are so variable and in some instances so low as to raise doubts about their credibility.

These results are in need of checking and replication. At present it is doubtful whether any conclusion can be reached about the intelligence of American Jews except that their verbal intelligence or, if this is preferred, their gc (crystallized intelligence) is about 107.5.

A 107.8 figure is thus derived from Lynn looking at tables he thinks are likely inaccurate to begin with. Cochran, Hardy & Harpending (2006: 661) seem to have just taken the Backman (1972) study uncritically, and if Lynn's interpretation is correct, an article that posits a 107.8 IQ is simply an incorrect source for the 112-115 claim. Cochran et al do not include any reason for why they think Backman's result suggests 112-115 whereas Lynn at least proves he looked into it.

Your Levinson (1959) link appears to be broken, but it is easy to find a copy: https://booksc.org/book/173930/972924 Either way, it looks as though this claim must also be made from interpreting the provided table.

As for Lynn (2004), while the sample size certainly seems problematic, he may also have a dodgy conception of White, e.g. Jews are considered White and therefore he uses the term 'Gentile' for what we tend to mean by White (i.e. European people with very low levels of non-European admixture), and I have no idea whether he regards MENAs as 'Gentile' or 'Other'. He does place Asian and Hispanic in 'Other' at the very least. I am very skeptical that as late as 1990-96 one could manage to get a sample size that is 81.85% White, i.e. 5300 Whites out of 6475 total. Was America still 81.85% White on average in 1990-96 considering that it's below 50% underneath the age of 18 or so in 2021?

Lynn (2004) concludes with an interesting point I've somehow not yet considered, and the argument can be put somewhat like this using fairly normie assumptions:

  1. Blacks are discriminated against
  2. Black IQ is lower than White IQ
  3. Jews are also discriminated against
  4. Jewish IQ is 'higher' than White IQ
  5. If we combine 1/2, lower black IQ than White IQ could be because of discrimination
  6. But if we combine 3/4, Jewish IQ is not lower than White IQ despite discrimination
  7. It does not make sense to claim that discrimination lowers the IQ only of one group being discriminated against, but not another group being discriminated against
  8. Therefore, lower black IQ than White IQ cannot be the result of discrimination

I can think of two ways someone might try to avoid this conclusion, thereby keeping the argument essentially intact until more premises are added to break it again. Of course, these are normie premises—I obviously don't think 1/3 have held true for decades, I'm obviously disputing 4 or I wouldn't have made these comments.

I think the origins of '115' appear to be the high end of the estimates of Jewish verbal IQ in The Bell Curve (1994) as interpreted by Lynn (2004: 203) where a 107.5-115 figure is given. Perhaps this high end of Jewish verbal IQ is simply being misinterpreted as the average overall Jewish IQ. The Bell Curve does not appear to make any specific claim about Jewish IQ, and Lynn doesn't provide the page numbers for where he thinks this claim is located.

Even a Jewish average IQ of 107-108 (if we accept for a moment both the 107.5 figure in Lynn [2004] and the 107.8 figure in Backman [1972] as interpreted by Lynn who doubts the figure) seems at odds with the Israel 92 average IQ claim. Even if Israel is 20% Arab as RadicalCentrist claims, I doubt that's going to drag the figures down to 92 given that Arab average IQ is in the low-mid 80s.

Someone could do the math: If 80% of Israel has 108 IQ to be generous, and 20% of Israel has an IQ of 85 to be generous, there is no way that you end up with a 92 average as the answer. I've done this with 100 numbers (80 108's and 20 85's) and got an average of 103.4. Either the 92 average is too low or the Jewish/Arab averages too high. The discrepancy is obviously even more pronounced if we change those 108's into 115's.

Two other observations I've made:

Firstly, it's interesting that all three sources cited in Cochran et al come from people who are almost certain to be Jewish themselves. Levinson was at Yeshiva University, Manhatten.

Secondly, it's interesting that this 115 figure seems to rely heavily on people who the System hates, i.e. Richard Lynn and Charles Murray. It is unsurprising that these two are treated as acceptable sources when speaking of Jews but not when speaking of other non-whites except when making another System-friendly claim (East Asian > White in IQ). If you have any idea where the supposed East Asian IQ superiority claim originates from I'd also like to know. I know The Bell Curve is one source in which this claim is made.

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

Secondly, it's interesting that this 115 figure seems to rely heavily on people who the System hates, i.e. Richard Lynn and Charles Murray. It is unsurprising that these two are treated as acceptable sources when speaking of Jews but not when speaking of other non-whites except when making another System-friendly claim (East Asian > White in IQ).

I know this post is several days old but I have been making the exact same conclusions, there was a Wikipedia article up for the longest time claiming that studies "generally" found that Jews had 107-115 IQ, it relied on Lynn who Wikipedia called a racist pseudoscientist otherwise. If I'm not mistaken Wikipedia also used or uses Lynn for east Asian numbers in some articles.

you have any idea where the supposed East Asian IQ superiority claim originates from I'd also like to know. I know The Bell Curve is one source in which this claim is made.

It seems to originate from Lynn per this article:

https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2019/01/are-east-asians-more-intelligent-than-whites.html?m=1

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

20% of Israel's population are Arabs.