Prof. Lee Jussim’s “Social Perception and Social Reality” and the Leftist Bias of Social Psychology

/7 Comments/in , /by

It’s well known that social psychologists are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics—exactly three people in a crowd of 1000 at a psychology conference raised their hand when Jonathan Haidt asked how many identified as politically conservative. In fact, social psychology is a good example of Haidt’s concept of “tribal moral communities” that infest our political discourse on race, multiculturalism, gender, etc.  People within the (liberal) tribe believe themselves morally (and intellectually) superior to people who don’t think the way they do. And we know that liberal social psychologists are perfectly willing to discriminate on the basis of their political attitudes in hiring decisions, etc.

It is also well known that there is a replication crisis in social psychology. Prof. Lee Jussim’s Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Oxford University Press, 2014) describes several examples of non-replicable findings which have become hugely influential in the field. My favorite is the study claiming to show 100+ point improvements in IQ scores as the result of expectancy effects, placing these individuals in the top 99.9999999987th percentile. How long can it be before everyone has an IQ of 200 just by having someone in authority tell teachers that their students are “late bloomers”?

Here I have compiled some particularly striking passages (please read the whole thing) from a masterful review  by Thomas Jackson at AmRen. It is essential reading for anyone interested how the leftist politics of academic social psychologists have corrupted understanding of group differences. Read more

Power without Scrutiny: The Jewish Privilege that Poisons Democracy

/51 Comments/in , , /by

Who is Ehud Sheleg? What is CFI? Nine out of ten British voters wouldn’t have a clue. Maybe ninety-nine out of a hundred wouldn’t. Their ignorance is very unhealthy, because CFI and Mr. Sheleg have enormous power in Britain. CFI have been controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics ever since 2010, when the so-called Conservative party won a general election against the so-called Labour party.

Two wings, one vulture

Before that, it had been LFI controlling policies on immigration and other vital topics. And what are CFI and LFI? Well, you might call them the two wings of one vulture: CFI stands for Conservative Friends of Israel and LFI stands for Labour Friends of Israel. Although the vast majority of Brits are not even aware that these organizations exist, one group is very aware: the traitorous political elite.

Aspiring Prime Minister Sajid Javid at CFI

You do not get to the top in British politics without getting very close to either CFI or LFI. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted that Conservative Friends of Israel is now “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster.” Under Tony Blair, the biggest lobbying group was Labour Friends of Israel. Ambitious politicians flock to join these organizations and there’s never any need to announce who the chief speaker will be at their annual dinners. As the Guardian pointed out in 2007, Read more

On “Leftist Anti-Semitism”: Past and Present

/19 Comments/in , /by

Leftist Critic of the Jews: William Cobbett (1763-1835)

–

If I had time, I would make an actual survey of one whole county, and find out how many of the old gentry have lost their estates, and have been supplanted by the Jews, since Pitt began his reign.
William Cobbett, Rural Rides (1826)

I can’t remember a time when the refrain “left-wing anti-Semitism” was more in vogue and yet so woefully misused. A quick Google search for the phrase returns more than four million results, including 65,000 results in which discussion of alleged leftist anti-Semitism forms a substantial element of a book. This curious but prolific fashion has accelerated remarkably in the last five years, with the publication, in relatively quick succession, of a number of texts posturing as ‘definitive’ treatments of the subject. The most notable of these are Stephen Norwood’s Antisemitism and the American Far Left (2013), Philip Mendes’s Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (2014), William Brustein’s The Socialism of Fools? Leftist Origins of Modern Anti-Semitism (2015), Dave Rich’s The Left’s Jewish Problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-Semitism, and most recently, Read more

Populist-Socialism: The Economy of the White Ethno-State

/45 Comments/in , , /by

Abstract
Little consideration is given to the economic foundations of a White ethno-state. While many in the Alt-Right know conceptually what an ethno-state should be like in the abstract sense of demographics, the minutia of public and economic policy to obtain or maintain such a state is lost. While not exhaustive, the following paper is intended to steer conversations into more concrete terms addressing the economy of a White ethno-state. That is, an anti-materialist economy that serves the nation, versus the nation serving the economy in materialistic capitalism and socialist-communism. A Third Position meshing of populist and socialism is proposed.

The demagogues on the left and right both use the terms populist and socialist to malign their political opponents. Populism has become synonymous with right-wing authoritarianism to the left. The same argument is used by conservatives to associate socialism with communism. Indeed, the populist primacy of the people and the socialist primacy of the class are seen as contradictory ideals. In reality, elements of populism and socialism can be complementary to one another in a dynamic economy. Socialism’s securing the welfare of the people and populism’s emphasis on the common man’s economic growth and interests are not antagonistic to one another, but complimentary.

To many, the concept of socialism is distinctly leftist. Historically, Socialism has been associated with Marxism and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This Marxist Socialism aims at the elimination of all hierarchy which is natural to man. Communism aimed at the flattening out of wages and elimination of class distinctions altogether. Read more

Ancient Sparta: The First Self-Conscious Ethnostate? Part 3: The Virtuous Circle of Spartan Power

/6 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

Go to Part 2.

The Virtuous Circle of Spartan Power: Discipline Through Lordship

The defining fact of Spartan life was the hard-won conquest of neighboring Messenia in the eighth century and the enslavement of its population as Helots. This victory had launched the virtuous circle of Spartan power. The subjugated Helots provided the Spartan citizen-soldiers with both the leisure and the imperative need to dedicate themselves to martial prowess in the face of a constant threat of rebellion at home. The entire social organization of Sparta came to reflect this state of affairs. Thucydides noted: “most Spartan institutions have always been designed with a view to security against the Helots.”[1]

The system instituted by Lycurgus proved remarkably successful for centuries. The organization and training of the—at their height—around 8,000 Spartan citizen-soldiers to suppress the Helots also translated into international military power, which in turn allowed Sparta to secure allies and thus yet more military power in the Peloponnese. Xenophon opens his account of the Spartan regime saying: “Sparta, despite having one of the lowest populations, had nonetheless clearly become the most powerful and most famous state in Greece.”[2] The unsentimental Thucydides says of Sparta: ‟its system of good order is very ancient and it has never been subject to tyrants. Read more

Ancient Sparta: The First Self-Conscious Ethnostate? Part 2: Commitment to Collectivism

/3 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

There is a sense in which all life for Spartan citizens was communal and hierarchical. Even once one had completed the agoge, Spartiates would eat together in common mess halls, again creating common feeling. The ages were mixed, so that the older could teach the young, and citizens were expected to discuss noble deeds. In the gymnasium, the oldest man would supervise, and citizens were expected to train regularly. Xenophon claims that “it would certainly not be easy for anyone to find men healthier or more physically apt than Spartiates.”[1]

Lycurgus reputedly had accompanied his basic law with a land reform giving each of those in the small citizen class an equal property, although economic inequality gradually accumulated over time. A positive consequence of the Spartans’ systematically communal lifestyle was an extremely high degree of trust among citizens. They shared each other’s hunting dogs and horses, the latter being extremely valuable property in those days. Citizens even trusted others to beat their own children if they had done wrong, for “there was a sense in which everyone regarded himself as father, tutor, and commander of each boy.”[2]

The entire society was oriented towards inculcating martial valor and unity. Cowards were severely stigmatized—so much so that they could be beaten freely—and “the citizens considered an honorable death preferable to a life of disgrace.”[3] Read more

Ancient Sparta: The First Self-Conscious Ethnostate? Part 1: Educating Citizen Soldiers

/12 Comments/in , /by

If in Athens we have ethnopolitical aspects, insofar as the democracy was tempered by Hellenic virtue, in Sparta we have a State wholly dedicated to systematic organization of the society according to a biopolitical ideal. Sparta’s mixed system of government and fiercely communitarian and hierarchical customs were supposed to have been created by the semi-legendary lawgiver Lycurgus, who perhaps lived in the ninth century B.C. Virtually nothing can be said for certain about his life. Lycurgus was, in later ages, rumored to have traveled to Egypt, Ionia, Crete, and even India, where “he talked with the Gymnosophists,”[1] before establishing Sparta’s constitution. What is clear, in any case, is that the basic law and way of life attributed to Lycurgus, and credited for Sparta’s success, were emphatically biopolitical.

Spartan law and culture were obsessed with systematically ensuring good breeding, martial education, and group unity. Spartan ethics and law considered that what was good was whatever was good for the community. During a debate as to whether a commander had abused his authority, the Spartan king Agesilaus argued: “The point to be examined . . . is simply this: has this action been good or bad for Sparta?”[2] Kevin MacDonald has argued that the law instituted by Lycurgus – featuring in-group altruism, relative egalitarianism, separation from and unity in the face of out-groups, specialization in warfare, and communally-determined in-group eugenics – qualifies as a genuine “altruistic group evolutionary strategy.”[3]

Few forms of government have so drawn the admiration of both liberals and ‘totalitarians’ as that of Sparta. Many republicans, both ancient and modern, have been impressed by the Spartans’ ‘mixed’ system of government, with its combination of monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements, as conducive to social unity, stability, and the rule of law. The Founding Fathers of the United States sought to emulate Read more