sorted by:
new
hottopinsightfulfun

Breaking News: Putin orders invasion of Ukraine. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Now for some real comments from the delusional, useless, ever-losing pseudocons at Breitbart whose narrative is about as idiotic as the prog one:

'fuck the CCP and USSR'

'Trump has shown the truth of the left: they are anti-American and pro-dictatorial as with Putin and Xi.'

'Putin is exactly like America's Democrats. Man he is wicked !!!'

'Here come the Marxists pretending like they don’t share a common ideology with Vladimir Putin.'

'This wouldn't have happened if Trump were president.'

Yep. Putin is a Communist and would be a Democrat if he were American, the RF is the USSR. And for some comments that aren't as dumbfounding:

'Liberals can't handle someone calling them fat, or someone calling a guy in a dress a male. You think they can handle WW3? Lmao'

'Obviously, the problem with Ukraine's military is not enough trannies and strong women.'

Breaking News: Putin orders invasion of Ukraine. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

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

Hopefully Zelensky and all of these other weirdos who have absolutely no business whatsoever governing the Ukraine flee the country like that weak cowardly Ashraf Ghani rat in Afghanistan, or end up in some gulag in Siberia.

Watch as the differences between progs and cons suddenly and mysteriously disappear because both of them are about as irrational as each other. Biden, Trump, Johnson, Starmer, Trudeau, Bergen, Morrison, Albanese, Ardern, etc. are all on the same page as far as this is concerned, despite acting like there is a world of difference between them most other times.

Breaking News: Putin orders invasion of Ukraine. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Best news since the Gay American Empire's puppet government was thrown out of Kabul.

Progs right now:

Nazi Putin has just invaded innocent little Ukraine! He hacked our elections in 2016! This is a step too far! He's a Far-Right fascist White supremacist neo-Nazi dictator! He's the new Hitler! This is his Sudetenland! We must stop Putin with our sexually and racially diversity army to show that diversity, inclusion and tolerance always win! We must have brown trans drone operators dropping bombs on White men to show White men that they are not superior. Love and peace always win!

Cons right now:

Nazi Putin has just invaded innocent little Ukraine! Putin is a menace to the Free Judeo-Christian World. He's a fascist Hitler... but he's also a Communist Stalin! It's literally a Nazi fascist Communist Red Army invading the Judeo-Christian Free World! We must stop Putin!

Tankies right now:

Based Putin just declared war on those Nazi Ukrainians. He's going to denazify the country! He's setting up a new USSR! BASED! This will be the end of the West, the end of capitalism! Putin must win!

Antifa right now:

Two lots of fascists are at war! Fuck Putin! Fuck Ukraine!

I'm just sitting here hoping that Putin wins because when two problems come into conflict (the EU/Anglosphere and the [marginally better] Russian Federation), it makes the most sense to support the weaker of the two, in order to keep the other from becoming hegemonic. Obviously Putin is weaker than the entire 'Free World', so Putin is clearly the good guy as far as I'm concerned.

Notice how we're the only people smart enough not to call either or both sides Nazis?

Glassdoor adds Race/Gender/Orientation to job reviews. by radicalcentrist in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it is because there is a horseshoe effect between extreme 'conventional' 'racism' and extreme 'anti-racism' (or 'reverse racism', 'reverse discrimination', etc.) whereby both opposite ends actually share certain similarities with each other albeit for very different reasons.

This is why I don't think the conservative problematization of CRT really matters: conservatives are (somewhat unusually) actually worse than Leftists and liberals in this regard in the sense that they are the ones trying to keep colourblindness alive. Meanwhile, the Left has moved leftward enough on racial issues such that we're seeing them discard colourblindness on the other side as they approach the Far-Left end of what we might call a racial issues scale. What I obviously hope for is that colourblindness (which for me is evidently the greatest threat) will be torn in half with people forced either to become explicitly anti- or pro-White.

This glassdoor thing seems to exemplify how extreme 'anti-racism' can work in favour of its polar opposite. Instead of hiding identity markers as people who are deeply colourblind and so forth are wont to do, they are actually doing exactly what the ardent 'racists' would themselves do. The only difference is the reasoning behind why colourblindness should be discarded: in their case, to identify and penalize those who are insufficiently 'fuxated' by 'diversity'.

Of course, it is a double-edged sword for them. 'Intolerant' people can simply use this to help avoid whatever kind of 'diversity' they wish, and should do so. That's one price the Critical Race 'Theorists' and other 'anti-racists' have to pay.

As an aside, some of those statistics are stunning. If you look at Amazon, White reviewers only outnumber black reviewers by around 2x, suggesting that Amazon must really go out of their way to accept blacks. At Google, Asians actually very marginally outnumber Whites and thus would be extremely overrepresented, whereas blacks do not seem to be particularly overrepresented. Meta (Facebook) looks to have the least overrepresentation of the big three.

You just know that companies like BlackRock will use this kind of information to really engineer things in their desired direction, i.e. towards the total fuxation of every business in the name of pseudo-progress, especially the ones at the very top. It's ironic that such companies look to be becoming a far larger threat to capitalism than communism ever was.

Whats the best way to handle childhood education on a national level? Public/private school? Better homeschooling resources? by la_cues in debatealtright

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

This is pretty much some of what I'd write, but I'll elaborate on what else I'd add to it.

Education as it is needs rebuilding from the ground up. Essentially, we'd have to review entire fields (especially in the humanities and social sciences) and decide just what exactly is permissible in each field, carefully removing everything that comes from feminists, 'progressives', J's, etc. The theories, concepts, models, paradigms, etc. that do not pass review would simply be removed from the curriculum. Before long we'd have our own textbooks to ensure that nobody needs to be exposed to nonsense such as Marxism or its bastard descendants like Foucauldianism and 'Critical Theory' in order to graduate.

This task of reconstruction may not be that difficult: firstly, a few fields like Gender Studies cannot be repurposed to serve the new society since they are intrinsically pillars of the current one, and make very little sense outside of that context. It can simply be removed from our ontology. It is a mere matter of winding the clock back on other fields like sociology (practically everything after the 1990s can be counted on to be total nonsense, most of what came after the 1950s can also be counted on to be total nonsense). Social sciences do not progress in the way that the natural sciences do because of their less objective nature: there is no obvious reason that newer should necessarily be better.

Moral education as advocated by many of the early sociologists would also have to be implemented on all levels. Admission to environments that have been problematic in the current society, especially universities, would require moral entrance examinations to weed out the more problematic subversive types who came to dominate the current education systems, and from there, effectively entire societies.

There should also be a large-scale detechnologization to accompany remoralization, e.g. far more emphasis on writing than typing on computers with spellcheckers. Being able to use a search engine to find a piece of information on the spot isn't conducive to actual learning, encouraging intellectual laziness; being able to find 'friends' on social media isn't conducive to forming actual friendships; and so forth.

Europeans might get rid of American social media platforms? by [deleted] in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Those Americans must not be allowed to become very, very bad goys. Or else, they may gas the six gazillion again.

It is in the utmost best interests of God's Chosen that the filthy American cultural poison be allowed into the lands of the other White goys. No amount is ever enough. There must be no rock under which the White goys can hide; we must shine the light on these cockroaches everywhere until their descendants are all brown, pan and trans. Then we will inherit all of the world! rubs hands profusely

What is bad for the goy is good for God's Chosen! American cultural rot into Europe only! But not into Israel! We have far too many homosexuals in Tel Aviv already. The women are complaining that they cannot find straight men. We must have a Homocaust in Israel (and also expel all abeeds masquerading as God's Chosen, yes, there must be a niggocaust!) but we must have mayocide in Europe! Yes! Israel homogeneous and strong, Europe heterogeneous and weak! Jerusalem shall be the World's capital! There will only be pale Jews running the many dark, stupid goys who will be our slaves after we are done with the Whites. We will rule until the end of time!

Shoah!

✡️️

Biden picks yet another Jew (bonus lesbian points) for yet another key position, FCC head. She has called for cracking down on online “misinformation” and “hate speech.” Because there's just too much free speech on the internet now. by Fitter_Happier in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Blinken

Cohen

Garland (Garfinkel)

Gensler

Guzman

Haines

Klain

Lander

'Rachel' Levine

Mayorkas

Neuberger

Sherman

Yellen

Zients

And now... Sohn.

Also, the chairwoman of the FCC, the institution in which Sohn formerly worked, is... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Rosenworcel

Two chairmen before her, was... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski ... who studied in Israel.

Yes, yes, never ever ever must you notice the pattern, goyim. Ignore their funny names. It is all just... a conspiracy theory...

Yes, even if they are almost all Jews you must ignore it. Like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury

52 - Morgenthau, Jr.

57 - Dillon ('his paternal grandfather, Samuel Lapowski, was a poor Jewish emigrant from Poland')

64 - Blumenthal

70 - Rubin

71 - Summers

Levey

Wolin

76 - Lew ('is an Orthodox Jew')

Szubin ('is from an Orthodox Jewish family')

77 - Mnuchin

78 - Yellen

Notice that as time passes they get more and more Jewish to the point that the last three and all of the acting ones between them have all been Jews? Do not notice!

Is this a psyop? Boomer conservatives calling liberalism "fascism". by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

This. Most Western countries don't actually have a 'Right-wing' in the true sense. They merely have two competing groups of Leftists, with one less extreme than the other. This less extreme wing of Leftism calls itself the 'Centre' (e.g. the German CDU or British Tories) or 'Right' (e.g. the US Republican Party) simply because it is defining itself relative to the more extreme wing (i.e. if they're Left, well, we're something other than Left and thus are 'Centre' or 'Right').

Both obviously operate from within the same 'discourse' ('worldview' or 'bubble' as you put it), e.g. everything we dislike is 'fascistic', the other side are the 'real racists', the other side are the real enemies of 'freedom' and 'equality', etc. They don't think from outside of that discourse, e.g. that it doesn't actually matter whether something is 'fascistic', 'racist', 'unequal', etc. If they think these things matter, they've already internalized Leftism.

You went through a sort of mainstream faux-Right false opposition phase? Where you saw the Left as being the real Far-Right like all faux-Rightists do, i.e. progressives/liberals are the 'real Nazis and fascists', they used to support eugenics which inspired the Nazis, they always talk about animal rights, environmentalism and socialized this and that which the Nazis also did to varying degrees, so therefore Clinton, Corbyn, Biden, Merkel and Macron are the new Hitlers, and perhaps that the EU is the Fourth Reich?

I never went through that phase (or any Leftist phase), but it does seem that a lot of people who reject the discourse actually started from within it, embracing worldviews that seem utterly outrageous when viewed from outside of the 'bubble'. Of course, I think the 'bubble' is somewhat inescapable as it permeates almost everything, but people considered 'Right-wing extremists' are far closer to escaping the bubble than anyone else. Indeed, 'extremist' often seems to be used as a label by people within a bubble to refer to people who are close to escaping it. If too many people become 'extremists', then the whole bubble pops—rebellion occurs. So people need to be kept within the bubble, away from 'extremism', through processes of indoctrination and socialization. The education system, media, etc. all work to preserve the bubble, e.g. by misinterpreting everything in ways that do not threaten it. For example, Antifa violence is misinterpreted farcically as 'actually being Far-Right violence in disguise'. Therefore what would normally threaten Left-wing hegemony now reinforces it, i.e. the 'Far-Right' is the 'real' problem, not us Leftists. Similar to how the Democrats opposed travel bans, supported the BLM protests and were largely 'anti-vaxxers' until Biden was elected (we don't trust Trump's vaccine, it's being rushed in time for the election), i.e. all things that would exacerbate any pandemic's spread. Of course, this reality is buried and replaced by a false narrative ('Trump is responsible for Covid'), which supports (helps get Biden elected) rather than damages the bubble.

Is this a psyop? Boomer conservatives calling liberalism "fascism". by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

I've been seeing this for years. What's new about it?

The Left call the Right 'fascist'. The faux-Right call the Left 'fascist'.

It just shows that the Left has a hegemonic stranglehold on society to the extent that even the faux-Right false 'opposition' has internalized most of their talking points.

Both the Left and the faux-Right attacks everyone Rightward of themselves, which of course entrenches Leftist power and helps push the Overton Window ever Leftward.

If the faux-Right or real Right controlled society (i.e. what Leftist morons tend to believe), the faux-Right would call the Left communists and the Left would call the faux-Right communists. Everyone would thus be attacking everyone Leftward of themselves (everyone would hate actual communists), pushing the Overton Window ever Rightward. This is obviously the exact reverse of what is actually happening.

Take America. The Republican Party is now so socioculturally Left-wing that they're standing outright trannies just a couple of years after the Democrats started standing their own. "Yeah, the Trans-Jenner is indeed a tranny... but we're talking about a conservative tranny here. Our tranny."

Similar thing with same-sex marriage. In 2008 the Democrats formally didn't support it. By 2012 the Democrats did. By 2016 the Republicans also effectively did, since they took zero action against it. The difference between them was thus not even four years, at least on that particular issue. It remains a common perception on the Right that the Republicans are maybe ten years behind the Democrats on sociocultural issues. In reality it probably isn't even five on most issues, with that gap tending towards closing rather than widening. At the moment we can see a widening on matters like CRT, but I'm sure that by 2025 the GOP will start moving back the other way towards CRT acceptance. The likes of Christopher Rufo or Jordan Peterson aren't going to win, since they're trying to fight the Left-liberals of 2021 with the Left-liberalism of decades past.

Vladimir Putin says he’s not allowing Afghan refugees into Russia by Ethnocrat in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Moscow will still be majority Muslim by 2050 even if Putin rightly denies Afghanis any supposed, socially constructed 'right to asylum'.

Russia is the wastebasket into which all of the Central Asians are disposed simply because they are 'culturally Russian' or some such nonsense, while Western Europe and North America are the wastebaskets into which the Afghans are the latest people to be disposed.

Here's to hoping that the Taliban swiftly secure control of the borders and resist any Western pressure to allow emigration of peoples, since it seems flagrantly obvious that the West is using this as an opportunity to accelerate 'replacement migration'.

This past week or so it seems as though Western governments are simply saying: Let everyone who wants to leave get onto the planes we're sending to your airports, or else we'll invade. To this they appear to be meekly submitting, knowing full well that all of their gains could be rapidly lost if the West make a concerted effort to build support for a new war by permeating the airwaves with news about 'atrocities' and so forth. A new coalition could then be forged after the Western polities are ready to make an exception to their general aversion to war.

It's still madness to let these people go from their perspective, since it's obvious that at least some of these emigrants will become agitators like the Persian 'Shahis' in America.

As an aside, it's also interesting how the Democrats have gone from opposing the Afghani intervention because it's 'just a Republican war' to a significant number of them taking ownership of it, as if it's now 'our' war. You can see that a lot of them are actually defending the continuation of a war they once said was simply the result of 'Republican warmongering' and 'racists wanting excuses to bomb browns'. The sheer polarization between Democrat/Republican is so severe that many people will mindlessly support or oppose wars depending only on who is in power. If the Republicans want out, the Democrats are suddenly more inclined to want in. Remember the 'Trump is abandoning our Kurdish allies!' thing a few years ago, all because Trump was taking the anti-interventionist position and thus they had to take the interventionist position for little reason other than to oppose Trump? The same thing is happening in Afghanistan: It's Trump's withdrawal, everything he does is wrong, so maybe staying wasn't such a bad idea?

Antifa and Proud Boys fired gunshots at each other by DisastrousDepth14 in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Notice how practically everything involving Antifa and the Proud Boys is 'fake and gay'?

Antifa is a Republican front and fake Left-wing organization mobilized to prevent Biden and the Democrats from winning the election by committing all of this destruction in the Left's name. This makes us look bad and so the Republicans will have a better shot at winning the election. But it also must be defended from Republicans who bizarrely want to declare their own front a domestic terrorist organization. We should prevent Antifa from being banned by claiming that Antifa is 'only an idea' and that ideas cannot be banned. Except that White nationalism, fascism and to a lesser extent Jihadist brands of Islam are also ideas... and... oh yeah... they can be banned. But just ignore this inconvenient fact and obvious hypocrisy and keep believing that Antifa is 'just an idea' and that it cannot be declared terroristic for that very reason.

Also, Trump and the Republicans are Far-Right White Supremacists. They planned a coup with a Far-Right White Supremacist group called the Proud Boys... except that... just ignore the inconvenient fact that they have an Afro-Cuban leader and are almost majority-non-white themselves. Also ignore the fact that they only number a few thousand at most and wouldn't be able to seize anywhere near the whole United States. Anyway, just believe me, they were plotting with Trump to bring about a Far-Right White Supremacist neo-Nazi Fourth Reich with Trump as the Fuhrer.

Everything about these two organizations is a joke. Even if you take what they really are once you look past the obviously fake narrative, they're still a joke.

Antifa is an organization (complete with chapters, chapter leaders, membership lists, etc.) and not an 'idea', comprised of lumpen degens who think the Democrats are approaching 'fascism' and that the Republicans are literally the American NSDAP. Their goal is to prevent the realization of this non-existent fascism wherever they operate. They aren't Republican or Democrat controlled. The Democrats are highly sympathetic to their intentions but find some of their actions embarrassing and/or misguided; the Republicans view them more correctly as domestic terrorists trying to build a Soyviet Soycialist Republic. The CHAZ/CHOP was something of an abysmally failed experiment to build something of this nature—totally unable to reach self-sufficiency, totally reliant on the United States for electricity and other necessities, several murders occurred there, etc.

The Proud Boys are simply a civic nationalist outfit with bad optics and have nothing to do with the Far-Right in any meaningful sense. Years ago they had a black member who was obsessed about how he wanted to kill 'neo-Nazis', who was covered in tattoos and who in his social media photos frequently posed with guns pointed at the camera, often captioned with threats directed at 'neo-Nazis'. Yeah, a real Far-Right White supremacist Aryan ubermensch right there. These people are about 1788 and not 1488. Antifa is about 'the current year' (i.e. soy-fuelled AIDS-ridden pozz), though they LARP as though they were in 1917.

Jared Taylor Vs EMJ Official Thread by send_nasty_stuff in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I saw some of the more pertinent excerpts of this on another stream.

On J's:

Taylor: Not all J's are bad. Some of them are White. Posits the existence of hypothetical good J's but names none. The J's are proponents of race denialism. I don't think he connects them to the recent rise of CRT.

EMJ: All J's are bad. Names some of the worst J's, e.g. Ignatiev and Spectre. J's are trying to undermine Christianity rather than Whites. The J's have been proponents of race denialism but they are now proponents of CRT (while still effectively biological race denialism, it clearly accords a higher place to race than colourblindness) to divide people (same thing that colourblindness advocates like Rufo claim, which is also the Marxist stance).

On race:

Taylor: Race exists. It is a meaningful identity.

EMJ: Race perhaps exists but is not a meaningful identity regardless. The promotion of race as a meaningful identity is done by 'oligarchs' (his words) to divide people.

On White success and dominance of the world:

Taylor: White success is something innate to Whites. They would still have ingenuity, etc. regardless of their creed.

EMJ: White success is the result of Christianity. The success of non-Christian Ancient Greece and pre-Christian Ancient Rome was God's 'preparation' (his word) for Christian Europe. Almost certainly believes if Africa becomes Christian enough then it will inherit the same success that Europe once had, and that the failure of Africa is because they have not sufficiently realized Christianity (he claims the African Church has endemic corruption, for example).

I think Taylor had the more sensible take on race and White success, whereas EMJ tries to reduce White success to Christianity, an argument which leads to all sorts of unintended consequences that easily derail it. For example, there is no positive correlation between success and Christianity in Africa or elsewhere outside of the West, despite the reasonable albeit strongly criticized and problematic efforts of past thinkers like Max Weber to posit that Christianity or parts of it (Protestantism for Weber) have a causal role to play in wealth creation and other forms of success. EMJ has the slightly more agreeable take on the J's (the problem probably exists on a biological-psychological level innate to most or all J's and isn't so much a deliberate plot by conspiratorial, powerful J's in a back room somewhere—indeed, I suspect they cannot help but be subversive), although they're probably intent on undermining anything that is external to their group, which would include both Christianity and Europe. EMJ simply ignores their subversive effect on anything non-Christian.

Given that the leading figures associated with CRT are DiAngelo and Ignatiev (plus Kendi, the useful black goy), it certainly seems that CRT is the next step for the J's more generally. I suspect the purpose of CRT's promotion is that racial equality has already long been reached through colourblindness, but colourblindness cannot provide arguments for why overt White inferiority/subjugation must be realized. So they need a new ideological framework to replace the dominant colourblind framework, so that Whites will outright accept explicit inferiority/subjugation rather than start complaining once they realize that equality between White/non-white within White societies is not the desired end, but in fact merely a stepping stone towards erasing them.

Ridiculous article by Fred Reed - "For Whom the Bell Curves" by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

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.

Ridiculous article by Fred Reed - "For Whom the Bell Curves" by [deleted] in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 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.

Mark Collett is debating Destiny at 3pm EST on the Killstream by [deleted] in debatealtright

[–]MosheCircumshteyn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wait... so the reason why this half-Cuban Leftist degen couldn't show up is... because... he took the wrong drugs? Lmao!

Man, these degenerate Leftists... I doubt Collett took anything to help him keep calm through the debate or whatever the intended purpose of Destiny taking these drugs was for.

Collett will probably be laughing his head off at this insta-win for days.

Poll Finds That 32% of Right-Leaning Adults Agree That "Liberalism Has Equipped Jews to Destroy Institutions" by casparvoneverec in debatealtright

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

Oi Vey! The goyim are waking up again! But too slowly!

On a more serious note, one notices that Jewish history is essentially cyclical, i.e. acceptance, misbehaviour, expulsion. Rinse and repeat 109 times.

If you walk into 109 places and are told to bugger off from every single one... only an idiot would reason that the owners of the 109 places are at fault and not you. Somehow the yehudi have convinced the goyim otherwise, such that this obvious reasoning flies every goy's head. One-hundred-and-nine are to blame, and not the one!