Humility and the West

An alternative hypothesis is needed for testing. How about the need for non-conformity. The West is full of non-conformists throughout history. Christianity started out as a non-conformist religion. People were willing to endure death in the arena for it.

If you look closely you will find creative non-conformity in my post.

Old Atlantic,

I’ve thought a lot about this, and I’ve never been comfortable with saying that non-conformity or individualism is what distinguishes whites from other races. In part, this is because the whole idea of individualism has been corrupted by the institutionalized non-conformity of our age, when we are taught by TV that being an individual means hedonism and the flippant and thoughtless rejection of tradition.

But even if we give non-conformity a more intelligent meaning, I don’t think it serves to distinguish whites from other races. Blacks are arguably more non-conformist than whites. After all, breaking the law is highly non-conformist, and blacks are much more likely to do that than whites. They’re also highly non-conformist in the names they give their children!

While I was writing this article, I was turning over in my mind the idea that what makes whites different is just that we have a greater concern for truth than other races. If we think we perceive the world more accurately than our fellows, we insist on our own view obstinately. If we’re right, other whites are likely to be persuaded because they’re concerned with the truth too. That seems a more suitable explanation of Western culture than simple non-conformity.

Even if whites are inherently prone to challenge the established order, as you suggest, no one can do this if the established order squelches all dissent, as the Chinese did. Rather, the authorities must be willing to give challengers a hearing if their innovations are to be adopted. So innovation can’t just come from innovators themselves, but requires the consent of the authorities. And that’s why I think the quality of humility is crucial to the West.

I agree that its not just non-conformity in the form of stealing or violence. To me non-conformity has a positive meaning. So non-conformity is an attempt to find something positive.

Non-conformity is part of search. In high dimensions, search has to use randomness to work. (This is part of actual search in high dimensional problems, pseudo random numbers are used.) So whites are using non-conformity as part of optimal random search in high dimensions, which is what society is a high dimensional problem.

Humility and a search for truth are part of optimal search. Using randomness in search is humility, you are admitting not only do you not know the answer, part of your point, but you are admitting you don’t even know how to find the answer deterministically.

Western civilization has many incentives for non-conformity as part of random search for improvement. The copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secrets laws all are meant to encourage non-conformists to search for better solutions. This search is society trying to use a random generator, inventors, writers, etc. who hope to hit the big one and get a lot of money for it. The chance of a fantasy payoff is part of the incentive to spend time on searching for better ways.

The iconic status of the independent inventor in the West includes the US Patent Office giving small entities half off on fees.

The patent process also relies on honesty by applicants, as to prior art, which examiners sometimes don’t know and applicant activity relating to on sale bars, etc.

Isn’t this admitting a very strong cultural component to the reason whites are so “altruistic” and “innovative”? Especially how Christianity came out of North Africa, and not Europe?

BSP,

It’s impossible to know for certain whether Europeans became Christian because the religion was suited to their natures or whether Christianity shaped their natures. I naturally think it was the former, but it would take a lot of work to give evidence one way or the other, and I can’t think of any very convincing to say about the matter at the moment.

I will say this, though: Christianity could have taken hold anywhere in the Roman Empire, but Europe was the only place that it lasted as a majority religion. So that is some evidence that Christianity is highly congruent with Europeans’ nature.

Christianity did not come out of Africa, but Israel. Although some of the early Christians were North Africans, Augustine among others, most early Christians were located in Canaan, Turkey, and Europe.

When I think of whites and white accomplishments there is one word that always enters my mind and exemplifies us at our best. That word is grace.

disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency

the quality or state of being considerate or thoughtful

ease and suppleness of movement or bearing

unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification

The influence upon the heart and its reflection in the life

We are currently in a state of fallen grace and eventually we will recover.

Over the last three weeks, as argument raged about IQ difference between races, it was repeatedly pointed out that East Asians had a higher IQ then whites. So the question immediately arose- why was it that science, technology, and even social development, such as the abolishment of slavery, took place in the West, and then extended to the rest of the world?

Two reasons came to my mind

1. One is that in the West there was not just intelligent speculation and freedom to do so, but an innate sense of adventure. This spirit of adventure was manifest in the number of explorers that set out from Europe, not just in search of treasure, but also for the heck of it. This spirit of adventurous exploration quite naturally manifested itself in the intellectual world as well - scientific, social and spiritual. It was just fun. Even now, when most of the arduous adventures/challenges have already been undertaken, one sees this spirit of adventure in the West, leading to ever more physical exploits, and new scientific discoveries. Now consider Japan. Average Japanese IQ levels are higher then those in the West. Japan is also a highly developed industrial nation, and has been for over 50 years. And yet, there is a paucity of really striking original scientific discoveries from Japan. One reason could be that Japanese schooling methods inculcate an attitude of subservience to authority, and a reluctance to question the status quo.

2. The underlying ethos of the Christian faith, in which genuine humility is one of the most important requirements. It was in this spirit that scientists who changed the very way we look at the universe and ourselves, functioned - Newton, Dalton and Einstein. It was the lack of humility among the Greek philosophers that stopped them from progressing beyond the mathematical theorems they propounded.

Why should humility be so important for scientific discovery? I have been mulling this over? Consider an atheist scientist - as he does not believe in a higher being, it leads quite naturally to the conclusion that he himself must be the only ordering principle of the universe. Beyond him there are of course other humans, but they are only adjunct to his perception of them. He then becomes quite naturally the centre of the universe. With this comes pride, and it comes naturally, no matter how hard one may try to stop it. Once pride has entered, then an open-minded investigation of nature becomes difficult.

A more mundane explanation can be that an atheist scientist is unable to see beyond the obvious. A scientist with faith and humility looks for an underlying ordering principle, and virtually into the spiritual domain, i.e., a spiritual quest for God himself, and then invents field theory (Newton) - a theory that is not obvious at all, as fields are not visible or measurable directly.

PS: I came across your site from VFR, and was mightily pleased that you were thinking along the same lines.

There are other reasons that science took off in the Christian West, and most specifically in Britain.

Larry Auster posted commentary on this article on View from the Right:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009268.html

I’ll have some response to Larry’s entry and your comments tomorrow.

Referring to Larry Auster’s entry on this article at:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009268.html

I’m glad Larry thinks there is merit in my article. However, though I’m no expert on religion, I question his assertion that the Hebrew, Christian, and Greek view of the relationship between God and man is unique in the way he describes and reflects a taste for humility. It’s plausible that the doctrines of the Hebrews were different in this respect from those of previous religions. But it seems to me that Muslims also believe that God is separate from nature, yet they are far from a humble people. In fact, I decided not to deal with Muslims’ lack of capacity for self-criticism in this article because it’s just too obvious.

DSP 111,

You may be right that whites do have an inherent taste for adventure that is lacking among Asians. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the Chinese imperial government suppressed overseas exploration and trade in the 15th century just as it did other kinds of individual initiative. The story is told in David Landes’ The Wealth and Poverty of Nations (p. 93 ff.). Although Landes is a race denier, his book is a wonderful account of the basic forces in world history, and I highly recommend it. There’s a link to the Amazon page for this book in the notes of the article. Anyway, the point is that Asians’ failure to explore the world may have been a result of despotism rather than their own desires.

You’d have to make some argument and offer some evidence that Christians are more humble than atheists. My point in this article was that the Christian doctrine of humility was a reflection of whites’ nature. So, according to my theory, both white Christians and white atheists ought to be equally humble.

I’ve added digg links to the end of all the articles on this site. Digg is a news aggregation site read by millions. The more people click the digg button for an article and then register or log on, the greater the exposure the article will get. So please remember to click the “digg it” button if you like the article and take the time to register for a digg account if you don’t already have one. This is one of the easiest ways of helping to spread race realist ideas. If you’re the first one to digg an article, you’ll have to write in the title and a brief summary of the article.

The Realist

I need not go into doctrine (I’m no expert anyway), just the example of Jesus Christ Himself is sufficient, and that for any Christian is enough.

The Chinese were indeed shackled by state authority at most periods in their history. The example I posted was the Japanese, who despite being one the most industrialised and rich nations in the world, with an above average IQ, and living in a free democratic society, have not shown a spirit of adventure in either the physical or intellectual world, in the last 50 years.

Is this a matter of temperament or the rigid schooling they have. Is the schooling method itself a consequence of a lack of adventure and genuine innovation, i.e., temperament again.

Part of being a race realist (rather than a wn) is the ability to admit defeat. When it comes to raw intellectual power, the average Mongoloid clearly outperforms the average Caucasoid, beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this is not everything. Caucasoids have been known for creativity, for instance.

Unfortunately, it seems white humility goes together with crass individualism…and often the type of rebellion that caused the liberalism in the 1970’s, which is discussed on this website.

DP111,

I agree with your view of the Japanese. Do you have any hard, quantitative evidence of their lack of creativity? Numbers on patents granted per capita, or something like that?

I just referenced this article in a coment at Half Sigma and decided to post my comment here as well:

There have been a fair number of comments at Half Sigma and elsewhere recently about the tendency for women choose to hold out for an “alpha” male and how feminists are pro-polygamy in a subtle sense.

If this is all true, I wonder to what extent the many centuries of monogamy have taken a toll on the white race.  Perhaps white males just aren’t as appealing to women as they were 1500 years ago due to a dysgenic consequence of what Gannon in a previous comment (see the Half Sigma link above) called “sexual socialism.”

It seems strange to me how deep and pervasive the effects of political correctness have been throughout the West.  It has been said that whites could cease to exist as a distinct group in the next century due to demographic decline and the mixing of the races in what are currently majority white countries.  What could cause a group of people to collectively act this way?  Here are three theories:

1) The blogger Conservative Swede has suggested that it is a result of Christianity reaching the end of its life cycle, but he seemed to be speaking of a cultural effect, not a biological effect.  He says that political correctness is like Christianity where instead people now find redemption through capitulation to the “other.”

2) At American Renaissance it has been suggested that political correctness can be explained in terms of an instinct for “competitive altruism” with a biological basis.

3) At The Inverted World it was recently suggested that it is humility that sets the white race apart, both in terms of their success over the centuries and their more recent susceptibility to self-terminating political correctness.

The list could continue.  If one believed in supernatural effects one might think that the white race was literally under some sort of spell.

Returning to the original point, however, what if the white race has just been genetically exhausted by monogamy?  Could this explain the mentality of both male and female liberals?  What then?  Is there any hope?  Could a return to polygamy be the answer, or is it too late?

One thing that I forgot to make clear in my previous comment is that it is immigration that is most directly leading to the disappearance of the white race as a distinct group and that it is the politically correct mentality that allows this to happen.

Daryl wrote,

“Part of being a race realist (rather than a wn) is the ability to admit defeat. When it comes to raw intellectual power, the average Mongoloid clearly outperforms the average Caucasoid, beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this is not everything. Caucasoids have been known for creativity, for instance.”

The slightly higher average IQ of East Asians could be due to a recent or longer-lasting dysgenic trend in Europe that was not replicated in East Asia. There is no reason to suppose that the ancient Greeks, for instance, had the same below average IQ of modern Greeks.

The Realist

Thank you for the prompt reply.

I would hesitate to use patent applications as an indication of originality. The vast majority of patents are trivial, and the ones that are’nt, really do not qualify in the category of ground breaking i.e., ground breaking in manner that change are view of the world, and the way we see ourselves. In this category, Nobel prizes, even in theoretical Physics, are not much use, as many are awards for extending theories, but still in the domain of traditional physics.

The spirit of adventure that breaks the bounds of current orthodoxy are few, and in this the Japanese have none.

Even if we discard the above critera, I can think of just 2 or 3 Japanese who have been awarded the Nobel prize in Physics. This is surprising, as Japan has been an industrial power for almost a century, and a first rate one for atleast 50 years.

I still belive that “humility” is one characteristic that leads to genuine original thought, provided ofcourse that other traits such as intelligence and a spirit of adventure are also present. The one reason that I will conjecture, is that genuine humility releases the person from the chains of ego and vanity. I have noticed that genuinely great scientists and thinkers, are also the most modest.

“The slightly higher average IQ of East Asians could be due to a recent or longer-lasting dysgenic trend in Europe that was not replicated in East Asia. There is no reason to suppose that the ancient Greeks, for instance, had the same below average IQ of modern Greeks.”

The iqs of populations can change, without out-breeding or intermixing. Ashkenazi Jews, for example, share a lot of middle-eastern blood with Sephardic Jews (I disagree with those who claim Ashkenazim are majority European), but have advanced far above the Sephardi IQ due to artificial selection. However the idea that things “could be” or “have been different” are irrelevant to what they are now.

Rushtion doesn’t focus solely on intelligence. His studies document the Asian-white-black pattern in a staggering array of quantitative traits, including pscyhological and physical, that go beyond IQ.

For example, he has demonstrated that Orientals outrank whites in social anxiety, with whites outranking blacks? I’m sure the same is true for self-esteem; AR has talked about how blacks, far from suffering a dearth of self-esteem, have a very high opinion of themselves. I would suspect that the white-Asian pattern follows the usual one in this regard.

Thus, couldn’t one say that Orientals are more humble than whites?

Besides, why do we have to be unique? Isn’t our existence its own justification, and preserving it inherently justified?

Irish,

I said discussions of matters other than intelligence are rare or absent in the work of race realists, and Rushton generally writes about differences in IQ rather than other differences in behavior. However, you’re right, there is a great deal of discussion of distinctions between Asians and whites in Rushton’s work, so I should have phrased it differently.

What I really want, and what certainly is lacking in Rushton is a theory of white uniqueness. Why is it that we alone created science and all the rest of it? Rushton tells us nothing about that. And we need a theory of uniqueness because we are unique, and that should be explained, not primarily because of the political usefulness of the theory, but just because it would be profoundly interesting.

I did reread the passage on self esteem in Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior before writing this. Rushton merely says blacks have higher self esteem than whites, but nothing about Asians.

Orientals tend not to be as “grown up” as white people. This opinion might seem to be somewhat difficult to back up using the scientific method, (and the expression “grown up” is rather vague).

But let me give a typical example. A while back there was a kerfuffle when some Chinese “journalist” in the USA wrote a disparaging article about blacks. Something along the lines of “Why Chinese hate blacks”. Now, you would think that, having the opportunity to pen such a taboo breaking article, he would have put body and soul into it, and he would have detailed the mountain of really good reasons for the Chinese to dislike blacks. This should have been easy for him, since the blacks and the Chinese are at the opposite poles in terms of intelligence, character, temeperament, whatever.

But he wasted the opportunity, the article was a really disappointing juvenile effort, making all sorts of silly and emotional assertions that could not be backed up. I could have written an article with the same title a thousand times better, and I am white.

But this is how the Chinese mind often seems to work. It’s all emotion and rhetoric. They don’t see the need for reason and logic. For them, an argument is not “a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition”. I am sure that this void in their intellectual capacity is genetic, not cultural.

There could never be a Chinese Jared Taylor, let alone Thomas Jefferson.

martin_uk, Orientals have been accused of a lot of things, but being emotionally volatile in comparison to whites is not one of them.

The stereotype, rather, is of the stolid peasant patiently enduring generations of misery; the expressionless samurai unflinchingly disemboweling himself; the negotiator sucking his teeth as he gently avoids a direct refusal; and above all, by everyone, the overwhelming imperative to avoid a scene or a loss of emotional control. This led to the notion of the “inscrutable Oriental”, whose lack of emotion made him impossible to read or understand.

As for logic, I suspect that Orientals do far better than whites in competitions of mathematics, and what purer measure of logical capability can one wish for?

Doing well in maths competitions is not the same as doing well when it comes to discovering new maths theorems and theories. There are more world famous English (I mean English, I am not even including Scottish) living mathematicians than there are Chinese, yet the IQ test data would predict that with such a huge population the world should be running alive with Chinese mathematicians and physicists all at the cutting edge.

So IQ results are the first word when it comes to working out who will be successful, but they are not the last word. There simply must be something in the white make up that is lacking in the Chinese make up, which IQ tests do not reveal.

This book might be of interest to you, as it goes at the very same topic: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Early-Modern-Science-Islam/dp/0521529948/ref=sr11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197746074&sr=8-1

Basically discusses how Europe was able to surpass so much of the rest of the world in science, technology, and philosophy, despite the Islamic and East Asian worlds being more ahead of them for awhile- though it emphasizes the obvious factor as to how most progress in the Islamic world was made by non-muslims, secular muslims, or muslim heavily influenced by greco-roman science. It might put off alot of people here with it’s little consideration of genetic traits, but then again, most race realists have a nasty habit of not paying much attention to non-genetic ones either.

I mean, east asia and the like really were greatly ahead of Europe for many centuries. China did most of the pre-modern progress, but it should also be noted how east asians invented nearly every form of modern weaponry- gunpowder, fire arms, cannons, mortars, mines, bombs, grenades, rockets, multi-stage rockets, the crossbow, the repeating cross-bow, gattling weaponry, chemical warfare, metal ship hulls, flame-throwers… it’s not exhaustive enough. Although China fell behind Europe in terms of weapon quality shortly after it was transmitted, the Japanese did have the best firearms on Earth at one point.

Also, I think the lower creativity of east asians is grealty exxagerated. Think of all the scientific prizes east asian children and teenagers run off with each year in the US. Think of how profoundly over-represented they are in American Men and Women of Science, is something Lynn detailed. Just look at the sort of prowess they exhibit in scientific prizes in the US and in their own countries. And I really do think the Japanese are no less creative than Europeans. They have amazing artistic and writing abilities for one.

Then again, many here seem to forget how most of the east asians in the US are from professionals and intellectuals in their home countries- very selected, if you read up on the history their immigration to this country. East asians prior to the immigration act in the US had IQ’s roughly the same as Europeans, and, in some cases, slightly lower. I don’t think it can be fully said as to what the IQ of east asians are at this point- probably higher than Europeans, but maybe not that much.

martin_uk,

Wow, you’re using that one deranged scumbag, who’s now in a mental institution for trying to kill one of his neighbors as an example of the roughly 1 billion+ chinese in the world? Hilarious.

“But this is how the Chinese mind often seems to work. It’s all emotion and rhetoric. They don’t see the need for reason and logic. For them, an argument is not “a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition”. I am sure that this void in their intellectual capacity is genetic, not cultural.”

Ah, yes, it’s all genetic. Let’s pay no heed to any single variable beyond that.

“There could never be a Chinese Jared Taylor, let alone Thomas Jefferson.”

You race realists harp on about averages, yet what is this? How can you honestly castigate the staggering 1 billion+ chinese under this? You’re revolting.

Also, I think I’ve read somewhere that the Japanese have just a slightly lower verbal IQ than whites. Saw it on Arthur Hu’s website, actually.

Oh- looks like I was wrong about asians inventing the first metal ship hulls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_ship#Iron-cladding

“The most cherished belief of all about the turtle ship is that it was the world’s first ironclad battleship. It is accepted by all authorities that the curved ‘turtle shell’ of the roof was covered with spikes to discourage boarding, but this is all in the historical record that implies armour plating except for the iron reinforcements noted above between joints in the bulwarks. These are, however, little more than large-scale versions of the iron brackets to be found at the corners of Korean and Japanese chests of drawers, so it is unlikely that these would lead to claims of the turtle being an ironclad ship.”

At the very least, it seems it was the first ship to use significant levels of metal plating in it’s hull.

After taking a break from here for a couple of months I came across this discussion and couldn’t resist getting involved.

“Basically discusses how Europe was able to surpass so much of the rest of the world in science, technology, and philosophy, despite the Islamic and East Asian worlds being more ahead of them for awhile- though it emphasizes the obvious factor as to how most progress in the Islamic world was made by non-muslims, secular muslims, or muslim heavily influenced by greco-roman science.”

Yes, very true.  The success of the Islamic world was very superficial in that it was almost fully based on developments from other (mostly Indo-European) cultures.

“China did most of the pre-modern progress, but it should also be noted how east asians invented nearly every form of modern weaponry- gunpowder, fire arms, cannons, mortars, mines, bombs, grenades, rockets, multi-stage rockets, the crossbow, the repeating cross-bow, gattling weaponry, chemical warfare, metal ship hulls, flame-throwers…”

Ah yes, the ever growing list of Chinese “firsts”.  Does it ever stop growing?  Be careful when you say “MODERN weaponry”.  I would like to know just how “modern” these weapons you list that the Chinese had actually were.  My guesses, based on what I have read is that the original Chinese versions were quite crude and primitive.  Grenades?  Multi-stage rockets?  Give me a break.  Do you also believe these theories that they (the Chinese) discovered America first?

“I mean, east asia and the like really were greatly ahead of Europe for many centuries.”

How so?  What did they do to contribute to the formation of the modern world?  What did they ever do that compared to what the Greeks did?

“…the Japanese did have the best firearms on Earth at one point…”

When?  And why were East Asians so impressed with Western warfare in the 1800s and even before (the Japanese especially)?

“Think of all the scientific prizes east asian children and teenagers run off with each year in the US. Think of how profoundly over-represented they are in American Men and Women of Science, is something Lynn detailed. Just look at the sort of prowess they exhibit in scientific prizes in the US and in their own countries. And I really do think the Japanese are no less creative than Europeans. They have amazing artistic and writing abilities for one.”

Give me one thing an Asian has come up with that is as ground-breaking AND as original as the invention of the automobile or the space shuttle.  Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot….the Chinese invented the first space shuttles of course, or at least they should get credit for them since it was they after all who invented the first rockets.

Ah, Courtney. I’ve seen you as a frequent commentator on Amren, and one of those people who gets viciously up in arms about any claims of east asian achievement.

“Yes, very true. The success of the Islamic world was very superficial in that it was almost fully based on developments from other (mostly Indo-European) cultures.”

Yes, and I think the middle east would be much different if christianity reigned supreme. Wouldn’t you?

“Ah yes, the ever growing list of Chinese “firsts”. Does it ever stop growing?”

I could almost say the same thing about european inventions- why is it that you see no qualms about attributing nearly everything of importance to whites, yet exhibit this kind of skepticism about anyone else doing something else?

“Be careful when you say “MODERN weaponry”. I would like to know just how “modern” these weapons you list that the Chinese had actually were.”

“Grenades? Multi-stage rockets? Give me a break. Do you also believe these theories that they (the Chinese) discovered America first?”

You would do best to dig through a single historical work that says they haven’t done these things- and no, I don’t think they went to America.

Either way, on the topic of grenades, they’re not a particularly complex piece of technology, though still significant and take alot to develop, so try out so Needham:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade#History

I mean hey, you even have an illustration right there from the same time period.

And we can see the case of multi-stage rockets going back to Needhman, again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistage_rocket#Development

“How so? What did they do to contribute to the formation of the modern world? What did they ever do that compared to what the Greeks did?”

Wow, maybe dig through a historical work dealing with these things? I’d suggest Joseph Needham’s work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham

His “Science and Civilisation in China” series is the singularly most exhaustive and authoritive work in exisence on the topic of pre-modern chinese technological and scientific developments- with the backings of huge historical research institutes, 25 volumes often totaling to well over 1,000 pages each. And, the text takes up huge pages- each volume is hundreds of dollars each, and weighs many pounds for just books, which is why you can only really find them in libraries.

There’s plenty of other historical works to have branched off from Needham detailing the same, so why not check them out? I mean wow, that book I mentioned dealt with the VERY SAME THING. It explicitely discusses what the Chinese did, and how they were so greatly ahead of Europe- I mean, there was a huge gap in real European technological development, stretching from the Ancient Greeks to the Renaissance. Not like Europeans didn’t develop vast amounts in terms of philosophy and the like, but really….

“When? And why were East Asians so impressed with Western warfare in the 1800s and even before (the Japanese especially)? ”

Um, just a couple centuries before the 1800’s? They fell behind because the Japanese destroyed and prohibited many firearms due to fear of massive peasant revolts.

“Give me one thing an Asian has come up with that is as ground-breaking AND as original as the invention of the automobile or the space shuttle.”

I just gave a huge variety of them. Those ones have changed the face of warfare and many other things.

As for those east asian scientists, try this out as well: http://books.google.com/books?id=-sZAX7M1vBIC&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=american+men+and+women+of+science+weyl&source=web&ots=LZqZmGed5-&sig=W61fcXPdZDsg1_8pMYMFc8VsI20

Scroll down abit on Lynn’s entry. They’re overreprestend in these publcations by a factor of 200-1000%.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot….the Chinese invented the first space shuttles of course, or at least they should get credit for them since it was they after all who invented the first rockets. ”

Maybe read up some more, then. And again, why are you taking this tone of ridiculing their ethnocentrism when… you’re doing the same exact thing?

I’m not trying to divert from the main point of this blog, nor go in line with the whole “white guilt” tidbit by harping on about east asian achievements, if I am, but let’s atleast try to have a little objectivity?

And really, Murray’s “Human Achievement” is deeply flawed. It’s certainly not enough for you to trumpt europeans as being responsible for a full-blown 97% OF ALL TECHNOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS. Surely, throughout human history, it’s been rather disproportionate for europeans, but really….

And citing him on the topic of art and music won’t get you any brownie points. Those are all very relativistic, going in line with how Murray builds almost his entire case of their frequencies in encyclopedic works.

“Ah, Courtney. I’ve seen you as a frequent commentator on Amren, and one of those people who gets viciously up in arms about any claims of east asian achievement. “

Okay, you are already wrong here, so I am not counting on the rest of your post being accurate.  I most certainly give Asians the credit they deserve.  So when you say “any claims of east asian achievement” you are completely taking my posts you have read out of context.

“Yes, and I think the middle east would be much different if christianity reigned supreme. Wouldn’t you?”

No, because they already had a shot at it and failed before the religion ever got to Europe.  I agree that the Middle East would have been better but it wouldn’t have been equal to Europe.

“I could almost say the same thing about european inventions- why is it that you see no qualms about attributing nearly everything of importance to whites, yet exhibit this kind of skepticism about anyone else doing something else? “

See my first point.

“You would do best to dig through a single historical work that says they haven’t done these things- and no, I don’t think they went to America. “

Oh, so you come back with Wikipedia articles.  That is a completely useless online encyclopedia.  The articles on there are written by volunteers.  I find it interesting that Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I have ever seen that tries to overrepresent Asian achievements in anything.  Every other encyclopedia gives an account similar to what Charles Murray would give.

“There’s plenty of other historical works to have branched off from Needham detailing the same, so why not check them out? I mean wow, that book I mentioned dealt with the VERY SAME THING. It explicitely discusses what the Chinese did, and how they were so greatly ahead of Europe- I mean, there was a huge gap in real European technological development, stretching from the Ancient Greeks to the Renaissance. Not like Europeans didn’t develop vast amounts in terms of philosophy and the like, but really…. “

I do a lot of reading on the history of science and I have yet to see one book on the topic that DOES NOT give Europeans credit for AT LEAST 75% of scientific achievements.  It is these “historians” who specialize in ethnic studies such as “Native American pottery” and “Chinese technology” who feel the need to over examine the possibilities of other races achieving more than their own race only because of this superficial white guilt they have which is why they went into their absurd professions to begin with.

“They fell behind because the Japanese destroyed and prohibited many firearms due to fear of massive peasant revolts.”

And I guess the Japanese suddenly forgot about all this when Perry showed up.

“Scroll down abit on Lynn’s entry. They’re overreprestend in these publcations by a factor of 200-1000%. “

You haven’t answered my question or addressed it in any way.  Guess what?  I acknowledge that Japan has more patents than Europe or America.  But this doesn’t mean they are as creative as we are.  Most of their patents consist of improving white inventions. 

“Maybe read up some more, then. And again, why are you taking this tone of ridiculing their ethnocentrism when… you’re doing the same exact thing? “

I’m stating the facts.  I am doing something original for once in this PC day and age.  Why don’t you tell me something on here that is original?

“And really, Murray’s “Human Achievement” is deeply flawed. It’s certainly not enough for you to trumpt europeans as being responsible for a full-blown 97% OF ALL TECHNOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS. Surely, throughout human history, it’s been rather disproportionate for europeans, but really…. “

But yet every book on the history of science says the same thing he does.  Every encyclopedia article on the matter does as well (except for your Wikipedia).  And I see in your last sentence there that you agree with me some what.

“And citing him on the topic of art and music won’t get you any brownie points. Those are all very relativistic, going in line with how Murray builds almost his entire case of their frequencies in encyclopedic works. “

I wasn’t planning on it.

“Okay, you are already wrong here, so I am not counting on the rest of your post being accurate. I most certainly give Asians the credit they deserve. So when you say “any claims of east asian achievement” you are completely taking my posts you have read out of context. ”

You often exhibit quite a feverish skepticism about any major accomplishment by them. I remember you were once going by the insane idea that Roger Bacon invented GUNPOWDER!

“No, because they already had a shot at it and failed before the religion ever got to Europe. I agree that the Middle East would have been better but it wouldn’t have been equal to Europe. ”

What does this mean? Is this going by the works of a third-rate psychologist on middle eastern IQ’s, and the idea of the ice age determing every single human historical variable?

“See my first point. ”

It’s the same thing. So Courtney, beyond gunpowder, what significant developments do you think east asians have done throughout history?

“Oh, so you come back with Wikipedia articles. That is a completely useless online encyclopedia. The articles on there are written by volunteers. ”

Wow, if you actually payed attention, they had simple REFERENCES for every single point! How wrong can you go with simple articles on technology?

“I find it interesting that Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia I have ever seen that tries to overrepresent Asian achievements in anything.”

Oh of course, Wikipedia is run by a conspiracy to make east asians not look like the intellectualy myopic study drones racialists frequently pain them as.

“Every other encyclopedia gives an account similar to what Charles Murray would give.”

Is this a joke? Murray’s work is pure trash. All he does is quote an array of histories and encyclopedias on this topic, building his case from their frequencies of names and the lengths of their entries, many of which vary GREATLY, then runs them through his own cheap calculations and his own opinions to push off some ridiculous level of european dominance- and discarding discoveries and technologies simply on the basis that we don’t know EXACTLY who made them, throwing away many european and non-european developments.

Then again, I’m criticizing this work on a site that’s built so much of it’s foundation on that same book. Wonderful thinking. Let’s throw away the plague of white guilt by using a haphazard historical work that comes back with an even greater piece of misanthropy and racial supremacy that castigates ALL non-whites- all to fight that anti-white line of thought, even though white racialists, particularly of the Amren variety, frequently trash on non-whites.

Along with the hilariously simple-minded and intellectualy myopic racialist measures of social behavior and social dynamics. I mean wow “The Realist”, you’re trying to side-step the entire case of christianity, a very significant non-genetic variable, one that doesn’t run along the fatalistic racialist worldview of civilization progress as simply being whites adapting to this? Get real. I could go at so much of this.

“I do a lot of reading on the history of science and I have yet to see one book on the topic that DOES NOT give Europeans credit for AT LEAST 75% of scientific achievements.”

What books have you read on this topic? Have you done any statistical figures to come up with that? If you’ve really done alot of reading, you’d atleast have come across the monolithic works of Needham just once.

“It is these “historians” who specialize in ethnic studies such as “Native American pottery” and “Chinese technology” who feel the need to over examine the possibilities of other races achieving more than their own race only because of this superficial white guilt they have which is why they went into their absurd professions to begin with. ”

Oh, the white guilt line. Obviously nearly any case of some historian trying to paint just one portion of the entire culmination of any non-european culture as not being some mass of degeneracy, or not trying to white-wash (no pun intended) european history is driven by this.

Even weirder, since Needham and his institute have been doing this since the 50’s.

“And I guess the Japanese suddenly forgot about all this when Perry showed up. ”

No, they simply fell behind in weapons technology because of that.

“You haven’t answered my question or addressed it in any way. Guess what? I acknowledge that Japan has more patents than Europe or America. But this doesn’t mean they are as creative as we are. Most of their patents consist of improving white inventions. ”

I’ve heard this alot to tone down the case of Japanese patents. Though I ask- do you have any PROOF they’re just improvements?

“I’m stating the facts. I am doing something original for once in this PC day and age. Why don’t you tell me something on here that is original? ”

You’re not stating any facts. You’re screaming about east asian ethnocentrism when you- and this entire site- are doing the same thing. You haven’t disputed anything I’ve laid out beyond citing Murray’s supposedly authoritive works and your own cheap impressions.

I should also note that most histories of science and the like explicitely focus primarily on European developments- not because that’s all there is, but because…. they’re published and written from european majority perspectives. And since he’s citing histories from european majority countries, well, I think you know where I’m getting at. Not that they’re biased.

They’re sometimes even quite clear about that. One example would be Isaac Asimov’s “Chronology of Discovery” or whatever that I’ve seen cited by racialists on how not a single one of the people in there was black- even though Asimov details how he’s primarily focusing on what Europeans have come up with.

I mean, many of the things he lists aren’t even real developments. Like the discovery of the Americas. Guess who’s perspective that was written from and for?

BSP,

Murray’s method of examining the number and length of entries on scientific figures in reference books on science is a heroic attempt at objective measurement of scientific accomplishment. I can think of none better, so I see no reason not to take his book as authoritative. Your point about intellectual histories being Eurocentric is very old hat. Intellectual historians adopted a critical perspective on Eurocentrism decades ago and adjusted history accordingly. Murray sought out reference works on science with a multiculturalist bias when he was doing his research and found that they yielded the same results as more traditional works. No Chinese or Indian reference books on science present a substantially different account of the major figures in scientific history than Western reference books do. The reason for this is simply that almost all the major scientific figures since 800 BC have been white. It’s just a matter of fact.

The Realist,

I do happen to have Murray’s book. I think he makes many amazing and well-written points in regards to the topic, but what I just happen to have a problem with is his overall methodology and conclusions. And again, I did not say anything about actual eurocentrism. Again, I just said that texts published and written by european majority groups within european majority countries are typically- not all- going to focus primarily on western developments, but not out of a sense of bias, ignorance or ethnocentrism.

And I know what passage you’re talking about. He just mentions two texts mentioning the sort of thing, one of them he cites himself on the inventories. He doesn’t do much to circumvent those criticisms, again with the case of Needham, who’s lists of developments often don’t even appear in such texts. Again, not because “eurocentric bias”, nor because they’re less important, but simply what they’re focusing on.

Remember that the whole thing is based around the frequencies of names in the texts, and the lengths of their entries. That’s really not much special for Murray to build his case upon, nor set himself apart from so many others. Especially when that could amazingly reflect the views of the writers. I even noticed that he DOES cite Asimov’s work on the topic, which, as I said, was one of those texts that explicitely made their focus.

And his range of sources for all of his work isn’t that big either. On the general scientific inventories, how many texts does he cite? 21. Mathematics? 7. Medicine? 5. Technology? 4.

I was being too hard on Murray’s work to call it “garbage” earlier, but I’m not too impressed. I’ve never been impressed with Murray to begin with. The Bell Curve is easily one of the most shining examples, what with it looking at just 10 years of US economic history, basing almost his entire case on their interpretations of the NLYS data, using just a handful of variables to describe the backgrounds of their participants, even admitting how IQ can explain very little of the economic differences in the US, likewise how the social changes seen in American history are vastly too large to have anything to do with IQ- they admitting as well.

Murray mentions only a handful of cases of biology in this book. Only 2 directly involving IQ. It’s quite obvious that biology is playing a role in all of this. He obviously avoided those because it’s really not that big of a focus of his book, and to some extent a case of PC, but it’s also very obvious how strong the non-biological factors are, how they’re heavily interlocking, closely interweaving and flucuating constantly with eachother in all cases. Nothing seems to be logarithimic and fatalistic here, which is what you seem to think- especially how you base much of your writings off. Murray can’t avoid any of this, which is telling from a man who thinks IQ is almost everything in modern society.

Besides, Murray cited very few non-english, german, and french sources: http://objectivistcenter.org/cth—893-WhatHathMan_Wrought.aspx

“The situation with regard to non-Western achievements is worse. Murray relies almost entirely on materials in Roman-alphabet languages, leaving translations as his only means—with a few exceptions—of using non-Western histories and compendia. The exceptions are in Japanese, where, with the help of a Japanese graduate student, Murray was able to include some arts sources. But bizarrely, Murray claims (p. 603, note 10) that he was not able to find original sources on the history of science written in Japanese. He takes this to be symptomatic of the state of affairs in Russian, Arabic, Hindi, and Chinese as well. Strange: a scholar of Japanese was able to find what appear to be several such sources in an internet search, including one housed at the very institution Murray’s graduate student was attending!

It also happens that there is in English a well-regarded compendium of Chinese science and technology. However, Murray claims that this work could not be included among his sources without admitting compendia focused on individual European countries such as Germany (doing this would inflate the German numbers at least as much as the Chinese). Poppycock! China is a civilization-size polity comparable to the West as embodied in the European Union or NATO—and the same might be said of the Arab world and the Indian sub-continent, too. And if, in fact, Murray disputes this claim, what justification has he for putting data on those civilizations’ art, philosophy, and literature on a par with that of the West as a whole, rather than France or Germany? Murray is right to insist on uniform standards of measurement across sources. But the lack of attention to non-Western sources is a serious shortcoming for a book that makes universal claims about human history. ”

I remember how even blatantly said that those who would cite things like Needhman would also have to contend with works on German science- yet he really doesn’t focus on any non-european countries individually.

BSP,

I acknowledge the things that Realist lists in his article (inventions that the Chinese came up with). But the origins of some of this stuff is quite blurry. I read some sources that say that Europeans were the ones who developed the first (REAL) compass and others that say the Chinese were the first. I read some sources that say that Europeans developed gunpowder separately from the Chinese. Agricultural stuff like the plow and the harness could go either way as well. I have read sources that claim that the stirrup and the crossbow were Indo-European. Quite frankly, if it is found that the Chinese really are fully responsible for all this stuff, I could really care less. This stuff is just a blip on the radar compared to what Europeans have done.

I also acknowledge that China was more advanced than Europe during the Middle Ages. But I honestly find this irrelevant. These historians who love to over praise the Chinese and go on and on about how they were so much more advanced than us for so long (whatever that means) need to explain why the modern world didn’t develop in China and why the Chinese never really came close to developing science. Murray (who obviously greatly admires the Chinese) even explains in great detail how the Chinese, even while being more advanced for “so long”, never really developed what anyone can consider true science.

I compliment the Chinese for being good at innovating up to a certain point. They possibly developed a great deal of technology at one point in history but it was all strictly used for practical purposes. It was Europeans and only Europeans who tried to venture into the “how and why” behind the way things work, and hence, Europe created true science and modernized while China DID NOT. I also find it quite humorous how PC “historians” can only make the Chinese appear better than the West by comparing them to us while we were at our lowest point in history.

I also acknowledge that East Asians have certain qualities that Europeans lack, but creativity isn’t one of them. Fair enough?

As far as Middle Easterners go, numerous global IQ studies have been done, and overall the populations of the Middle East have lower IQs than Europeans. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but we need to be looking at overall patterns. I have also spent a great deal of time around Turks, to give you one example, and I think it is safe for me to come to the conclusion that these people aren’t as smart, overall, as Europeans. It also makes sense considering how so many masses of people over there sheepishly follow a religion like Islam. I think this says a lot in itself about the overall intelligence of those people.

“Wow, if you actually payed attention, they had simple REFERENCES for every single point! How wrong can you go with simple articles on technology?”

Let me repeat. Every other Encyclopedia gives accounts similar to Murray. Go look at Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia and MSN Encarta and you will see what I am talking about. As far as textbooks on the topic go, read “The Ascent of Man” “A history of knowledge” and “The Gale Encyclopedia of Science”. I have a list of many others that I can get to you when I get back to my home computer on Tuesday.

I would also like to add that it is absurd to claim that these sources have been eurocentric. Every one of them goes out of their way to devote good-sized sections on what non-whites contributed. But yet still, those sections become almost unnoticeable after reading all the entries on what Europeans contributed. Sorry but these just reflect the facts.

To answer your question about the Japanese, is there any new discovery that has come about in your lifetime and that has completely altered your life that has come from them? Let’s see,…. the cell phone was developed in Finland. The internet was developed by a white man. Please go ahead and throw something at me. Creative Nintendo games don’t count because white people invented the first video games. Plasma-screened TVs (if the Japanese even invented those) don’t count because they didn’t invent the first television. So, please, tell me about something original they have come up with recently.

On the MSN every day there is some sort of a new discovery listed. I almost always read about them. When it is something minor like a car that can do something kind of cool (Europeans invented the first car) or a toothbrush that you don’t need toothpaste for (worthless), it is almost always developed by the Japanese. But when it is something like the discovery of a new galaxy or the development of a new satellite or the discovery of a new animal species it is almost always a white guy. What does this tell you? The History Channel recently did an article on the greatest scientists of the year…they were almost all white. Most Nobel Prize winners in Physics and other sciences are still white. What other evidence do you need?

Realist addresses your other points, so I think this is enough for me to write for now at least.

Really, I’m not trying to dispute the underlying message of the dominance and grandeur of western culture, nor how this has been so heavily overlooked and trashed upon in the intellectual undercurrents you describe- it’s just the work you’re relying on here.

Murray’s book really does boil down to a vague measurement of a popularity contest among academics. I mean, even reading through his listing of significant figures on various technological and scientific inventories is this blatant- some amateur astronomer who discovered the transit of venus gets put on there, when one can easily name numerous non-european astronomers and the like who’ve done things of similar recognition- but, it’s all down to a case of their frequencies and lengths of entries? Completely ridiculous. Many little other factors can affect that.

I would like to correct something in one of my previous posts. After doing some research it appears that it was a group of Americans who actually developed the first cell phone ever, but the case remains that they were all white. I don’t know where I heard that it was developed in Finland before. I also did some research on the history of plasma TV and the inventors of that were white as well (as opposed to Japanese like I speculated). Obviously my overall point hasn’t lost any credibility regardless.

“I acknowledge the things that Realist lists in his article (inventions that the Chinese came up with).”

He didn’t mention any inventions by the Chinese.

“But the origins of some of this stuff is quite blurry. I read some sources that say that Europeans were the ones who developed the first (REAL) compass and others that say the Chinese were the first.” Blurry in what sense? It’s pretty much universally accepted that Europeans never developed this, so I’d love to hear where you get this idea. Technically the Olmecs of central america invented the first magnetic compass, but I don’t think it was as advanced as the chinese one. “I read some sources that say that Europeans developed gunpowder separately from the Chinese. ” Yes- that source probably being the hilariously fraudulent white-history.com site, which is the only place I’ve ever heard the idea of Roger Bacon developing gunpowder. Is that what you’re getting at? That gunpowder came out of England? “Agricultural stuff like the plow and the harness could go either way as well.” You have sources on this? “I have read sources that claim that the stirrup and the crossbow were Indo-European.” ….And these would be? “Quite frankly, if it is found that the Chinese really are fully responsible for all this stuff, I could really care less.” Well, they did. Yet you still seem to find it almost painful to recognize any of this. “This stuff is just a blip on the radar compared to what Europeans have done.” How so? “I also acknowledge that China was more advanced than Europe during the Middle Ages. But I honestly find this irrelevant.” And you’re still doing all of this. “These historians who love to over praise the Chinese and go on and on about how they were so much more advanced than us for so long (whatever that means) need to explain why the modern world didn’t develop in China and why the Chinese never really came close to developing science. Murray (who obviously greatly admires the Chinese) even explains in great detail how the Chinese, even while being more advanced for “so long”, never really developed what anyone can consider true science. ” They didn’t have much in the way of true science, no. Though pretty much all modern historians also realize that non-genetic factors were very important, numerous ones, again all constantly interlocking and interweaving with eachother. It’s quite telling how Murray couldn’t get around this, when he’s one of those people who thinks IQ is destiny in the world, when he’s given praise to the works of Rushton and the like. It’s even further telling when Hart, who tries to boil down most of human history to IQ differences and little else, can’t around this- even The Realist. I wonder if you see this as well? “I compliment the Chinese for being good at innovating up to a certain point.” Great. “They possibly developed a great deal of technology at one point in history but it was all strictly used for practical purposes.” What does this even mean? “It was Europeans and only Europeans who tried to venture into the “how and why” behind the way things work, and hence, Europe created true science and modernized while China DID NOT. ” Yes. And it’s quite important and quite a challenge to consider in tandem with your ideology that these things certainly haven’t been universal phenomenons, and how cultural and civilizational progress is dependent on vastly more than genetic factors. That’s something you really have to get around on. “I also find it quite humorous how PC “historians” can only make the Chinese appear better than the West by comparing them to us while we were at our lowest point in history. ” China and Europe were largely equivalent up until the Fall of Rome, so what can they do. “I also acknowledge that East Asians have certain qualities that Europeans lack, but creativity isn’t one of them. Fair enough? ” Sure. I just find it inane how you and others of your stripe paint them as so profoundly uncreative that almost none of them have anything approaching original thought, like the one cretin that said there’d never be a chinese Jared Taylor- well, not like that’s something to get upset about. “As far as Middle Easterners go, numerous global IQ studies have been done, and overall the populations of the Middle East have lower IQs than Europeans.” Global IQ studies? By a third-rate psychologist like Lynn? Besides, do you have any proof these IQ differences have remained wholly unchanged since the closure of the ice age? “Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but we need to be looking at overall patterns. I have also spent a great deal of time around Turks, to give you one example, and I think it is safe for me to come to the conclusion that these people aren’t as smart, overall, as Europeans.” So are these Turks representative samples of their populations? “It also makes sense considering how so many masses of people over there sheepishly follow a religion like Islam. I think this says a lot in itself about the overall intelligence of those people. ” Oh god you can’t be serious. You’re boiling down the dominance of Islam to IQ differences? That’s just INSANE. You’d best dig up any basic history or psychology book to get a better picture, just wow. “Let me repeat. Every other Encyclopedia gives accounts similar to Murray.” Do you have any specific cites? “Go look at Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia and MSN Encarta and you will see what I am talking about. As far as textbooks on the topic go, read “The Ascent of Man” “A history of knowledge” and “The Gale Encyclopedia of Science”. I have a list of many others that I can get to you when I get back to my home computer on Tuesday. ” I’d seriously like you to show me specifically how these were identical to Murray’s ridiculous figure, which he based largely around the frequencies and lengths of their entries. Do you honestly see anything wrong with Needham’s work anyway? I picked out my copy of Murray’s book today, and went to the section where he compiled all of the 4,002 people from various fields on what he detailed. Then I discarded everyone from the non-scientific fields, those being art, literature, and music- all of which are heavily relativistic. I mean, how can his work on something like art be considered so set apart from all other works in the area? He claims that about 75% of all major artistic accomplishments came out of Europe. Maybe in terms of originality, some fields were quite unique to Europe, but that high of a frequency? For art? And to even consider this as so objective? He even pushes off Picasso as the second greatest artist of all time. How many people do you think would object to this? I certainly do. Da Vinci isn’t even in the top 10! So if Murray’s work is pretty much non-authoritive on aestethic fields, how can it be so authoritive on scientific fields? Philosophy is also another topic, though I can also agree that Europe has had the greatest philosophical tradition, but he certainly didn’t claim europeans came up with a full-blown 97% of it. That’s still rather more relativistic than science. But how many significant and major scientific figures does this leave us with? 1,442. Again, many of these ranked on their significance by their lengths of entries and frequencies within those texts, and only listed because we know their names- we don’t know the names of the people who invented the 0 in India and among the Maya, which is obviously a significant mathematical accomplishment, but we just can’t include them because we don’t know their names. Murray tries to push off the idea that there could very well be just as many european technological developments that we don’t know about, and we don’t know the ones who put them together- like citing the Antikytheria mechanism. Even though this is basically pushing off the idea of a huge swath of technology being developed within those timeframes when there was only such a limited amount of those things people could put together and discover, and the whole issue of how these things could spread out comes into play. It’s universally recognized that the Romans did very poorly in developing new technologies compared to the Greeks, despite how we know such vast swaths of their history and social structure, so what else could there be? Are there things we’re missing from the dregs of pre-1400’s europe, which accomplished very little in technology and science, the only fields it really did anything in being philosophy, architecture, and engineering? I seriously don’t get these significant figures he lists in the inventories either. Only one non-white is listed among them all, that being the Persian chemist Geber. People like Frederick Abel, the English chemist who has an index score of just…. 1, who invented Cordite, which allowed for smokeless gunpowder. And he just put together a few other gunpowder related inventions. Odd how the chinese guy who invented gunpowder itself, along with the numerous other improvemens and innovations on gunpowder and other related chemicals prior to those times both by whites and non-whites are barely or never mentioned. Where does this seriously come from? Since these are also cases of military technology, where’s all the chinese inclusions again? These same methodologies he uses to come to the conclusion that scientific development has been heavily declining since the 1850’s, which is really just a ridiculous idea when you slightly think about it. So, I again won’t deny that Europeans have developed a disproportionate level of technology and science since the 1,400’s, but is this seriously the best you have? “I would also like to add that it is absurd to claim that these sources have been eurocentric. Every one of them goes out of their way to devote good-sized sections on what non-whites contributed. ” If you’ve actually been paying attention, I’ve never said anything about them being eurocentric. And as I said, in some cases, Asimov made it explicit he was focusing on European accomplishments. Eurocentrism would imply heavy bias and denigration of non-europeans. That’s different from just largely focusing on them. “But yet still, those sections become almost unnoticeable after reading all the entries on what Europeans contributed. Sorry but these just reflect the facts.” It wouldn’t really matter if whites were responsible for every single technological advancement on Earth. It would just depend on how heavily genetic it is- which you think is deep-seated. That’s a great outlook on humanity. “To answer your question about the Japanese, is there any new discovery that has come about in your lifetime and that has completely altered your life that has come from them?” Not sure, since I’m not too keen on the history of recent technology. Though it seems they did invent the bullet-train: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#History But oh no, I’m citing WIKIPEDIA! Even though it gives basic references, unless it’s more of that insane conspiracy you allude to? “Let’s see,…. the cell phone was developed in Finland.”

But isn’t that… an improvement? Uh oh.

“The internet was developed by a white man. Please go ahead and throw something at me.”

I did earlier with that piece by Lynn. Why not this as well?

http://www.japan-acad.go.jp/english/activ.htm

“Creative Nintendo games don’t count because white people invented the first video games. “

Oh, so I guess anything beyond the primitive arcade games of the late 60’s and early 70’s are invalid? The Japanese have dominated video game hardware outside of PC’s for decades up until Microsoft’s entry. Nearly all european-built consoles before that failed terribly. Not that I think this is some genetic defecit on the part of whites- I don’t even think east asians have a 5-8 point advantage, considering how nearly all east asians in the US came and still come from expats and intellectuals in their homelands. Something that almost everyone ignores.

This is getting ridiculous. I merely offered some insight on the case of east asians, then you come barging in with your typical inane skepticism of almost anything they’ve come up with, and you like many others waving around Murray’s work. I’m surprised you haven’t cited the Tocharian desert nomads, which many white nationalists are pushing off as being so heavily behind Ancient China’s development.

“Plasma-screened TVs (if the Japanese even invented those) don’t count because they didn’t invent the first television. So, please, tell me about something original they have come up with recently. “

But I guess plasma-screens can’t be cited in favor of them since it’s just another IMPROVEMENT, right?

And something original? What is your problem? You people act like east asians are some huge mass of intellectualy defecient study drones. You degrade so many portions of their basic humanity endlessly. That all too easily reminds me of how you people cite their higher intelligence to avoid claims of being “white supremacists”, when it’s damn obvious you do think they’re inferior. You think any intellectual advantage they have is worthless because of how profoundly uncreative they are. It’s nothing more than lip-service for you.

“On the MSN every day there is some sort of a new discovery listed. I almost always read about them. When it is something minor like a car that can do something kind of cool (Europeans invented the first car) or a toothbrush that you don’t need toothpaste for (worthless), it is almost always developed by the Japanese. But when it is something like the discovery of a new galaxy or the development of a new satellite or the discovery of a new animal species it is almost always a white guy. What does this tell you? “

Do you seriously count these things up? Have you ignored everything else I’ve cited? You’re just throwing up pop science news on MSN. Wow.

“The History Channel recently did an article on the greatest scientists of the year…they were almost all white.”

Oh boy the History Channel. I thought we were talking about academic works as well?

“Most Nobel Prize winners in Physics and other sciences are still white. What other evidence do you need?”

And Jewish. Either way, is the Nobel Prize the end all of scientific accomplishment? Why have you been ignoring everything else I’ve cited?

‘Sure. I just find it inane how you and others of your stripe paint them as so profoundly uncreative that almost none of them have anything approaching original thought, like the one cretin that said there’d never be a chinese Jared Taylor- well, not like that’s something to get upset about.”

BSP, what a profound insight?

Considering how much energy you have spent lauding Chinese accomplishments and ingenuity, it is odd that were China being invaded by millions of African, Middle Eastern, or even (gasp) European “immigrants,” you feel that they would not benefit from a Jared Taylor of their own? Is not China and Chinese identity worthy of protecting, even in the hypothetical?

Can’t have it both ways, Comrade!

To The Realist, Courtney, Comrade BSP, and All regarding:

“By humility I do not mean self-abasement, false modesty, or lack of self-respect. I simply mean the awareness of one’s own fallibility and the ability to recognize when one is wrong. The Chinese government always assumed that it had a monopoly on the truth and therefore insisted on the absolute subjection of its population. The Western authorities, by contrast, were much more accepting of their own fallibility and were thus more friendly to technological innovation and individual initiative.”

It is in keeping with that above citation, that I will point out that even when a Western country (or the civilization as a unit) succumbs to an irrational monopoly on the “truth,” it also normally holds a popular and healthy ability to be critical of that “truth” in relation to its assumed totalities. Take for example Nazi Germany, which was in the last century, one of the top two Western experiments in dictatorial adventures in utopian “truth” enforcements. The Soviet Union of course being the second.

In both countries, there would remain the ongoing “problem” of marshaling all critical

sociopolitical thought toward an all encompassing “truth” via ideology. Of the two, Nazi Germany would remain the more openly freethinking; this was particularly true in the area of science as applied to armaments development. In the areas of: tanks, rockets, and aircrafts (particularly jet aircrafts,) the Third Reich remained reasonably grounded in reality over ideological “truth.” Another instance worth mentioning, would be the fact that the Germans did have an atomic bomb program later in the war, despite Hitler’s earlier antagonisms against “Jewish physics.”

The Stalinist regime too, would have its examples on somewhat similar grounds, such as the darkly comic Katyusha rocket launchers’ eventual development and deployment during the war. See these links, to get the typically and grisly ironic Stalinist “jokes” here:

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

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

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

One could go on and on, about such instances of sanity in the insane asylums that were those two regimes, but my point is made, they did exist. Moreover, of the two, Nazi Germany remained the more “challenged” regime (through resistance of all forms) over the USSR. Why might that be?

Get a couple of comprehensive history books on both Germany and Russia, and read them; that should cure the confusion, if not current racial and cultural “truths” on this subject. Even better, include in the read a equally comprehensive look at Japan (Tokugawa to Modern Japan) in the mix. Ask yourself some incisive questions while doing so also, such as had it been General Goring or General Zhukov running Japan after the war, would they have gotten the same results toward Japan’s future, as General McArthur obtained following victory?

Thus, The Realist’s point is made; even under so insane and absurd an “accepted” policy as “Multiculturalism,” the West must survive. If not, then you can guess what the world will be like?

Gone are the “evil whites,” and the journey is into the night?

God help us all, seems too mild here?

John PM, 1/1/2008.

“BSP, what a profound insight?

Considering how much energy you have spent lauding Chinese accomplishments and ingenuity, it is odd that were China being invaded by millions of African, Middle Eastern, or even (gasp) European “immigrants,” you feel that they would not benefit from a Jared Taylor of their own? Is not China and Chinese identity worthy of protecting, even in the hypothetical?

Can’t have it both ways, Comrade!”

Oh, I’m not really sure. I think racial identity matters to a degree, but certainly not in the way you people think it does. It’s something I’m still trying to work out. So I don’t think Taylor could be of much help.

Likewise, how could they benefit on a site that’s been going on about Taylor’s work being a failure to affect the racial opinions of american whites?

There’s another post I might make on Murray’s book later. I don’t need to repeat myself further that I’m denigrating western culture, nor whining about eurocentrism, anything like that- I’m even at odds with many of his inclusions on European developments. His inventories are heavily absent of climatologists, evolutionary biologists, ecologists etc.

Comrade BSP, naughty, naughty, you are trying to skirt the question here:

“Oh, I’m not really sure. I think racial identity matters to a degree, but certainly not in the way you people think it does. It’s something I’m still trying to work out. So I don’t think Taylor could be of much help.”

I am asking a specific hypothetical question here; I want to know if you think a China, dedicated to multiculturalism and the replacement of the Chinese majority with non-Chinese would be acceptable to you? Indeed, the Communist masters and “intellectuals” would be behaving exactly like the “elites” of the West and purposely demonizing their own and promoting the extraordinary “rights” of outlanders, in the scenario I am asking you to address. The Chinese as a people, would be having shoved down their throats that it is “racist” to honor Chinese culture and history; that to do so is indulging in “Chinese privilege;” and that the only “good” China that can be, is one that reflects the “diversity” of the “global village.” Moreover, ethnic Chinese at home and abroad, along with other East Asians, would be officially discriminated against in terms of: university placements, job recruitment, immigration, and social welfare programs.

Under such a scenario, do you not feel that a Chinese Jared Taylor or Ian Jobling struggling to reverse such self-destructive insanity would be welcome?

Come on Comrade BSP, give me a straight answer here even if it is only a yes or no one!

BSP,

I am not really sure if your last post is worth responding to. I noticed that throughout the whole thing you seem to be keen on responding to every little comment I make, but then after each little paragraph in which you individually respond to a whole set of comments supporting one of my arguments, you make an overgeneralization about what I said based on just one of my comments while ignoring my other points even though you had just gotten done commenting on all of them.

For example, you respond to each of my points about why Middle Easterners are less intelligent overall (so it is obvious to me that you have read and thought about all my reasons for coming to that conclusion), but then you end by accusing me of claiming Middle Easterners are less intelligent just because they are Muslim. This doesn’t make any sense because just a few lines up you clearly read and understood from my post that I gave you more than one point on why I believe this about Middle Easterners (it is NOT only because they are Muslim as you accuse me of implying).

You do this in other areas as well. You accuse me of claiming that Europeans are more creative only based on Nobel Prizes when I clearly gave you many other reasons. And then a few lines up you accuse me of coming to my conclusion on this matter only because I read MSN. You are constanlty contradicting yourself in many ways throughout your post. First you attack each of my points supporting one of my individual arguments, but then at the end you only focus on one of my points and then accuse me of basing my entire argument on that one point.

“He didn’t mention any inventions by the Chinese. ”

You didn’t read the article clearly then.

“Blurry in what sense? It’s pretty much universally accepted that Europeans never developed this, so I’d love to hear where you get this idea. Technically the Olmecs of central america invented the first magnetic compass, but I don’t think it was as advanced as the chinese one.”

It is NOT “universally” accepted. Be careful when you use that strong word. I have read a number of sources that claim that Europeans could have invented these things independently. Enclyclopedia Britannica is one of those sources. I have never read about the Olmecs inventing any sort of compass, EVER. And no, I don’t get my information from that stupid white history website that you were refering to. I am very much against this whole nordicism movement that tries to claim that blonde Europeans started every single civilization. If you think that I am making the same argument then you haven’t really read my posts.

“Though pretty much all modern historians also realize that non-genetic factors were very important, numerous ones, again all constantly interlocking and interweaving with eachother. It’s quite telling how Murray couldn’t get around this, when he’s one of those people who thinks IQ is destiny in the world, when he’s given praise to the works of Rushton and the like. It’s even further telling when Hart, who tries to boil down most of human history to IQ differences and little else, can’t around this- even The Realist. I wonder if you see this as well? ”

Here again you are misquoting me. I never said there weren’t other factors. I just don’t think that genetic reasons can be ignored.

“What does this even mean?”

I already explained it.

“China and Europe were largely equivalent up until the Fall of Rome, so what can they do. ”

What???? I don’t see how this addresses my point. You tend to do this a lot in your posts. I was saying that it is pathetic that historians have to make China appear superior to Europe only by comparing them to us during our lowest point in history. When Europeans are at their best, nobody compares. And I am not sure if I am ready to agree that China and the West were equal up to that point (the fall of Rome). You have to specify in what context you are talking about.

“Sure. I just find it inane how you and others of your stripe paint them as so profoundly uncreative that almost none of them have anything approaching original thought, like the one cretin that said there’d never be a chinese Jared Taylor- well, not like that’s something to get upset about. ”

I certainly agree that some of them are creative. But we have to look at overall patterns.

“Global IQ studies? By a third-rate psychologist like Lynn? Besides, do you have any proof these IQ differences have remained wholly unchanged since the closure of the ice age?”

I think Lynn and Rushton are very accomplished. And you have to explain why the same patterns are constantly found. In one of his most recent books Rushton goes into great detail on, how, by looking at the history of civilizations, you see other patterns to go by as well (even before there were IQ studies). There comes a point where you have to explain why, even though the Middle East and India were civilized for longer than Europe, they were never able to create civilizations equal to what Europe created later.

China was able to do so. I acknowledge that they have average IQs a little higher than ours (the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) but there has to be a genetic reason as to why even they have never produced as much science or why they never came close to creating the modern world. You also have to examine the world today and ask yourself why certain parts of the world are total failures. Why is it only the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, and people closely related to them who have been able to industrialize and catch up with the West economically in many areas? I acknowledge that they are able to do these things (catch up to us) but I am not convinced yet that they can innovate and discover fully on their own.

“So are these Turks representative samples of their populations?”

Yes, but I already explained that that wasn’t the only reasoning I was going by.

“Do you have any specific cites? ”

I already listed them for you…go read them.

By the way, since I never go back on my word, here are some more books for you to read.

“On the shoulders of giants”

“Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy”

“Big Bang” written by an Indian

“Great Physicists”

“Little book of scientific principles, theories and things” (written by an Indian)

“The Planet Hunters”

“The Scientists”

“The story of science”

“National Geographic: Talking with Adventurers”

—————

“I’d seriously like you to show me specifically how these were identical to Murray’s ridiculous figure, which he based largely around the frequencies and lengths of their entries.”

Go read them. All of them talk about accomplishments by Europeans 75-100% of the time in their books. And notice that two of these books were written by nonwhites. I don’t have the authors simply because when I keep track of these on my computer, I am just keeping track of the quantity of books on this topic, so only having the titles are sufficient enough for me. And I don’t think it would be difficult to find these books based on what I have given you.

Want some online sources? Here you go:

From the Techtainment website: “10 great scientists of the world”

From TIME magazine: “Time 100: Scientists and Thinkers”

“A picture gallery of famous physicists” (I believe this was the title of the website)

“Mathematical Atlas” (title of the website)

Highbeam Encyclopedia

History.com

“Galileo and Einstein”

“Emc^2 The Story of the Universe”

from the CNN website: “America’s best scientists”

“Chemical Engineering Science and Technology Timeline”

The Nobel Prize website

“Atomic Structure Timeline”

From Encyclozine: “An annotated history timeline of modern science”

———————

“Do you honestly see anything wrong with Needham’s work anyway?”

I’m not sure. I haven’t read it, but based on reviews I have read on the book it seems that he overexaggerates in some areas. But Charles Murray holds that book in high regard and even he comes to the same conclusion I do on who did what in science and even in technology (when comparing volumes of accomplisments between civilizations).

You then go into a long and tiresome tirade, attacking Charles Murray. I think enough has been said on this matter so I am not going to spend so much time on it. You seem to think that Charles Murray hates the Chinese and loves Europe. I don’t see that in his book at all. If you read his book (the whole book), it should be obvious that he came into writing this book with a bias in favor of China. This is very obvious, actually. Also, you keep bringing up this one book by Needham, acting as if Murray never even considers that source in his book. He most certainly does. I find it funny in itself how you keep refering to one book of reference while Murray tiresomely explains over and over in his book that he has based his conclusions on multiple and unbiased sources.

Moving onto the Japanese….they DID NOT invent the first bullet train. I believe it was the French or the Germans who did this. In any case, the Japanese didn’t even invent the first high-speed train (even if they did really invent the bullet train) so how is this admirable or evidence that they are creative?

“But isn’t that… an improvement? Uh oh. ”

You are picking on me for listing examples of whites improving on other whites’ inventions. Okay, this still doesn’t mean that Asians come up with original inventions as much as whites do.

“Oh, so I guess anything beyond the primitive arcade games of the late 60’s and early 70’s are invalid? The Japanese have dominated video game hardware outside of PC’s for decades up until Microsoft’s entry. Nearly all european-built consoles before that failed terribly.”

What are you talking about? Do you have evidence for your last comment there? There have clearly been many Western developments in video games ever since the 60’s and 70’s. So Westerners are able to develop Microsoft and the Internet but they can’t develop video games?

“I’m surprised you haven’t cited the Tocharian desert nomads, which many white nationalists are pushing off as being so heavily behind Ancient China’s development. ”

I am not one of those people.

“But I guess plasma-screens can’t be cited in favor of them since it’s just another IMPROVEMENT, right? ”

This has been my point the whole time.

“And Jewish. Either way, is the Nobel Prize the end all of scientific accomplishment? Why have you been ignoring everything else I’ve cited? ”

I acknowledge that Jews are overrepresented and I also don’t have a problem with that. Nice try.

Here is a brief list of world renowned living mathematicians and physicists of English descent…

Stephen Hawking Roger Penrose Freeman Dyson Andrew Wiles John Conway

Here is a brief list of world renowned living mathematicians and physicists of Chinese descent…

Terence Tao (He and Ben Green, an Englishman, proved some important prime number theorem a couple of years ago.)

We ought to be running alive with Chinese scientists and mathematicians of the calibre of Stephen Hawking and Andrew Wiles. They should be at the forefront of research into String Theory and the Riemann Hypothesis. Where are they all?

And why do all the major technological breakthroughs still mainly come from the West? Internet, genetic fingerprinting, Dolly the sheep? Even Sudoku was invented by a white American.

I read many years ago that Roger Bacon discovered gunpowder independently. What is so extraordinary in that?

Of the 180 individuals who have been awarded with the Nobel Prize in physics, 94% of them are whites and only 4% are East Asians. Of the whites, 29% are Jewish (I think most of the people here have no problem with that, except of course BSP ).

Of all the recipients of Fields Medal Awards, 91% are whites and only 9% are East Asians.

These facts clearly illustrate the difference between the creativity of two groups.

Nearly all the ground-breaking inventions and pioneering discoveries of 20th century were awarded with the Nobel Prize. The East Asians are less represented among the Nobel Laureates simply because all the major discoveries and inventions of 20th century were by whites.

I think it is worthless to argue with people like BSP .They find it very hard to digest the simple fact the whites are far ahead in creativity than any other group.

The preparation of gunpowder is mentioned in one of the works of Roger Bacon, written in about 1249.There is belief he got it from the Arabs, but there is no proof.Some people claim gunpowder was discovered by Chinese, Hindus, Greeks, Arabs, but there is no written evidence which would satisfy a historian that any of them discovered or used gunpowder before it came to Europe”.

<a > riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/gunpdr.htm</a>

“Think of all the scientific prizes East Asian children and teenagers run off with each year in the US”.

Winning scientific prizes is no creativity. Very few great scientists were child prodigies. Einstein never won any prizes at school, nor did John Nash or Andrew Wiles. In fact, transition from a child prodigy is rarely. Being an expert in some field is completely from being a genius.