Search Box

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Analogy

A young man recently said to me, "What if a bunch of space aliens with IQ's of 200 came down and kidnapped us and brought us back to their planet to use as slaves, but we couldn't handle their technology, and were more or less useless, and they called us idiots. That wouldn't be our fault."

He has a point.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not only that, but a new group of alien invaders has come to the mother planet, who are more intelligent than the natives and the kidnapped ones. What now??

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
My guess is that they gradually become extremely influential in the media, and tell the original inhabitants that they're evil if they notice that their former slaves are less intelligent than they are. And I suspect that eventually, the original inhabitants, being a weak-minded lot, will come to believe that.

Anonymous said...

John,

Actually, I was referring to East Asians. Jews only parrot what the Yankee Protestant elite has said, since well before abolition (all that Utopia shit is very Yankee Protestant). Or maybe you're talking about Yankee Protestants too?

It's not as if I think you're wrong- you aren't. But the seeds of destruction were here long before Jews, and the drama would have played out much the same without them.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
The East Asians don't really participate in trying to change Western society in any way. Japanese-Americans are (I think) the most law-abiding minority there is, and are generally pretty meek. Chinese-Americans a little less so, but they too don't really try to shift society in any major way. Chinese from China try to exploit the US with birth tourism, and by ignoring any sort of copyright protection, and by dumping goods and keeping their currency cheap. Plus they spy on us as much as they can. But they, too, don't reply try to change the rules within our culture. Blacks, Jews, and whites (not all of whom are on their own side, especially whites) seem to be engaged in a never-ending battle to change the rules to redistribute power and money.

When was the last time you saw a protest march dominated by East Asians? The only one I can think of, literally, was when a group of Chinese-American New Yorkers gathered to protest the fact that NYPD officer Peter Liang was charged with murder for the accidental shooting of Acai Gurley at a NYC housing project.

Anonymous said...

John,

I only mentioned them with respect to the sci-fi scenario, in that East Asians are so bright & high functioning, and they can't help but drive other ethnic groups into the dust, and they unwittingly create a situation in which competition becomes even more fierce than it otherwise would be. I meant no offense.

People - and peoples - don't do things as consciously as you seem to suggest. People just are what they are and stuff happens. (BTW the Jewish and Mexican dominated NY Times is beginning to feature various unpleasant & hate-filled Asian commentators, one in particular a venomous Korean-American.)

About Jews and their influence, as I see it, they lose their religious identity, take ideas from the elite of whatever society they are a part of (in the West, anyway) and shoot it back in more extreme form. Orthodox Jews keep apart. They are annoying and ethnocentric, but don't try to bother other people.

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

Not totally OT, I saw a reference to this book on Unz, so I clicked on the link and got a laugh.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620972255/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20

"In Strangers in Their Own Land, the renowned sociologist Arlie Hochschild embarks on a thought-provoking journey from her liberal hometown of Berkeley, California, deep into Louisiana bayou country—a stronghold of the conservative right."

They make it sound as if she's going on a visit to deepest, darkest Africa in a 1950s movie. The description reads as if it's completely, well, fucking obvious that a "renowned sociologist" from Berkeley would be a leftist and would find bayou people in LA very strange. Which of course she would, but isn't there anything strange about simply assuming that a "renowned sociologist" would surely be a leftist? I mean, shouldn't there be?

I know, I know.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Please, I wasn't offended at all. And I'm the last person who should take "offense" at anything, given what I say about everybody else. Plus, I disapprove of "taking offense" as a concept, since it usually just means that one has lost an argument and has nothing to respond with other than an emotion, indignation.

I agree that people don't do what they do entirely consciously, and I don't think I was suggesting that in my previous comment, was merely saying that this is how the various groups behave.

I hadn't been aware of that Korean-American journalist. Not so sure that Jewish groups take all their ideas from their host societies. One idea which never changes, no matter where they go, is their ethnocentrism. (I'mont speaking of every individual, only organized Jewish groups.) Coincidentally, I was just reading about Kiryas Joel, the Orthodox Jewish community north of NYC, about two hours ago. (I'm tentatively planning a trip nearby, and it occurred to me to visit there, just to get a sense of the place.) They have both the younger population in the entire country (a tribute to the extraordinary fecundity of the group) and are, statistically, the poorest community in the entire nation. According to Wikipedia, over two-thirds of its population live below the federal poverty line and 40% are on food stamps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York

Yet, crime is reported almost nonexistent there. Now, do you believe that they are really that poor, or do you think there might be some sort of fraud going on? And if there is, does that fit into the definition of bothering other taxpayers? The Orthodox don't like to mingle with the goyim, but on a society-wide level, they do what they can.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yes, the bubble these Leftists live in is near impenetrable, except when they venture out to visit these exotic creatures outside their enclaves who harbor such primitive superstitions such as, men and women aren't exactly alike, the races differ, etc. How can these poor benighted souls in flyover land believe such fictions? It would take a Berkeley sociologist to find out.

Anonymous said...

John, we are talking about two totally different groups here.

The ultra-O's of Kiryas Joel take advantage of welfare. This is a well known fact. But does this constitute bothering society in the sense that they want to change it? They may be a drag and a bunch of welfare cheats - a nuisance in one sense - but do they want to change things? I think they like things the way they are.

"One idea which never changes, no matter where they go, is their ethnocentrism. (I'mont speaking of every individual, only organized Jewish groups.)"

Once the religious belief goes, the ethnocentricism goes. The non-Orthodox Jewish marriage participation rate is low and of those who do get married, 50% marry out. The birthrate of non-Orthodox Jews is dismal. Jewish ethnocentricism seems to be a massive failure by those standards.

I'm not disputing that Jews have been disproportionate in trying to change American society. What I'm saying is that none of this comes from anything authentic in the Jewish tradition, although I realize they love to brag about this, usually out of a wellspring of ignorance. (There were probably more Jews fighting for the Confederacy than for the Union, and not only because there were more Jews down south. It was because they believed in the Cause.)

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
True, there's a difference between reshaping and taking advantage, though I'd say both go under the heading of "bother." (The Chinese are similar to the Orthodox in this respect.)

And yes, Reform Jews have a low birthrate. Every now and then you'll hear of a rabbi who wails about the high rate of marrying out, and nobody criticizes him, though if anyone said this about Europeans marrying out and making their race impure, the sky would come crashing down on his head.

But even among the non-Orthodox, a certain ethnocentrism persists. A nice (non-Orthodox) Jewish lady once told me, "People who aren't Jewish just don't understand. You probably think of yourself as a man first, and maybe as your job second, and your ethnicity third. But if you're Jewish, you think of yourself as Jewish first, second, and third."

I don't think her attitude is all that rare.

Hadn't known that about Jews fighting of the Confederacy.

Anonymous said...

John,

Agree w/you about the double standards between Jews and Europeans. There's nothing to disagree about, it's fact.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/01/01/28/reviews/010128.28hoffmat.html

(Condescending NY Times shitlib review)

The Sec State of the CSA was a Jew, Judah P. Benjamin.

Anyway - I think we can both agree that the presence of hyper-intelligent and motivated groups complicates a society and makes things difficult for "natives" - of whatever background. The more complicated a society, the more prone to breakdown, I think. Our experiment in multiculturalism is at the breaking point.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Interesting; the Confederate stuff was something I should have been aware of, but wasn't.

Yes, anytime you have groups with different intelligence levels it creates problems. It's certainly not just a black-white thing. Look at the conflict between the native Fijians and the (sub-continental) Indians who've emigrated there. Look at the problems in Malaysia with the native Malays and the Chinese who've moved there. Or look at the conflict between whites and aborigines in Australia.

The amazing thing is, there are still people who agitate for more multiculturalism. At least for Europe and the US.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

Extreme melting pots and multiculturalism spell only one thing --- social unrest and breakdown. This is because individuals derive their sense of identity and even self-organization from the (similar-looking and like-minded) group. Whatever the rational and academic arguments, this basic fact of human psychology cannot be obliterated.

That's why Jews are smart to remember that they are Jews first, second and third.

In my experience, Jews, no matter how secularized, always somehow 'remember' their Jewish identity. I've known extremely poor ultra Orthodox Jews, extremely rich Orthodox Jews, and all manner of Reform or 'barely-there' Jews.... And in every last instance, their allegiance to Jewishness and the modern state of Israel was a strong common denominator.

I am not sure how much the average American realizes how much money a wealthy Jew contributes to the state of Israel and/or to the lobbies that further Jewish/Israeli causes. In this, Jews are fairly unique, in that I am not sure any other ethnicity or religious group holds so much sway for causes outside of the U.S.

Puzzled --- thanks for that comment about the book. It's a nice highlight of the fracture seam in our society. Personally I find it shamelessly hypocritical --- liberalism parading as open-mindedness, while sending the unmistakable message that 'of course' the LA bayou inhabitants are just a notch above a troop of chimpanzees in their social development. Disgusting.

Steven said...

yeah its not their fault, good point.

On the other hand the IQ gap is 15 points with significant overlap and some blacks at the very high end and we are the same species.

If the gap were as big as in the analogy, we also wouldn't be the same species. It would be totally obvious to everyone the gap is due to genetics.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

Steven --- I think we are confusing technological advancement with IQ in this discussion. When two cultures of the same species meet, and one of them is significantly more advanced than the other technologically, the technologically inferior ones always loses, in every respect. So, stone age hunter gatherers colliding with post-industrial post-colonial wealth barons --- guess who wins.

Steven said...

TAM,

there is a connection though. Higher IQ groups will tend to have better technology than lower IQ groups. And the bigger the intelligence difference between two groups, the more likely the higher IQ group will have better tech. If it were as big as in the analogy, I reckon you could practically gaurentee it.

Anonymous said...

I am detecting in the young man the pervasive influence of pieces left over rrom Christianity (usually in modern life the Christian bits mouthed by non-Christians are way worse than actual Christians, no bueno)...assigning fault for a deficiency relates to the end of time and the final judgment and each person is a child of God...

If someone is working counter to my interests, THEY SHOULD BE DESTROYED, regardless of whether it is their fault or not...

====FAKE BABA

John Craig said...

FAKE BABA --
I guess you could say the young man did show a certain Christian kindness, or at least empathy, with that statement, although this particular young man has never been to church (so "pieces left over" it would have to be).

Basically, he was saying that it's not their fault what their IQ is anymore than it is your or my fault that we can't run 100 meters in 10.0.

As for your own personal Genghis Khan-like attitude, the Day of Judgment awaits!

Lucian Lafayette said...

To return to the original anthology: the first group of slaves would be well justified in desiring a return to their former situation. However, their great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren who are no longer slaves but full citizens who also received discounted rates at esteemed education institutions, preferential hiring practices (regardless of expected performance), dominate most entertainment and sporting events AND are held in near reverence by many of the elite strata of space alien society should get no further special treatment (unless it is a one-way ticket to their "homeland").

John Craig said...

Luke --
Hmm, can't put my finger on it, but that rings a vague bell, somewhere.......

Anonymous said...

@Lucian,

Not only that, but in the early generations, they received several opportunities to return to their planet of origin, and the overwhelming majority declined. A few did return and made a failure of their return, even with ample subsidies.

The idea of repatriation never dies, but the descendants of the slaves vociferously resist it. They are both totally rooted in the new planet, and full of hatred and resentment against it. This makes them very hostile and hard to be around, neither here nor there.

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

John,

Also, although they are a minority, literally everything on the new planet now revolves around the descendants of the slaves. Everything. Every matter of national importance, daily discourse, movies, TV, you name it. Those few things that do not, are relentlessly criticized for lack of "diversity." There is literally not one thing in the new planet that doesn't revolve around....THEM.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
The weird thing is, "THEM" are not an intrinsically dislikable people. I honestly like the vast majority that I've met. It's the liberals -- of both races -- that have brought the situation to this untenable pass. The liberals are the ones who lie all the time, about practically everything, and set up unrealistic expectations and brainwash the weak-minded into swallowing their pap. Which, in turn, makes the weak-minded dislikable as well. A society based on lies will inevitably collapse.

Mark Caplan said...

Anonymous wrote: "There were probably more Jews fighting for the Confederacy than for the Union."

The Washington Times has an article written by (I'm guessing) a Mexican Sephardic Jewish physician who has been a longtime resident of Virginia, one Dr. Thomas C. Mandes, who knows a lot about the "more than 10,000 Jews [who] fought for the Confederacy":

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/jun/15/20020615-031656-1085r/

It's true, as the article states, that Gen. Grant issued "anti-Jewish orders," but Lincoln quickly reversed them and Grant later said he was sorry.

Anonymous said...

YOu bring up an interesting issue. My first impulse was to say that it's not a question of likability or dislikability (which is a totally individual thing, no?) but whether they can compete in a complex society. There are parts of the NYC metro area (in an alternate universe, of course) where Irish/Italians/Jews have fled from NYC, and they all get along famously now. (See under: Mazza/Pizza, i.e., Massapequa.) Not in NYC in the old days, where ethnic tensions were rife, but now. Isn't this a case of successful multiculturalism?

Can you give me an example of successful multiculturalism/integration whatever, with THEM? (In an alternate universe, of course.)

I agree with you about lying shitlibs, but reality is reality, and Mazza-Pizzas exist and Mazza-Pizza-soulfoods don't.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
True, likability and the ability to compete in a technological society are two separate things. I was speaking only of the former. The dislikability comes when blacks -- programmed by liberals -- start to blame whites for all of their own failures. But again, that blame lies more with the liberals theorists and the liberals with bullhorns than with the sheep who follow them.

Successful blacks tend to prefer their own enclaves, such as Sag Harbor, NY, and Prince George's County in MD. In places like that, where there are always some whites, there is peaceful coexistence. But those places are rarities, and the peace is a function of the fact that the blacks are successful. The more common situation is that a black housing project is plopped down in the middle of a lower middle class or middle class white area. Then, if the percentage of blacks is low enough, the whites become leery, but coexist. If a neighborhood is slowly turning, though, once it hits 30 or 40% black, whites generally just leave, if they can afford to.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I didn't really say what I meant to say. You're provoking a lot of thoughts in me, LOL, and I'm messy and I got tripped up. Sorry!

Let me clarify. I actually meant to say that the elusive quality of likability, while it is irrelevant to whether a group succeeds in society, is important in every day life, when people just want to get along. And that in some way the ability of a group to function, is related to this. Thus you have successful neighborhoods where different white ethnic groups get along quite well.

Quite a few times I have taken walks with friends and had lunch in a Hispanic neighborhood. I would never do that in a black neighborhood. If blacks are so likable, then why, even when they are successful, do they not want to mix with others? Maybe others don't want to mix with them, because their culture has nothing that anyone else wants? Mazza-pizza neighborhoods have great schools, bagel shops, pizza shops, etc.

If an imaginary THEM/US neighborhood existed, what would it have? The only thing I can think of is mixed THEM/US sports teams....but of course, THEY would dominate so completely it wouldn't be fair. (Do ya think maybe that is one reason why white parents want to live in white neighborhoods? It surely could not be because they fear black intellectual competition.)

As for your experiences, I can only say that although I like many blacks individually on the whole, my experiences have been bad. I've been mugged, robbed, my middle and high schools were heavily black and they were nightmarish experiences. I suspect that you haven't had much experience with them except superficially.

And I flat out disagree with you that liberals give blacks bad ideas. Liberals contribute to mischief by making excuses for blacks, and Jews are heavily represented in this regard, but this is simply a part of liberal capitalism. Colin Woodard goes into this in his AMERICAN NATIONS, a brilliant book about Yankee Protestantism, which I highly recommend.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
OK, gotcha.

A lot of what you and I are both saying can be explained with a quote from the post I wrote in March about how blacks are more uninhibited than whites:

"Being uninhibited can also mean less artifice. I've always had the impression that on those occasions when blacks act warmly toward me, their friendliness is more genuine. With whites, you never know what they're really thinking: most whites will generally just say whatever it is they think they're supposed to say at the moment. And I often end up with the impression that what they were really thinking was entirely different.

This may surprise some given what I've said elsewhere in this post, but for that reason, I've often found blacks -- once it's established that they're friendly -- at that level to be better company than whites. Whites are far more likely to put on false (socially acceptable) faces; their friendliness is often a matter of social convention rather than goodwill. It's not real warmth, merely good manners. With blacks, it's actually goodwill. They are uninhibited in the way they like people, too."

This explains why successful blacks prefer each other's company. rather than the fake friendliness of whites who are trying hard not to appear racist in any way, they can just be around people who act naturally around them. Who wouldn't prefer that? Also, note that I said "once it's established that they're friendly." If you live in a neighborhood with a lot of blacks, it's a given that a number of them will be unfriendly, and those who are unfriendly are more likely to express that hostility physically. Plus, a certain percentage of blacks will be street predators in any poor black neighborhood, thus whites rarely dare venture into these neighborhoods, and if they do, they often regret it.

What i've fond likable about the blacks I've known is that their warmth seems more genuine, and they tend to be less pretentious. Maybe, having gone to an Ivy league school and having worked on Wall Street, I've known a higher than usual percentage of phony whites; but I think it goes beyond that. Whites, as I said in the post, are just going to act as they think they're supposed to in any situation, and that's not only boring, it can be uncomfortable, since it's harder to tell what they're really thinking. That said, I'd never dream of going for stroll through East St. Louis or New Orleans' Ninth Ward.

I've heard that once a school becomes 40% black, the blacks completely dominate and intimidate the site students; I guess this was the case at your middle and high schools; I'm glad I didn't go to a place like that. And I've never been mugged, either; I may have benefited from protective coloration there (I've looked vaguely Hispanic most of my life). So my experiences don't rival yours. I wouldn't say that my experiences with them have been totally superficial, though, I had a close black friend for 31 years, now an ex-friend (because of this blog), andI wrote about the nature of that friendship here:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-i-feel-free-to-be-honest-about-race.html

We're going to have to agree to disagree about liberals.

Anonymous said...

John,

I can't argue with your perspectives. I can only say that from my perspective about blacks, they are no more inhibited than whites. It's simply a matter of IQ. Lower IQ people tend to be more spontaneous and less inhibited. The black mean IQ is 85...but you are familiar with the entire HBD thing, so I won't go into it.

I grew up around ethnic whites, and I always found them (us) to be warm and unpretentious people, much nicer than the upper class liberal frauds I now deal with.

I have not had such great relations as you have with blacks, but again, that's my perspective. I have worked among blacks and found that once you go over a line, you get asked to lend money, you get asked to buy endless boxes of girl scout cookies, raffle tickets, etc. Maybe that's "real" - but deal me out.

One thing I don't put past blacks is their political acumen. They don't need to be told anything by whites. They know what they want, and they unite behind a common purpose. And they get it. Now, THAT's the quality of blacks that I admire.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Lower IQ people do tend to be less inhibited, but whites with IQ's of 85 simply don't act like blacks.

I wouldn't characterize my relations with blacks overall as "great," but I did have that one longtime friend, and I've generally gotten along with them. But I certainly recognize all of the major social patterns. (I think.)

Most of the people who've asked me to buy girl scout cookies, contribute money to their favorite cause, etc, are white. (I don't like it when anybody does this to me.) But the majority of people who've just asked for money on the street have been black. (My favorite line is, "Hey, at least I'm not mugging you.")

May I ask which state you grew up in? (And do you live in Europe now? I got that impression once before.)

Anonymous said...

John,

I'd rather not divulge anything too personal but yes, I bounce between London & the intermountain West, I grew up in Alec Baldwin's home town (no gossip) and I'm old enough to remember both Vietnam and when this country really was The Greatest. I feel sorry for the Millenials, and I think if I were one, I'd be an alt-righter.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Thank you for that, and if you want me to take your comment down I will.
John

Anonymous said...

It's OK you can leave it.

Puzzled

George Pingas said...

Weird stuff