ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Suggestion is not science

Steve Sailer helps expose the pseudoscience of social psychology:
Okay, but I've never seen this explanation offered: successful priming studies stop replicating after awhile because they basically aren't science. At least not in the sense of having discovered something that will work forever.

Instead, to the extent that they ever did really work, they are exercises in marketing. Or, to be generous, art.

And, art wears off.

The power of a work of art to prime emotions and actions changes over time. Perhaps, initially, the audience isn't ready for it, then it begins to impact a few sensitive fellow artists, and they begin to create other works in its manner and talk it up, and then it become widely popular. Over time, though, boredom sets in and people look for new priming stimuli.

For a lucky few old art works (e.g., the great Impressionist paintings), vast networks exist to market them by helping audiences get back into the proper mindset to appreciate the old art (E.g., "Monet was a rebel, up against The Establishment! So, putting this pretty picture of flowers up on your wall shows everybody that you are an edgy outsider, too!").

So, let's assume for a moment that Bargh's success in the early 1990s at getting college students to walk slow wasn't just fraud or data mining for a random effect among many effects. He really was priming early 1990s college students into walking slow for a few seconds.

Is that so amazing?
I find it informative that the grand self-appointed defenders of Science Reason are always focused on the nonexistent enemy of Religion while showing absolutely no interest in real land of Woo, which is academic pseudoscience.  As a general rule, it is safe to assume that if midwitted charlatans such as Malcolm Gladwell or Jared Diamond are basing conclusions upon it, the scientific aspects, to the extent that they exist at all, will be more than a little shaky.

I would go so far as to point out that the MAJORITY of what passes for science today is, in fact, nothing of the sort.  It's not experimental. It's not replicable.  Despite the credentials attached to it, it has nothing more to do with science than the proverbial PhD defecating in the woods.  Science is not simply "what scientists do".

Labels:

94 Comments:

Anonymous Tad2 February 07, 2013 9:23 AM  

But Steve Sailor is a bigot. So your point is moot...

Anonymous Lulabelle February 07, 2013 9:33 AM  

"But Steve Sailor is a bigot. So your point is moot..."

I'm not following your logic.....if Steve Sailor is a bigot, then shouldn't Steve Sailor's point be moot (with the understanding that being a bigot invalidates all points made. Which is in itself not reasonable to me, but nevertheless.....).

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 9:36 AM  

Studies like this get popular because they can be interpreted as evidence against indepdendent thought. Post-modern intellectual types in the philosophical tradition of Hegel and Marx despise the independent mind.

They prefer the perception that Man is merely a puppet controlled by ultimately mindless forces, which jerk the strings with two hands called Nature and Nurture.

The perception of Man as a free and independently acting entity who makes decisions and chooses his actions for himself is utterly abhorrent to them.

The purpose of Gladwell's worst book, "Outliers", is specifically to convince his readers to reject the notion that they can achieve success by their own effort. It's disgusting.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus February 07, 2013 9:36 AM  

...waiting for the science-fanboia-who-don't-actually-work-in-science/engineering to come a white-knightin'

Blogger Baloo February 07, 2013 9:39 AM  

Whoa! Great post, only to be bluntly informed by Tad2 that Steve Sailor is a bigot, which is news to me. Actually, anybody who thinks scientifically at all is sure to be labeled a bigot, because scientific thinking always leads one to politically incorrect conclusions.

Indeed, the left (as Sailer has said) is relentlessly hostile to actual science — I think you referred to the leftist view as "scientism" once — and I have something about that here:
Science and the Left

Anonymous Daniel February 07, 2013 9:43 AM  

Naive early experience with university sociology left me baffled at first. I couldn't tell if the department was 3rd rate and in collapse, or if it was some sort of inside joke, or if the general practice of "people experiments" had a primary objective other than understanding the truth. I soon realized that no - all three features - perpetual collapse, insider hutchness, and manipulation of groups, are intrinsic to the field.

It's rabbit science: just like regular science, only fear-based.

Anonymous Stylin' zen0 February 07, 2013 9:59 AM  

Instead, to the extent that they ever did really work, they are exercises in marketing. Or, to be generous, art.

Or to be chic, fashion.

Blogger Amy February 07, 2013 10:08 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 07, 2013 10:11 AM  

It is amusing that as the number of Khazarians has increased in the US, Lysenkoism has also increased.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 07, 2013 10:14 AM  

It should be clear at this point that a bigot is someone who is winning an argument against a rabbit person (AKA, a liberal, although some so-called conservatives also fall into that class.)

Blogger Amy February 07, 2013 10:16 AM  

Feynman called this "cargo cult science."

Social scientists never discover any laws or facts or truths. At best, they offer papers and host symposia that trickle down into pop-psych or pop-soc books and the newspapers/websites that sound all official because they were done by "scientists."

I suspect their real intent is to prime the pumps of the masses and get them on board with their pet theories so those theories won't be questioned later on. Keeps the cognitive dissonance alive and well.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 07, 2013 10:20 AM  

More tortured logic: Without Gun Control the US may turn into Nazi Germany

Hey, I am doing my bit. Both hands on the gun, target in the sights ...

(MORE DOTS.)

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 07, 2013 10:29 AM  

Good grief.

Sailer's always a scream, at least in his OPs (his threads, unlike this place, are usually a lot less fun). But I mean really.

Back when I was in college, I could easily induce other fellow (or sister) college students to walk more slowly, or more fast, or twirl in pirouettes, or to do all sorts of other peculiar things, and in fact they could do many of the same sorts of things to me, and it wasn't science. It was called... "theater games," and it was just an exercise to mine unconsciously-accessed behaviors in order to help make a piece of art. Mostly it was just a hobby we shared, for some of us it was an art; but young people are funny like that, and because it's a unique time in their lives, they're weirdly extra-suggestible and it usually isn't representative of humanity at large. Many fine actors I knew in those days are now mid-level corporate managers or whatever. It was just something that intrigued them at the time. "Some are mathematicians, some are carpenters' wives/ Don't know how all that started, I don't know what they do with their lives."

But unless you want to dive in and get really hard-core Grotowskian (I've done it, but I don't really recommed it to others), it's more like ephemera than anything else. Or, I guess, like social science -- which I could criticize to amusing effect, but I think others here will beat me to it.)

"It was a day in that blue month, September,
Silent beneath
The plum-trees' slender shade...
I held her there, my love so pale and silent,
As if she were
A dream that could not fade..."

Bert Brecht was a dickhead, but he had his moments.

Anonymous CrazyDiamond February 07, 2013 10:32 AM  

I was ready to say "cargo cult science" and was pleasantly surprised to see that Amy beat me to it. Thanks!

"Studies like this get popular because they can be interpreted as evidence against indepdendent thought. Post-modern intellectual types in the philosophical tradition of Hegel and Marx despise the independent mind.

They prefer the perception that Man is merely a puppet controlled by ultimately mindless forces, which jerk the strings with two hands called Nature and Nurture.

The perception of Man as a free and independently acting entity who makes decisions and chooses his actions for himself is utterly abhorrent to them."

Wow, Krul beat me to my other point. You guys are good.

So I'll just say that unreplicated n=10 (or whatever small number) studies of American college students looking for class credit or beer money shouldn't be taken to prove anything about human psychology -- the samples are the farthest thing from representative.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 07, 2013 10:42 AM  

@CrazyDiamond

Shine on.

Anonymous Orion February 07, 2013 10:47 AM  

How many decades has Tony been senile now? I can't recall the last time I heard a celebrity comment on something besides their own navel and be correct, but of course I also stopped watching the infotainment channels a long time ago.

Anonymous Josh February 07, 2013 10:48 AM  

MOAR RABBIT UPDATE?

Blogger Russell Snow February 07, 2013 10:48 AM  

Link is pointing to the wrong article.

Anonymous Orion February 07, 2013 10:53 AM  

Back on topic, I picked up Jared Diamond's big book (the Guns, Germs, and Granola or something) and was bored by the end of the first chapter. Nothing particularly new or insightful, but that may have been because I was still immersed in academia at the time and was fortunate enough to be a student of a doctor who was brilliant.

Anonymous Daniel February 07, 2013 10:55 AM  

OT: Finally, a news story that will spark the national debate on cop control.

Oh, and his manifesto that no journalist worth his degree in sentence-writing will incorporate successfully into the coverage.

Anonymous Soga February 07, 2013 11:03 AM  

I second Josh. Silly kids, rabbits are for wolves/Scars/scary alpha guys who could steal Gamma Rabbits' wives with just a wink.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 07, 2013 11:04 AM  

The cartoon rabbit in the sidebar is really beginning to freak me out. It's really sort of awful.

For instance, have you noticed it's blue-eyed? Have you ever seen an actual blue-eyed rabbit? Among humans, only white people are blue-eyed, so it symbolizes an idea that white people should be these passive, submissive, harmless diversity-accepting creatures who can be raped at will by, well, non-rabbits. Which is, of course, what we increasingly observe in real life, while MSM instructs us not to notice.

VD's pocket cosmology, while mildly boring, is not totally without interest, but it lacks accuracy in the sense that it fails to take note of an important part of the actual observed phenomenon: Jews are not rabbits themselves, and have no intention of becoming rabbitized, but yet they seem to have a vested interest in lecturing whites that _they_ should turn into rabbits. And yet mass whites-only rabbification somehow mysteriously escapes the notice of the Western media. Huh. Can't figure out what _that_'s about.

Anonymous zen0 February 07, 2013 11:17 AM  

The Scoob says:

Jews are not rabbits themselves, and have no intention of becoming rabbitized, but yet they seem to have a vested interest in lecturing whites that _they_ should turn into rabbits.

That's been established in other threads, so is a given in the cosmology, I would think.

Anonymous zen0 February 07, 2013 11:22 AM  

The Scoob says: because it's a unique time in their lives, they're weirdly extra-suggestible

Which is why propagandists target universities and colleges, like pedophiles target playgrounds.

Anonymous zen0 February 07, 2013 11:38 AM  

MOAR RABBIT UPDATE?

I think if you clik the little bunny icon there is actually a window installed where you can see into their warren and watch them masturbate, or whatever.

Anonymous Tad February 07, 2013 12:52 PM  

@Scoobius

Jews are not rabbits themselves, and have no intention of becoming rabbitized, but yet they seem to have a vested interest in lecturing whites that _they_ should turn into rabbits.

We don't lecture. We teach.

Anonymous dh February 07, 2013 1:09 PM  

The difference between science and religion, is obvious here though. Where as in religion, the disaffected primers would simply split into a new religious faction. They would not have to deal with the problems discovered, or answer to the fraud. In this way, with religion, nothing is ever resolved. There is never an accounting for past frauds or schisms, and of who was right or wrong. All factions are hanging on for the big one, in which all the scores are settled. Meanwhile, they just bicker back and forth, accomplishing little but moving a few supporters from one column to the next - the Calvinists come to mind.

At least here with science, we see what appears to be fraud, or at least, complete incompetency. But much more likely, fraud.

Another scientist smells the fish, and sets out to destroy the first. And in relatively short order, the wheels are falling off the "primers" bus. It's going to be over soon.

Anonymous dh February 07, 2013 1:09 PM  

The difference between science and religion, is obvious here though. Where as in religion, the disaffected primers would simply split into a new religious faction. They would not have to deal with the problems discovered, or answer to the fraud. In this way, with religion, nothing is ever resolved. There is never an accounting for past frauds or schisms, and of who was right or wrong. All factions are hanging on for the big one, in which all the scores are settled. Meanwhile, they just bicker back and forth, accomplishing little but moving a few supporters from one column to the next - the Calvinists come to mind.

At least here with science, we see what appears to be fraud, or at least, complete incompetency. But much more likely, fraud.

Another scientist smells the fish, and sets out to destroy the first. And in relatively short order, the wheels are falling off the "primers" bus. It's going to be over soon.

Anonymous Daniel February 07, 2013 1:14 PM  

Ah, yes, dh. The self-correcting mechanism. I have heard of its miraculous healing powers.

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 1:56 PM  

dh, I think the religion/science thing is a false dichotomy. Religion is philosophical in nature - that is it deals with fundamental questions of existence that precede scientific investigation.

I agree with your criticism of religion, with the caveat that it applies to all philosophy. It's just the nature of the subject.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 07, 2013 2:44 PM  

"We don't lecture. We teach."

Good heavens, here it comes again, right on schedule.

No, you DON'T teach. You THINK you teach, but in reality, you just cause gigantic train-wrecks wherever you go. Either that, or else you "teach" things that are the exact opposite of what you believe you're teaching. The one important perfectly true thing that came out of your neck of the woods, you instinctively rejected and then persecuted. Think about that for a while, before you attempt any more of this blood-soaked "teaching" you believe you're so good at. What, Mahler and Einstein, and all of of a sudden you think you guys invented the wheel? Whose shoulders were they standing on? Who built Vienna and Switzerland, and mathematics and the diatonic scale? HINT: Not You. I think the only thing Jews can genuinely claim fame for is actually practicing industrial-scale mass murder years before the Nazis did, and then acting surprised about it later. Grow the hell up. It might be a good idea to think about whether you actually know anything, before you open your mouths to teach.

Epistemology. The word comes from the Greek, not from the... ahh, I forget. Or at least I wish I did.

Anonymous Tad February 07, 2013 3:11 PM  

@Scoobious

If you desire to truly understand the history of the jewish plight in Europe, simple look at the Holocaust and work backwards. It was the inevitable result of a centuries-long bit of bigotry by christians and anglos. Not difficult to understand.

As for Jews in America, our status is untainted by any of the accusations you level. That's not surprising though. Ignorance-fueled hatred and bigotry often leads to unreasoned accusations.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 3:23 PM  

Tad,
If different groups of people hate you, and wherever and whenever you go and find new people to live among, they hate you too, perhaps the problem isn't them.
Jews have antagonized lots of people throughout history and continue to do so. Playing the Holocaust card won't change that. Antagonizing people less might. Very few Americans have significant animus towards Jews, but that will change if Jews don't coerce their elites into laying off their Cathedral worship. Of course you and most other Jews will ignore my suggestions.

Anonymous Tad February 07, 2013 3:28 PM  

@Jehu

You don't know what you are talking about. Any fear of Jews or hatred of jews is entirely irrational. This explains why you and others choose not explain any supposed rationality behind the fears.

Hate is not necessarily rational, particularly when it is absent reason.

As for the "elites" of the Jews, again, you offer no explanation, leading me and others to conclude, you are whiffing at the ball.

Let the irrational hate go.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 3:34 PM  

Tad,
Jewish elites are disproportionately involved in gun control, race replacement, abortion, and the attempt to drive CHristianity (but no other religion) out of the public square. That's why most people who don't like Jews in the US don't like them.
Europeans had considerably better reasons to dislike Jews than those, nothing really irrational about that. You're trying to hide behind the Holocaust to immunize your group from criticism while criticizing everyone else. Let that go.
Hint, when you loudly insist that every group of people is irrational EXCEPT yours, you're probably wrong.

Let that go and MAYBE, just maybe, it will be 'Never Again'. But you and yours won't listen. You always were and continue to be a stiff-necked people. Even God couldn't make you listen.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag February 07, 2013 3:59 PM  

Proving priming? What is their to prove? I can get any number of zeks, especially goyim, to jump higher with each passing day in my Lagerparadies: Just take these waywardly moving cadets in hallways from the bosom of a gymnasium to a place where real work is accomplished, like a kanal projekt or a mass grave digging werks. Observe the miracle worker at work!* No more slouchy postures or dragging feet. Most importantly though, no weapons of unimaginable
destruction in the hands of Judenhasser.

(*That is something you have to give to the Slav goy mind: It still persists in believing in the metaphysical on some level, even under a progressive socialist banner.)

Anonymous Tad February 07, 2013 4:40 PM  

@Jehu

Jewish elites are disproportionately involved in gun control, race replacement, abortion, and the attempt to drive CHristianity (but no other religion) out of the public square. That's why most people who don't like Jews in the US don't like them.

Ok...I see what you are saying. Can you post the list of those involved in gun control, race replacement, abortion and attempts to drive Christianity out of the public square and note the religion of each by their name. That would square it all away.


Europeans had considerably better reasons to dislike Jews than those, nothing really irrational about that.

And those reasons were??


Anonymous kh123 February 07, 2013 4:56 PM  

Well that all depends on if one considers being a Jew reliant upon race rather than religion. Even Israel hasn't figured that one out entirely.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 4:57 PM  

Tad,
You're filibustering and you know it. Jewish organizations and elites are all over the issues I identified. Check numbersusa.com if you're actually interested and do a breakdown by religion. Or go to my blog, I've done it for you. Check the NRAs grades and break them down by religion. I've not done that one for you but I might. The Jewish elite record on these issues is appalling.

Europeans have lots of reasons to dislike Jews. They've historically been a very ethnocentric middleman minority. Pretty much every native group hates those. The Spanish in addition really didn't like how an awful lot of Jews sided with the Moors during their struggle. Read World on Fire for more on market dominant minorities. Not by accident are the Chinese oft referred to as the 'Jews of the Orient'. In addition, Jews have always been pretty heavily involved in subversive movements, most recently Communism. But you knew that.

Anonymous Tad February 07, 2013 5:15 PM  

Jeru

Why am I not surprised that you offer nothing to support your contentions concerning "those issues"

Then you go on to make assertion after assertion, with nothing to back it up.

Why am I not surprised. Get back to me when you are willing to offer any of value other than your bigotry and hate.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 5:20 PM  

Tad,
For an explanation of why Jews were disliked, by a Jew, go here
http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/the-ashkenazi-revolution-is-done/

For an explanation of the effects of Jews in US politics (specifically the Senate), go here
http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2011/12/manufacturing-anti-semitism-in-senate.html
For the judiciary
http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2011/12/working-overtime-to-manufacture-anti.html
I believe I've done one for representatives also but I think 3 links is enough.

You're not seriously asking for support of my propositions though. What you're trying to do is win via exhaustion by asking for proof of propositions that are obvious to anyone with their eyes open. This is a common gambit among your ethnicity and guess what, it doesn't make anyone like you better.

Anonymous Daniel February 07, 2013 5:36 PM  

Besides, it is a scientific fact that suggestion is science.

You are getting sleepy...

Anonymous Crude February 07, 2013 5:47 PM  

Ok...I see what you are saying. Can you post the list of those involved in gun control, race replacement, abortion and attempts to drive Christianity out of the public square and note the religion of each by their name. That would square it all away.

I don't particularly fear or dislike jews myself. At most I think they're a very interconnected minority that often puts their group ahead of others - not very different from many others. But since you're asking for data, let's see what I can provide.

Gallup's summary of the 'official' Jewish view of abortion:

Traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life and well-being of a mother. While the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements openly advocate for the right to safe and accessible abortions, the Orthodox movement is less unified on the issue.

Gun control, via the Jewish Daily Forward:

Jewish organizations pride themselves on gun control stances that date back to the early days of the debate, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy. Most played a supportive role in passing legislation then limiting access to weapons, and have since reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the availability of guns.
One reason for broad Jewish support of gun control, Mariaschin said, has to do with the community’s sense of security, “which perhaps leads us to feel that the possession of assault weapons is completely unneeded.”

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former head of the Reform movement, listed in a recent Haaretz article several reasons for Jews siding with supporters of gun control: the community’s affiliation with the Democratic Party; the fact that Jews are urban people and detached from the culture of hunting or gun ownership, and suspicion toward the NRA, which is “associated in the minds of many Jews with extremist positions that frighten Jews and from which they instinctively recoil.”

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/168063/after-newtown-jews-lead-renewed-push-on-guns/?p=all#ixzz2KFwTvxTr


Now, I will admit straightaway - that's not polling data. At best they're summaries of stances of Jewish groups, one by Gallup, another by an online Jewish newspaper.

Would this qualify as evidence that jews tend to support abortion and gun control in your view, Tad?

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 5:52 PM  

Jehu,

The stubborn refusal of anti-semites to give any rational support for their claims is tiresome. I repeatedly asked Scoob to give me something -anything!- to support his oft repeated condemnation of Jews and he consistently refused because doing so is impossible in a blog comment. Impossible to support, yet simultaneously obvious and self-evident.

Now you're telling Tad to go buy a book, with nothing but your assurance that it's proof positive that Jews were responsible for their treatment throughout European history even though the linked blog post has no evidence or argument, only assertion.

Look, I've never done this but I'm doing it now. I'm officially invoking Rule #2. If you make an anti-Jewish claim about history, YOU BACK IT UP. You don't tell people to go read a book, you don't say you can't on a blog comment, you don't impertinently demand that OTHER people go educate THEMSELVES when YOU made the claim to begin with knowing full well how controversial it is (not to mention Off Topic). You back it up, or retract it, end of story.

BTW I'm not Jewish.

Anonymous Crude February 07, 2013 5:59 PM  

A little more digging has yielded more data, thanks to this Public Religion poll.

On abortion:

American Jews are overwhelmingly in favor of legal abortion in all (49%) or most (44%) cases. There is little denominational or demographic variation on this level of overall support.

Gay marriage:

Over 8 in 10 (81%) American jews support allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, including more than half (51%) who say they strongly favor same-sex marriage.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 6:06 PM  

Krul,
He doesn't have to buy it, Jewamongyou has made it downloadable for free. He doesn't give a rats ass about the information in it anyway. But the summary provided in the linked article is sufficient.
The author of the book doesn't present himself as a victim, always unfairly attacked, but rather as a member of a would-be conquering group who has triggered backlashes at various times when it attempts to make power grabs.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 6:15 PM  

Krul,
Which of these specific propositions do you deny?
Jews in Europe operated as a market dominant minority in most of the areas where animus towards them was strongest.
Market Dominant minorities generally generate a lot of animus in the native population. World on Fire is a decent treatment of this topic.
Jews have frequently been disproportionately involved in subversive movements, such as Communism.
Groups involved in subversive movements such as Communism frequently draw blowback from the population.
Are you going to deny any of these propositions?
The story of Jews time and time again is one of a group who suffers tremendously among its ordinary members from the blowback of the actions of its elites, which it often doesn't even support. See the articles I linked for some examples of same.

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 6:18 PM  

But the summary provided in the linked article is sufficient.

No, it's not.

I read it, it contains no arguments or evidence.

The author of the book doesn't present himself as a victim, always unfairly attacked, but rather as a member of a would-be conquering group who has triggered backlashes at various times when it attempts to make power grabs.

Which proves nothing, even if true.

Again, where is the evidence that Jews have been trying to take over their host nations throughout history? What harm did they do to justify the pogroms and expulsions?

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 6:22 PM  

Krul,
Whether pogroms were justified isn't the point I'm making. What I'm arguing is that the dislike of Jews by Europeans was not entirely, or even mostly, irrational. They had reasons to dislike them. Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone who wishes that Hitler had succeeded in his goal?

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 6:24 PM  

Which of these specific propositions do you deny?

You can't turn this back on me, pal. I neither confirm nor deny anything, as I have no evidence or arguments to judge. The burden of proof is on you for all of your assertions.

But let me make a point about one of them:

Jews have frequently been disproportionately involved in subversive movements, such as Communism.

Suggestive as this may be, it proves nothing. It doesn't prove that there is anything physical or doctrinal about Jews that causes them to be subversive. Individual Jews are free to choose and work for whatever political views they see fit, the blame (or praise) for their actions falls on the individual Jew, not Judaism or Jewry in general.

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 6:33 PM  

the dislike of Jews by Europeans was not entirely, or even mostly, irrational. They had reasons to dislike them.

Fine, then what are the reasons. You said they were a "market dominant minority", which apparently means that they were simultaneously minorities and rich. No crime there, and no reason to mistreat them except envy.

Before you accused them of "antagonizing people" and you said the linked book was written from the point of view of a member of a "conquering people". Well who were they antagonizing before the 20th century, what have they tried to conquer, and why?

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 6:36 PM  

Krul,
Every group has a brand that attaches to pretty much every member of it. You might not like that, but that's the way people work their internal diplomatic models. When you're a fairly ethnocentric group---and European Jews were such considerably more than Jews in the US are today---that brand matters a lot. I'd commend the comments in the article about the Ashkenazi Revolution to you.
Who generates the animus? Mostly the finance types and the intellectuals. Who suffers most from it? The ordinary Jew who doesn't even necessarily approve of the activities of the former.

For instance, Catholics in the US have a serious problem with their elites pushing things that ordinary Catholics, per the polls, don't like and which piss off large sections of the population (gun control, immigration, although thankfully in most cases NOT abortion). But the average Joe knows lots of Catholics because they're a big group, so the image of the group in his mind is MOSTLY that of the Catholics he knows, not the brand of the elite. For Jews that is reversed---lots of people know few or no Jews personally but deal with the actions of their elite every day. That's a dangerous situation to be in for a group.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 6:39 PM  

Krul,
Jews, like most other groups, have tried to gain influence in whatever society they've been in. This goes back a long ways. Because they have been successful, but not spectacularly successful (if they were so nobody would dare to oppose them), it creates resentment. The author admits as much. Interestingly there were never any bigtime pogroms in the Eastern Roman Empire, probably because Jews were specifically excluded by law from the areas of economic and political activity that historically cause people to dislike you.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 6:43 PM  

Krul,
You assume that when you're a market dominant minority that you 'play fair'. Of course you don't. No group does that. But when you're distinguishable on both an ethnic and a religious basis there's always blowback from it.
And even when you 'play fair' and just use your advantages in IQ, work ethic, whatever, it isn't irrational for a majority group to want to use the political process to tilt the playing field more in its favor. That's just who...whom, and frankly, pretty much every group does it, with the possible and partial exception of post 1960s non-elite white males.

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 6:44 PM  

Am I to understand that you retract the claim the Jews as a group are guilty of "antagonizing people" and being "conquerors", and that they are in fact our fellow victims of a particular subset of Leftists who happen to also have been born into Jewish families, Jehu?

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 6:48 PM  

You assume that when you're a market dominant minority that you 'play fair'. Of course you don't. No group does that. But when you're distinguishable on both an ethnic and a religious basis there's always blowback from it.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

From this, it sounds like the Jews are only "guilty" of being unlucky enough not to get away with what every other group routinely gets away with.

Also, STILL NO EVIDENCE. Sheesh, is there something about anti-Semitism that removes the "logic" function from the brain?

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 6:54 PM  

Krul,
Were you to read my particular comments on said articles, you'd find that is not too far from my position. The problem for Jews is that they tend to furnish a disproportionate share of these malefactors---I'd say around 20-25% in the US---while being a small enough group that their brand is extremely important. Catholics as I've pointed out furnish about the same number of such but they're so numerous that they're judged mostly on the basis of their ordinary membership, not their elite.

Blogger Jehu February 07, 2013 7:00 PM  

Krul,
We're discussing groups likes and dislikes here, not justice or fairness or any other such. Such things are about who...whom. You surely know this. When you're a market dominant minority you have to really go out of your way---like the Parsis in India---to make the majority not dislike you. Few market dominant minorities do this or even try.

Anonymous Krul February 07, 2013 7:09 PM  

At this point, your position doesn't appear to be anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish at all. Just some social theory about the perils of being a "market dominant minority", which is irrelevant to my Rule #2 invocation and uninteresting to me.

So Jehu, I'll bid you adieu.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 07, 2013 8:17 PM  

Oh, good, the World Wrestling Federation Anti-Anti-Anti-Semitism Match (I can barely keep my antis straight) has come to a close.

You know, Krul, there's an interesting phenomenon that I've noticed in life. There's this stuff called Italian Renaissance Art. Apparently it was made by a bunch of Italians, during the Renaissance. Not every Italian who lived during the Renaissance made Italian Renaissance Art, and not every person on earth who lived during the Renaissance made Italian Renaissance Art -- only people in Italy.

But there were enough people in Italy who were artists during the Renaissance, that we can somehow identify their work as recognizably Italian Renaissance Art. They were all different people, and they all had different signature styles, and yet we're somehow not crazy when we look at their work and say, Hey! That looks like Italian Renaissance Art!

Other Italians made other art during periods that were not the Renaissance, both before and after it; and there was art made by people who lived long ago in what we now call Italy, but whom we wouldn't call Italians, but they made art too; and also, during the time period of the Renaissance, there was other art that was made by Malaysians and Russians and Hindus, but it wasn't Italian, and even though they lived contemporaneously, they didn't live in the cultural shift which we understand as "the Renaissance."

Somehow people simply understand these things: they don't need reams of scientific proof simply to know that a) Italy exists, b) artists exist, c) there was a time period known as the Renaissance, d) artists [who existed] who lived in Italy [which exists] during the Renaissance [which existed] plied their craft, and so e) the art that was made by Italians during the Renaissance is what we understand as Italian Renaissance Art.

Furthermore, if I say that I like Titian better than Donatello, it doesn't mean that I'm going to raise an angry mob of crackpots, fly to Italy, and destroy all the works of Donatello.

I'm just sharing these random insights for no particular reason.

Ciao!

Anonymous Toby Temple February 08, 2013 12:32 AM  

Jehu wins by tap out!!

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 1:36 AM  

@Jahu

Were you to read my particular comments on said articles, you'd find that is not too far from my position. The problem for Jews is that they tend to furnish a disproportionate share of these malefactors---

I can't believe you forgot to mention all that drinking of murdered christian children's blood. Now there's a reason to hate. And what of the Elders of Zion.... Come on, get to the good stuff.

And those pogroms....Undoubtedly caused by the Jews. If they probably never even happened. More jewish lies.

Yes, Jeru....Irrational hatred spawns irrational tales and irrational bigotry.

Anonymous Koanic February 08, 2013 1:46 AM  

"Social scientists never discover any laws or facts or truths."

Not true. La Griffe du Lion.

Course he's a physicist, which is cheating.

Anonymous Krul February 08, 2013 1:59 AM  

TT: Jehu wins by tap out!!

VD on another thread: Gammas are always so quick to declare victory, thereby demonstrating that they don't even understand the game.

BTW, Scoob, I've noticed some interesting phenomena myself. For example, the fact that of all the commenters on this blog, only the anti-Jew types tend to hide behind specious fluff.

Anonymous Krul February 08, 2013 2:00 AM  

only the anti-Jew types tend to hide behind specious fluff.

Correction, anti-Jew types and liberals.

Blogger Jehu February 08, 2013 2:01 AM  

Tad,
Are you insane? Or just constitutionally unable to accept any criticism, however mild, of the actions of the elite segment of the group you belong to?
You're the only one arguing Protocols of the Elders of Zion here.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 08, 2013 2:13 AM  

VD on another thread: Gammas are always so quick to declare victory, thereby demonstrating that they don't even understand the game.

Krul on this thread:At this point, your position doesn't appear to be anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish at all. Just some social theory about the perils of being a "market dominant minority", which is irrelevant to my Rule #2 invocation and uninteresting to me.

So Jehu, I'll bid you adieu.


And there's the replay. You tapped out, Krul. End of the story.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 08, 2013 2:15 AM  

My mistake. Not tap out.

Jehu wins by TKO.

Anonymous VD February 08, 2013 2:48 AM  

Any fear of Jews or hatred of jews is entirely irrational.

That's quite possibly the dumbest thing anyone has ever posted here. Tad, if you can't stop responding to every reference to Jews that you find less than entirely laudatory with an idiotic argument that Jews are sugar and spice and everything nice and never done nothing to nobody and pogroms and HOLOCAUST, you can't comment here. Your tedious behavior is making even your fellow Jews think that perhaps that Hitler guy may have had a point.

Nothing you have posted here has anything to do with social psychology or Steve Sailer's article. So, until May, you are banned from making any comments concerning Jews, pro or con. Either get yourself under control or get yourself gone. Consider yourself warned.

Anonymous Krul February 08, 2013 2:52 AM  

My mistake. Not tap out.

Jehu wins by TKO.


You're an idiot, Toby. Jehu started off accusing Jews of "antagonizing people" and being "conquerors", then backed off to a general position about "market dominant minorities" that isn't remotely relevent.

Blogger Jehu February 08, 2013 3:05 AM  

Krul,
It is not I who described Jews as being a 'conquering people' rather than a victimized group. It is the Jewish author of the Ashkenazi Revolution, a book well worth reading that JewAmongYou has translated and made available for free that describes his own group as such. I suspect that same author would agree with most of what else I've said, including the market dominant minority arguments right down to the actions of the elite to antagonize the majority population mostly causing blowback on the ordinary non-elite Jew.
Today you see similar antagonism by Jewish elites in the US on issues like gun control, abortion, Christianity in the public sphere, and immigration. On most of these issues the non-elite Jewish opinion is at variance with the elite opinion. On gun control, for instance, the overwhelming majority of Jewish senators (there are 12 of them), receive an F from the NRA. On immigration, NumbersUSA gives those same senators similarly horrid grades (although numbersusa uses the full spectrum from A+ to F- more than the NRA, which tends to rate most as A or F with far fewer in between). The ordinary Jewish person in the US isn't anywhere near as bad on these issues.
But when you're a small group, like Jews are, the perception and feelings about you are vastly more influenced by your public brand. There's no retreat in my position, just some clarification.

Anonymous Krul February 08, 2013 3:10 AM  

VD on another thread: Gammas are always so quick to declare victory, thereby demonstrating that they don't even understand the game.

Krul on this thread:At this point, your position doesn't appear to be anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish at all. Just some social theory about the perils of being a "market dominant minority", which is irrelevant to my Rule #2 invocation and uninteresting to me.

So Jehu, I'll bid you adieu.

And there's the replay. You tapped out, Krul. End of the story.


VD's comment applies perfectly to you in this case, Toby, you utterly fail to understand the game.

I challenged Jehu because he started out blaming Jews for their treatment at the hands of others. I withdrew the challenge when he retreated to the position that they were simply unfortunate victims.

Meanwhile, the anti-Jew position still has no empirical or logical support at all. In light of this, your disingenuous victory claims are rather Black Knight-ish.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 08, 2013 3:12 AM  

You're an idiot, Toby. Jehu started off accusing Jews of "antagonizing people" and being "conquerors", then backed off to a general position about "market dominant minorities" that isn't remotely relevent.

And you said goodbye.

Jehu wins by TKO.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 08, 2013 3:23 AM  

VD's comment applies perfectly to you in this case, Toby, you utterly fail to understand the game.

Oh my! Krul said I do not understand the game. What am I gonna do now?



Anonymous Krul February 08, 2013 3:25 AM  

There's no retreat in my position, just some clarification.

Here's what you said before:

If different groups of people hate you, and wherever and whenever you go and find new people to live among, they hate you too, perhaps the problem isn't them.
Jews have antagonized lots of people throughout history and continue to do so. Playing the Holocaust card won't change that. Antagonizing people less might.


It certainly looks like you were blaming the Jews as a group for their mistreatment throughout history.

Then you moved to this:

Jews, like most other groups, have tried to gain influence in whatever society they've been in. This goes back a long ways. Because they have been successful, but not spectacularly successful (if they were so nobody would dare to oppose them), it creates resentment.

...[T]he market dominant minority arguments right down to the actions of the elite to antagonize the majority population mostly causing blowback on the ordinary non-elite Jew.


Suggesting that the Jews are not to blame for their treatment, but that a minuscule "elite" minority of Jews are the real bad guys and that the Jews as a group are merely victims of resentment on the one hand and manipulation on the other.

The thing is that these Jewish "elites" are not unique to Judaism or Jewry. Power seekers and conspirators have existed in every culture that I've studied. There is nothing necessarily "Jewish" about such people or their motives.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 08, 2013 3:33 AM  

Scoobius Doobius said...
Jews are not rabbits themselves, and have no intention of becoming rabbitized, but yet they seem to have a vested interest in lecturing whites that _they_ should turn into rabbits. And yet mass whites-only rabbification somehow mysteriously escapes the notice of the Western media. Huh. Can't figure out what _that_'s about.


AHA! So you were the one responsible in made this tread all about the Juic... I mean Jews.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 08, 2013 3:40 AM  

"only the anti-Jew types"

Oh stop being childish. Nobody here, to my knowledge, is being "anti Jew." If someone criticizes Jews for reasonable reasons, or even just plain notices certain observable things about Jews, all of a sudden they are cast into outer darkness as a flaming anti-Semite. It's ridiculous, and the fact that it happens so often ought to tell you something. To paraphrase Voltaire, you find out who really rules over you when you find out who you're not allowed to criticize.

"If I was to give an accurate account of the world as I found it, I should have to include a description of my own body." -- Wittgenstein.

Given the rather extraordinary degrees of power, influence and wealth that are commanded by Jews in the West relative to their numbers, and given that they often construe their own interests as being in conflict with the West and act accordingly, it is an act of stupidity and madness to pretend not to notice. One can draw all sorts of different conclusions, pro or con, and I don't directly care what your opinions turn out to be on this or that; but failing to notice important cultural and political phenomena means that you are not speaking with accuracy about culture and politics.

Notice how Tad immediately leaps to nonsense like baby-killing and the Protocols of the Elders of I-can't-say-who. Have I seen that sort of diversionary tactic before? Why yes, yes I have. Who was pulling that stunt do you think, a bunch of Armenians? Why am I not surprised that it was and is consistently someone other than Armenians?

If simple pattern recognition is a hate crime, then humans are going to have to stop doing a lot of things, like voting and playing sports and flying airplanes.

The West, whether you think it's a good or a bad thing, has allowed a tremendous amount of its power, wealth and influence to be concentrated in the hands of a non-Western group which not infrequently defines its interests as being different from the people who let them accumulate the power; and not infrequently, they also mistrust and even despise Westerners. It isn't a trivial thing. Whether it is a bad or a good or a neutral thing is a matter for considered judgement, but simply not to notice it is being plain old stupid.

The T'ang Dynasty allowed a lot of Turks and various other non-Chinese Central Asians to accumulate a lot of power, and what they got in return was the An Lu-shan Rebellion and the destruction of their empire, and it took them centuries to recover. The Arab Muslim dynasties in mediaeval Egypt and Spain invited various non-Arab mercenaries, like Berbers and Circassians, to help them run their empires. And the next thing they knew, they had lost their empires.

The point being there's a lot of things about the Jewish circumstance which are not unique to Jews. But it's absurd to pretend that there isn't a circumstance worthy of discussion.

Now stop sneering and throwing tantrums and name-calling, and go back to being a serious adult.

Anonymous Krul February 08, 2013 4:03 AM  

Nobody here, to my knowledge, is being "anti Jew." If someone criticizes Jews for reasonable reasons, or even just plain notices certain observable things about Jews, all of a sudden they are cast into outer darkness as a flaming anti-Semite.

I use the phrase as a matter of convenience. I have no other label to use except anti-Semite, which isn't technically accurate.

I personally have no problem with anyone criticizing the Jews, or anyone else. Where I do take exception is when someone makes a vague and controversial claim about history (the Jews' mistreatment by non-Jews throughout history was their own fault, for instance) and pass it off as incontestable fact without bothering to provide a shred of evidence, in spite of repeated sincere inquiries.

Now if you want to talk about the negative impact of the actions of certain modern day Jews (as in the neocons for instance), or discuss the possible effects of demographic change in the upper class, I have no complaint. These are legitimate concerns. But throwing around very serious false accusations is another thing entirely, as is blaming "the Jews" when the real enemy is Marxism or Fascism or progressivism or Keynesianism or somesuch.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 08, 2013 4:29 AM  

After this comment I'm going to check out of this discussion because it could give the false impression that I've got some weird hangup about Jewish people, when in fact I simply think that if you're going to talk about modern society, you have to describe it accurately, and leaving important things out leads to making bad decisions based on an inaccurate perception of society. For instance, the education/schools problem in America will never be solved properly because no one is allowed to say that such a big part of the problem has to do with the biological and sociocultural makeup of American blacks. If no one can diagnose a problem based on actual reality and observable conditions, then the problem can never be solved. Western scientific advancement was held back for centuries because of the received idea (I like the phrasing of Flaubert's "idees recus") that circles and spheres were mathematically "perfect" and therefore the heavenly bodies must be traveling in circles. It turned out it just wasn't true, orbits are elliptical and have two centers instead of one.

"throwing around very serious false accusations is another thing entirely, as is blaming "the Jews" when the real enemy is Marxism or Fascism or progressivism"

There's a species of recursion fallacy lurking within this remark. Human history and human movements are made of people. So it's legitimate to ask, Okay, which people? What are they like, these people in this movement, and what do they want, and why? There are to my knowledge no Malaysians in the IRA. (Well these days, considering what's happening to Ireland, maybe there are.) Why is Marxism still a threat and an enemy, instead of say Fourierism? Who were the Fourierists, and who are the Marxists? Who are the rank and file? Hell, even the Chinese Communists have abandoned Marxism, but American elites have not. Why? What do American elites have, that Chinese elites do not have? It's a legitimate thing to ask.

Anonymous Rasputin February 08, 2013 7:11 AM  

Krul,

which of the following statements would you disagree with and/or find unreasonable?

1) Jews have historically been pretty clannish and nepotistic. Meaning they tend to treat people from other groups substantially worse than fellow Jews. For example, in places like Northern Europe, where there for long times have been strong social norms not to drive a hard bargain, Jews have generally been happy to get good prices when they sell and not return the favor by haggling ferociously when they're on the other side of the deal. This has resulted in Jews having a fairly well-deserved reputation for being greedy in those areas.

2) Jews have been very good at besting other groups at trading and banking. Frequently through forming cartels in whatever business they dominated.

3) Jews generally have felt little kinship with the majority of whatever country they have resided in, and have usually sided with whatever side that could offer them the best deal.

4) Being bested at trading, or banking, have for most of history not been a question of simply having to make do with slightly less. It's frequently been the difference between being able to provide for your family and outright starvation.

5) Given 4) being on the losing side of economic competition is plenty of reason to be angry and try to change things politically. If survival is at stake even violence is pretty reasonable, if not moral.

So the argument isn't that Jews are especially evil or very different from other groups. It's that they tend to win in the economic arena and have usually been unappologetic about it. This when for most of history the economic arena not being that different from an outright battlefield in terms of the effect it had on the participants chances for survival.

And to further exacerbate things they frequently have made themselves very visible disdaining the majority culture and religion, as well as actively subverting it by being leading in movements such as communism.

Those things perhaps doesn't make a group *deserving* of a pogrom, but they do paint a pretty big target on its metaphorical back.

Something further to consider is that *most* European minorities haven't been persecuted to anywhere near the extents that Jews have. The only group that is in the same league are the gypsies, and they weren't exactly innocent victims.

If you think that Jews have been persecuted merely for being different, what's your explanation for all those other, frequently much economically weaker, minorities escaping the same fate?

Anonymous Krul February 08, 2013 10:21 AM  

Rasputin, I don't begrudge the Jews their right to look out for their own. Blood is thicker than water. Nor do I begrudge them their right to "look down" on gentiles; would you say you have no right to look down on those who aren't members of your race? (I'm not saying you do look down on others, I'm just saying you have the right to).

As for this: "It's that they tend to win in the economic arena and have usually been unappologetic about it." The same can be said for white people. As a matter of fact, the same has been said ad nauseum about white people.

You asked me for an explanation of Jews mistreatment throughout history, but I have no idea. I'm just pointing out that, outside of blaming Jews for how they were treated or justifying pogroms, we're left with the conclusion that the Jews were innocent victims. Their clannishness and wealth do not change that.

Anonymous VD February 08, 2013 1:02 PM  

I'm just pointing out that, outside of blaming Jews for how they were treated or justifying pogroms, we're left with the conclusion that the Jews were innocent victims. Their clannishness and wealth do not change that.

Your logic doesn't even make sense; it is a tautology. Why did the Jews return, uninvited, time after time, when they were expelled from European nations. Do you not know that they were kicked out of European nations more than 100 separate times?

Logic doesn't merely suggest, it DICTATES, that Jews bear some degree of responsibility for how they were treated, not every single time, but on at least some of those occasions. And they certainly bear all the responsibility on those occasions when they INVADED a country, contra the law at the time.

Anonymous Rasputin February 08, 2013 1:19 PM  

But when we're trying to explain why Jews tend to get persecuted framing the question in terms of rights or morals isn't productive.

Much like when we're discussing crime it's not really pertinent whether the victims have a *right* not to be victimized or not. The fact of the matter is that they are being victimized, and the practically relevant question is what they actually can do to avoid it.

The Jews position isn't really the same as that of white people in general. Mostly because most of white economic gains have come either from being fantastically productive within their own countries, without screwing over anyone else, or from an *overwhelming position of strength*.

Being arrogant about your success is generally a much more sensible position when it's you who can decimate the people you piss of, rather than the reverse.

Jews have in general had a bad habit of pissing out people who completely outmatch them, which is what Jehu is trying to advise them to stop doing. Not as a moral matter, but as a practical consideration, in order to minimize the probability of being put against a wall if the revolution comes.

It's similiar to that while you might have the *ability*, and a moral right to use that ability, to win a lot of money playing poker with Tony Soprano, it's not a real good life strategy to actually do so. At least not if you're going to be a prick to him about it. Tony, on the other hand, actually can afford to be smug when he wins.

Stretching the metaphor, in today's world Abe Goldstein not only have Tony in significant debt, he's also calling him a fat, greasy, stupid Italian. To his face.

As a moral matter I strongly disagree that a group that exploits its host culture is an innocent victim if there's violent backlash to that exploitation. Even if the exploitation is done within the letter of the law. I think that holds both for whites colonizing Africa, as well as Jews who choose to remain distinct from their host nations in the West. But that's a question of simply having differing values.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 09, 2013 2:24 AM  

Jews have in general had a bad habit of pissing out people who completely outmatch them, which is what Jehu is trying to advise them to stop doing.

Which went completely pass Krul's head because of his "feelings" for the Jews.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 09, 2013 2:30 AM  

As a token of kindness to the one who lost but did a valiant effort, Krul:

VD's comment applies perfectly to you in this case, Toby, you utterly fail to understand the game.

This only works when I am biased to Jehu. I'm not. I do not know him(or her. See, I do not even know Jehu's sex). I'm not even familiar with Jehu's socio-sexual hierarchy.

That makes me a neutral audience of the debate between you and Jehu.

And since you "bid adieu" to your opponent, you technically lost the debate.

It is true to Phoenician(aka princess) because he is a kindred of McRapey and declared victory despite the fact that McRapey is making a fool of himself.

Anonymous Krul February 09, 2013 4:05 AM  

VD - Logic doesn't merely suggest, it DICTATES, that Jews bear some degree of responsibility for how they were treated, not every single time, but on at least some of those occasions. And they certainly bear all the responsibility on those occasions when they INVADED a country, contra the law at the time.

Rasputin - The Jews position isn't really the same as that of white people in general. Mostly because most of white economic gains have come either from being fantastically productive within their own countries, without screwing over anyone else, or from an *overwhelming position of strength*.

Being arrogant about your success is generally a much more sensible position when it's you who can decimate the people you piss of, rather than the reverse.


I understand the proposition that Jews bear responsibility for their treatment in the same way for instance that a guy who parks his BMW in the bad part of town bears responsibility for its subsequent theft. I admit that Jews could have avoided some of what they've endured by thinking ahead and taking different actions than they did (for example, not entering countries where it was against the law for them to live).

However, the claims to which I've objected are those like this:
As a moral matter I strongly disagree that a group that exploits its host culture is an innocent victim if there's violent backlash to that exploitation. Even if the exploitation is done within the letter of the law.

When offered without evidence. So the Jews are guilty of "exploitation", or "antagonizing", or being "conquerors"? Fine, then, what exactly are their crimes? What's the evidence? If they're only guilty of the same stupidity as the BMW owner then why the extra accusations?

Anonymous Krul February 09, 2013 4:21 AM  

This only works when I am biased to Jehu. I'm not. I do not know him(or her. See, I do not even know Jehu's sex). I'm not even familiar with Jehu's socio-sexual hierarchy.

That makes me a neutral audience of the debate between you and Jehu.


Wrong. Again you fail to understand what's going on.

This is not a "debate", because I have no prior position. All I have done is to ask repeatedly for evidence in support of certain accusations that the accusers obstinately refuse to give.

And since you "bid adieu" to your opponent, you technically lost the debate.

This is laughable. "Technically" according to what rules? Not the rules of this blog, certainly.

Why didn't you say "Krul wins by TKO" when Scoob checked out of the discussion? Why didn't you say Jehu lost when s/he retreated from his earlier accusation against the Jews to a general one about "market dominant minorities"?

And then there's this:
Which went completely pass Krul's head because of his "feelings" for the Jews.

Which just proves how completely you've failed to understand my motives, even though ALL I'VE DONE is ask others to support THEIR accusations.

You are an ignorant fool who butted into a discussion where you have nothing to contribute just to insult me based on your absurd misapprehensions. Do you want to show that Jews are/are not guilty of exploitation? No? Then go away.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 09, 2013 5:28 AM  

You are an ignorant fool who butted into a discussion where you have nothing to contribute just to insult me based on your absurd misapprehensions.

You feel insulted. That speaks more on your own insecurities.

Why didn't you say "Krul wins by TKO" when Scoob checked out of the discussion?

Because the greater bulk of the argument where between you and Jehu. And I was more interested with it.

Again, you show your own insecurities. You thought you won. I did not. Now you are agree due to the fact that I did not view you as the one won.

Why didn't you say Jehu lost when s/he retreated from his earlier accusation against the Jews to a general one about "market dominant minorities"?

He made it quite clear that it was a clarification.

Remember you initially made this statement:

Look, I've never done this but I'm doing it now. I'm officially invoking Rule #2. If you make an anti-Jewish claim about history, YOU BACK IT UP. You don't tell people to go read a book, you don't say you can't on a blog comment, you don't impertinently demand that OTHER people go educate THEMSELVES when YOU made the claim to begin with knowing full well how controversial it is (not to mention Off Topic). You back it up, or retract it, end of story.

You failed to achieve your goal. And admitted that your initial invoking of rule #2 was base on your own failure to comprehend Jehu's position.

So Jehu wins by TKO.

Which just proves how completely you've failed to understand my motives, even though ALL I'VE DONE is ask others to support THEIR accusations.

Wrong. What you failed to understand is that your very words here shows your own strong positive feelings towards the Jews.

You are an ignorant fool who butted into a discussion where you have nothing to contribute just to insult me based on your absurd misapprehensions.

You are a nitwit. I did not butted into the discussion. I simply shared by observation.

Do you want to show that Jews are/are not guilty of exploitation? No? Then go away.

Cry, gamma. Cry.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 09, 2013 5:30 AM  

correcting this sentence of mine:

Now you are angry due to the fact that I did not view you as the winner.

Anonymous Krul February 09, 2013 5:47 AM  

Toby, you're right. I have lost. I'm finished.

Anonymous Rasputin February 09, 2013 6:12 AM  

"So the Jews are guilty of "exploitation", or "antagonizing", or being "conquerors"? Fine, then, what exactly are their crimes? What's the evidence?"

Roughly, my objection to Jews is that they're defectors in the societal version of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

That they're mainly breaking unwritten laws isn't a valid defense. In my eyes that sort of behavior is as immoral as stealing, or frequently worse, since it poisons the well of common trust society needs to function.

Jews typically have done very well in business throughout history. Typically in a zero sum way where they've exploited monopoly, formed cartels and used those advantages to the hilt. Monopolies and cartels of course weren't uncommon, in fact they were the basis of the Western economies for a very long time, but Jews were exceptional in taking advantage with no regard to the other party. Essentially there were social norms against twisting the knife too much in business dealings, which Jews were happy to benefit from, but not reciprocate.

I also don't see much good, but plenty of evil, about using superior schooling and wealth, even if there are no other advantages, to do sharp deals with illiterate, innumerate peasants that have to work hard all day, every day merely to stay alive. Especially so if the extra profit would cause the peasant and his family to starve. If then the starving peasant attacks the merchant, or his kin, I think the merchant has a large part of the moral responsibility for this.

And the fact that Jews have choosen to remain distinct from the nations they dwell in, often fleeing, or siding with invaders, when danger threatens, to me means that they aren't real citizens but, at best, guests. And as such they have little moral claim to the rights of a citizen, but even more obligations, since they're only there at the grace of their hosts and should be grateful or leave.

As I understand it you agree that many social and academic movements, to a large extent founded and spread by Jews, are harmful to society. The difference between is that I do think Jews in general share in the guilt for the damage caused by the various forms of leftism and similiar ideas.

If you think that there's something grossly factually wrong with something I've written, or that it needs to be proven, that's fine with me.

Anonymous Krul February 09, 2013 1:53 PM  

Rasputin, I get what you're saying, but I'm just not sure.

You take a group like Muslims. Now they have been extremely warlike and expansionist throughout their history largely because of their religious beliefs, most notably their vicious re-definition of the "martyr". Islam, in addition to being a religion, is explicitly a religious project that purposes to impose Sharia law on the entire world. All this is noncontroversial, so if you were condemning the Muslims as a group, I would be with you.

But with Jews it's different. Yes they've been kicked out of a lot of places, and they haven't been kicked out of a lot of other places. The stereotype has it that they deal harshly with gentiles in business, but I have no experience of that so I can't say whether it's true.

Since they aren't unified by an exploitive doctrine or direction, any examples of their exploitation of others is merely a subset that need not be representative of the entire group.

Now even as I write this I know that at some point pattern recognition must suggest that there is in fact something about the Jews themselves as a group that makes them exploiters. But as a Christian individualist I must be charitable and give each individual Jew every benefit of the doubt, and not hold any individual responsible for the actions of another. Nor can I condone coercion or murder just because its perpetrators were disadvantaged in dealing with Jews.

Now you and Jehu have given me a somewhat better understanding of your position that I had previously, and for that I thank you. But I still have yet to see either evidence that Jews are exploiters (stereotypes notwithstanding) or a reason to blame all Jews as a group for the actions of some Jews.

Anonymous Krul February 09, 2013 1:55 PM  

Errata: "Islam, in addition to being a religion, is explicitly a political project that purposes to impose Sharia law on the entire world."

Blogger tz February 09, 2013 10:19 PM  

Meanwhile (follow the links in the article), Quantum theory is showing cracks. Using a table with silicon fluid and droplets, they can demonstrate interference and other things.

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2013/02/01/hard-questions-about-quantum-crypto-and-quantum-computing/

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts