Comments on: Are Jews the new WASPs? Mebbe so

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:59:19 +0000

It should also be admitted that the role played by the French Jewish bankers the Rothchilds and other American owned and Jewish operated banks in getting the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War 1, contributed to the political instability in Germany and the rise of Hitler. Yet little of this is discussed because of this disproportionate control. Jews hire Jews and put them on fast track even if they are incompetent. It leads to resentment by non-Jews, and in the wake of the financial collapse, the role played by Greenspan, Rubin, and now the obscene profits taken by Goldman Sach, it raises the prospect that Post WW1 will happen all over again…

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:58:39 +0000

It is a fact Jews are disproportionately represented in Politics, in Media and in Finance. It is further an uncomfortable truth that many do hold negative opinions of and racist attitudes to Non-Jews, that Jews display a curious victim complex, that when things go wrong like Project for 21st Century neo-conservative inspired invasion of Iraq went wrong, they disappear and it was nothing to do with them. Jews have not faced up to their role in Communism, not just the original idea in Marxism, but that it was funded by prominent Jews and many played a major role in the Soviet Union and as agitators in the West, such that Stalin gave the Jews a Homeland Birobidzhan as a mark of appreciation.

By: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:28:01 +0000

So anyway I look at the things we are talking about—modern personality characteristics and traits—and I think how ridiculously brief has been modern human society and thus how nowhere near the time has passed in that society for *genetic* natural selection to have worked to shape same. After all lets say that post-cave-man human society started some 4000 years ago even to stretch it about as far as possible, right? So does it seem possible that in those mere 4000 years that slower-than-slow genetic natural selection worked to any real degree at all on this or that personality trait by … killing off those with less favorable ones? I.e., the way genetic natural selection works? I doubt it. Way way too short a period of time. That's not to say that *some* aspects of personality—which again is just partly another word for behavior—aren't genetically influenced or even determined. But those aspects would have been determined in the millions and millions of years we humans were living on the savannahs and in caves. Not in our briefer-than-brief splotch of modern living since 1000 B.C. Instead what seems far far more valid to me is the idea of a kind of *cultural* natural selection. Not genetically determined or influenced so much as *culturally* determined. And here even a couple of hundred years can seem plenty of time to craft a group's psychological/behavioral/personality characteristics. And that's because this is *learned* instruction, not the involuntary instruction of genetic selection which again is the gradual death of the less favorably endowed. Take a group of people, let 'em live under certain conditions for a hundred years even—four generations—and I'll bet dollars to donuts that at the end of that the fourth generation sure as shit will have acquired some certain somewhat distinct psychological/behavioral/personality characteristics. But these will have been environmentally/*culturally* transmitted. Not genetically. Nature just did not have enough time in a mere 100 years to favor those with same and kill off those without it. So, I think there's a big distinction you have to make even if you accept evolutionary psychology. Yes, its logic is that genetic natural selection has played a big part in influencing and determining *some* basic, fundamental aspects of psychology/behavior/personality. But almost certainly not, I would argue, the more mundane and variable aspects of same that concern living in modern society such as … what kinds of work one might be drawn to or etc. And that's because that kind of work—no matter how generally defined—has only been around for the incredibly short period of time that represents the existence of modern human society. There just hasn't been time for a *genetic* predisposition towards same to have done its work. Wow. Talk about getting taken off on a tangent from the initial issue we were talking about! And talk about being the guy who gets suckered into coming off as a crazed blowhard! But it's an interesting as hell thing to me at least, and that's the (undoubtedly embarrassing) extent of my knowledge and thinking on it. So laugh all you want out there at me! That's my story and I'm sticking to it! (Until further notice.)

By: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:27:16 +0000

Okay, after trying to think it through I think I know what I at least believe as to this interesting genetics issue and you folks have suckered me into probably making a fool of myself, so here goes: First Darwin came along and posited that *physical* characteristics of life forms on earth evolved through the mechanism of natural selection, right? That is, those *physical* characteristics that favored survival tended to be preserved over those that did not. And it turned out that physical characteristics are determined by things called genes. So all in all Darwinism has been pretty clearly (indeed spectacularly) established. Then along came Wilson and etc. with the idea of sociobiology (which so far as I can tell is now almost universally called "evolutionary psychology"), and posited that at least some fundamental *behavioral* characteristics of humans and other animals with higher functions are genetically based too and evolved through natural selection as well. That is, at least some behavioral/psychological characteristics are genetically determined and that those that favored survival tended to be preserved over those that did not. E.g., the characteristic of those male baboons that found themselves attracted to and mating with healthy-looking female baboons was a comparatively favorable behavioral characteristic. Probably impossible to prove absolutely but there's tons of apparent evidence that it's true to some degree, the logic is compelling, and as I further understand it in the academic psychological community evolutionary psychology is pretty strongly if not overwhelmingly accepted for these reasons. (And is thus the common basis for perhaps most current psychological research.) Alright. So now Laurie is talking about personality being heavily genetically influenced and the first thing one observes is that of course personality seems a mere outgrowth of psychology, and is just another way to talk about behavior to a degree. Ergo, it would seem to find support in the idea of evolutionary psychology to at least some extent, and then there's also the more particular research that Laurie cites such as those studies of the personalities of twins and etc. tending to show big genetic influence. I don't know much if anything about that more particular research, but I'd even be willing to take it on faith that there's a lot to it. However, it's when I start thinking about the fundamental nature of the *mechanism* of genetic natural selection—how it works—that I gotta believe that environmental/cultural factors are far more important as to the kinds of "personality" characteristics we are talking about. After all *genetic* natural selection of any kind—whether physical characteristic or behavioral/psychological—works very very slowly and negatively, right? In essence it works by gradually killing off those carriers of less favorable genes. And that takes millions and millions of years. Some baboon comes along with the behavior/psychological characteristic of being just a little better spotting who will be the better and more successful mother of his babies and that genetic spotting characteristic will better succeed, right? But that takes a long long long time to succeed. (And indeed every evolutionist I've ever read says that the problem not only with the deniers of genetic evolution but the problem for everyone in wrapping their minds around same is getting over our own ridiculously minute perspective of time when thinking about things like genetic evolution. We think 1000 years is ancient history; yet the story of life and evolution starts 3.5-4.0 *billion* years ago. That's four-*hundred* million years.) (Con't)

By: Sin Nombre

Sin Nombre — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:57:11 +0000

Start it up Dude, except, now that you mention it, that's just about when *I* gotta leave for a couple of weeks.

By: andrew r

andrew r — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:50:03 +0000

Jewish Peril is pretty high on the list of words I never fucking want to hear again, but know I will.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:03:42 +0000

The rate of unemployment shows that there isn't room for every person to have a job, let alone a high skilled job. Do you mean that low-income earners get no tax breaks, or that they pay no taxes? The people in the bottom brackets are often net recipients. Ironically, I often owed at the end of the year while going to school.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:53:29 +0000

China is a a bit different than past models since it is so populous, and the system is so regimented. There has to be a way to compete with China that doesn't destroy us. I don't care to have the Chinese standard of living or lifestyle. China has vulnerabilities, and if American elites were looking out for America's collective interests, the story might be very different. Besides, I view cultural and political matters as being as important as economic matters. If we're to be poor, I'd rather not be Balkanized and poor.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:41:32 +0000

That's interesting, Sin. I'm about to leave for two weeks. Hopefully a similar thread will be up when I get back. What are the chances?

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:39:43 +0000

I've often heard the claim that racial and ethnic groups are like extended families, and I believe that is true to an extent. I don't know how much of a role genetics actually plays in human behavior, but it is obvious that there is a role. I see that in my own family, and some of my distant relatives that I rarely meet.