Timothy D. Wilson, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, is concerned about the fact that the social sciences are not getting any respect from Congress (“Stop bullying the ‘soft’ sciences“; LATimes, July 12).
Skepticism about the rigors of social science has reached absurd heights. The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to eliminate funding for political science research through the National Science Foundation.
But it gets worse. Wilson cites opinion writers from the Washington Post and the New York Times who go so far as to say that the social sciences aren’t really sciences at all because they don’t have rigorous methodologies.
When it’s a bunch of cranky Republicans who don’t like the social sciences, that’s one thing. But when the liberal media establishment starts complaining, that’s a whole other ballgame. Deeply disturbing to all those social scientists who thought they were doing their best to promote the liberal agenda.
So how best to sell the social sciences to the liberal elites? Show that they support their most cherished beliefs. Some of Wilson’s examples of rigorous social science do just that, and he does not include any examples that would in any way challenge the dominant liberal zeitgeist.
Now I am not in the camp that it is impossible to do good social science. And I agree with Wilson that research has uncovered important and beneficial effects in treating some kinds of mental illness and other areas. But his presentation completely avoids any mention of biological influences on behavior, which are at least as well documented as anything mentioned in the article.
Instead he highlights “stereotype threat”—the idea that African Americans do poorly on IQ tests because “they are concerned not only about how well they will do but also about the possibility that performing poorly will reflect badly on their entire group.” This mental burden causes them to score poorly. (Prof. J. P. Rushton and Arthur Jensen point out (pp. 249-250) that this theory can’t explain the pattern of correlations among IQ and various developmental variables are constant across racial groups. That is, for all racial groups, IQ has similar correlations with variables such as delinquency, family background, achievement, and scores on a wide variety of subtests, indicating that there is no race-specific factor structure of IQ.)
And he highlights a program, My Teaching Partner, touted to improve teaching skills. This fits into the current ideology that pretty much the only thing wrong with our schools is incompetent teachers. Social science is going to change all that, and before you know it, there will be no racial/ethnic differences in IQ or school achievement, and all children will be ready to go off to college and get their Ph.D.s.
I think that one of the big reasons why social science is disliked (at least by Republicans, if not the NYTimes) is that they are well known to be bastions of liberalism. Since Wilson is in the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia, he is presumably well aware of the research of his colleague in the UVA Psychology Department, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (see here and here). Haidt argues cogently that social psychology has become a “tribal moral community” and that this has a huge effect on research. “If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community. They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”
When scholarship that contravenes the sacred (liberal) values of the tribe is submitted to academic journals, reviewers and editors suddenly become super demanding. More controls are needed, more subjects, more rigorous statistics, etc. But when findings conform to the ingroup ideology, they get pretty much a free ride. This leads to to a host of unreplicated findings; the lack of replicated findings in the social sciences is widely considered to be a problem (e.g., here).
Again, I am not saying that good social science can’t be done. But morally tinged ingroup bias exists throughout the social sciences and is without doubt a central contributor to their shaky scientific status. In general, the less research involves differences between people–i.e., differences between individuals, sexes, races or ethnic groups—the more likely it is to be solid. Because it focused on human universals, disputes about Piaget’s research are just normal academic disputation, typically carried out in good faith and an honest appreciation for getting the data right; the basics are well-replicated. But when scientists enter into research on differences, they know there are powerful institutional controls on coming up with findings that fit the contemporary moral paradigm. And, given that the academic world self-selects for liberals, these scientists do not feel any cognitive dissonance in coming up with their findings.
But eradicating the academic culture of liberal/left moralism in the social sciences is a very difficult task. As the previous link shows, individuals with ideas and values that differ from the consensus would likely opt to go into other areas. If they do become social scientists, they would have to conceal their opinions, not just in graduate school, but throughout their entire careers if they want to have any social life at all in the university or within academic organizations. And they would be well-advised to focus their careers on non-controversial areas, such as human universals. Not a pleasant prospect.
Or they could to into the hard sciences where their attitudes and values would not be a liability, at least in getting their research published, only suffering by the need to keep their attitudes and values concealed from the wider university community if they want to be “respectable.”.
And if I had to do it all over again…
Facing the Future as a Minority
From the article:
Bingo! The elephant in the room.
Conservative academics should all be commended for doing battle with the moonbats.
And if you had to do it all over again—I hope that you would.
The typical academic ccouldnt run a lemonade stand ; its basically a government job, once u receive tenure, u work like 20 hours a week with summers off, and write papers that maybe 50 people globally (in your minor subfield) will read. Cut off all federal funding and all the social sciences disappear since they have no market value , with the exception of other government markets eg. propaganda, justification of public polciies, etc. a typical scam racket where all of us end up subsidizing a little club of social misfits and miscreants. Most acurate depiction irginia Wolf, Liz Taylor as the college presidents slag daughter , Richard burton as the professor effete; amazingly prescient.
Social science [def, mostly] the polysyllablifaction of the obvious.
Kevin MacDonald said:
[Timothy D. Wilson] highlights “stereotype threat”—the idea that African Americans do poorly on IQ tests because “they are concerned not only about how well they will do but also about the possibility that performing poorly will reflect badly on their entire group.” This mental burden causes them to score poorly.
Jelte M. Wicherts & Cor de Haan at the 2009 ISIR conference presented some preliminary work on a meta-analysis of racial stereotype threat that suggested its significance has been exaggerated due to publication bias in favor of studies that showed a large effect. Unfortunately it looks like they still have yet to formally publish it. A recent article published in the Review of General Psychology has also suggested the importance of gender stereotype threat has likewise been overblown. Others have also published some indirect evidence that indicates that racial stereotype threat might only be salient in a low-stakes testing environment.
Can we not build up a counter-elite in the social sciences? I know it would take money but I think it can be done.
Elite whites (potential donors) are eventually going to wake up. The establishment cannot stop hacking away at whites for one nanosecond, because then we might have half a second to think about what they have done to us. They MUST keep us on the defensive. Their problem is that they must continue to make whites believe we are to blame for nonwhite failure. Otherwise, we might start to get uppity and take a little pride in ourselves. Of course, the more white guilt propaganda, the more black on white violence. The more black on white violence, the more likely whites are to wake up. The elites will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. It is purely a matter of metaphysics that there will be a reaction eventually, and crypto-nationalists will start funneling money to our causes. They cannot all be fooled all of the time.
Off topic, but it just makes me sick that the Jews started the civil rights movement on the theory that ethnic nepotism is a great injustice, yet they boast openly about helping each other out. I know it might seem obvious to you all, but try to understand and I’m still rubbing my eyes and the outrageous chutzpah of this gang of hypocrits is only now becoming clear to me.
>And if I had to do it all over again…
How many great men would do it all again? Doing it the once says everything enough.
Maybe the powers that be are now going to feature some razzle, dazzle with hard science. The social science trick turning isn’t doing the trick, but they are still anti-white.
The Jews started the civil rights movement purely as a divide and conquer strategy to impose minority rule and make life hell for white Christians.
The idea that they CARE about blacks is preposterous, and their loathing of blacks is now right out in the open in Israel. Yes, their hypocrisy and double dealing seems to be boundless.
@Bilal: True. I think sociology’s scope would be dramatically curtailed, if funds were to come out of the private purse. Some modest clinical tests could interest philanthropists, but without the vast government statistical apparatus to gather data, much “research” would be impossible, even aside from direct funding. As for the beneficence of official data-gathering, the Herod-babes-to-the-sword episode should give pause. Not everyone can saddle up the donkey and hot-foot it to Bethlehem.
Quite without reference to political alignment, nor even discussion of the direction of biases, Nassim Taleb does a DEVASTATING job of debunking the “narrative disciplines,” by which he means all social “sciences,” most emphatically including the Queen of Social Sciences, economics, in his 2007/2010 book The Black Swan. The book is NOT about races, but it has EVERYTHING to do with intelligence. Highly recommended.
@Bilal:
The “Frankfurt School” or “institute of social research” received private funding from wealthy Jewish grain speculator. Later in the USA the received plentifull funding from both Government and private sources.
Ford Foundation, Rockerfeller, Soros, Seagrams, Gelb corruption of the Sierra Club etcetera have no problem funding social science research whose sole purpose is to crack open and destroy our families, races, countries to so as to replace it with a system to suit themselves. A reading of Kerry Boltons “Revolution from above” gives a fair indication of where this is comming from.
Untill we learn to match them with our own donations nothing will change. Our donations will have to come from millions of small donations from Whites, “occidentals”, which is fed to incorruptible organisations headed by individuals who are irreproachable by the overtness of their statements.
Back in my grade-school days, I encountered two different school psychiatrists. One was mean-spirited and nasty and knew nothing of what she should be doing and made me feel foolish (to say the least) and inferior; the other was kindly and understanding and made me feel much better. There are plenty of incompetent headshrinkers in the profession, who can do great harm to innocent people — as well as some good ones who can be helpful. User discretion is advised!
I had a thought a short while ago, and I’ll share it here.
I’ve heard the term “soft” sciences, and this article uses that term.
I was thinking maybe the word “vulnerable” is more appropriate than the word “soft”.
The social (“soft”) sciences seem more vulnerable to some things.
Some possible things that “soft” sciences are vulnerable to: agendas, tampering, low integrity, low intelligence, lack of wisdom, etc.
(Maybe the same can be said for the “hard” sciences, too.)
Just to be clear: when I put the words “soft” and “hard” in quotes, I’m not intending for it to have an insulting tone.
I want to say “hi” and “thanks” to any and all pro-White people reading this. If you care enough to come here and read the articles/comments, I think that’s great.
Have a good weekend, everyone.
Social science: adult daycare for dilettantes and “people of color.”
Our age worships science and technology. Perhaps rightfully so as they are products of our race’s collective labor. With a wink and nod “science” and “tech” serve as euphemisms for obvious truths. Sociology by definition fails to practice the scientific method. So of course it’s a haven for magical thinking. Those Vietnamese women who polish yuppie nails? Why those are nail-techs ! Beauticians? Nope, cosmotologists now.
Do you follow this? Meaningful innovation has stalled due to the White genocide project. So instead near-retards add fancy titles to their job descriptions. Much like every tin-horned African despot is an emperor of something.
Adding insult to injury our scientists were on the verge of major breakthroughs before judeo-liberal parasites flooded academia. Thankfully noble-souls like Raymond Catell, Prof. MacDonald, Dr Oliver, Rushton, Lynne, Jensen, and E.O. Wilson broke through. Imagine colleges run by us!
I may be wrong, but it seems that a short-term benefit of the “recession” has been seen in that many normally cowardly “conservatives” are now attacking these indoctrination programs. In my own area there has been a lot of scrutiny over “LGBT studies” and the like, with many of them being totally removed.
Self-selecting – a good way to induce group idiocy. Yes lets base employment on spouting the party line(which requires no real intelligence, just a bit memory), forget about intelligence, analytical ability, the ability to teach, etc. Pretty soon you get a convention of dunderheads and clowns. Think of Lysenko or dolts like Derrida.
Which is what Alan Sokal found out when he penned a prank paper for periodical “Social Text”, it was approved and received a very nice review by the grand poo bahs of the PoMo field.
Hard science professors Gross and Levitt also dismantle these Leftist goons in “Higher Superstition”. But they point out along with the National Association of Scholars that the Lefties are ruining the humanities and ripping off the students.
Eventually the social sciences will be seen as a joke, the smarter students see this already when their Lefty professor spouts all sorts of Marxist garbage for a hour or so and all it takes to pass the class is to agree with him.
What to do about them? Starve’em. The humanities can be taught via video and DVD courses and self-study. Don’t waste precious money on some Marxist thug who can’t and won’t teach you anything. You’re better off with studying on your own if you have half a brain when it comes to the humanities.
Heck go to amazon with $500 and you can buy yourself a very good classical education. Heck many of the greats are available for free online in PDF format if you google.
Education has never been cheaper.
Be careful what you wish for. Margaret Thatcher wanted to attack the leftist ratholes that were British universities by destroying Academic tenurshiship in British academic institutions.
She likely damaged Conservative academics far far more, consider the benifits to Dr MacDonald..
It’s worth looking at where the large number of community activists get funding. These folks just aren’t volunteers.
“sacred values”… you’re getting warmer! — “tribal-moral community”… Oh, you’re red hot! You’ve almost got it! Start’s with a “J”… Come on, you can do it! xD
@pessimist: Precisely.
@Bear:
“Be careful what you wish for. Margaret Thatcher wanted to attack the leftist ratholes that were British universities by destroying Academic tenurshiship in British academic institutions.”
Very good point, Bear.
As to the article, my wife, an academic with liberal leanings, is always criticizing and complaining about qualitative research. She, and her mainstream colleagues, generally see it as a charlatan’s tool used to produce “touchy feely” results (her words, not mine) that can’t be subjected to conventional scientific scrutiny.
Even liberals have their standards, it seems.
@pessimist:
“Heck go to amazon with $500 and you can buy yourself a very good classical education. ”
There is also an element of personal interaction – with students as much as professors – and endeavour, as in writing as well as reading, in a proper humanities education.
To the degree that good social science can be done, its surely by hard science which does follow rigorous methodologies, the implication being that most of it… isn’t actually real science at all? And, in other words, ‘bullying the social sciences’ is just an overdue kick up the arse they’d benefit from?
And if its right to separate religion from the science class, politics should also be separated from state-funded education. Works both ways…
@Bear: Thatcherite anti-Communist thought was every bit as theoretical as Communism itself.
Redefining British conservatism in terms of theory and Daily Mail kneejerk anti-leftism instead of British culture, the Thatcher government included people like Teresa Gorman who pushed the same agendas as the left on everything except economics.
@Lancashire lad: For those of us who don’t like people, online learning is the better choice if you know where to look – Google Books is a good resource but important pages will be missing, and the PDF Search Engine is great for finding papers online. There are other places too, the Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology (SNPA) have texts available on their site, including Carleton Coon’s classic, The Races of Europe.
I read a lot about subjects like physical anthropology, psychology, comparative religion etc in that way.
Leftism spread by corrupted adults befriending and indoctrinating students in their late teens/early twenties, and the organisation of leftist student groups. These young adults grew older, gained entry to mainstream society where they hijacked the law and the mainstream media, and slammed the door to the disadvantaged, working class people who had been the backbone of leftist movements but who maintained their traditional values.
If all education was done by distance, it would stop that kind of student-teacher interaction and prevent the organisation of students into anti-white movements in the future.
@JustaWhiteMom:
I tried and it is hard. Not because it’s hard to study but because you have to put twice the effort the usual leftist student puts : not only you have to study like everyone else, you must also think about all the ways you can hide your “game”, being surrounded by a very hostile environment. It’s really exhausting to live this kind of “double-life”, not mentioning financial problems that any student has, the low perspective of jobs if you talk about a subject that is too “taboo”, etc. And if you want to get a bursary, forget about it. It’s the student that talks about climate change, the benefits of diversity and immigration who’ll get them. I think we must first change the minds of the masses and then capture the intellectual field. In my case, I have very good abilities outside of the academic world. So I will try to incorporate intellectual knowledge that can be accessible the to average, curious individual in the form of media (videos). In fact, I would like to conduct some interviews with people from TOQ one day.
@Aquilax:
Not because it’s hard to study but because you have to put twice the effort the usual leftist student puts : not only you have to study like everyone else, you must also think about all the ways you can hide your “game”, being surrounded by a very hostile environment. It’s really exhausting to live this kind of “double-life”, How true. Woe to those who see the light too early.
Speaking of IQ is there any difference in IQ between those who study the “soft sciences” as aginst those that study “the hard sciences?”
@Sandy:
It’s of course easier to get accepted in a social science program. But there is an unwritten rule that says you cannot get more than 90% in a class (while you can get a perfect score in a math exam for example, 1+1 will always equal 2).
But you can analyze the differences in various ways : in “hard” sciences, you have a formula and just apply it, then the results are supposed to be the same every time you repeat the same process, so it’s less complicated and you have less room to personal interpretation. In “soft” sciences, there is more room to play with the concepts and the meanings you give to them, even though they are “soft” sciences, they are “harder” (compared to hard science) in the process of transforming something abstract into something that can be calculable. So basically, social sciences have the weakness of allowing too much interpretation and this can allow low-IQ students pretend to be smart when in fact, they could have only repeated what their teacher told them using different words.
To answer your question, I think you have more chances of having low-IQ students in the social sciences. But, most geniuses (like mathematicians) end up being interested in social sciences (philosophy, political ideologies, etc.). ;)
@Aquilax: Thanks. Good answer.
Coming from physical anthropology myself I have to warn against arrogance towards social sciences. “Hard” evolutionary researchers are joking that social scientists are drowning in a deluge of theories, while everything is clear and fine in biology with such mighty concepts like kin selection or so. But I think behavioral biologists are drowning, too. What is the ultimate cause of human behavior? Is it sociobiological fitness maximizing, is it the echoing of our evolutionary past, is it gene culture coevolution? What is the role of group selection? Another example: Currently there are eight different theories swirling around about the origin of human bipedalism.
By the way: I learned calculus from textbooks used in economy courses and statistics from the sociologists. Because they had the best educational books. Maybe social scientists are biased, but arguments will gain more than arrogance.
Is there something else deeper going on here?
The College Tuition loan bubble may be about to burst.
Perhaps Jewish-Leftist Academics realize that their Frankenstein Monster of Left-ist Academia is about to implode so they are starting a controlled collapse right now starting with the Social Sciences.
After-all for almost two generations now (since the 1960s) social sciences have been spewing their looney-left non-sense. The damage has been done.
Time for the Tribe to pick up their bag of Gold and go wandering for a new land again… (Universities in China?)
@Aquilax: The room to play with concepts is why Jews and others abuse the fields so easily.The more room there is to play with concepts ought to mean the less chance of getting state funding IMO.
@Spartacus: And such things as the origin of human bipedalism are easily tested by fossils? If the fossils aren’t sufficient then its idle speculation not science.
A point about money and donations. The paper money system allows Jews to print money (plus get a high percentage, on the cost of printing, for lending it to you!) This is why Jewish fake charities, think tanks, trusts, funds, foreign exchange dealers etc etc are awash with money. BUT opponents need to work for money, and are then taxed. The whole system favours money for anyone supporting Jews.
@Lancashire lad: Pace pessimist and my friend Trenchant, in principle I’m with you on this question, certainly up to the point where old-fashioned undergraduate education once took students. That point, to oversimplify somewhat, concerned the proper areas of humanistic study (that is, what those areas constitute) and the inculcation of how to read—that is, infusing the student with the historical and critical sense that every great Western writer since at least Virgil has taken for granted in his readers.
Apropos the latter, a crude, inadequate, but (as far as it went) largely accurate summation of what I mean may be found in something said by the then head of the philosophy department at my alma mater a year or two after I left. Asked what he hoped students generally and philosophy majors particularly ought to carry away from their courses, he said, “I hope that we can teach them a few terms, terms that will let them read and study philosophy with true understanding.” This is hardly an ideal or goal men will give their lives for, but it’s education’s crawling stage, and I don’t see much evidence that even Harvard and Yale grads are doing much running, let alone walking.
One need not go the whole Leo Straussian hog to see that all great writing—the kind whose understanding has been described as making life more worth living—is to a surprising extent “secret” writing. The number of keys isn’t unlimited, fortunately, nor are they unfindable without assistance, but having that assistance (another name for education) can shorten the search process by twenty or thirty years.
As for the former point, in the last hundred years alone the boundaries of “essential” humanistic studies have drastically narrowed. To take just one example, the product of a pre–World War I English public school and Oxford education would have read the great Italian humanist scholars of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in any of several translations then widely available. If he specialized at Oxford in anything but the “moderns,” he would there almost certainly have reread them in Italian. By 1950 even the names of these Italians had virtually sunk without trace.
Many, many other examples could be cited—some students still learn the name Hesiod, for instance, but how many now read even a few pages of the Works and Days?—but why bother? We can agree, can’t we, without much argument that few if any students have gained anything of true note from reading The Catcher in the Rye, Herzog, or The Color Purple? On the other hand, is anyone who’s done sufficient work to comprehend “Lycidas” capable of remembering its last thirty lines without getting teary-eyed?
Trenchant and pessimist may well be right in thinking that the online route is far the better of the available alternatives. Yet it is only within the present niggardly circumscribed range of alternatives that I can second their preference. (Nor would I be surprised if Trenchant, at least, agreed with this qualification of his comment.)
Incidentally, the above critique and assessment apply irrespective of people’s feelings towards their fellow men (that is, whether or not they are among “those of us who don’t like people”). The idea that the young should be consulted on their preferences in educational companionship—education being one of the two least “democratic” structures in human life—is one more absurdity introduced into the Western educational structure by its Tribal enemies. Such choices are proper for adults to make, and while a late education is immeasurably better than none at all, having to postpone one’s proper education to adulthood has been, for those who want us to do the postponing, a most effective tool in extending our ongoing subjugation.
I’m actually confused, is social science really a sincere science or is it always a thinly disguised methodology for promoting Ethno-Marxism?
It would seem to be a genuine need for social science for instance they could be investigating the declining fertility of the western people’s or why couples are marrying so late. I do recall reading one sociologist that didn’t seem to be a kind of liberation theologist her name was katherin betts and she wrote a book called the great divide, She’s Australian. I’m paraphrasing her butbshe noted that lower middle class leftists were actually taking on the values of transnational elites, they were doing this for aspirational reasons i.e. they wanted to have the values of elites and were mirroring these.
One of the very few countercurrent sociology books is Social Sciences as Sorcery by Stanislav Andreski, a Pole (or Polish Jew) who lived in Britain. Published in 1973 I think; this is a rare book by now, and is interesting in being written in fairly plain English prose, and in attacking wiuth fairly good humour most sociologists. (I’ve just noticed Amazon has removed my review of it). One comment Andreski made is that it’s a mistake to underrate social sciences; even clever scientists cannot come up with hypotheses as good as sociologists, he says. In fact, nowhere in his book is there any discussion of Jewish influence.
This is an old battle in the Academy. At UCLA it’s called the North Campus/South Campus battle. The north campus houses the liberal arts college and the south campus the technical schools. To understand this battle one must understand the fundamental schism among Jewish elites. While they are all communist, they comprise two different denominations. The “Liberals” are Cultural Marxist, while the Neo-cons are Trotskyites.
The Trotskyites favor a slightly modified form (modified from Marx’s original vision) of Communism — one in which the state will run everything except the corporations and the corporations will, in turn, run the state.
@BlueTron Delta: Segueing from your observation, a glance at the Fed’s balance sheet shows the storm brewing over student loans.
http://anti-gnostic.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/interesting-statistic.html
@Bear: The latter! The witch-doctor’s feathers of yore have given way to today’s ermine, but he’s still a necessary adjunct to the chief in dealing with the subjects.
@Rerevisionist: Glad to hear someone else has read Andreski’s classic. Sadly, I cannot post an online link to the book, and not for want of trying. Would you care to post your Amazon review – deleted – here?
Trenchant – thanks for the student loans info. It’s always a shock to see plain figures for such things as foreign aid, interest paid to the Fed, black on white crime, all these things. No wonder they keep them quiet. I live in hope that the expenses of science fraud may start to be uncovered soon.
I checked re Andreski, and found I unfortunately never finished my review – I have an desktopsized out-tray with his 1972 paperback buried there. (Amazon removed about 50 of my reviews in total, which I later reposted elsewhere. When I looked at Amazon’s listing of Andreski two days ago, and saw it had no review of mine, I misremembered and just assumed they’d taken it out).
http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/09/andreski/
is a longish review.
Andreski, unusually, emigrated from Poland and didn’t start out as an academic – he was something military. He could see sociology ought to face the real world, and to get anywhere he had to write new material, maybe not in his first language . He had the guts to take on people like Talcott Parsons. I don’t know if he was a Polish Jew though – it’s quite likely.
@Rerevisionist: Thanks. I recall reading this particular review before the book itself. Economics, of course, has aped the natural sciences, and is now essentially bankrupt intellectually; in far worse epistemological state that one century ago. But witch-doctors can only cast spells when the common folk are in awe of their language, so one shouldn’t be surprised.
@Bear:
(some research on fertility)
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1972729?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101099495891
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.1999.00211.x/abstract
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1972930?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101099482021
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n28rk031337k018t/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b553510421467273/
@BlueTron Delta:
The Chinese show no collective guilt over [lets see]
Killing 70,000,000 of their own
Making the Vietnam war
making the Korean war
making the Tibet war
infanticide
force late abortions
I dont think the joos with their ‘induce guilt in all other tribes’
SCHTIK [yid word] have a chance their, unless they do a financial deal.
Do the Chinese want to study what my local JC offers?
[ Hebrew, economics, sociology, black and feminist studies etc].