What size did Hitler want his Polish puppet state to be?

[Futurist]

Sid, I will respond to you later (possibly tomorrow), but for what it's worth, I am personally generally skeptical of race-based or ethnic-based affirmative action in general, whether for Jews or for blacks and Hispanics. I was simply presenting the Hungarian side of the argument here.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

I still don't see why you want to take university places away from the 5% of the population who were Jews rather than create more places for everyone?

I don't want this. The Hungarians in the early 20th century did. Also, these Jews could go to other, less prestigious Hungarian universities so it's not like they'd have to completely make do without any higher education. This is actually what sometimes occurred in the late Soviet Union, I believe; as in, Jews were denied entry into prestigious Soviet universities due to informal Soviet Jewish quotas and thus attended less prestigious Soviet universities instead.

This is simply an anti-Semitic proposition, not a "pro non-Jewish affirmative action". The "pro non-Jewish affirmative action" would be to provide more university places for everyone.

Are you going to provide university places to the entire Hungarian adult population? Even if so, not all of these Hungarian universities are actually going to have the same level of quality, are they? For instance, here in the US elite universities have smarter students than other universities have.

Even if every Hungarian Jew went to university, which they undoubtedly did not, they couldn't fill all the places once more than 5% of the population was going to university. In Hungary in 2016 28% were taking degrees. (Ironically, this total might today have been even higher had the international university of the Hungarian Jewish financier George Soros not been forced out of the country!)

What mattered more was just how many seats Jews took in the most elite Hungarian universities. Are you going to give every Hungarian access to elite Hungarian universities?

If we accept this euphemism, I suppose the so-called "Holocaust" was also a "pro non-Jewish affirmative action"!

The Holocaust was a blatant violation of human rights. I did, however, previously ask a question here as to whether or not the presence of large numbers of Jews in early 20th century Poland made economic advancement harder for Poles during this time period:

viewtopic.php?f=111&t=246877&start=30

Mass emigration, of course, could have likewise resulted in a significant decrease in the size of Poland's Jewish population if these Jews would have actually had somewhere to go and actually wanted to leave in huge numbers, of course. Note: I am NOT saying that Polish Jews should have been encouraged to leave Poland (though given the subsequent Holocaust leaving Poland was actually an EXTREMELY GOOD idea).

It would appear that you do not believe in the utility of the principle that "all men are created equal" or, by logical extension, democracy, which requires acceptance of this.

We have democracy here in the US even though not all individuals and not all groups perform equally. So, what appears to be the problem?

The central drive of all life is to reproduce. You seem to be proposing to use the organs of a shared state to deprive some of the population of an equal opportunity to reproduce. This is nearly as fundamental an attack on basic human rights as it is possible to make without killing people who already exist en masse.

Cheers,

Sid.

On the contrary, encouraging a certain subset of the population to reproduce more is just that, encouragement. I'm not actually advocating prohibiting low-IQ people from reproducing; that would be blatantly wrong and inhumane! However, if they did reproduce, it would be more to society's benefit if they, say, reproduced with the help of super-smart sperm donors or egg donors rather than with other low-IQ people; they would have smarter children that way. Again, though, this is merely advice on my own part. I'm certainly not advocating forcing them to do anything--though again, I do think that as a matter of public policy smart people should be encouraged (NOT forced) to reproduce more in order to prevent dysgenic fertility patterns and trends.

[Futurist]

Sid, this article might interest you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6096849/

I think that sometimes the author of this article goes too far (his attempt to justify Buck v. Bell could fall into this category), but some of the stuff in this article really does appear to be pretty good.

[Futurist]

This author also wrote a book called "Creating Future People", though I personally have not read this book so far.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

You do not appear to be advancing the Hungarian point of view.

You appear to be retrospectively offering possible rationalisations and justifications for Hungarian policy and actions ex post facto. I would suggest that simple jealousy of material success was essentially what motivated restrictions on Jews.

Just because Jews could be directed to less prestigious universities isn't a reason that they should be. Indeed, the mere fact that this could be suggested as a practical possibility illustrates that the Hungarians were in full control of the levers of state power and not disadvantaged by Jewish academic success.

Nobody suggested sending all Hungarians to university. Why the question?

How have we got into elite universities rather than universities generally, which was how this diversion started? Why shouldn't academically qualified Jews go to any university? It is presumably to the credit of Hungarian elite universities that they were so unprejudiced that this situation may have existed in the first place. (One also has to wonder whether Jewish input didn't have a role in making them elite in the first place?)

The so-called "Holocaust" was indeed a blatant violation of human rights, and then some, but that does not preclude it from also being, to use your convoluted and evasive phrase, "a pro non-Jewish affirmative action".

There clearly is a significant problem in US democracy at present. Part of that would appear to be that historically disadvantaged groups continue to suffer disadvantage and so do not have the same opportunity to perform equally, even presuming that they are capable of doing so.

I don't understand why smart people, if they really are smart and if this is a real issue, need to be encouraged to have babies in the first place. It is a strong biological imperative in most humans that doesn't require encouragement.

I would suggest that the real problem in the liberal democracies of the West is low infant mortality levels mitigating against the need for having large numbers of children and within the West wealthier people tend to have other diversions than sex not available to the lower orders.

I seem to remember that about 20 years ago Singapore identified the same problem of the better educated having fewer children and set up state sponsored dating agencies to introduce them to each other. I shall have to Google that to see how it turned out. (I see there is a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Singapore plays matchmaker" for "otherwise- occupied over achievers".)

Anyway, who is going to be doing the encouraging that nature doesn't?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

You do not appear to be advancing the Hungarian point of view.

You appear to be retrospectively offering possible rationalisations and justifications for Hungarian policy and actions ex post facto. I would suggest that simple jealousy of material success was essentially what motivated restrictions on Jews.

Would you say the same for Polish Jewish quotas, Russian Jewish quotas, et cetera?

Just because Jews could be directed to less prestigious universities isn't a reason that they should be. Indeed, the mere fact that this could be suggested as a practical possibility illustrates that the Hungarians were in full control of the levers of state power and not disadvantaged by Jewish academic success.

Yes, Hungarians did control political power in Hungary.

Nobody suggested sending all Hungarians to university. Why the question?

How have we got into elite universities rather than universities generally, which was how this diversion started? Why shouldn't academically qualified Jews go to any university?

They should. I was merely speculating a possible concern that if Hungary's elite universities would have had too many Jews in them, then this could result in a Hungarian elite that is disproportionately Jewish. This is similar to why US blacks and US Hispanics might want a lot of their own racial brethren to go to elite universities--as in, so that it would be easier for them to subsequently become members of the US elite.

It is presumably to the credit of Hungarian elite universities that they were so unprejudiced that this situation may have existed in the first place.

Yep, definitely!

(One also has to wonder whether Jewish input didn't have a role in making them elite in the first place?)

Possibly; it would depend on just how much the imposition of Jewish quotas would have caused the academic performance of these universities to drop. If too many smart people will be prevented from going to elite universities, then the new universities that they will go to could acquire a more elite status as a result of their mere presence at this university.

The so-called "Holocaust" was indeed a blatant violation of human rights, and then some, but that does not preclude it from also being, to use your convoluted and evasive phrase, "a pro non-Jewish affirmative action".

Yes, Jewish removal could be viewed as--at least in some cases--beneficial for gentiles. For instance, a Polish businessman or lawyer who would have had a lot of competition from rival Jewish businessmen or from rival Jewish lawyers might have benefited if these specific Jews would have left Poland and moved elsewhere so that he could have less competition and thus perhaps be able to make greater profits for himself. In this regard, one could even argue that Zionists could have found a common cause with such Polish businessmen or lawyers in the sense that both of these groups would have wanted to encourage talented Jews to move out of Poland in huge numbers.

There clearly is a significant problem in US democracy at present. Part of that would appear to be that historically disadvantaged groups continue to suffer disadvantage and so do not have the same opportunity to perform equally, even presuming that they are capable of doing so.

Do you mean academic disadvantages or disadvantages at the ballot box? Because these are two different things. As for closing racial and ethnic academic achievement gaps, as I've previously said, we made a lot of efforts to do this with things such as Head Start but failed to make much lasting impact in regards to this, unfortunately. It's not our fault for lack of trying.

I do think that the amount of racism towards underperforming minorities in the US nowadays is rather exaggerated, though:

https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020 ... hite-left/

To my knowledge, blacks and Hispanics in the US underperform US whites in every or almost every one of the US's 2,000 or whatever number of total school districts. So, even liberals in their own school districts can't make this underperformance problem go away. McDowell County, West Virginia, I believe, has one of the smallest black-white academic achievement gaps (at least according to Steve Sailer, who appears to have seen the actual data in regards to this); however, this isn't because there's much less racism there but rather simply because most of its smart white population has presumably already moved out of there by now, thus leaving only the underperforming whites and the blacks.

I don't understand why smart people, if they really are smart and if this is a real issue, need to be encouraged to have babies in the first place. It is a strong biological imperative in most humans that doesn't require encouragement.

Well, not everyone tends to look at the big picture. Some people might simply prefer to live their lives and that's it without actually worrying about what will happen to humanity after they're gone.

I would suggest that the real problem in the liberal democracies of the West is low infant mortality levels mitigating against the need for having large numbers of children and within the West wealthier people tend to have other diversions than sex not available to the lower orders.

Low-IQ people also have diversions from sex, such as TV, fast food, porn, race-car driving, sports, et cetera. As for low infant mortality, Yes, they reduced the need for people to have large numbers of children but in spite of low infant mortality rates some groups, such as the Amish, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and Mormons, still continue to have high or at least relatively high levels of fertility even today.

I seem to remember that about 20 years ago Singapore identified the same problem of the better educated having fewer children and set up state sponsored dating agencies to introduce them to each other. I shall have to Google that to see how it turned out. (I see there is a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Singapore plays matchmaker" for "otherwise- occupied over achievers".)

If a person isn't inclined to start a large family, then the state probably will not manage to convince them otherwise. However, nevertheless people who do want to start families should be encouraged to reproduce with sperm or eggs from people with desirable traits, such as a high IQ.

Anyway, who is going to be doing the encouraging that nature doesn't?

The government?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

I will have to break this up into more than one reply.

Prejudices against Jews varied somewhat from place to place. The two most consistent ones appear to have been "otherness" and jealousy of material success.

I would suggest that a desire to get the best possible education might be a significant motivator for Black and Hispanic Estadounidenses wanting to go to the best universities. Social advantage is likely to follow that rather than lead it.

I refer to general disadvantage in coming from some backgrounds. Numbers will always disadvantage minorities at the ballot box. Educational disadvantage owes much to background.

The real problem for Black Americans is that slave society was almost completely engaged in unskilled manual labour, literacy was not encouraged because of this and no middle class existed. Acquistion of significant property and other assets was almost impossible and family structure was made vulnerable by the sale of family members separately. This is not a historical background that is fruitful soil for rapid rise to academic excellence.

When a Black middle class began to develop after emancipation it often suffered repression (such as the recently publicised burning of "Black Wall Steet"). As I pointed out recently, a statue to the slave trading entrepreneur and Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was put up in the town where Martin Luther King was murdered two years AFTER his death. What message does that send them about a peaceful route to full equality?

The Black Americans of today are still living with the consequences of slavery in the very places where it occurred and understandably have a massive chip on their shoulder. As a result they seem to feel that the state owes them some compensation. Right or wrong, this is not an attitude that encourages self help.

Is it any wonder they continue to perform less well in comparative tests that may have cultural biases because they are created overwhelmingly by White People?

Must go. Traffic Warden approaching.

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

I don't live in the USA and I am not Black, so I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on whether racism against minorities is exaggerated there or not. However, the mere fact that it exists at all seems to indicate the USA has a problem in this area. Nor, I would submit, can one have a real handle on this issue unless one is Black oneself and has to experience Black life as lived.

In the UK Black Africans students marginally out perform White British students at school.

Assuming that you are correct and that race plays a role, one might expect West Indians, who are of mixed race, to out perform Black Africans, but they actually do significantly worse. It looks more likely that a slave heritage (which is shared by the great majority of Black Americans) remains a significant impediment to academic advancement.

If Black Americans are consistently doing badly compared with white Americans at school it might just be that the USA is not getting it right. The British experience does not reflect quite the same thing.

It is probably significant that all the highly reproductive communities you mention are ultra religious and very pro natalist.

The idea of people who wish to reproduce having the state offer them sperm or eggs from donors with desireable traits goes far beyond the Orwellian.

For a start, one of the "parents", and possibly both, will not actually be reproducing so there is no genetic dividend for them. What is their investment in the child then?

There is also the point that beauty is also a desireable trait because it tends to be signalled by traits indicating health, such as symmetry, physique, etc.. Are these to be discounted?

And surely, in a self-imaged land of individual freedom like the USA, the idea of the state designing one's babies for one would be a non-starter? It potentiall sets at least half the individuals in any generation at nought - a mere carrier of, and/or provider for, someone else's genetic heritage. Mere human incubators or drones. And presumably dispropotionally human incubators or drones for Ashkenazi Jews, who you have identified as being particularly possessed of the "desireable traits" you wish to encourage. This would not end well, I would humbly suggest.

The fact of the matter is that anti-Semitism is unselective. It doesn't want rid of just "talented individuals" but of all Jews. How much worse would it be if much of the population was inveigled into bearing Jewish babies by their own state?

This is a horrible subject. I would suggest we should drop it before we are made to.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

I don't live in the USA and I am not Black, so I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on whether racism against minorities is exaggerated there or not. However, the mere fact that it exists at all seems to indicate the USA has a problem in this area. Nor, I would submit, can one have a real handle on this issue unless one is Black oneself and has to experience Black life as lived.

So, you're saying that we should trust personal anecdotes over statistics?

In the UK Black Africans students marginally out perform White British students at school.

Yes, and it's possible that this is because the smartest black Africans are the ones who come to the UK. If the UK really wants to test this hypothesis, it could open its doors to all Africans and see whether this will continue to remain the case.

Assuming that you are correct and that race plays a role, one might expect West Indians, who are of mixed race, to out perform Black Africans, but they actually do significantly worse. It looks more likely that a slave heritage (which is shared by the great majority of Black Americans) remains a significant impediment to academic advancement.

You're talking about Britain, correct? Anyway, if so, one possible explanation for this is that West Indian migration to Britain is less selective than African migration to Britain, which results in West Indians performing worse than Africans do in Britain in spite of them having a larger percentage of white ancestry. Theoretically, something similar might be happening in the US if black African immigrants and their descendants perform better here (due to selective migration) in comparison to African-Americans in spite of the latter having more white ancestry.

What would be really interesting would be to do a study of US blacks while excluding recent black immigrants and their descendants and seeing if, on average, blacks with more white/European ancestry tend to perform better than blacks with less white/European ancestry. Something like this study:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/global-ances ... e-ability/

If Black Americans are consistently doing badly compared with white Americans at school it might just be that the USA is not getting it right. The British experience does not reflect quite the same thing.

If you really think that US blacks are going to perform better in Britain, then by all means, you are more than welcome to push Britain to open its borders to US blacks en masse.

For that matter, though, do British blacks and their descendants begin performing much worse if/after they move to the US?

It is probably significant that all the highly reproductive communities you mention are ultra religious and very pro natalist.

Yep.

The idea of people who wish to reproduce having the state offer them sperm or eggs from donors with desireable traits goes far beyond the Orwellian.

They can decline if they want, but then their children are simply likely to, on average, have worse outcomes.

For a start, one of the "parents", and possibly both, will not actually be reproducing so there is no genetic dividend for them. What is their investment in the child then?

Well, what are parents' investment in adoptive children? Of course, we will probably also eventually have IVF plus embryo selection so that both parents can have biological children together while also selecting for the best possible genes for their children.

There is also the point that beauty is also a desireable trait because it tends to be signalled by traits indicating health, such as symmetry, physique, etc.. Are these to be discounted?

Why exactly should they be discounted?

And surely, in a self-imaged land of individual freedom like the USA, the idea of the state designing one's babies for one would be a non-starter? It potentiall sets at least half the individuals in any generation at nought - a mere carrier of, and/or provider for, someone else's genetic heritage.

One can always reject whatever the state is offering, though; the state is not actually forcing anyone to do anything.

Mere human incubators or drones. And presumably dispropotionally human incubators or drones for Ashkenazi Jews, who you have identified as being particularly possessed of the "desireable traits" you wish to encourage. This would not end well, I would humbly suggest.

Actually, I was thinking of avoiding radical changes to the US's racial and ethnic balance and instead getting the smartest people of each race to reproduce more. If Ashkenazi Jews will go from being 2% of the US population to being, say, 20% or 25% or 30%, then other groups are likely to feel that they are being replaced. You remember what white nationalists said at Charlottesville back in 2017, don't you? They said that "Jews will not replace us!"

The fact of the matter is that anti-Semitism is unselective. It doesn't want rid of just "talented individuals" but of all Jews.

Yep, that's correct. Though I do wonder if, for instance, in 1920s Hungary Hungarians actually cared as much about lower-class Jews as they did about upper-class Jews.

How much worse would it be if much of the population was inveigled into bearing Jewish babies by their own state?

Again, I wasn't talking about significantly changing the US's racial and ethnic balance here.

This is a horrible subject. I would suggest we should drop it before we are made to.

Cheers,

Sid.

Fair enough, I suppose.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

As this conversation is both way off thread and is developing racist undertones, I will be selective in my reply.

Being a Black American is a lived experience that I cannot share and one that statistics cannot fully reflect.

We already have a considerable amount of literature on West Indian immigration to the USA explaining their relative success compared with local Black Americans. Education features prominently. West Indians are also the main source of Black Britons.

(Incidentally, I was born in Jamaica and spent my first nine months there and in the then British Guiana. By birth, I am technically a white West Indian).

The children produced by these state-donated eggs and sperm will not be the offspring of both putative parents and may be the offspring of neither. They therefore won't actually be "their children".

If we each make out reply shorter than the other's last, this diversion may soon die a natural death.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

As this conversation is both way off thread and is developing racist undertones, I will be selective in my reply.

Fair enough. (Though, for what it's worth, I think that the term "racist" should be limited to advocating discriminating against people and/or mistreating people based on their race. So, simply being open to the idea that a particular unflattering racial stereotype could, on average, in large part be true should not in itself be viewed as being racist.)

Being a Black American is a lived experience that I cannot share and one that statistics cannot fully reflect.

OK.

We already have a considerable amount of literature on West Indian immigration to the USA explaining their relative success compared with local Black Americans. Education features prominently. West Indians are also the main source of Black Britons.

But which West Indians are the ones who are primarily moving to the US and the UK? The elites, the middle class, or the lower classes?

(Incidentally, I was born in Jamaica and spent my first nine months there and in the then British Guiana. By birth, I am technically a white West Indian).

Just like Alexander Hamilton!

The children produced by these state-donated eggs and sperm will not be the offspring of both putative parents and may be the offspring of neither. They therefore won't actually be "their children".

Yep--though I was actually thinking of them being the offspring of one of these parents with the sperm or egg donor making up their other parent.

BTW, there is IVF plus embryo selection for desirable traits. That allows a couple to have children that are biologically both of theirs but also allows them to select for desirable traits in their children back when they are still embryos.

If we each make out reply shorter than the other's last, this diversion may soon die a natural death.

Cheers,

Sid.

Makes sense.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

I would suggest that it is perfectly possible to be racist and right, but most people exercised by matters of race are probably just racist.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Hi Futurist,

I would suggest that it is perfectly possible to be racist and right, but most people exercised by matters of race are probably just racist.

Cheers,

Sid.

Yep, and for that matter one can be non-racist and right or, alternatively, non-racist and wrong.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

Agreed!

Sid.

[Futurist]

Good.