The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

[jiimbergin]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

+1

[jk]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

einstein won his nobel for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. brownian motion, special relativity and the equivalence of matter and energy just happened to come out the same year. pretty good for a guy who, according to some on this board, was just an ordinary doofus.

[Jay]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

the problem with "mr y"'s recommendations is not that they don't make sense - they make perfect sense and are not so different from ej's - it is that the american political system is broken. it is easy to unite in the face of a common enemy. that's why there is a saying that used to be mostly true: politics ends at the water's edge. but in a globalized world without a clear enemy, we devolve to zero-sum politics at home, and a politics that is increasingly polarized and extreme.

The broken American political system is a symptom of a vapid consumeristic country wallowing in debt that has hollowed out its middle class. Until the debt is cleared, the pie will continue to shrink and conversations at all levels will take on the tone of a zero-sum game. In my opinion TECI is impossible and has always been impossible unless the debt level is cleared. The desires of those in engaged in political conversation within the system do not matter when the rules of the game call for the pieces to become more scarce. The economy will not recover in real terms if the debt overhead doesn't change or wages don't increase enough to cover debt servicing, so the conversation won't recover either.

I also believe that the only way the existing power structure stays in power long term is if the debt machine can start cranking again. They will never let the debt level clear willfully. Debt is power and it provides structure. So those that gain from the existing debt pyramid will start it again, and try and control the "upstarts" who want to protest. Public or private debt is less important than increasing the overall level of debt. As debt levels grow, politics stay broken as there will be no real economic growth, no real middle class, and no possible fruitful dialog. High debt levels destroy the middle class and you need a vibrant educated middle class to have an educated political dialog. If you are an oligarch, things have been going swimmingly for the last few years.

The ironic thing is that politics does end at the water's edge. That edge isn't Commies, or Chinese, or Muslims, or Terrorists, but Debt. Both parties have one mission, one agreement, and that is to increase debt levels. Anyone in federal politics that doesn't believe this mantra is an outsider and considered a grave threat by those who support the debt system. This is what financial imperialism looks like.

Democrats, entitlements; Rebublicans, war. Water's edge.

The only way I see the powers that be creating enough debt to get this turkey flying again is to have a huge war. Carbon Money might have done it.

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Speaking as someone who is Jewish on one side of the family, I've always attributed the disproportionate numbers of Jews represented in finance throughout the ages as being a result of Jewish culture and Jewish families placing a higher value on higher education than many other minorities do. And once "in", it's easier for up and coming Jews just entering the workforce to network with family friends already on the inside. You can see this with all sorts of minorities in various fields that they tend to dominate.

You can also see this kind of disproportionate representation among Sikhs in India.. Sikhs are a small minority but are "disproportionally" represented in business because they value education and hard work, perhaps moreso than many people who believe they will have to wait to be born into a better incarnation in order to prosper. This is probably changing now with the growing middle-class in India, but for many years it was true.

I believe that Jews are genetically smarter than most people, but there's always a trade off in life. Smart in finance or science doesn't mean that you're good in governance.

China overcome this by having sub-races that are good at different stuff. Northern Chinese and Hakka Chinese (a roving group) are good at governance, North Eastern Chinese good at military (Manchurian), Eastern (shanghai) and Central Chinese good at commerce, Southern Chinese good at international relations and trade, and Western Chinese good at science. Even though originally of different race, intermixing over two millenniums ensure that all have at least one part in three or four that is in common - the Han ancestry - that ties them together.

[ash777]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I believe that Jews are genetically smarter than most people, but there's always a trade off in life. Smart in finance or science doesn't mean that you're good in governance.

Kevin MacDonald: Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained

**snip**

In a 1998 op-ed (”Some minorities are more minor than others”), Ron Unz pointed out “Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population. Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians constitute approximately half of Harvard’s student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America” (See also Edmund Connelly’s take.) A 2009 article in the Daily Princetonian (“Choosing the Chosen People”) cited data from Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, that with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24% of Ivy League undergrads. (Princeton had only 13% Jews, leading to much anxiety and a drive to recruit more Jewish students. The rabbi leading the campaign said she “would love 20 percent”—an increase from over 6 times the Jewish percentage in the population to around 10 times.)

Jews therefore constitute a vastly disproportionate share of the population classified as White at elite universities. Data from an earlier study by Espenshade show that around half of the students at elite universities are classified as White, suggesting that Jews and non-Jews classified as White are approximately equal in numbers. (Given that students from the Middle East are also classified as White, there is the suggestion that Jews outnumber non-Jewish students of Christian European descent.)

One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)

**snip**

These data strongly suggest that Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities has nothing to do with IQ but with discrimination against non-Jewish White Americans, especially those from the working class or with rural origins. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the admissions process. How many admissions officers are Jewish? And, whether or not they are Jewish,what pressures are they under to admit Jewish students? The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; I can’t find the NYTimes article on the web.) Clearly anything less that 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism.

The big picture is that this is a prime example of the corruption of our new elite. As noted previously, the poster child for this corruption is the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The fact that she is a Princeton graduate now makes even more sense given that when she went to Princeton the percentage of Jews was around 18% — more in line with the de facto affirmative action policies favoring Jews that we see now in most Ivy League universities.
Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population.
**snip**

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923




http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...y-Harvard.html

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Speaking as someone who is Jewish on one side of the family, I've always attributed the disproportionate numbers of Jews represented in finance throughout the ages as being a result of Jewish culture and Jewish families placing a higher value on higher education than many other minorities do. And once "in", it's easier for up and coming Jews just entering the workforce to network with family friends already on the inside. You can see this with all sorts of minorities in various fields that they tend to dominate.

You can also see this kind of disproportionate representation among Sikhs in India.. Sikhs are a small minority but are "disproportionally" represented in business because they value education and hard work, perhaps moreso than many people who believe they will have to wait to be born into a better incarnation in order to prosper. This is probably changing now with the growing middle-class in India, but for many years it was true.

I too am not a Jew, but for nearly a decade, my best friend was. I came to deeply respect him for his openness and ability to debate every subject under the sun. Certainly, my experience, (while I do have other Jewish acquaintances, my lifetime experience is limited), is that the above statement is true.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

It's called 'nepotism'.


---Culture of Critique, Preface to the First Paperback Edition
Prof. Kevin MacDonald, California State University Long Beach
**snip**
Although there is much evidence that Europeans presented a spirited defense
of their cultural and ethnic hegemony in the early- to mid-20th century, their rapid
decline raises the question: What cultural or ethnic characteristics of Europeans
made them susceptible to the intellectual and political movements described in
CofC? The discussion in CofC focused mainly on a proposed nexus of
individualism, relative lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral
universalism—all features that are entirely foreign to Judaism. In several places
in all three of my books on Judaism I develop the view that Europeans are
relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to
individualism as opposed to the ethnocentric collectivist social structures
historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to
this discussion—Jewish groups. I update and extend these ideas here.

The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by
strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less
powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive,
cooperating groups is obvious and is a theme that recurs throughout my trilogy
on Judaism. This scenario implies that European peoples are more prone to
individualism. Individualist cultures show little emotional attachment to
ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the
importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding
yourself” (Triandis 1991, 82). Individualists have more positive attitudes toward
strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a pro-social,
altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of
ingroup/outgroup boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes
toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little
emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of
common fate with other ingroup members. Opposition to outgroups occurs in
individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that
there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the outgroup members are
culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while
collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few ingroups
(Triandis 1990, 61). Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for
between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.

Historically Judaism has been far more ethnocentric and collectivist than
typical Western societies. I make this argument in Separation and Its Discontents
(MacDonald 1998a; Ch. 1) and especially in A People That Shall Dwell Alone
(MacDonald 1994; Ch. 8), where I suggest that over the course of their recent
evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than
Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This was originally proposed by
Fritz Lenz (1931, 657) who suggested that, because of the harsh environment of
the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency
toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups. This perspective would not
imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group
competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or
require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression.

This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically
adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse
physical environment than at competing with other groups (Southwood 1977,
1981), and in such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for
extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Evolutionary
conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in
group competition. Ethnocentrism would thus be of no importance at all in
combating the physical environment, and such an environment would not support
large groups.

European groups are part of what Burton et al. (1996) term the North Eurasian
and Circumpolar culture area.9 This culture area derives from hunter-gatherers
adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure
for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because
the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily
significant period. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship
relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more
equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of
monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and
marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). As discussed
below, all of these characteristics are opposite those found among Jews.

**snip**

"Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism
and hyper-ethnocentrism—a phenomenon that goes a long way
toward explaining the chronic hostilities in the area. I give many examples of
Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in my trilogy and have suggested in several places
that Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism is biologically based (MacDonald 1994, Ch. 8;
1998a, Ch. 1). It was noted above that individualist European cultures tend to be
more open to strangers than collectivist cultures such as Judaism. In this regard,
it is interesting that developmental psychologists have found unusually intense
fear reactions among Israeli infants in response to strangers, while the opposite
pattern is found for infants from North Germany.14 The Israeli infants were much
more likely to become “inconsolably upset” in reaction to strangers, whereas the
North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers. The Israeli
babies therefore tended to have an unusual degree of stranger anxiety, while the
North German babies were the opposite—findings that fit with the hypothesis
that Europeans and Jews are on opposite ends of scales of xenophobia and
ethnocentrism."

**snip**

Now this gets much more interesting. if this is to be believed, I am a CLASSIC European individualist.

But surely the answer to the many questions raised is to start a new debate about the need for all such cultures, Jews being a good example, to recognise that they end up in the same position as any group who exclude new "Blood"; they eventually degrade their own sub-group through a lack of genetic diversity?

Ergo; being the dominant group today; does not prevent them from future collapse from a lack of diversity. They may well have built into their culture the mechanism for their own long term demise.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Some university professors have stolen work from their graduate students and it would be interesting to see if any of Einstein’s students complained of such thievery. A plagiarist seldom stops plagiarizing especially when he keeps getting away with it. Complaints against Einstein however seem to disappear down the Orwellian memory hole. Einstein is clearly a sacred cow to many. A few have even used the word “heresy” to describe serious well-documented criticism and charges of plagiarism against Einstein. The truth eventually wins out and Einstein will someday be best known as a great fraud instead of a great physicist.


http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-in...raud_1295.html

While not a academic, but having worked for some years at a time with some very respected academics; yet too, have been treated as a "heretic" by others and seen with my own eyes, how many academics have deep difficulties with new thinking from others, I can well believe this account to be true.

The problem is a lack of leadership. Any original thinker always has to deal with periods of time, sometimes very lengthy, when their "well" dries up for one reason or another. But today, modern science has become so competitive, and academic status is so driven by a need for a constant flow of results; then the combination of a fear of losing credibility, and the desperate need for a constant flow of new thinking, published papers; must inevitable lead to plagiarism. Indeed, there are many recorded cases; so it would not be credible to suggest that it does not occur.

Today, I believe that science has a desperate need for new leadership. But, sadly, that change will almost certainly have to wait for the "passing of the old guard" before the necessary change will occur.

[cjppjc]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Please don't encourage this line, not because there isn't some truth... but rather due to where it ends up. Been there, done that on a few unmoderated forums and it's almost always about hate and spin and similar - and basically worthless in the long run.

Too bad. You did try. Now this good article by EJ has taken on a odor not in keeping with the original thoughts.

[Munger]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I find this kind of explaination very convincing. Jews are also "way out of proportion" in physics departments, the Manhattan project,
and during the 1960's, doctors offices. Somebody should tally the nobel prizes. I am betting more than 30% are going to people at least partly jewish.

Studies have confirmed that the Ashkenazi have significantly higher IQ than most other populations. While one standard deviation doesn't make a remarkable difference at the thick end of the normal curve, it will have huge effects at the upper spectrum. This is sufficient to explain why there are so many Ashkenazi physicists, economists, chess grandmasters, financiers, mathematicians, etc etc etc -- all fields with high cognitive demands. Vitiates any basis for bizarre and unlikely conspiracy theories.

[jk]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Too bad. You did try. Now this good article by EJ has taken on a odor not in keeping with the original thoughts.

+1. surely there are other sites around the web that would welcome racist discussion. quoting 1931 "studies" about the "nordic race"? hmmm

[we_are_toast]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

You people are all crazy! There have been many studies showing that Intelligence is directly proportional to wheat consumption. But not just any wheat, it has to be in the form of bread. But again, not just any bread. People eating unleavened bread tend not to be as intelligent as people eating a well baked rye, for example. But of course, the most intelligent people of all, are people who have a fascination with;

"Toast"

Not to change the subject but, here's something Paul Krugman was saying about the output gap awhile ago.

...
Wait, there’s more. Ben Bernanke can’t push on a string – but he can pull, if necessary. Suppose fiscal policy ends up being too expansionary, so that real GDP “wants” to come in 2 percent above potential. In that case the Fed can tighten a bit, and no harm is done. But if fiscal policy is too contractionary, and real GDP comes in below potential, there’s no potential monetary offset. That means that fiscal policy should take risks in the direction of boldness.

So what kinds of numbers are we talking about? GDP next year will be about $15 trillion, so 1% of GDP is $150 billion. The natural rate of unemployment is, say, 5% — maybe lower. Given Okun’s law, every excess point of unemployment above 5 means a 2% output gap.

Right now, we’re at 6.5% unemployment and a 3% output gap – but those numbers are heading higher fast. Goldman predicts 8.5% unemployment, meaning a 7% output gap. That sounds reasonable to me.

So we need a fiscal stimulus big enough to close a 7% output gap. Remember, if the stimulus is too big, it does much less harm than if it’s too small. What’s the multiplier? Better, we hope, than on the early-2008 package. But you’d be hard pressed to argue for an overall multiplier as high as 2.

...

[jiimbergin]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

+1. surely there are other sites around the web that would welcome racist discussion. quoting 1931 "studies" about the "nordic race"? hmmm

+1 +1

[touchring]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

I see this as economics and political talk. Without talking about groups of people, how do you perform a complete analysis?

Al Qaeda, Osama's 'grievances', Sept 11, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran, America's debt crisis, they are all related. Obama is smart in addressing this issue, but it might be too late or he doesn't have the power.

The Art of War

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

[bart]

Re: The Next Ten Years – Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Too bad. You did try. Now this good article by EJ has taken on a odor not in keeping with the original thoughts.

Hopefully Fred or admin will come up with something to help avoid this type of "special" topic and thread hijack - and odor too.

Perhaps start a "Jooz" or MENA thread/section and move initial posts there...