| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Grant
|
|
 |
|
Leon, consider this. If you went back in time to, let's say, 1600 and told your ancestors that you believe in virtually any one of your liberal nostrums they would be appalled. Imagine telling a puritan how you believe that gays should be allowed to marry, or how all religions are nonsense or ... you get the drift.
Now, examine your views. If everything you believe you are very happy to say out loud, then you must have absorbed all your beliefs from the environment around you. Face it. You're an intellectual sponge, willing to absorb anything that's an acceptable belief in 2010.
| I didn't graduate, I turned on, tuned in, dropped out. |
QED
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
Reading this latest exchange about race and intelligence has took me back to my childhood. I grew up in South London in a large semi-detached house, and had a large family. I am white. Next door was an equally large black family. I was best friends with their youngest son, who was only 2 months older. We went to the same school, played together, basically grew up together. We did everything together, we were inseparable. Fast forward to the end of secondary school and the exams. On every single exam, I got higher marks, despite the fact we studied together. Why?
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I invite anybody here to volunteer one example of dissension they acquired as undergraduates. |
In my history class, I wrote a paper criticizing a paper published by my professor, who was the Dean of the History dept. She would later praise me as the one original mind she had encountered in her professional career. But I earned that praise for the most minimal dissension.
I learned a lot of answers at university. I had to drop out before I heard the real questions.
I will, however, mention that I converted from soft-liberal leftism to right-wing libertarianism under the tutelage of a uniformly hard-left professorship who were universally horrified at my transformation -- all the more so as they universally thought me the student they were happiest to have in their classes.
I think this relates to your observation that the most interesting threads on any discussion board are the ones the moderators move most quickly to shut down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Leon wrote: | | It's all very well to say that you don't accept racist assumptions, but when everyone complacently agrees that the chaos in Africa is due to a lower-than-European/Jewish/Chinese average IQ, the focus is racist, whether you intend it or not. (If you're not with the racists, why are you camping out in their territory?) |
The problem is not with what I am saying but with what you are hearing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Leon wrote: | | But let that last observation go, it's not important. The point is that individuals, who are the possessors of life, don't live on the average. Humanity-on-the-average, whether we look at Jews or Hottentots, is a disaster, a mass characterised by the stupidity that results from cultural conditioning. |
Wow. You just embody everything that is wrong with the intellectual class, once again illustrating how highly over-rated are brains.
Leon. I suspect you have too many answers already to learn anything from us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Leon wrote: | | In my time the theme was All races are equal, no one questioned their existence. Neither did I, I came to that conclusion later by meeting people of supposedly different races... |
I would congratulate you on your ingenious, independent reinvention of post-modern racial deconstructionism, were it not for the fact it's stupid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
The physical and genetic differences between the major races of Homo sapiens (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) are so large that if we were talking about any other species, they would be regarded not as races but as subspecies.
The differences between the Mongoloid and Negroid races of Homo sapiens are greater than the differences between the Asiatic and African subspecies of Panthera leo.
The only thing stopping the majority of taxonomists suggesting an appropriate reclassification is fear of being burnt at the stake.
Take politics and morality out of the issue... and let's examine the science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| Now, what specific attributes have the Jews bred themselves for, and how did they go about it? Who directed this breeding plan, some college of geneticist rabbis? Were Mendel and Mendeleev involved? Was it something like breeding dogs? Did they kill children who did not have the right attributes? Do they still do that? |
It's really quite simple. Three thousand years ago there was a tribe who lived as traders, travelling from one land to another and living a prosperous life by trading with everyone else. This was way before Fedex and eBay and there was much money to be made filling this role. Probably many groups lived this sort of lifestyle but the Jews had an advantage - their religion imposed restrictions on them. To be a Jew and benefit from the trading possibilities inherent therein, you had to show you were worth it. You had to eat special and expensive Kosher food and stop working for one whole day a week. It's a bit like the way Freemasons have to pay for a ceremonial dinner. If you can't afford to pay up, the other tradesmen know you aren't worthy of the "tribe."
So the Jews became a very close-knit trading community, but why the high IQ? Well, consider the millions of Jews who left the community in the intervening 3,000 years. Who were they? Overwhelmingly they were those who a) for psychological reasons did not want to be part of a small clique or b) were too poor to be able to take Saturday off and pay for special food. (I have a Jewish friend who was complaining the other week about the price of a Kosher chicken!)
After 3,000 years of unconscious selection, Jews are now highly motivated to support Jewish interests and are the possessors of a very high verbal IQ (you can't trade very well if you don't have the gift of the gab).
So is there a chess gene? No but surely chess is very like a language. There is a restricted set of rules which gives rise to an infinite set of possibilities. And that's why Jews play great chess but can't run fast.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, well Harold Abrahams was not a slouch and Mark Spitz was arguably the best swimmer ever.
There have been a good number of Jewish chess players Steinitz, Lasker, Rubinstein,Nimzovich, Stein, Bronstein, Polgar, Rajabov,
You could also inlcude Gary Weinstein, who prefers to be known as Kasparov and Fischer.
Fischer had a Jewish mum but became a rabid anti semite.
The simple, "non Grant" explanation is probably that their parents all wanted their children to do well and they were taught to think critically and logically, from a young age, which helps you play great chess.
Another thing that makes a good chess player is the ability to see your opponents' threats, you believe and fear that the opponent is always plotting your absolute destruction. Hence chess players can show paranoia.....e.g. Rubinstein, Steinitz and Fischer.
Grant.....for consistency, would you like to add this to your list of so-called Jewish attributes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| Grant.....for consistency, would you like to add this to your list of so-called Jewish attributes? |
Possibly, certainly many Jews seem to acknowledge this.
| Fischer had a Jewish mum but became a rabid anti semite. |
Fischer is a fascinating example. First, he wasn't half-Jewish. He was probably fully Jewish - see his Wiki entry. Second, he's an example of a Jew who didn't agree with the principles of Judaism. Had he had children, he would probably have married out. And that's the point. Those who stay with the faith tend to be very slightly more pro-Jewish than those who leave. Over three thousand years that must make a big difference. There must be selection in favour of increasing tribalism.
Then the sheer difficulty of remaing a Jew selects for intelligence. And if you think that's far-fetched, imagine living in the Middle Ages but not being able to do any work on a Saturday, eating special food which will be twice the price of normal food, and eschewing pork, the most universal meat in the world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think Natural Selection is a dead paradigm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I entirely agree. However since this leaves unnatural selection we should be careful of our terms. I prefer NonDarwinian Selection. Basically I'm a neo-Lamarkian and commend Arthur Koestler's The Case of the Midwife Toad to y'all.
PS He also wrote The Thirteenth Tribe which explains all the Jewish stuff!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst we are on chess players...
Were you all aware that Gary Kasparov is a leading exponent of "New Chronology"?
Guess he must sign onto AE.
I wonder which avatar he uses?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| Personally, I think Natural Selection is a dead paradigm. |
I accept - thanks to Mick - that Natural Selection doesn't work as an explanation of speciation, but surely you must agree that it works within species?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | I accept - thanks to Mick - that Natural Selection doesn't work as an explanation of speciation, but surely you must agree that it works within species? |
If it does, we won't win the Nobel Prize by reinforcing the conclusion. Best to consider alternatives on all fronts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
