2013 October 26 Saturday
What Arab Spring Mutated Into: Sectarian Violence, Extremism
A piece in the Gray Lady (a.k.a. the New York Times) shows the newspaper of record wants to record the obvious: Arab Spring did not lead to a flowering of liberal democracy, tolerance, and freedom.
Not only does the new approach have little in common with the “freedom agenda” of George W. Bush, but it is also a scaling back of the more expansive American role that Mr. Obama himself articulated two years ago, before the Arab Spring mutated into sectarian violence, extremism and brutal repression.
The Gray Lady still comes up short by leaving out the tribalism that makes the Libyan central government powerless while the tribes drive each other out of whole cities set up fiefdoms.
Like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi understood what he was holding together and what would come afterward.
Gaddafi himself, as he watched his regime crumble, had predicted that his ousting would precipitate a disintegration of the state which he had held together by force, into warring factions, separated by tribal loyalties; and even if one were to argue that the dictator was simply making a case for his own odious regime, it transpires, it appears, that his prediction about what was likely to follow his downfall was right.
Obama's new foreign policy for the Middle East does not matter. The US role in the region has not been constructive. The US will not negotiate a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The US is probably more likely to make the outcome in Syria worse than better for the US, for Syrian minorities, or for Israel for that matter.
By Randall Parker at 2013 October 26 09:39 PM
That's the whole plan in a nutshell. 9-11 planned. Use the US military to disintegrate the areas around Israel.
General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five years
CENSORED: CIA Asset Susan Lindauer - 911 @censorednewsnow
"Arab Spring mutated into sectarian violence, extremism and brutal repression."
I understand that there is fragmentation, but what are the odds that the "brutal repression" will morph into a centralized global Islamic union that will be globally hostile against the West?
What I'm going to say is sacrilege but with a little study of the Jews , their past and modern theory of psychopathic behavior you will readily agree that it's accurate. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths or at least their leaders are. They make bigger and bigger gambles every time no one stops them. Psychopaths learn by watching others "reactions" to their actions. Having no feelings, no empathy, for others they don't have a internal regulatory mechanism for judging when they've gone too far. Demolition Mans point about," a centralized global Islamic union that will be globally hostile against the West" may very well happen but to the psychopathic Israeli state they've never seen that so they don't know how to react to it. They keep making the same mistakes over and over and over. Hence their "oppression" though out history. They don't know when to stop. People can't tolerate but so much of their evil behavior and finally go nuts on them. Theodor Herzl the Father of the Jewish State knew about this and the reasoning behind founding the Israeli state was to keep the Jews from being exterminated. He doesn't say explicitly that the Jews are psychopaths but you can read the things he's said and know that he understood the mental condition of the Jews.
Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III knows that 9-11 was an inside job. Maybe you think I'm crazy but is he?
It's hard to call Jews like Richard Feynman, Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Steven Pinker, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page "parasites," as you've previously implied.
They're the opposite of parasites.
You can find prominent Jews in every field because of their high average IQ.
1. Conservatives dislike Jews because they're such prominent socialists.
2. Liberals dislike Jews because they're such prominent capitalists and scientists. ("Jews are mass-murderers because they played such a large role in ushering in the nuclear age.")
In other words, if you excel in all IQ-intensive fields, critics who dislike any particular field can blame you, the man in the arena.
The West isn't liberal because of Jews. Western nations with smaller Jewish populations than the U.S.'s 2% are more liberal than the U.S., like Sweden.
Many Christians have fought throughout history to create the modern "global liberal manifest destiny" world, like Bartolomé de las Casas (liberals' alternative to Columbus), and the Christians who fought politically and economically to make sure Rhodesians turned into Zimbabweans.
It's not hard to call them parasites because that's what they are. Read up on evolutionary biology and sociobiology.
Countries like Sweden aren't independent of US influence. They are under heavy US influence, and the US is under heavy Jewish influence.
Incidentally, Bartolomé de las Casas is believed to have been of converso background and thus of Jewish ancestry. And Jews led the charge to turn Rhodesia into Zimbabwe and to end Apartheid in South Africa.
I. European eusociality:
1. 2%: It's not possible for 2% of a population to out-influence 98% of a population. If it was, liberals certainly wouldn't be so universally opposed to Israel relative to Palestine.
2. White liberals: It's clear to anybody who grows up with White liberals that they're expressing their innate temperament, same as the Christians who throughout history worked for such causes. Colonialism, for example, ended because many Whites are too eusocial to do what would be needed in order to continue it.
3. Sweden: Swedes are some of the most liberal people in the world probably for historical and sociobiological reasons in the manner of Gregory Clark and Cochran and Harpending, not because of behavioral nudges from a fraction of a population on the other side of the world. Unless they're automatons, Swedes can take responsibility for their own decisions.
II. Jewish intelligence:
1. Symbiosis: "Parasitism" is by definition the wrong type of symbiosis to use here, unless you're willing to no longer use "Jewish" science, medicine and technology.
2. American science: Americans have been glad we have many of the best Jewish scientists in the world. Another country developing the first nuclear bombs could have been a major bummer.
3. Silicon Valley: Americans like companies such as Intel, Netscape, Dell, Paypal, Google, and Facebook being based in the U.S., and such companies and their alumni have famously re-seeded Silicon Valley with more talent and capital. It's clear Americans have been glad we have Jewish technologists here instead of in another country.
Minorities out-influence majorities all the time. This is true of humans and the biological world more generally.
Extreme Swedish liberalism is a recent phenomenon that developed in the post-WWII era under heavy American influence. Before then, conservative and racialist ideas were prominent in Sweden. Obviously had Germany won the war, Sweden would not be liberal today.
It's parasitism, not symbiosis. Jewish contributions in science, medicine, and technology have been minor. They've also largely been confined to the 20th century, during which the native American and European populations have declined and immigration into the US and Europe has increased, so there hasn't any symbiosis.
Silicon Valley was founded by Midwestern gentile farmer stock. The important developments and major breakthroughs were made by technologists from that Midwestern gentile farmer stock. Here is Tom Wolfe's article on that:
Since Jewish technologists have become more prominent in Silicon Valley, Jews, Indians and other immigrants have displaced native American technologists, which, again, negates the symbiosis claim.
1. Countries like Sweden:
There's no correlation between nations' degree of liberalism and the proportion of their population that's Jewish.
The hypothesis has failed the test.
2. Silicon Valley:
Americans spend considerable time using products from companies like Intel, Google, Paypal, and those invested in by Andreessen Horowitz. Americans' revealed preference is that they value those companies (symbiosis).
I live here, and it's fine for Whites. Liberals complain that Whites disproportionately hold the high level positions.
3. "Jewish contributions have been minor":
Jews appear to have won 40% of U.S. Nobel Prizes in the sciences, excluding the less rigorous Literature and Peace prizes. (Symbiosis.)
Be meritocratic and value people for what they build. That's the Anglo Saxon / Germanic way, IMHO.
There's a correlation between liberalism and Jewish influence. You could have zero people in your country and still be exposed to Jewish influence. Just as I can have no Japanese people inside my house, but still be exposed to Japanese influence by reading Japanese things in my house, watching Japanese movies, etc.
Parasitism and symbiosis are biological concepts. "Revealed preference" is not a biological concept. It's a concept from subjectivist economics and microeconomic theory.
Jews are good at winning prizes and they're overrepresented at winning things like the Nobel Prize. But their contributions in the sciences have been minor, and like I said they've largely been confined to the 20th century, during which the native American and European populations have declined and immigration into the US and Europe has increased, so there hasn't any symbiosis.
Ekdromos said,"It's hard to call Jews like Richard Feynman, Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Steven Pinker, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page "parasites," as you've previously implied."
Maybe, but it sure is easy for Jews to call all White Americans slave owners isn't it? Sure is easy to call all Americans who don't want their country over run by aliens, legal and illegal, racist isn't it. You might say this is beside the point but it isn't. You use a minority of Jews like Richard Feynman, Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Steven Pinker, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page to say all Jews are wonderful geniuses leading us to greatness. I say we can do without them if it would get rid of a corrupt government and news media so corrupt that a building on 9-11 fell for 108 feet at the free fall speed of gravity and that's not news. Jews own all major media. Are they showing us the way to greatness? We wouldn't have even needed a nuclear bomb if we had not been bamboozled into WWI by the Jews. There probably wouldn't have been a WWII, Germany would have been more powerful possibly curbing the aggressive Jew controlled USSR.
Jews are the masters of indirection. Quibbling over this and that. Never forget they have a track record. Egypt,"...“But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians” (Ex. 3:22, KJV)..."
Spain they let in the Moors. Germany they destroyed the country by monopolizing the wealth through the banks and bribing the politicians. In Russia they murdered tens of millions. Destroyed them for all time. They've been thrown out of just about every country they've ever been in. Why. Their behavior is that of psychopaths. You should read a little about people whose lives are affected by psychopaths. The psychopaths are absolutely horrible yet they're also such accomplished lairs it's sometimes difficult for the victims to get anyone to believe how evil they are. Sometimes just because they don't believe anyone could be so evil.
As for intelligence. I believe they average 10 to 15 points higher. A lot. Also the IQ's in the higher ranges 150 etc. are a lot higher also. Why is this? How much brain matter does empathy take? Empathy is definitely a survival trait most humans have it. To those of us with it we know how powerful and even sometimes overpowering our empathy for others is. Would there have been a US civil war without empathy? I'm willing to bet a person without empathy could easily get a boost of 10 to 15 IQ points by trading empathy for processing power and for those that have made that trade off I want them as far away from me as possible. Intelligent reptilian thinkers are a disadvantage in a nation state of empathetic humans.
Ekdromos said,"It's not possible for 2% of a population to out-influence 98% of a population. If it was, liberals certainly wouldn't be so universally opposed to Israel relative to Palestine."
It most certainly is and I'll tell you how they do it. They control the elections through the primaries. Anyone who doesn't do what the Jews want they go into the primaries and spend a fortune in advertising. Most times they win with this tactic. Other politicians get the message. Once they get control they move their people in at the top in key positions. From there they see that people appointed will either follow their lead or are susceptible to blackmail in some way. You even inadvertently confirm what I say. If all the liberals are against Israel due to their abuse of the Palestinians then why does it continue?
They're collapsing America now. They recently did it to Argentina. I think the method will be the same here. The the 2008 bank bail out was due to money manipulation. 500 Billion removed from money market accounts in two hours See:
CSPAN Rep Paul Kanjorski Reviews the Bailout Situation
The banks were given over 12 Trillion, we know of, by the FED. My guess on what they're doing. They give the FED all bad assets then they buy all the good assets all around the world. We pay, they own EVERYTHING.
Randall is 100% correct you must find a way to protect yourself from the coming apocalypse.
The Jews have the same behavior over and over. Psychopathic over reach and collapse. I don't think it will different this time. I just wish so many people didn't have to die to fulfill their grandiose dreams. When the great Jew prosperity sphere collapses they may not be welcome in America and a top selling book in China is "The Protocols of the Leading Elders of Zion". I don't believe their mental mo-jo will go over so well in China.
Let's go to the data. If the U.S. has a far greater proportion of Jews than other Western countries like Sweden, but those countries are far more liberal, that means proportion of Jews has been ruled out as being responsible for those countries' greater liberalism.
Or is Jewish influence like homeopathy or astrology, where sometimes (when it's convenient for the arguer), the more diluted it gets, the stronger it is?
2. Revealed preference:
This is an essential concept for scientific thinkers. If you don't like it for personal reasons, just substitute something like "measured preference as opposed to claimed preference."
3. Jews are good at winning prizes:
We can't just say whatever's convenient for our argument. If Jews lacked achievement in the real world, that would be evidence suggesting they're merely better at winning prizes. But the whole reason you dislike Jews is because they're high-achievers who among the top contributors to every IQ-intensive field (e.g. Feynman, Larry Page).
Furthermore, if Jews were better at winning prizes, their high prize ratio would be also be seen in the fields that aren't IQ-intensive (literature and the peace prize), but that's the exact opposite of what we see.
1. Eusociality, not psychopathy:
If you've never actually seen a Jewish person, you can get a sense of how "psychopathic" they are by watching a video of Richard Feynman skewering "social science".
If you worked at Google or Facebook around real people, your ideas about Jews would get sorted out pretty quickly.
You're falling victim to your own cherry-picking of examples favorable for your argument.
Jews earned their place not just by successes like the Manhattan Project, but by helping build the U.S. since the beginning, when they helped bankroll the American revolution, sacrificing a lot of money in the process.
3. Conservative accountability:
Value accountability, and blame conservatives' intellectual failings on conservatives themselves.
Jon Stewart's clever show has been massively influencing the younger generation for years, but conservatives still somehow haven't created a show to counter it. The closest thing I've seen comes from the Jewish arch-conservative Koch brothers: Help Obama Kickstart WWIII.
If you oppose Arthur Jensen's work because he's Jewish, you're really just advocating for class struggle and struggle against high-IQ people, who you see as "parasites," always building science, medicine, and technology for the rest of us.
Instead of class struggle, take our blog host's advice, and prepare for the future by improving your own life and career... advice I've likewise taken to heart and passed on to family and friends.
There are a lot of good directions for your ideas, but this direction doesn't seem highly accurate or productive.
The data suggest that there's a correlation between liberalism and Jewish influence. You could have zero people in your country and still be exposed to Jewish influence. Just as I can have no Japanese people inside my house, but still be exposed to Japanese influence by reading Japanese things in my house, watching Japanese movies, etc.
"Revealed preference" is not a biological concept. It's a concept from subjectivist economics and microeconomic theory. "Revealed preference" doesn't mean something like "measured preference as opposed to claimed preference." The whole point of "revealed preference" is that it's supposed to be something that wasn't measured.
I never said I "dislike Jews" or that "Jews lacked achievement" or that Jews had low IQs. Jews are good at winning prizes and they're overrepresented at winning things like the Nobel Prize. But their contributions in the sciences have been minor, and like I said they've largely been confined to the 20th century, during which the native American and European populations have declined and immigration into the US and Europe has increased, so there hasn't any symbiosis. Feynman is more famous as a celebrity than as a physicist. He's a minor figure in the history of physics. Larry Page is a very successful entrepreneur and businessman. He's not a "top contributor" to computer science or programming.
But their contributions in the sciences have been minor
I'm sorry, I don't understand this claim.
and like I said they've largely been confined to the 20th century
But most scientific discoveries of any sort have been confined to the 20th century.
Feynman is more famous as a celebrity than as a physicist.
Yes, just as Einstein is. These are sociological facts and irrelevant to the importance of their scientific contributions.
He's a minor figure in the history of physics.
Despite single-handedly inventing the most important theoretical tool in quantum physics? Most could only dream of being that minor. To be honest I'm ambivalent about even responding to these claims.
It's a very simple claim: their contributions in the sciences have been minor.
The point about the 20th century is that their contributions have correlated with parasitism, not symbiosis.
Einstein is also another figure who's more famous as a celebrity than as a physicist.
I'm aware of that. Where did I say that Jews weren't smarter? That's not in dispute here.
Ekdromos said at November 4, 2013 4:59 PM:
"There are a lot of good directions for your ideas, but this direction doesn't seem highly accurate or productive."
Of course it doesn't seem productive, to your ends. How conveniently you pass over that ALL mass media is owned and/controlled by the Jews and the "immaculate deception" of buildings falling at the speed of gravity is of no importance. Even if the steel beams melted into liquid steel they would still have some resistance as opposed to the absolute lack of resistance that they showed.
Ekdromos said at November 4, 2013 4:59 PM:
"Eusociality, not psychopathy: ...skewering "social science"."
Eusociality is characterized by cooperative brood care, overlapping adult generations and division of labor by reproductive and (partially) non-reproductive groups.
HA, what a FARCE. Eusociality for the Jews only, psychopathy for all others. What about "The Mismeasurement of Man"? Stephen Jay Gould was caught "RED" handed lying. Boas's stupid "all people are the same" . Easing out real scientist like Carlton Coons. Boas sponsoring Margaret Mead's pedophile sociology to undermine society. Freud's ridiculous blathering. Of course since Jews own all the publishing they can promote these freaks the sole purpose being the undermining of society and hiding the fact that they are different.
Ekdromos said at November 4, 2013 4:59 PM:
"...Google or Facebook around real people..."
So only Jews are real people. Have you looked at the revenue to stock price ratio of these firms. I suggest they are another pump and dump Jewish stock swindle. (Google maybe, possibly not so)
Ekdromos said at November 4, 2013 4:59 PM:
You're falling victim to your own cherry-picking of examples favorable for your argument.
Jews earned their place not just by successes like the Manhattan Project..."
What a stupid argument. Huge numbers of them were Commi spies. We'd have been better off without them. As I said before,"...We wouldn't have even needed a nuclear bomb if we had not been bamboozled into WWI by the Jews. There probably wouldn't have been a WWII, Germany would have been more powerful possibly curbing the aggressive Jew controlled USSR..." I've certainly not "cherry picked" I hypothesize that the Jews are a race of psychopaths due to their actions and the history of their people.
Ekdromos said at November 4, 2013 4:59 PM:
"...Jon Stewart's clever show has been massively influencing the younger generation for years, but conservatives still somehow haven't created a show to counter it..."
Well duhh. Didn't you get the part where I said they own the media. Where I said they only allow those who conform to their views to have a voice. Funny you picked Jon Stewart. Remember what happened when the Hispanic sports guy complained about the Jews on Stewart's show? Fired the next day. Gone. Finished.
"If you oppose Arthur Jensen's work because he's Jewish, you're really just advocating for class struggle and struggle against high-IQ people..."
Arthur Jensen? Advocating for class struggle? What are you talking about. I didn't mention Jenson and believe what he wrote about IQ. I'm advocating against people who are destroying my country, blowing up building, propagandizing all networks of communication, looting the banks, false flag attacks, fostering genocidal race replacement, etc. It has nothing to do with IQ. I have criticized big businesses who move jobs over seas and push for mass immigration. Being against business practices that are bad for my country is not the same as being anti-business.
As I said before,"Jews are the masters of indirection. Quibbling over this and that.". Of course you never cover anything I wrote about. Mostly things made up in your own mind that I didn't even mention. It's getting tougher for the Jews to use their silly arguments on people. The internet has opened a vast wealth of information that before was censored. Funny I used to be pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli but the Jews incessant "always take" attitude finally wore me down. Some one told me 9-11 was an inside job and I didn't believe it. I set out to prove them wrong. I could not. Researching this finally opened my eyes to the danger we're in and who from.
I tire of talking about the Jews. The Jews are very good at this. They get a hold of one point and beat it into the ground until people just don't mention it. The only reason I go on about it is I'm sick of the lies.
Randall, I'm giving your site a rest for a while.
I think there is value in letting people who hold views you find upsetting or abhorrent to say what they think. What we end up with on the internet is a lot of echo chambers where people only discuss stuff with people of like mind. I consider that a far larger problem. I also think it is unhealthy that the mass media manage to keep just a single set of values and assumptions as the basis for most discussions.
Unfortunately, since some viewpoints are heavily marginalized the marginalized of various sorts end up bumping in to each other in places where non-mainstream views are discussed. People who have a more empirical bent end up getting their discussions derailed on topics where rational discussion is already far too rare. I personally find this frustrating. Even worse, it is depressing.
You are taking an intellectual short cut and jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence. I do not think that ethnic self interest is the main cause of Jews being to the political left of other groups at similar IQ levels. I think why different groups lean left or right is a very important question. But your views and Weaver's views aren't actually helping us to get any close to the reason(s) why and you aren't going to reduce the amount of damage that the Left is doing to the United States by some of the nonsense you are saying. I think you ought to pay attention to the twins studies and other studies on innate causes of political orientation.
My apologies for being so dogmatic and I appreciate your forbearance. The reason I'm so anal about the whole thing is I truly wish to warn people about what I believe is a take over of our government. That's why I beat the building #7 falling into the ground. It's just not possible and with a cursory look anyone of reasonable intelligence can see this. From this point follows a world of grief.
I'm going to get in trouble here if you read this the wrong way. What I'm saying is what I believe to be true.
I believe they see all interactions with others as a win lose situation and their embracing of the left is to strengthen those that would have us lose. I believe the twin studies bolster my convictions immensely. The twin studies show a VERY strong correlation of genetic "thought patterns". Twins separated at birth had astonishing similarities(I'm sure you know but). Married wives that looked the same, drank the same beer, same type boots, cigarettes, etc, etc.
I wish there was some way I could convey the vast amount of information I've read on this. It's a lot. I didn't lightly come by my conclusions and the ones I hold are held up to ridicule. It's very unpleasant sometimes. I was going to type more but I'll give it a rest. Don't say I didn't warn you though.
The work of John Hibbing and John Alford on twins and political orientation makes me doubt that Jews are left wing as a tactic against another group. I figure they are left wing for the same reason some WASPs and WASCs are left wing: their innate thinking patterns lead them to left wing conclusions.
Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion outlines the differences in left and right wing minds. Conservatives have more moral reasoning modules. They reach different moral conclusions.
The problem is that people who trust their moral instincts rather than the evidence promote bad policies. So I think that you get the motives of your opponents wrong.
What makes a nation left-leaning: I suspect a few factors:
- genetic homogeneity causes people to support more welfare programs because a larger fraction of the population are genetically closer to them.
- genetic left-liberalism. Minds which lack the moral reasoning modules which are unique to conservatives.
- Class resentment. I do not know how much of this is cultural or genetic. But some people have deeper resentment (for genetic reasons I think) for those who have higher status. This is less a desire to help the poor than a desire to bring down the powerful.
Other factors play a role as well. But at least 2 of the factors are genetic.