Applying Numbers to the JQ

I have been curious about the JQ over the past few months and finally decided to sit down and put some numbers to it using basic statistics. For those who do not know, the JQ is the "Jewish Question". It asks why a disproportionate number of Jews hold the seats of power in Western societies. Numbers lead to an unbiased conclusion as long as they are understood. This essay may be unsuitable for those who are offended by people who ask the JQ.
The JQ is answered by the popular talking heads on YouTube such as Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones and Stephan Molyneux, people who have a clear bias toward the Jewish race and believe them to be superior and that they should be running things based on their inherent superiority. Its a clearly juvenile viewpoint for anyone who has actually read philosophy and the philosophy of laws. Most listeners of Peterson and Molyneux have not, so its easy to pull the wool over their eyes. Both Molyneux and Jones married into the matriarchal Judaism. I don't know if Peterson did or not. There are many other sycophants online as bad as these three, it is these three that I know well.
This has been a simple calculation and the assumptions are:

(1) IQ is normally distributed among any suitably sized group
(2) Standard deviation is 15 for both populations and all IQ's.
(3) Jewish population is assumed to be 20,000, the population of White Goyim is assumed to be 1 million. Jews have about 2% of the numbers of White Goyim in America.

I did this for two assumptions, (1) Jews IQ = 130 average, (2) Jews IQ = 115, in both cases average White Goyim IQ is 100. I did not calculate for IQ above 175, assuming these numbers to be too small for normal distribution.
I did it for an IQ of 130 just to help visualize how the numbers change. The average Jewish IQ is no where near 130, unless you are just listening to Alex Jones. Realistically it may be as high as 115, but more likely around 108.

Results:

(1) Jewish IQ = 130, White Goyim IQ = 100

IQ > 130:
Jews:10,000
White Goyim: 22,800

IQ>145
Jews 3,174
White Goyim: 1,300

IQ>160
Jews: 560
White Goyim: 30

(2) Jewish IQ= 115, White Goyim IQ =100

IQ>130
Jews: 3,174
White Goyim: 22,800

IQ>145
Jews: 456
White Goyim: 1,300

IQ>160
Jews: 26
White Goyim: 30

So, given the amount of Jewish power in government, academia, the media, publishing and of course finance, do these numbers explain it? Will affirmative action be applied to upper level positions in banks?
I'm not a fan of IQ testing, I test above 115. Even adherents to this answer to the JQ admit that Jews may have a higher IQ with numbers and words but that White Goyim is better at spatial orientation. IQ tests can therefore be skewed, if this is true.
You find Jews in math and computer engineering, but not in mechanical or civil engineering. Engineering has been viewed as an inferior profession by many and this may explain the small number of Jews in engineering.
Another useful comparison would be to compare philosophies. Compare Maimonides (the great lawyer of the Jews, known as Ram Bam in the Talmud) with one of our great scholars of law, Immanual Kant, or von Savigny. Compare the past century great thinkers in Judaism, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno with CS Lewis.
The White Goyim philosophy has been to find the universals, as it has been for thousands of years. It has grown finer with age, as Christ said it would (the wine). The Jewish philosophy has been to espouse Jewish Supremism and to place the Goyim in a highly negative light, to say the least. It is fairly and reasonably called hate literature. It does not have the brilliance or the braininess of the universal philosophy of the White Goyim, who is clearly unmatched in this field. Only the White Christian does philosophy to find universals rather than in group supremism as in Judaism and Islam.

On the topic of philosophy I would like to leave you with two thoughts. The best and the brightest have the greatest capacity for evil as well as good. We have a society led by the best and brightest. How did they become eaters of the pizza? The answer is that they have been given too much liberty. The human being has a natural inclination to expand horizons and is not always good. This IS NOT original sin, as Douglas Murray claims it is. Original sin and sacrifice will have to be the topic of another essay. (the two go hand in hand)
  CS Lewis writes the following passage at the very start of the Screwtape Letters: (Screwtape, the older devil is giving instruction to his apprentice, Wormwood)

"...It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of our Enemies clutches. That may have been so if he lived a few centuries earlier. At that time humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not, and if it was true they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life based on a chain of reasoning. But with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man, ever since he was a boy, has been accustomed to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing around in his head. He does not think of doctrines as "true" or "false", but as "academic", "practical", "outworn", "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon and not argument is your best weapon for keeping him out of the Church.

...By the very act of arguing, you awaken his reason and who knows where that may lead"

The last line really explains why argument about politics is nearly forbidden in modern society and people are offended when truth emerges that challenges their world view.

Does The Left Create Victimhood?

Victim hood creates debt that does not exist in reality, this divides people, makes them angry and creates new groups for leftist exploitation. The Left creates the problems, then offers dialectical materialism to create solutions. Dialectical materialism is the dialect between science and matter and it encompasses the idea that science can one day solve all of the worlds problems and that all problems stem from economics.

The problem with this basic idea is that it is purely reactionary and gives no yardstick from which to judge matters and thus no way back to rational thought. Cultural Marxism has no course but to be purely reactionary and therefore problems are required to get us to think in this context. When problems do not exist they must be created.

A perfect example of created divisions is the “White Mans Privilege” and its mythology that it was White Christians that ran the black slave trade. In truth a disproportionally low number of White Christians were involved. It was known as the Jewish Black slave trade during its time. (see E. Michael Jones, Michael Hoffman, Henry Makow, and other scholars)

This makes blacks angry at whites and they wish to seek redress, this is happening in South Africa where Whites are being murdered and a genocide may soon occur.

The Left says that the Whites stole the land. I say the whites civilized South Africa and brought the Blacks common law. The population of blacks exploded from 2 million consisting of warring tribes to around 40 million living in relative peace under the white mans Common Law.

Cultural Marxism is all about destroying ideas like common law and original sin and bringing dialectical materialism to the forefront of human consciousness. Dialectical materialism and its statutory laws will destroy the common law which will leave the people in charge with an purely statutory system of laws that no one will have any basis to criticize. No one will know how to question authority without the common law yardstick from which to make judgements.

Does law come from authority or does authority come from law? In the West, traditionally, law comes from reason and and authority comes from law. Under dialectical materialism, law comes from authority.

The West is moving away from its traditional common law and toward a system of statutory law based on Talmudic law. Noahide law will be the law for all non Jews. The destruction of the common law, brought about with dialectical materialism will get us there.

The Evangelicals are just as bad with their agenda and use of propaganda to bring us closer to the rapture, but this is a different topic and their propaganda is fundamentally different.

One final thought: Most people casually throw around the idea that we in the West live in democracies. This belief will get us closer and closer to actual pure democracies. In reality, most of the West lives in republics or constitutional democracy. Once full democracy is obtained, despotism follows in short time. This is part of the PTB getting us to forget the common law and our roots and the ideas that made the West strong and free.

The Greatest Quote Ever

It needs no further comment. Its obvious:

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or worse, when they are required to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
 
Theodore Dalrymple

White Genocide: Why?

 The following essay is an attempt to explain White Genocide is a slightly different manner the the one on this topic that I posted about a year ago.

Before people adapt an ideal such as Equality, I want them to fully understand what they are giving up. This essay is an effort to convey this understanding, one that has taken me many years to obtain.

  It explains the fundamental reason for Christian White Genocide, which is being done by communists as communists always do, as they always have. There is a basic hatred and opposition of Western Christian ideology that motivates communists. To explain this, I have to explain the concept of law and what makes Western law, the law that is hated by the communist, and why.

 Its a bit discombobulated, please bear with me. I'm watching this Alex Jones Youtube video and felt the urge to switch the title of this little project from "Roman Law" to "White Genocide: Why?" and link it with this video.

  It is law that creates a society, without it, nothing else can be and we live in an anarchy, like monkeys swinging from trees, maybe worse because we have guns. No one sane would argue that you can have a good society with bad laws.

  The Roman Empire grew because it had developed laws. For a thousand or more years, all the best and brightest went to Rome to study law. The word "science" was first used in describing the fundamental nature of theoretical jurisprudence.

  Science did not emerge Newton or Bacon or Descarte, it originated with the Romans and their work on laws. The age of reason started in Rome with a science built around the common law. It didn't start with the Enlightenment.

  The difference between this science and the other hard sciences such as math and physics is not uncertainty. We know when a law has been broken, without looking at code.

  Math and physics sit on hard principles which can be written in compact form on paper, almost perfect abstractions (but people keep making them better). Roman law sits on the pillar of the common law, the law which cannot be written. Jesus Christ writes it as the one commandment of the NT, Immanual Kant writes it as his categorical imperative. The Greeks call it the "Golden Rule" because they couldn't write it down, so they were probably smarter than everybody. Everyone knows it as "The Logos".

  Western law has been based on this precept. Mathematics requires precepts such as counting and the shortest distance between two points being a straight line being those from which all else is built. Law is based on reason, like mathematics. Law requires a precept like mathematics because reason does not create precepts on its own. To be a science the laws developed from the precepts cannot be self contradictory in math or law.

  By science, I do not mean the scientific method, science here refers to logic and not application of the scientific method. The Scientific Method doesn't work for math or minefields and it doesn't work for law. This is the spiritual world, as opposed to the material world, and the scientific method isn't part of the spiritual world.

  Jurisprudence can never be exactly right or exactly wrong in practice. The Golden Rule has some room for interpretation. Justinian codified law so that Judgements would be less dependent on the judge, a fundamental problem of jurisprudence, the judge being well intentioned and well informed, or not. Justinian law gets a bad rap, but law was not understood as well as it is today. Law is a technology, just like any other. They had the old tube type version, we have the digital version of the same thing.

  Another expression of the common law, America (United States is a corp) is a Republic and the basic idea of a Republic is: "A nation by the people, for the people and of the people" and is a well known Abraham Lincoln quote, from which he got the idea from a very highly respected German Scholar of Roman law and theorist, Von Savigny who wrote law books in around mid 1800's. Much of his work is on the web as free PDF's.

 Widespread knowledge of the law could be a serious threat to those who write and administer bad laws, but this is not why good laws must be written. Good laws must be written to preserve the law, which in turn preserves freedom (Von Savigny).

  A law not based on sound principle would be like math adopting an axiom along the lines of 2+2=5, people would just stop using math or stop taking it seriously.

  The common law (which can be partially expressed as all men being equal under the law) is being replaced by another precept: equality of outcome. The two are not compatible. Left wing nut case "equality" will destroy the Western tradition of law.

  Plato explains exactly how this would occur in book 4 of the Republic. Lawyers and legislators would be tripping all over one another making a mess if the law as not based on sound precepts. These must come from the Gods. In Rome the god was Jupiter, who appeared the same for everyone. Jupiter saw all the farms the same. This common law, as written in the New Testament forms the basis for Western law.

  Kant explains that the law must be written, hence the need for the Bible.

  Von Savigny explains the application of the codified law and its jurisdiction in his book, System of the Modern Roman Law, translated from the German Friederich Von Savigny by William Holloway, vol 1, 1867. On the subject of Jural Relations he writes: (S52)

  "The essence of jural relation has been defined as a province of the independent mastery of the individual will (S.52). Its our first matters to search out the object-matters upon which the will can possibly excercise influence and thus extend its mastery; hence a summary of the different sorts of possible jural relations will of itself result.
   ...Thus in the pure logical treatment of the question proposed, there appear to us three main object matters for the mastery of the will; hence, it would appear, that three main sorts of all jural relations would of necessity be admitted. We have therefore next to examine those object matters singly, and the first the individual person as object of a special jural relation.
  On this matter the following view is very prevalent. Man, say some, has a right to his own self which necessarily arises at his birth and can never cease so long as he lives; for this precise reason it is called an ORIGINAL RIGHT...
  ...If henceforth we entirely separate the so-called original rights and recognise the aquired rights as the only ones to which our further examination is to be directed, there will remain only two objects for the excercise of our will: unfree nature and extraneous persons."

  In extraneous persons he gets the law of obligations, from unfree nature, comes property.

  Von Savigny was a German and German law was quite a bit tilted toward freedom than others. Kant is similar in basic thought. Von Savigny was like a Kant, but for jurisprudence. Von Savigny follows the path of reason proves his statements almost as well as Kant. (No wonder the Globalists went after Germany the way it did.)

  BUT Von Savigny is a philosopher in these books, not an actual judge. On that it is Christ that explains this cornerstone. The building, its occupants etc may change or burn down but the cornerstone will always remain for those who wish to use it in future construction.

  We have no lawyers, we must become lawyers. (A lawyer IS NOT synonymous with attorney. If you don't believe me, ask one. I learned that from attorneys before other sources.). There is a saying "only guilty people hire attorneys" and its true. An attorney is merely a wealth transfer agent and hiring one is to admit guilt by admitting that a wealth transfer should take place.

  So, maybe for now, we lose everything with the adoption of equality of outcome as an ideal because we lose the foundation for our law, the very thing that makes us free. Maybe we learn the law instead and decide to defend ourselves - really scare the hell out of the establishment instead of having a talking head just draining unfavorable parts of the swamp.

  Without the Golden Rule as a yardstick, our rulers and legislators will make a mess of everything, just as explained in Plato's Republic, even if they have the best of intentions.

  For over two thousand years the basic problem with communism has been well known, yet it rears its head once again in the minds of a public that has no understanding of its past or of its roots.

  Communism is with us once again in the genocide of these South African farmers. We have not lost to this Bavarian conspiracy, we have good laws and we need to exercise them.
See also White Genocide.

Note: Many people think of the common law as that which is held to be in common belief. What is held to be in common belief is really just a practical application the the law which is common to all men. They are one in the same thing, one a looser approximation of the other.