The following is from http://www.neoeugenics.com/
Anti-Semitism and the politics of victimhood, by Matt Nuenke
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://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/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://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/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://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/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.
.
|
