Saturday, November 24, 2007

Ethnic loyality among Jews: A theme I often run across on the blogosphere is the extent to which Jews think about collective Jewish interests when forming political views. People often confuse four different entities: 1) a relatively small number of famous elites; 2) Jewish elites in general; 3) major Jewish organizations; and 4) Jews as a group. This website is devoted to data, especially survey data, and such an approach lends itself to assessing question #4. In past posts, data have indicated that only a minority of American Jews are what could be termed ethnocentric. The only measures I have seen which demonstrate consensus or something approaching consensus have been Jews' belief in immigration and preference for Democratic political candidates.

One measure of ethnic loyalty available from the General Social Survey is whether or not you think of yourself as mainly an American when considering social and political issues, or as a member of an ethnic group. Almost 1,200 people were asked this. Here are the percentages who answered "mainly just as an American":


Percent who think of themselves as just an American

German 99.2
English/Welsh 97.5
Protestant Irish 97.1
Scottish 95.2
Catholic Irish 94.7
Amerindian 92.2

USA 88.8

Italian 88.2
Jewish 84.1
Mexicans (born in U.S) 83.3
Black 56.5

A commentor at Sailer's blog claimed that American Jews are like Irish Americans, but the data tell us that they are more like Mexicans: most don't form opinions qua minorities, but some do.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting - I believe Orthodox Jews are somewhere between 5 and 10% of the Jewish American population? That would strike me as group inclined to prefer some hyphenated label. And it's amazing what an outlier blacks are...

Jim Bowery said...

If the operational definition of "ethnocentrism" is self-reported behavior then your figures are plausible. However, "ethnocentrism" needn't be intentional. Indeed, evolutionary theory posits no necessarily relationship at all and indeed indicates there are major advantages to genetically induced hypocrisy in this area. This is, indeed, a major theme of Kevin MacDonald's trilogy on Judaism as an evolutionary strategy: Self-deception.

It is highly unlikely, being as intelligent as they are, that conscious conspiracy would be nearly as destructive to nations hosting Jews as is the mindless workings of self-deceptive group behaviors.

SFG said...

Genetically induced hypocrisy? This like your theory that Indians are causing autism in Silicon Valley as a form of genetic castration?

Otherwise, you may be correct. ;)

Jim Bowery said...

Brilliant... throw out a red herring.

Now get a load of this:

What you should look for are traces virulence evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle (starting point is a chicken/egg question): 1) Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy -- doesn't matter), 2) Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence, 3) Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds more recently, etc.), 4) "virulent antisemitism" breaks out, 5) Emigrate leaving behind less "savvy" Jews to take the heat, 6) Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle (see step 1).

SFG said...

Hm. Do you think this pattern exists with other 'middleman minorities', or are the Jews worse than others?

I also suspect centralization of assets tends to proceed because elites are human and get greedy, and they can always blame an outsider minority afterward. But pre-revolutionary France got too centralized, and the Jews had little to do with that. Heck, China's dynastic cycle didn't have any Jews...

Jim Bowery said...

Of course, the tendency toward wealth centralization hence social collapse is an inherent of civilization. It is for precisely this reason that it becomes an opportunity for the most urbanized and mobile market dominant minorities: those without a homeland.

Just because people are naturally prone to opiate addictin doesn't mean there will be no pushers promoting and profiting from the failure mode. Indeed, we should expect it.

PS: The argument regarding France isn't as strong as you imply given the special protections extended to Jews by Louis XIV a century before the revolution.

SFG said...

Yeah, but can you specifically blame the Jews? The French seemed more than capable of executing their monarchs on their own; were there any prominent Jewish philosophes? I mean, correlation doesn't imply causation (remember the pirates and global warming?). You could, however, make an argument that middleman minorities are a bad thing and still retain most of your initial position. In fact, you may already have done so. ;)

Jim Bowery said...

I have indeed argued that middle man minorities are a bad thing but I've done something more: middle man minorities without a homeland are even more prone to the evolution of virulence.

I've already explained why in the term "horizontal transmission". Homeland implies vertical transmission is still operative in the primary repository of genetic material.

As for the catch-all argument "correlation doesn't imply causation", you'll have to do better than that. The problems with arguing about human ecology are even worse than mere "correlation doesn't imply causation" since we are talking about _ecologies_ which are not only subject to the ecological fallacy without experimental controls, but, according to the current zeitgeist, cannot -- even with total mutual consent among the humans of the ecology -- control immigration of other human ecologies. Forget about the fact that you have the "ecological fallacy" on top of "correlation doesn't imply causation" -- if you try to run a controlled experiment with voluntary human subjects on their own ecology's territory (the only way to try to disentangle confounding variables) you'll be bombed out of existence by NATO/UN/US, etc.

I see the fact that such naked aggression toward necessary truth-seeking is "justified" by the "Holocaust" as part of the general pattern of Jewish virulence -- attacking the most basic means by which truth may be ascertained: experimental controls.

Jim Bowery said...

So, now that we have dispensed with the red-herrings of "correlation doesn't imply causation" and (preemptively) the "ecological fallacy" -- red-herrings since they apply to all sides of any argument regarding human ecologies, lets do something really evil like look at the data we _do_ have!

The top two human ecological attributes in terms of their coefficient of determination with a wide range (hundreds) of other such attributes are HIV positive status and "Russian" American's respectively.

According to the theory of horizontal transmission evolution of virulence, the HIV correlation fairly predictable. All kinds of nasty, virulent, things should be ecologically correlated with something as virulent as HIV due to the fact that the evolution of virulence is a general ecological problem resulting from horizontal transmission. But what's this about "Russian" Americans? Why would they be strongly associated with horizontal transmission? Yes, they migrated, perhaps most of them recently even, but "Russians"?

If you click through to the ecological correlates of "Russian" Americans, you see the top one is "Jews".

Bingo.

Now, I'll admit that the choice of which variables to include affects the summation of coefficients of determination, but just be aware that when I ran this earlier, before adding about 100 new variables -- including a lot of samplings of incarceration statistics -- the top two variables were AIDS cumulative and Jewish percent of whites respectively.

OK, now tell me all about how misguided I am for daring to, not only look at data about human ecologies but actually talking about the data without first having set up several nation states as controls on the ecological fallacy -- which exclude Jews and other market dominant minorities, etc. I mean I must not be serious about the truth of things if I mind the minor inconvenience of setting up a bunch of nations as experimental controls only to be bombed out of existence before getting the results of the experiments.

I'm all ears.

SFG said...

I never said you were evil or misguided, I'm just arguing with you. ;)

if you try to run a controlled experiment with voluntary human subjects on their own ecology's territory (the only way to try to disentangle confounding variables) you'll be bombed out of existence by NATO/UN/US,
I doubt the WN movement is interested in disentangling confounding variables, they want to secure existence for their people and a future for their children. And I personally don't oppose you guys grabbing a piece of Montana and giving it a shot. Whatever happened to Elohim City?

So what's your theory though? I remember seeing that, but you think the Jews are spreading AIDS or something? I personally suspect you've got a third factor explaining both: urbanization. Jews and gays (who have a disproportionate portion of AIDS) both live in cities. Do you have population density in there?

This is where the correlation-equals-causation thing comes into play. Though as you point out you can't disentangle variables.

You've also only got data on the state level. What you really need is counties, which would let you disentangle Manhattan from some upstate NY county with 3000 people in it.

If it makes you feel better, I really got a kick out of your website.

Jim Bowery said...

Of course the intent of the people who, in earnest, pursue a way of life with each other in their own ecology need not be "scientific" for them to form an experimental group. The issue isn't the intent of people freely associating but the real purpose of the people preventing them from freely associating. They claim such freedom of association is too dangerous when it comes to Euromen who want to live in environments similar to those in which they grew up -- so dangerous that they must be forced by threat of government force, to live in the human ecologies preferred by Jews: cosmopolitan urban environments.

This is very reminiscent of the jailing of people who question Holocaust canons.

No, I don't buy your theory that this is benign negligence. It is virulence. Indeed, I find even your nonchalance so horrifying I can't imagine a humane world - a world necessitating self-defensive force - that would require me to live with you under the same government. It is like living in a city where sewage is dumped in the river upstream from the water works -- where it is seen as quaint -- perhaps deserving a bemused condescending smile -- a little playful "argument", directed toward those who boil their water before consuming it despite how "hurtful" such "paranoia" is toward the city fathers. Indeed, it is so "hurtful" that the city fathers will throw you in jail for being "hateful". So we may perhaps poke a little fun at those in jail -- particularly if they are raped by prison gangs.

Jim Bowery said...

As to my theory about the connection between AIDS and Jews -- as I said, it is a common ecology of horizontal transmission. Now, there is a little problem here of whether Jews are a mere product of horizontal transmission between human ecologies, or whether they have now evolved to become a cause as well.

Let's try out your theory that population density is key rather than Jews. It seems you think population density is a better explanation. So it is reasonable for you to expect a higher ecological correlation between AIDS and urban population per capita than between AIDS and Jews per capita -- right?

No fair peeking...

SFG said...

Slow down dude! I am not the government. I have no power to compel you to live in a large city. I am a single guy in a large city with no government connections and very little power who is arguing with you over the Internet out of a difference of opinion.

Why are you forced to live in a large city? What does government force have to do with anything? I don't blame you for not wanting to live in a large city. And I understand COMPLETELY your statements about racist gangs. Obviously some really awful things have gone on in your life.

Why can't you move to a red-state exurb and have the life you love? There's Christianity, and most of the people are white. No, really, I'm curious. If anything I feel that the cities are too expensive and I'm the one who will be forced to live in red-state areas!

You may be right about these things correlating better; I can't find the urban variable but the suburban and rural variables are less negative than the Jewish variable is positive as far as correlation. So you're probably right. I suspect the common term is 'liberal city' rather than 'city' then; i.e., NYC rather than Dallas.

Horizontal transmission? Could you elaborate? I can see from your site that Jews correlate with HIV but what do you think the mechanism is? I mean, how do we get from Jews to AIDS? Do you agree with me that AIDS is probably reflecting the gay population?

Jim Bowery said...

Save your condescending sympathy for those who might need it. My personal experiences with minorities and Jews on an individual level have been relatively positive. The one time I was overtly victimized (car stolen) by a minority (Mexican immigrant) I did not prosecute because I don't see the criminal "justice" system that subjects prisoners to ethnic gang rape -- and then claims it such rape is actually "sexual awakening" (yes the "Prison Rape Elimination Act" commissioned exactly those words from its "experts") a reasonable tool for moral people. I'll just say vigilante justice is morally superior and leave it at that.

I did, however, work for an early computer-based education project targeting prisoners trying to get their GEDs, and witnessed first hand the prison system, which is a serious "awakening" for anyone who genuinely understand the foundations of civilization.

Jim Bowery said...

Why do I live in a large city? I don't. When the dot-con bubble destroying my industry I decided to move to an environment similar to that in which I grew up. Finding that Iowa had been over-run by Mexicans already -- employed by the agribusinesses that had displaced the Yeoman farmers -- I looked to one of the few places in the US left that might have some resemblance to the Iowa of my youth. It was after I moved that I discovered that the US Census data had been made obsolete by the flood of Mexicans to rural areas supported by centralized land ownership.

I appreciate your willingness to pay lip service to the my preferences -- bemusedly allowing "Montana" as compensation for the loss of Europe and all of its settlements. How generous!

The problem with your proposed white reservation is that from the demographics of white flight it is obvious that "Montana" would have to vastly increase its carrying capacity. I don't doubt that the demography being moved there would find a way of achieving such a carrying capacity increase but why don't you be reasonable and let the white niggers have the same land area per capita that the native Americans have on their reservations?

Jim Bowery said...

The human ecology I demonstrate is most predictive of AIDS is not just Jews, but a conjunction of two other demographies: Jewish Percent of Whites and Blacks or Hispanics with a correlation (98%) higher than HIV (95%). That's a coefficient of determination of 96%!

But of course, we should ignore statistics because redneck bigots of the KKK would have made such predictions.

My working hypothesis is that Jews, being a diaspora market dominant minority -- without even a homeland for more than enough generations to undergo strong selective pressure -- have developed adaptations that promote horizontal transmission between human ecologies to facilitate their own survival. These environments tend to exhibit virulence for the obvious reason that horizontal transmission is the primary knwon means by which virulence evolves.

SFG said...

I just mentioned Montana because I knew the Freemen were there, and Elohim City. I also think that's where April Gaede and her family moved after they were run out of their previous dwelling. The whole Upper Midwest would probably work; it's pretty white anyway, and the cold weather helps keep it that way. The scandinavians have pretty good values, I think.

It won't work on a societal level, but could _you_ move to one of the big frozen states? From reading Sailer they still look pretty pale.

I wasn't aware the rest of the country had become diverse, actually, I thought it was contained in the large cities. I can see why your people are upset.

"The human ecology I demonstrate is most predictive of AIDS is not just Jews, but a conjunction of two other demographies: Jewish Percent of Whites and Blacks or Hispanics with a correlation (98%) higher than HIV (95%). That's a coefficient of determination of 96%!"
Um, yes, it is. But looked at across the spectrum of humanity, facial hair and big muscles probably have a high correlation coefficient too. Do big muscles cause facial hair, or is there a third factor that causes both facial hair and big muscles? (IE, the presence of testicles?) You've correctly identified a _pattern_, but you haven't shown the direction of causality.

But you could do it by looking at what happens to, say, a town when Jews (or the group of your choice) moves in. For that you need time series data, but you could probably get it from the Census.

"My working hypothesis is that Jews, being a diaspora market dominant minority -- without even a homeland for more than enough generations to undergo strong selective pressure -- have developed adaptations that promote horizontal transmission between human ecologies to facilitate their own survival. These environments tend to exhibit virulence for the obvious reason that horizontal transmission is the primary knwon means by which virulence evolves."
Huh? The evolutionary medicine argument you're making is that pathogens tend to be more virulent when there's horizontal and not vertical transmission, but any symbiote culture can transmit itself over generations; ie, vertical transmission exists. So there's no reason to favor virulence. Besides, ethnic groups aren't bacteria. Argument by analogy only takes you so far.

You'd be better off making the argument that Jews weaken ethnic solidarity to protect against being persecuted, with negative effects on the remainder of the culture...which I think is what MacDonald actually argued, no?

Jim Bowery said...

You keep bringing up the "correlation doesn't imply causation" argument when I already addressed the hypocrisy of doing so: You can't offer any alternative hypotheses that aren't subject to precisely the same catch-all critique. Its pretty much assured that whenever the "correlation doesn't imply causation" catch-all is paraded forth in the context of social phenomenon, the real agenda is to suppress discussion for the simple reason the only way to escape from that critique is to run controlled experiments -- EXACTLY the thing that Jews will not allow under any circumstances due to the "fascistic" aspect of border controls!

I'm not wasting more time with your snide anonymous "arguments". Bye.

SFG said...

Well, the thread was about to drop off anyway.

I don't see anything wrong with being anonymous on the Internet, honestly.

SFG said...

But if you don't respond, I get to make the closing statement: you haven't proved it one way or the other, and the way you could prove causation would be to look at what happens when a group moves in.