Return to the NeoEugenics' Home Page

 

 

Anti-Semitism and the politics of victimhood.

Surveys of attitudes that try to determine levels of racism are notoriously biased, and the Anti-Defamation League's survey of Anti-Semitism is no different. Unlike other races however, Jews are more obsessed with victimhood or a sense of persecution. One might say that a persecution complex defines the Jewish community, and without feelings of persecution they would be even less capable of reinforcing racial segregation boundaries. Aside from Jews in Israel then, Jews need some sense of solidarity or sense of fear of the other to prevent their ultimate demise - the silent holocaust. That is, Jews who are highly secular will marry non-Jews because those in the diaspora are just a few percent of the host population, and when searching for a mate, probability dictates that the pool of available matches for marriage is much larger when non-Jews are also courted.

 

The following is from the ADL's web site at:

http://www.adl.org/antisemitism_survey_i_index.asp

--

11 Item Index of Anti-Semitic Beliefs - ADL Survey.

1.   Jews stick together more than other Americans.

2.   Jews always like to be at the head of things.

3.   Jews are more loyal to Israel than America.

4.   Jews have too much power in the U.S. today.

5.   Jews have too much control and influence on Wall Street.

6.   Jews have too much power in the business world.

7.   Jews have a lot of irritating faults.

8.   Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.

9.   Jewish businessmen are so shrewd that others don't have a fair chance in competition.

10. Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind.

11. Jews are [not] just as honest as other businessmen.

 

Scoring as of November 1998:

Not Anti-Semitic          Agree with 0-1   statements      53%

Middle                         Agree with 2-5   statements      35%

Most Anti-Semitic        Agree with 6-11 statements      12%

--

The problem with the above survey is that it fits very neatly into categories where the Jewish population does in fact differ from other groups, on average, making the survey much less a survey of racism than a survey of how accurately Jews are evaluated on behavioral traits. I will explain this later.

 

First, let me describe a similar sort of survey say for Blacks. We would ask questions: "Blacks are overrepresented in sports;" "More Blacks are incarcerated in jail by percentage of population than other races;" "More Blacks are on welfare," etc. Since all of these are in fact true, those who show "so-called" less racism are really people that are less aware of the real demographic facts. That is, they are just less informed.

 

However, there is another factor that enters into taking surveys - deception. As people become more aware of proscribed opinions, as established by the current indoctrination of correct thinking when it comes to race, people will give answers to questions that they think are proper rather than what they really feel or believe. We all behave this way, constantly putting forth opinions and behaviors that will appeal to others, trying to fit-in. But inside, how we really feel, is kept to ourselves, either as deception or self-deception (see research on cognitive dissonance). These confounding factors make surveys like the above less reflective then of attitudes, and more reflective of how we as a people are being manipulated and indoctrinated into holding the "proper attitudes" towards other races.

 

Now let's get back to the Anti-Semitism survey above. When I read the list of questions, the items seemed to be reflective of similar attitudes between competing ethnic groups everywhere. In Amy Chua's book, World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, 2003, very similar attitudes were held by those lower on the economic scale towards what she has termed the market-dominant minorities. The question is, are these legitimate observations or are they irrational hatreds? (see my review of Chua's book at http://www.neoeugenics.net/wof.htm )

 

Ethnocentrism and moral particularism: Questions 1, 3, 8, 10, & 11.

Different races score on average differently on the behavioral trait of xenophobia, ethnocentrism, or moral particularism. These traits measure how "tribal" a race is. Simply put, members of the tribe are treated differently than others. It is interesting that East Asians and Semites (Jews and Arabs) are extremely ethnocentric, while Whites are low on these traits, tending to be more individualistic. (For research on levels of tribalism see my web site, and particularly Kevin MacDonald's trilogy on group evolutionary strategies.) Conclusion: people who are aware of the empirical data would answer yes to these questions because that is the correct answer.

 

Intelligence: Questions 2, 4, 5, 6 & 9.

Richard Lynn has compiled average intelligences for different races around the world. MacDonald reported earlier that the average intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews in the United States was believed to be about 115, but Lynn has subsequently refined that estimate to be closer to 108, with East Asians at 105, South Asians at 90, Whites about 100, and African-Americans 85. So on questions of power and wealth, it is to be expected that different racial groups will dominate based on intelligence. For instance, at about 1% of the population in the Philippines, the East Asians dominate 60% of the private economy (Chua, 2003). And the same complaints are made against the East Asians in the Philippines as are made against the Jews in Europe and the United States. Conclusion: people who are aware of the empirical data would answer yes to these questions because that is the correct answer.

 

Conscientiousness and affective disorders: Questions 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Conscientiousness is the second most important behavioral trait, after intelligence, which determines success. Conscientiousness is similar to drive and perseverance. Jews score very high on conscientiousness, and in addition, they score high on affective disorders related to extroversion, depression, and anxiety. These combinations can result in personality types that are very focused and determined to succeed at whatever task they set out for themselves. To make the observation then that "Jews have too much power in the U.S. today" is just stating a fact. (for research on Jews and affective disorders and conscientiousness see http://www.neoeugenics.net/ethnic.htm ). Conclusion: people who are aware of the empirical data would answer yes to these questions because that is the correct answer.

 

Question seven, "Jews have a lot of irritating faults," is prima facie true because all races and or cultures have "irritating faults." It is a stupid and meaningless question. I find my own relatives have numerous "irritating faults."

 

Finally, note that I declared that such questions like, "Jews have too much control and influence on Wall Street," are true based on the principle of disparate outcomes. That is, the principal used for affirmative action, minority set-asides, and a host of egalitarian programs that assumes that all races come equipped with the same cognitive and behavioral assets, and that any differences are based on racism. If on the other hand, one assumed say that different races have different average intelligences, then three of the above questions should be answered in the negative, because Jews then have the power and influence they deserve. But since the vast majority of Jews, including the ADL, reject any biological differences in the races, then the questions should be answered as true assuming races do not differ genetically. Very confusing yes?

 

The same logic can be applied to virtually every survey or study that attempts to show bias, racism, bigotry or prejudice by one group for another (usually prepared and administered by social scientists with a political agenda). The fact is, racial groups are in constant conflict when they are in competition for resources, and they will all have a set of beliefs and/or stereotypes that may or may not be true at different levels of expression. One new field of research that is very exciting is "functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging," (fMRI).[1]  It looks into the brain at activation sites for hate, fear and disgust, while subjects are shown pictures of other races for example. In this way, we can finally bypass deceptive surveys and look into the brain at the very primitive levels of emotional activation, before these signals are processed by higher brain centers that often intervene to give the correct "spin" to the interviewer. Until then, any attempt to measure racism is a dead end, as it is politically biased for the sake of propaganda and or extortion.

 

For a review of the evolutionary aspects of the coalition mobilizing emotions of fear, hate, and disgust see my article at http://www.neoeugenics.net/Hate.htm .

 

Matt Nuenke

June 2003

www.neoeugenics.com

--

[1] Science VOL. 300 - 6 JUNE 2003 - page 1536

Effects of Gaze on Amygdala Sensitivity to Anger and Fear Faces

The amygdala is thought to be part of a neural system responsive to potential threat. Consistent with this is the amygdala's well-documented sensitivity to fear faces. What is puzzling, however, is the paucity of evidence for a similar involvement of the amygdala in the processing of anger displays. To address this apparent anomaly, researchers have speculated that the amygdala is involved not only in detecting threat but also in deciphering the source of threat, particularly when it is ambiguous. Virtually all studies to date investigating facial affect have used only direct-gaze facial displays. The issue of gaze becomes pertinent because anger faces signal impending aggression on the part of the expressor, whereas fear faces indicate potential environmental threat perceived by the expressor. Thus, when coupled with direct gaze (i.e., eye contact with observer) anger faces should indicate more clearly that threat is directed at the observer, whereas when coupled with averted gaze (i.e., laterally shifted gaze) fear faces should indicate more clearly where in the environment that threat is located.

 

Consistent with these claims, recent research demonstrates that gaze direction differentially modulates the perceptual clarity of anger and fear facial displays. Anger faces coupled with direct gaze and fear faces coupled with averted gaze are recognized more quickly and accurately than either anger faces coupled with averted gaze or fear faces coupled with direct gaze. Thus, by manipulating the gaze direction of anger and fear displays, the current study examined the role of the amygdala in processing threat-related ambiguity. Because of the amygdala's demonstrated separate involvement in gaze direction and facial expression processing, we identified this brain structure as particularly likely to be involved in their combined processing.

 

We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to test whether amygdala sensitivity to anger and fear displays would differentially vary as a function of gaze direction. Specifically, anger faces coupled with averted gaze and fear faces coupled with direct gaze (ambiguous threat) were predicted to elicit stronger amygdala responses than anger faces coupled with direct gaze and fear faces coupled with averted gaze (clear threat). To examine this relation, a two-by-two analysis of variance (anger/fear versus direct/averted gaze) was computed. Activation in the right amygdala was not found to differentially vary in response to anger and fear faces as a function of gaze direction. The predicted interaction, however, was found in the left amygdala, F(1.10) = 5.39, P < 0.05.

 

By merging the study of facial expressions with the study of gaze direction perception, the current research demonstrates an important interaction of these cues on amygdala functioning. This interaction highlights a role for the amygdala in discerning not only the presence of facially communicated threat but also in processing threat-related ambiguity. Consequently, this finding offers an explanation for why previous work has often failed to detect amygdala responsivity to anger displays, and it underscores the importance of incorporating gaze direction in future work on facial expression perception.