Thursday, June 11, 2009

Jews and low white fertility: As a follow-up to the last post, not only should we candidly discuss ethnic groups, we should also engage in debate with white nationalists (WNs). If people want me--a conservative--to become more moderate, they need to show me where I'm wrong. It sure as hell won't happen if they get me fired or lock me up. That would probably just radicalize me. Well, the same goes for white racialists.

In that spirit, let's address a central white nationalist concern (the anti-Jewish version): white fertility. WNs worry that the white race will is going extinct, and low fertility is a major reason.

Question: what is the number one predictor of low fertility? The answer is female education. The more years of school, the fewer the kids. I have a good imagination but cannot envision how mass female education can be attributed to Jewish influence. Who hasn't been in favor of universal education for a very long time? The father of American education was Horace Mann, not Harold Hoffmann.

If there is some mysterious way that Jews are a critical source of a low white fertility, the gun is being pointed at one's own face: according to the GSS, Jewish women currently in their forties have an average of 1.5 kids, while the white gentile mean is 1.9.

24 comments:

TGGP said...

WN's also make a big deal out of jewish ethnocentrism, but Ashkenazi jews (especially the more liberal reform variety) have quite high rates of intermarriage with gentiles. They'll disappear as a people before rednecks do.

Blode0322 said...

Well, affordable family foundation is another big determiner of fertility. Rural areas have higher birthrates, no? Forces that make decent urban neighborhoods harder to afford are forces that reduce birthrates there. If one group has different criteria for what makes a different neighborhood "decent", its birthrate will be affected differently.

I guess that what the Judeophobes may be thinking is, Jews are more comfortable with chaotic city life and are thus going to have tons of kids and drive everyone else away. I guess they either haven't seen or don't believe the GSS stats.

As to who was the big push behind getting so many more women into college in the 1940s-1960s, I couldn't say myself, but it would be easy to come up with some Jewish names and blame it on them. That's probably what the Judeophobes are thinking. I don't do Stormfront or MR myself, so I'm kinda out of the loop.

Mark said...

White Nationalists blame Jews the way blacks blame "the man."

Most White Nationalists are losers. Of course, they couldn't *possibly* be losers because of their own poor decisions or lack of aptitude. Someone must be holding them down. Ergo, the Jew.

There's also some degree of projection going on among a lot of the nerdier white nationalists regarding Jews. I had a friend who was a white nationalist - a gay white nationalist! - who was by no means a loser. He was, however, a bit nerdy, and he was EXTREMELY anti-Semitic, so much so that I eventually broke off the friendship. Yet his personality and the way he carried himself reminded me of a lot of the Jews I knew and was friends with growing up in New Jersey.

I think some merdy WNs suffer from a toxic mixture of an idealized version of what a white man should be and a nagging sense that they fall somewhat short. This leads them to lash out against the Jews who, as anyone can tell you, many of whom do tend to be a bit nerdy and neurotic.

TGGP: I think the ultra-Orthodox segment will keep the Ahskenazi alive as a people, though the Jews of the future will likely be far, far different socially and politically than the Jews of today.

Mark said...

Ugh. Should have reviewed that last comment before posting. The typos abound.

Jim Bowery said...

Jewish adaptiveness is less relevant to "antisemitism" than is Jewish virulence, so statistics on average female Jewish total fertility rate is a red-herring. (In any case, if you area interested in what gets men really pissed off, it is other men grabbing their women. So even from the standpoint of adaptive group warfare, the important figure is male fertility. Ask Genghis Khan.)

If you want to get into ecological hypotheses seriously, you'll have to do better than posit female education as the cause and then further posit that Jews were not necessary to the promotion of female education:

You have to defend a regime that accuses, as "white supremacists", people who want to test alternative ecological hypotheses by separating themselves from your ecology, and then, for some reason known only to Satan or Hitler or whoever the current anti-diety is of the theocracy, react violently when the accusation of "supremacist" is used to deny them their self-determination.

This slander is clearly led by Jewish organizations and it is my ecological hypothesis that the real reason they promote this slander is out of fear that a human ecology that excludes them will prove to be very viable compared to those that do not exclude them.

n/a said...

Ron,

Try responding to actual arguments next time.

Low European fertility presents an immediate danger only in the face of non-European immigration.

The Japanese are not being demographically displaced. Americans and Europeans are being demographically displaced.


TGGP,

1) Jewish outmarriage rates are probably exaggerated. Regardless, given the tiny Jewish proportion of the population, even the supposed "high" rates of exogamy by Jews are consistent with heightened Jewish ethnocentrism. Moreover, the mischlings tend to identify with Jews and support Jewish interests (see: Moldbug).

2) It's socially acceptable for people like Dershowitz to decry Jewish intermarriage (often while simultaneously promoting miscegenation for whites). It's not socially acceptable for white public figures to express concern about the demographic future of whites. Why do you think this is?

3) The demographic outlook for Orthodox Jews is quite rosy, and Jews have their own ethnostate. White ethnocstates, on the other hand, are eeevil and unthinkable.

silly girl said...

Yeah, Orthodox Jews have plenty of kids. About 10% of Jews are Orthodox, but 27% of Jews under 18 are in Orthodox homes according to the Jewish Population survey. I found a paper entitled "Will Your Grandchildren be Jewish?" at simpletoremember.com.

It is not so different for other groups. More religious means more kids.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

At 6:47 PM, TGGP said...
WN's also make a big deal out of jewish ethnocentrism
,

Are Jews *actually* hyperethnocentric?

Do the WNs ever point to peer reviewed psychological research on Jews to support this claim?

Do they bother refute papers that may disprove Jews are hyperethnocentric the way Jensen-Rushton refute papers and books supporting nurturism?

Normally, their scientific evidence for Jewish hyperethnocentrism boils down to "Kevin MacDonald says so", and even MacDonald relies primarily on historical anecdotes to support his case while he rarely bothers to use actual psychological data.

Jensen and Rushton have no problem using mountains of statistics to prove their case for the white-black IQ gap.

If Jensen and Rushton can use peer reviewed research to explore politically explosive theories, then why can't MacDonald?

The Undiscovered Jew said...

The, presumably, most ethnocentric Jews are the Orthodox.

But according to the GSS, they are the Jewish group most likely to say they have the most in common with white Americans.

togo said...

Does anyone really encounter WN's walking around in the real world?

I've seen evidence of them on TV and on the internet, but I've never met one. I've encountered plenty of old-fashioned white racists, but never anything resembling an
ideological White Nationalist.

n/a said...

TUJ,

It might help to read Kevin MacDonald before commenting on his work:

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

"Do they bother refute papers that may disprove Jews are hyperethnocentric"

What papers? I must have missed the explosion of scientific publications exploring Jewish ethnocentrism.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

I didn't say he refers to *no* research, I said he refers to little research and relies mostly on historical anecdotes, unlike Jensen-Rushton who actually bother themselves to look at peer reviewed data.

What papers? I must have missed the explosion of scientific publications exploring Jewish ethnocentrism.

Don't play stupid.

There are many traits which can be used as direct and indirect pyschological proxies to measure ethnocentrism, such as altruism.

Even I know this; and I'm not even a psychologist.

If there are thousands upon thousands of studies measuring the g factor across ethnic groups then there ought to be studies measuring how Jews compare to other ethnic groups on various psychological traits.

Why doesn't MacDonald go through peer reviewed literature in much more detail?

Jensen doesn't have any problem finding data on IQ despite the fact IQ is much more controversial than studies into altruism, afterall.

Jim Bowery said...

Not that anyone cares about ecological correlations -- I mean this is the inductivist blog after all -- but those who insist on treating all European populations, for their own good, with the gift of the Jews might want to look at the ecological correlations with Jewish percent of Whites. Again, let us banish all thought that this might be used by some whites somewhere to insist on their rights of self-determination, lest we all end up stomping on the bellies of pregnant Jewesses with hobnail boots!

Anonymous said...

White Nationalists: Losers for describing the way white liberals live in the US and Jews live in Israel. Unforgivable!

Fiotheth said...

Jews have a Racial Homeland set up in Israel so are set to outlive Whites.

The Jews pushed feminism (what do you think the ethnic background of feminsts Steinem, Dworkin, and Klein are??) which then had White Females going to College and having low birth rates.

All part and parcel of a wider Jewish Agenda.

Silver said...

The Jews pushed feminism (what do you think the ethnic background of feminsts Steinem, Dworkin, and Klein are??) which then had White Females going to College and having low birth rates.

That's too conspiratorial. There are plenty of reasons why feminism could have blossomed at the time it did that need have nothing to do with wanting to decrease white fertility.

I think the reasons Jews either got on board with feminism or failed to object sufficiently forcefully is that they knew -- it's something you can tell immediately, not something that needs much thought -- white women were total suckers for the sort of mushy crap "anti-hate" crusaders like the proven liar Elie Wiesel spin on the fly (without regard to contradiction or believability). Even with ol' Weasel (he is such a pathetic weasel, I spit on him, ptah), though, I'm not sure how intentionally harmful it was/is; attention-seeking cretins like him abound. (Then again, he does get a lot of airtime, so, hmm....)

n/a


What papers? I must have missed the explosion of scientific publications exploring Jewish ethnocentrism.


There's that David Lieberman paper. I'm not remotely qualified to give an expert opinion but it seemed like he did a fairly thorough job of going through MacDonald's sources and refuting MacDonald's interpretation of them (wrt ethnocentrism). It's hard to say, though, because Lieberman, as Jews are wont, peppered his work with silly jabs at MacDonald's racial concerns, so his objectivity is certainly questionable. I think Lieberman at least takes some of the gloss off MacDonald's case for hyperethnocentrism. (Of course, in Jobling's hands it becomes "Lieberman destroyed MacDonald." Hardly.)

Ron Inductivist,

It's pretty simple, dude. Either the benefits of multiracialism outweigh the costs or they don't; either the benefits of diversity outweigh the costs or they don't. Apart from the costs you're well aware of, the denouement of multiracialism will, centuries from now, be some form of "India" -- a thoroughly mixed-up-beyond hope-of-salvation society, full of intra-ethnic rivalries, that doesn't know whether it's coming or going and is too lazy to care. Now, whatever fleeting delights there are in the multi-madness -- and there are plenty, I don't dispute it -- do they represent such a tremendous upside that the price of an entire race going extinct is a pittance to pay for them? If not -- and the answer's clearly "no" -- then how about reversing course? It's not as hard as it sounds. Really, what's separation but a fifty mile drive or a five hundred mile flight?

Luckily, almost everybody prefers their own kind, so it shouldn't be too hard to create a broad coalition that wishes to kill the multi monster. Whites, as founders, obviously deserve the lion's share, and there are too many damn good people out there for these hyper-WN/neo-nutzi creeps to be threatening to pack "mischlings" off to Brazil. Fair, in light of everything that has passed, is fair.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

What papers? I must have missed the explosion of scientific publications exploring Jewish ethnocentrism.

There's that David Lieberman paper
.

I was not referring to any single person or source material.

I was asking for detailed scientific evidence for Jewish hyperethnocentrism from psychological Journals, papers by professors of psychology, or any peer reviewed scholarship on mental traits other than IQ.

TGGP said...

I don't think Moldbug identifies as a Jew, although he is (like Auster & Half Sigma) sensitive to anti-semitic/anti-Israel (more the latter, as he views it as the modern South Africa) povs. He's quite willing to promote the writings of a Nazi like Ernst zu Reventlow. He won't shut up about Carlyle, who was also an anti-semite. He said we've gotten a distorted picture of the Dreyfus affair, though he never elaborated on it.

The Ashkenazim have not done a good job of preserving themselves demographically in Israel. Takuan Seiyo has written about their decline relative to Sephardics/Mizrahi (such differential birth rates should be taken into account regarding studies on Israeli infants). John Mearsheimer notes that if you take into account the "reverse aliyah" things look even worse for them.

Fiotheth said...

Silver the promotion of Radical Feminism is a part of a Culture of Critique.

It is no coincidence that feminism is heavily filled with Jewesses.

Don't believe me???...

Bella Abzug
Kathy Acker
Rachel Adler
Larisa Alexandrovna
Gloria Allred
Hanne Blank
Lisa Bloom
Judy Blume
Daniel Boyarin
David Brooks (journalist)
Judith Butler
Aviva Cantor
Judy Chicago
Hedwig Dohm
Andrea Dworkin
Eve Ensler
Susan Estrich
Susan Faludi
Jamie Feldman
Shulamith Firestone
Betty Friedan
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ilana Gleicher
Emma Goldman
Blu Greenberg
Charlotte Haldane
Sally Halon
Nina Hartley
Tova Hartman
Judith Hauptman
Dorothy Ray Healey
Brenda Howard
Paula Hyman
Elfriede Jelinek
Erica Jong
Roberta Kalechofsky
Lydia Rabinowitsch-Kempner
Naomi Klein
Edith Konecky
Barbara Kruger
Anna Kuliscioff
Michele Landsberg
Lori Hope Lefkovitz
Gerda Lerner
Ariel Levy
Fanny Lewald
Rosa Luxemburg
Frederica Sagor Maas
Hana Meisel
Annie Nathan Meyer
Jennifer Miller
Vanessa Ochs
Tillie Olsen
Judith Plaskow
Rachel Pollack
Katha Pollitt
Sally Priesand
Geela Rayzel Raphael
Shulamit Reinharz
Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
Tamar Ross
Muriel Rukeyser
Cicely Scheiner
Zalman Schachter-Shalomi
Rosika Schwimmer
Alanna Scheer
Mendel Shapiro
Lisa Schlaff
Christina Hoff Sommers
Susan Sontag
Daniel Sperber
Gertrude Stein
Gloria Steinem
Sandra Steingraber
John Versnel IV
Cathy Young
Yona Wallach
Wendy Wasserstein
Jayme Waxman
Trude Weiss-Rosmarin
Naomi Weisstein
Ruth Westheimer
Naomi Wolf
Joel B. Wolowelsky
Elizabeth Wurtzel
William Alvarez

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

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia lists 82 Jewish feminists, but it lists 387 feminists of all ethnic groups, making the Jewish quotient 22%. That's high on a per capita basis, but more or less what you would expect given Jewish participation in progressive, intellectual causes.

Jim Bowery said...

silver writes: Luckily, almost everybody prefers their own kind, so it shouldn't be too hard to create a broad coalition that wishes to kill the multi monster.

The problem is the few bad apples who believe it is their mission in life to spread their genes into others' human ecologies, against others' will -- and are enabled by a quasi-theocratic zeitgeist that views "the politics of exclusion" as the ultimate crime against civility if not humanity.

The real question, the Jewish Question, is: "What caused that zeitgeist?"

Silver said...

The real question, the Jewish Question, is: "What caused that zeitgeist?"

My answer: Accident of birth! No one had to teach me to promote it, Mr. Bowery. It's entirely unnatural for a person to a question the propriety of his existence in a society, on a piece of territory. If the prevailing zeitgeist has a problem with his existence then its that zeitgeist that requires critiquing, not one's existence. It wasn't so much a devotion to some sacred "mission" to spread my seed wherever I see fit; it was a plea for recognition of an ostensibly fundamental right. Of course, it isn't, or ought not to be, a right, but that position is best communicated by what it can promise to deliver (a livable human ecology, as you might put it), not what it aims to prevent (which only engenders staunch opposition).

A true appreciation of the circumstances has arrived late for me, but I think it's important for you to understand, Jim, that its arrival was delayed and hindered by the traditional WN approach (ie your approach). I'm sorry if that fact bothers you.

Ron Inductivist,

It's a pity you call for discussion with WNs and then fail to respond when they discuss.

Racial negotiation can't proceed without actually discussing race. My suspicion is that this makes you uncomfortable, as though you're leery of discussing race lest you, horror of horrors, agree with anything a WN might say.

I'll attempt to assuage your fears thus: the fundamental, the most important difference between you and confirmed WNs is not that they dislike/hate/loath racial others (they do) and that you don't, or don't want to; the most important difference is that they demand a racial solution and you don't. Other than this, what, really, is there separating you from them? Sure, you're much more likely to be friendly and open to racial others, but the way you structure your life -- where you live, who you associate with, who you seek out to associate with, etc -- is hardly likely to be much different. WNs simply go a step and further and say that since this our people's (and all people's ) overwhelming preference, society should reflect it. That's minimalist WN. Of course you have the "hardcore" set who insist on hating and disparaging others and threatening to harm them. Without getting into the morality of that (frankly, they disgust me), let's just say if there's no need to be that extreme; if you can have everything you want (and more -- friendly relations with racial others are better than hostile) without being so extreme then why be so extreme?

If your fear is that accepting standard WN views on the value of a racial basis of society means you'll come to hate racial others (or risk being hated by them), I say your fears are unfounded. I say that as an intelligent, thinking man, you can make your own mind up about how to feel about racial others. Personally, I'd be disappointed to see you go down the path of hatred (particularly since there is no need to), but that is your own choice. Certainly, demanding a racial solution or being uncompromising on the question of the right to racial exist does not require you to hate anybody.

Silver said...

The Ashkenazim have not done a good job of preserving themselves demographically in Israel. - TGGP

Jews (of any brand) haven't done a good job of preserving themselves anywhere. Pics threads on "Anthro" boards demonstrate this clearly. Look up Jews in Cape Verde and then try to tell me they constitute a "race."

Racial preservation requires reproductive isolation. It's the only way. Certain factors may slow or speed mixing, but absent the condition of reproductive isolation mixing will occur.

Fortunately, the condition of reproductive isolation correlates with the most livable human ecology, which means people can be enticed by it, which means its politically feasible. The details need to be hammered out, but it's definitely feasible.

Anonymous said...

Іt's actually a nice and helpful piece of info. I am glad that you just shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing.

Here is my homepage :: sportsbet