[Dave]

Yes I do.
I'm must say you're much more eloquent and coherent than what is to be found on stormfront, skadi which I monitor.
I'm also monitoring french far right websites...which is painful considering how much stupid and uninformed opinions I find in it, but I'm checking what has chances to become the political future here.
I don't say they are stupid out of thin air, for exemple recently there was a topic where someone brought the fact that when France was 50 millions, the birthrate was around 2 children per woman and so the population shouldn't reach 65 millions today (so there must be 15 millions aliens, QED )

4-5 other posters repeated the same idea with the same reasoning, hundreds posted in between and many more viewed it (it's now the first french political blog). And not a single one corrected the stupid misconception (why China is still growing, huh?....).

Skadi isn't that bad. I've posted a few times there. Stormfront is prole garbage and I resent being associated with them. Far right/racialist ideologies have low social status, so most adherents aren't very bright to say the least.

Still, about what you said on miscegenation : my examples weren't all of equal importance. The most significant one was about the roman empire, where we have records of massive arrival of slaves, from Greece but also in great quantity from more oriental and southern populations. We know that their integration wasn't so hard despite all the cruelty they may have suffered : frequently after a generation or even sometimes during their life they would become normal Romans.
Also there's the question of Roman emperors of non european origins.

So the roman society is one where miscgeneation occurred on a long-term basis(well before its decline, in fact centuries before its peak). Every single European powers afterwards constantly compared itself to its might, as we know. A good work about that. If we are to link miscegenation to Roman decline, our best culprit should be the germans then, but it's not an opinion that seem reasonable to me.

I see and understand that you reasons are mainly social, and so is the example of Rome interesting mostly in this regard. Racial hygiene is aweak replacement of cultural domination, in my view. Those who promote it probably already have failed.

In the first place you'd have to ask what race the non-Romans were. Judging by the stock in Italy today, they were still Europeans. If you study the archaeogenetics you find major continuity in both Italy and Greece since ancient times, so the amount of race mixing in question may have been more limited.

You'll find that American whites are quite diverse. I am by no means an old stock American. I think a lot was lost by deluging the old stock Americans, but in general America gained from European mass immigration once groups were allowed to integrate. I will confess to being a nordicist as well but this is partly for aesthetic reasons...it's not like there is anything wrong with, say, Lombardy which is one of the most dynamic industrial regions in Europe.

[eugenekop]

Dave, do you think old Egyptians, Jews or Messopotamians are less intelligent on average than Europeans?

[Dave]

It is impossible to make that judgment on ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, eugenekop.

If we are discussing Jews, then Ashkenazim are considerably more intelligent than Europeans (around one sigma), Sephardim slightly more intelligent, and Mizrahim less intelligent.

[eugenekop]

Dave I think its pretty obvious that the success of these Jewish communities are a result of culture and environment and not genetics. Those same Ashkenazi Jews that came to Israel were a lot less successful here than they were in Europe.

[Dave]

It is extremely dubious to suggest that a one sigma advantage in IQ would be culturally rooted in light of what we know about environmental effects on adult intelligence (minimal).

Other aspects of their success may very well be cultural. Reverence for education, verbosity, and ethnic networking are all cultural traits regardless of how heredity contributes to them. Vulgarity and rudeness are also cultural traits.

[eugenekop]

Can you point to a research?

[Dave]

I cannot point to research specifically about Jewry, though some hereditarian psychologists have speculated as to why this might be the case.

I can point to research about the heritability of intelligence in general, however.

[Kallinikos]

The problem with the attempts at quantifying heritability of IQ is that the figures usually publicized are averages, and ones gathered in a certain context. Thus even if we accept their accuracy, of far more interest would be the distribution. To use an average, to focus on it for further reflexion lead intentionally or not to exaggerated determinism.

Sometimes individual will makes an important difference, and on this the heritability calculations don't inform us at all.

Heritability estimates are true only for particular populations at particular times. They can vary in different populations or at different times.
Equalizing environments, for example, produces the counterintuitive result of increasing heritability because any individual differences that remain must be due to genetic differences.
[...]
Heritability describes what is the genetic contribution to individual differences in a particular population at a particular time, not what could be. If either the genetic or the environmental influences change (e.g., due to migration, greater educational opportunity, better nutrition), then the relative impact of genes and environment will change. Heritability has nothing to say about what should be. If a trait has a high heritability it does not mean that it cannot be changed.

Intentionally or not, a lot of people use heritability to make it say what it doesn't say. Incidentally, what is true for individuals is then entirely possible for certain groups (Jews?). I don't have data on the variation in mesured heritability within different groups and contexts but seeing how the Jensen study defuses the question is quite telling. I'm not sure I need to investigate further, given that heritability has always been "fixed environment" knowledge.

Skadi isn't that bad. I've posted a few times there. Stormfront is prole garbage and I resent being associated with them. Far right/racialist ideologies have low social status, so most adherents aren't very bright to say the least.

Well I'm not surprised. But it doesn't change the fact that much of your audiences are there, the only base so far for "direct action". Reading these folks has made me understand that they are so divided that none of their politics will ever materialize. What they can achieve however is further fuck up the countries they live in, and their situation in the making.

In the first place you'd have to ask what race the non-Romans were. Judging by the stock in Italy today, they were still Europeans. If you study the archaeogenetics you find major continuity in both Italy and Greece since ancient times, so the amount of race mixing in question may have been more limited.

Brunt in his classic Italian Manpower, gives an estimate for Augustus' time : 7.5 millions inhabitants in Italia including the Cisalpin Gaul (ie more or less modern Italy), of which 3 millions were slaves. In 225 BC, for the same area the population would be only 5 millions. According to him the increase must have been overwhelmingly from the slave input, which is consistent with what the ancients say about it ; there are margin of errors (but not that large, the census helps a lot) but in any case it was a massive feature of the society. And it's just a photography of one period, the phenomenon continued thereafter.
There's no question that near eastern peoples and northern africans were a large part of them (btw these regions were way more populated than the rest).
I don't know which genetic data you use, but there is certainly a high near eastern/north african component in italian genetic make up. This is clear today with the Y haplogroups J, G2, E3B all prevalent in Italy, also other than Y see here (ignore Dodecad)
We can link it to the Roman society being a real slave society, but there is also the issue of neolithic near eastern migration, greek settlements in the south then greek slaves, etc...More research is obviously needed.

[Typhoon]

^

You may be right, but you certainly aren't giving us any reasons why you are.

Im a lazy poster and I am right, but thankfully you have saved me from having to illustrate my arguments in detail as you are now coming up with such good reasons yourself!

Are you seriously unable to conceptualize of why such distinctions are useful and meaningful, or how they can be justified in practice?

I have no problem with prioritisation of interests, or for that matter distinctions. However when the other side of the argument is bemoaning the loss of slavery you realise that we really are discussing the issues on several different scales here. Any sensible input that could be had in this respect is lost to extremism and the desire for a slippery slope to that end. My critisism seems justified as no less than a few posts down we see a range of arguments including genetics, psycology and idioms applied to excuse what is really one persons bigotry...

With regard to humanitariansism, what better PR than the USS Mercy arriving in the port after a natural disaster, distributing aid to the needy and providing a very strong and positive demonstation of western power.

http://military-power.net/images/motiva ... 0Mercy.jpg

It is in part because of our humanitarianism that western values have proliferated so readily around the world which makes things very easy for us. China may be able to win points in Sudan and Zimbabwe but its rise in Africa in recent times is more down it being able to out aid the west with its solid economy; simply the Chinese can build more roads, schools and cancel more debt that we can.

That said I make no appologies for poor policy, western humanitarianism has often been in conflict with other foreign policies, we have been very inconsistant. An example is Libya and the charge is unjustiified, unless we actually consider that western intervention was for humanitarian reasons, I think not.

Could Brazil pull that off?

Give them time the nation is on the up, what was America doing in the 14th century?

[Dave]

The problem with the attempts at quantifying heritability of IQ is that the figures usually publicized are averages, and ones gathered in a certain context. Thus even if we accept their accuracy, of far more interest would be the distribution. To use an average, to focus on it for further reflexion lead intentionally or not to exaggerated determinism.

Sometimes individual will makes an important difference, and on this the heritability calculations don't inform us at all.

[...]

Intentionally or not, a lot of people use heritability to make it say what it doesn't say. Incidentally, what is true for individuals is then entirely possible for certain groups (Jews?). I don't have data on the variation in mesured heritability within different groups and contexts but seeing how the Jensen study defuses the question is quite telling. I'm not sure I need to investigate further, given that heritability has always been "fixed environment" knowledge.

I'm not sure what the problem is at all. The heritability figures obviously represent a variance within a certain population and for a controlled environment, so obviously the linear regression data does not determine what the outcome for an individual will be. Outliers always exist, and there is also the matter of mutations. It's still extremely useful data for studying groups and setting public policy (sadly ignored).

Well I'm not surprised. But it doesn't change the fact that much of your audiences are there, the only base so far for "direct action". Reading these folks has made me understand that they are so divided that none of their politics will ever materialize. What they can achieve however is further fuck up the countries they live in, and their situation in the making.

They certainly do nothing of the sort here. I have no interest being stuck in a far right ghetto debating trivial differences over something that is not happening, which is why I prefer this place. Much better to win followers in the mainstream than to circle jerk with allies.

Brunt in his classic Italian Manpower, gives an estimate for Augustus' time : 7.5 millions inhabitants in Italia including the Cisalpin Gaul (ie more or less modern Italy), of which 3 millions were slaves. In 225 BC, for the same area the population would be only 5 millions. According to him the increase must have been overwhelmingly from the slave input, which is consistent with what the ancients say about it ; there are margin of errors (but not that large, the census helps a lot) but in any case it was a massive feature of the society. And it's just a photography of one period, the phenomenon continued thereafter.
There's no question that near eastern peoples and northern africans were a large part of them (btw these regions were way more populated than the rest).
I don't know which genetic data you use, but there is certainly a high near eastern/north african component in italian genetic make up. This is clear today with the Y haplogroups J, G2, E3B all prevalent in Italy, also other than Y see here (ignore Dodecad)
We can link it to the Roman society being a real slave society, but there is also the issue of neolithic near eastern migration, greek settlements in the south then greek slaves, etc...More research is obviously needed.

That Rome was a slave society is not seriously disputed, and common Italian heritage with other Mediterranean regions is also not surprising. If the Near Eastern component is very significant it would give a lot of credibility to the new theory that intelligence declined in that region owing to Islamic abortion practices.

Im a lazy poster and I am right, but thankfully you have saved me from having to illustrate my arguments in detail as you are now coming up with such good reasons yourself!

And now you cross into the territory of smug posting!

I have no problem with prioritisation of interests, or for that matter distinctions. However when the other side of the argument is bemoaning the loss of slavery you realise that we really are discussing the issues on several different scales here. Any sensible input that could be had in this respect is lost to extremism and the desire for a slippery slope to that end. My critisism seems justified as no less than a few posts down we see a range of arguments including genetics, psycology and idioms applied to excuse what is really one persons bigotry...

Fucking Christ, how does someone whose dominant interest seems to be the military get hood-winked into mindlessly accepting all the precepts of liberalism? If this goes much further posting will turn hostile.

With regard to humanitariansism, what better PR than the USS Mercy arriving in the port after a natural disaster, distributing aid to the needy and providing a very strong and positive demonstation of western power.

http://military-power.net/images/motiva ... 0Mercy.jpg

It is in part because of our humanitarianism that western values have proliferated so readily around the world which makes things very easy for us. China may be able to win points in Sudan and Zimbabwe but its rise in Africa in recent times is more down it being able to out aid the west with its solid economy; simply the Chinese can build more roads, schools and cancel more debt that we can.

That said I make no appologies for poor policy, western humanitarianism has often been in conflict with other foreign policies, we have been very inconsistant. An example is Libya and the charge is unjustiified, unless we actually consider that western intervention was for humanitarian reasons, I think not.

I'm reminded of the work of the American Relief Administration after World War One as well as the European Recovery Program. Both made America widely respected and admired, understood as a power who could be counted on to respond in times of need. Obviously a strategic asset...but these same policies resulted in European economic convergence with the United States and global competition from European corporations. The ultimate trouble with helping others is that it improves their standing and ability to compete with you, and don't expect any favors as a result of charity in the past.

Good point about China's economy, but the US is able to throw a lot of money at problems.

Once again you basically don't have a point, and you're getting increasingly smug.

Give them time the nation is on the up, what was America doing in the 14th century?

So in seven centuries then?

Thinking that Brazil can get to the moon requires fundamental ignorance of...

My critisism seems justified as no less than a few posts down we see a range of arguments including genetics, psycology and idioms applied to excuse what is really one persons bigotry...

Bigotry indeed--your bigotry and in the classical sense of the term, not the disgusting liberal one.

[Typhoon]

^
I think as with most people im a mix of different things, I certainly dont accept all aspects of liberalism and im sure that some of my opinions on say immigration I would find agreement to some degree, so definately not a mindless acceptance but sure some aspects I approve of.

Just as many of my points seem to find approval here. Ok America may have to compete with Europe but that in itself creates a lot of opportunities for Americans, possibly more than the cost of competition. Though many businesses seem to exist on their own global plane now anyway and have lost specific national identities with all having a stake in their success. In terms of favours I think the US has been doing particulary well in recent years, gotten away with a lot more than I would have let it if I were Europe, but I suppose at the end of the day this is a Europe that America in part wanted.

So in seven centuries then?

Probably considerably less, its already launching its own rockets, developing its own satelites and collaborating with all the major players. Point is that bets cannot be made on what nations will eventually aspire to, the leaders of today will not nessasarily be the leaders of tommorow and Brazil as with the other BRIC's is certainly not a nation to be betting against at the moment...

[Dave]

^
I think as with most people im a mix of different things, I certainly dont accept all aspects of liberalism and im sure that some of my opinions on say immigration I would find agreement to some degree, so definately not a mindless acceptance but sure some aspects I approve of.

Just as many of my points seem to find approval here. Ok America may have to compete with Europe but that in itself creates a lot of opportunities for Americans, possibly more than the cost of competition. Though many businesses seem to exist on their own global plane now anyway and have lost specific national identities with all having a stake in their success. In terms of favours I think the US has been doing particulary well in recent years, gotten away with a lot more than I would have let it if I were Europe, but I suppose at the end of the day this is a Europe that America in part wanted.

A sensible post, but also basically a withdrawal from the discussion.

Of course the competition creates opportunities, look at the massive bilateral trade relationship. However, in building Europe up we have lost our ability to dominate it. Perhaps this was necessary to prevent it from going over to the Russians, but it certainly diminishes our relative power. I don't really mind that much since I am both European and American, and I like Europe a lot.

Probably considerably less, its already launching its own rockets, developing its own satelites and collaborating with all the major players. Point is that bets cannot be made on what nations will eventually aspire to, the leaders of today will not nessasarily be the leaders of tommorow and Brazil as with the other BRIC's is certainly not a nation to be betting against at the moment...

Indeed, but this is not quite the same thing as being the first to do it--all the way back in 1969. Brazil has an impressive European core with some very solid industrial capabilities (e.g. Embraer), but it will never be a world-leading nation like primarily European countries. India seems to be going the same route today, developing a high-technology core surrounded by slums. This is quite different from the Chinese, who will converge with our living standards provided political instability or resource constraints do not stop them.

[Kallinikos]

However when the other side of the argument is bemoaning the loss of slavery you realise that we really are discussing the issues on several different scales here.

Well you must have skimmed over it all just a bit too fast.
Otherwise I'm not so much in disagreement with you, but you'll have to realize that politics are shifting more and more to the right in Europe so nobody will be able to ignore and not engage them. I feel it's especially true when I see how Strauss-Kahn is gonna get ditched today

[Typhoon]

A sensible post, but also basically a withdrawal from the discussion.

Well theres not too much left to discuss, said Typhoon smugly....

Anywho in terms of the US and Europe I agree, it was either reinforce or hand over to the Russians so there was never really a choice there. But in my opinion that assistance did not diminish the US because it was never really in a position to dominate Europe to start with, the aid was a mutually benifitial arrangement of opportunity and one that continues to benifit.

Brazil has an impressive European core with some very solid industrial capabilities (e.g. Embraer), but it will never be a world-leading nation like primarily European countries

Unfortunately I dont think I will live long enough to see what Brazil would do of worth, the time scales are different with China definately in the lead, but I dont rule it out at some point. China itself being an example of what can happen in a short time, if someone had said carriers in 1995 people would have joked, they were still doing so in 2009 I think.

Kallinikos

Well you must have skimmed over it all just a bit too fast.

Page four no? Yeah immigration has been a difficult problem to grapple with these last few years (no idea why), in part its also due to the left resting on its arse I think and not engaging in discussion. The Strauss-Kahn thing is bad news, Sarkozy needs to go but then he should have been a bit more careful I think.

[Kallinikos]

mes excuses,
it appears I am the one who need to peruse the thread