Posts
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment