FireRises
6hr ago
Contra Nick Fuentes, Hitler, Nazis on Antisemitism: An essay from a strongly-Zionist authright.
Over the past several years I’ve come to terms with accepting the reality of HBD and its implications on my political views. Put simply, HBD is the most straightforward way to explain the vast differences in societal development we see at a global level: Countries with lots of White people in them seem to usually be pretty nice places to live. Countries with lots of Japanese people, Taiwanese, Koreans, or Jews tend to also be pretty great. Countries with lots of Muslims and Blacks tend to be hellscapes with horrific amounts of violence, corruption, nonsensical cruelty, incest, pedophilia, poverty, genocides and immense institutional dysfunction.
The left-leaning, mainstream-media-liberal explanation for these observations in the disparity between group outcomes seem to… not notice it at all. When mainstream media liberals are reluctantly forced to explain these differences in outcomes they will blame a “bad environment” or blame white people for the legacy of colonialism. These hypotheses both reject the agency that minorities have over their own wellbeing and ignore the vast amount of data in intelligence research and group differences in psychology that predict the bad outcomes that we observe.
I think that understanding HBD just means that you realize that bad people CAUSE bad environments, not the other way around. The implications of HBD on immigration politics is undeniable: If you value living in a low-crime society with a high standard of living for the middle class, you don’t want Blacks/Muslims/Indians in your country. And you should support policies that send blacks/muslims/Indians who are already here back to their country of origin.
While it’s obviously social, romantic, and career suicide for any individual to openly admit that they understand HBD (i.e. admit that they’re racist), the Right at the very least tends to adopts policies that people who are openly racist would support. The right tends to support stricter immigration laws, harsher penalties for violent criminals, and to support law enforcement in their goals of catching and deporting people who are here illegally. As a HBD understander, I like these policies.
While many metrics paint the western world as the most divided it has ever been, there is something that the right and left both seem to find agreement on recently: hating Jews. Young people in particular and especially in academia are supporting antisemitic beliefs in America at record rates probably not seen since 1930’s - not only about Israel the state but also about Jews the people.
If you couldn’t tell from the title of the post: I like the Jews. They’re intelligent, hardworking people who are high in conscientiousness and very low in violent crime. I believe that western society has benefited tremendously over the last several hundred years from the millions of Jewish entrepreneurs, scientists, and researchers living among us. Ashkenazi Jews have disproportionately high IQ, and everyone in a society benefits when there are more smart people in that society. Smart Jews make more money than goys, and pay more in taxes as a result. Jewish-owned businesses make lots of great middle class jobs for the rest of us. The tax revenue from those high earning Jews can go to investing in roads, schools, healthcare, food stamps, social security, public housing, and other government benefits that make Western countries so great to live in. I want to live in places with lots of Jews, and I think that you should too.
Quite frankly, I don’t really respect the opinions of the modern liberal when it comes to social issues. Once you understand HBD, liberals become obviously wrong on most every social issue, and (when it comes to immigration) they’re wrong in ways that are fundamentally undermining the ability of every western civilization to continue to exist 30 years from now. So it isn’t surprising to me to see that Antisemitism is rising on the political left - The left is “wrong about every social issue” so of course they’re wrong about hating the Jews, too.
But the right also has alarmingly high rates of antisemitism. And this makes me especially sad because I would otherwise call the political right my ideological allies on every other issue. The rising popularity of Nick Fuentes obviously is the most noteworthy example, and of course being an intellectually curious person I have listened to several hours of Nick talk about Jews. His main criticisms seem to be over the US’s support of Israel, as well as the undue influence that Jews have over US policymaking. And most critically, Nick believes that the Jews are using that influence to try to tear down the West.
My criticism of Nick Fuentes starts thusly: Nick’s beliefs don’t have internal consistency. If Nick is correct that the status-quo of Western Institutions is to be extremely pro-Israel and Pro-Jewish, then why would the Jews want to destroy those western institutions?? Why would the Jews want to replace the pro-Jewish status quo with a “from the river to the sea” Pro-Palestinian one? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Moreover, Nick’s opinions about Jews make testable predictions: if you suspect that Jews are secretly hoping for a Muslim takeover in America, you could actually, you know, check the voting records. Even in heavily-democrat NYC, only 33% of Jews voted for the democratic candidate Mamdani. If Fuentes were right about Jews, this number should be much much higher.
Re: Fuentes on Israel: If you look at the data since 1947, the US has in fact given more money to Israel than any other country to the tune of $300 billion (as measured on 2024 dollars) over the past 79 years. This averages to $3.8billion per year on average. That sounds like a lot, but honestly it’s small potatoes compared to our current annual defense spending of $850 billion. $3.8 billion a year so that the US can test our weapons systems in actual warzones and maintain the stability of our only ally in the Middle East seems like a worthwhile investment to me. I personally hope Israel uses that money to turn Palestine into a parking lot.
For the most part, I agree with Nick’s “America First” agenda. So you could convince me to axe the “give free stuff to Israel” from the US’s budget. But Nick getting so nonsensically angry over such a small line item on our nation’s balance sheet is just wildly disproportionate. I don’t really care about giving a small amount of money to Israel.
What I do care about is that the government of every Western country is stealing money from the productive White/Asian/Jewish middle class (via tax dollars) only to give that money to dozens of immigration non-profits. These nonprofits use this money to import hundreds of thousands of people from the most dangerous, violent, and backwards countries in the world. When those room-temperature-IQ people move into your neighborhoods, they are given free cars, free food, free housing, which the “refugees” then use to commit fraud, steal, and continue to be the violent, stabby creatures that they are. Our governments are forcing the productive middle class to pay for 3rd worlders to come and rape our women, and Nick Fuentes is mad about some random $4 billion/yr going to Israel?? Who gives a shit about Israel, Nick.
Nick, of course, blames the hoard of third world migrants on the Jews that are living in Western countries. The evidence for this is that there’s a disproportionate number of Jews that work for the institutions that are destroying this country. As an HBDer, this is easy to explain: there exists group differences in intelligence between the races, and Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is very high. So you should expect Jews to be overrepresented in all positions of economic, scientific, or political prestige - even overrepresented within the institutions that are doing work that you hate.
The most plausible explanation for the vast amount of cultural decline in our country over the past 15 years is NOT some secret cabal of Jews conspiring to destroy the countries that they share with us. It seems much more likely that outside actors who actually have a vested interest in watching the US and Europe collapse are to blame: the Qatari, Saudi, Emirati oil money are buying their way into influencing Western academic, political, and social capital in a way that undermines Western values and promotes Islamic ones. Likewise, the Chinese Communists are no doubt using all of the psychological warfare tools at their disposal to accelerate the collapse of the American Empire. The Chinese definitely want to see America be as multicultural as possible and promote identity politics to create more divisions within us.
Islam is at war with the West, and they have been for thousands of years. The difference is now the West is losing this war, and we are losing badly. If Western Civilization can muster the courage to actually declare war against Islam, as they have declared war on us, the Jews will be overrepresented in the political, military and cultural institutions that are fighting for western civilization. The Jews helped us beat Hitler. The Jews helped us beat the Soviet Union. The Jews can help us beat China. The Jews can help us beat Islam, too.
Tl;dr: Nick Fuentes is wrong. Happy Hanukkah. Be nice to Jews, and definitely don’t put them in gas chambers.
FireRises
8mo ago
As someone whose only language is English, I highly prefer the DeepSeek translation over the professionally translated one. I also thought that the English version of Three Body Problem felt rather clunky to read as well.
I seem to remember reading recently that a report that came out which investigated the whole "Trump-Russia" collusion narrative, and came to the conclusion that it was manufactured without evidence by the media and FBI. But I'm drawing up blanks on what that report was called, and Google (being a part of the censorship-industrial complex) doesn't really want me to find it easily.
Does anyone remember what this report was called? And where I could read it?
FireRises
2yr ago
Read Joseph Heinrich's "The WEIRDest people in the world". It explains a lot of of the non-intelligence related reasons that humans differ in their cognition.
(full disclosure: I haven't actually read the book yet myself. It's working its way to the top of my reading list)
FireRises
2yr ago
Go to a running store that can analyze your running form, and they can recommend a shoe specifically for your running body mechanics. Some people strike with the outside of their feet, some hit the road with a more neutral form. Some are midfoot strikers, vs striking on the balls of your feet or your heel. Get a shoe that compliments your running style.
Also, when shopping for running shoes I've found that some shoes can fit well around my toes and on the sole of my foot, but felt a bit loose around my ankles. Learning how to tie a heel-lock with the shoe's laces has worked really well to correct this one particular problem I've found with shopping for the right shoe.
FireRises
2yr ago
Yeah, this seems like the most likely explanation. I would guess that the biggest, most powerful companies in the world make a lot of their money based off of their ownership of capital, and subsequent rent-seeking. With a side hustle of regulatory capture that lets them extract more rent, and acquire more capital.
I feel like the companies with the means to extract those rents will also have a desire to signal to everyone else how virtuous they are. The Vanguards and Blackrocks of the world can point to their 50% woman, 30% black executives and say "look at how diverse your consent-manufacturer overlords are!"
FireRises
2yr ago
There exists an entire consulting industry that performs research on the benefits of DEI training, the benefits of a more diverse workforce, the success of organizations which have more women/LGBT people in leadership positions, etc. Here is the consulting company Accenture's summary of the benefits of DEI to companies and organizations that adopt their practices.
I am of the belief that it is people's knowledge, experience and competence that determines whether or not an organization will be successful in its goals. It seems extremely unlikely to me that any problem corporations are interested in solving becomes easier the more members of your project team possess a uterus. Likewise, it seems unlikely your organization will gain magical insight into any real problem of interest by virtue hand-selecting team members whose ancestors have a specific continent of origin. And I have a hard time believing there is a benefit to adding more members of your team who are sexually aroused by humans who share their same sex organs (or adding members of your team who wish to change their sex organs via surgery or chemical sterization).
My priors are stacked so incredibly hard against studies which demonstrate that there is actually a benefit to structuring teams based on hand-selecting people who are LGBT, people from Africa, or adding more women. Indeed, it feels like if you lower qualifications to hire people from these groups, it can only result in organizations which are less qualified.
I'm wondering how it is possible that these consulting companies succeed in designing studies that show the opposite of (what I believe to be) reality. Is it all publication bias and p-hacking? My intuition says that it is. But there are some pretty powerful-looking studies that seem to be hard to explain via that explanation alone. Looking at an example of one of the studies done by McKinsey in the above link:
Earnings Before Interests and Taxes (EBIT) margins
McKinsey & Company’s global study of more than 1,000 companies in 15 countries found that organizations in the top quartile of gender diversity were more likely to outperform on profitability—25% more likely for gender diverse executive teams and 28% more likely for gender-diverse boards. Organizations in the top quartile for ethnic/cultural diversity among executives were 36% more likely to achieve above-average profitability. At the other end of the spectrum, companies in the bottom quartile for both gender and ethnic/cultural diversity were 27% less likely to experience profitability above the industry average. Researchers measured profitability by using average EBIT margins
What is the plausible mechanism behind which research that shows these kind of results are created? Are they measuring something that is real (i.e. does a more diverse workforce actually make companies more money)? Or are the brilliant people at McKinsey meticulously hand-selecting the companies to design studies which will show the opposite of reality?
FireRises
2yr ago
There probably isn't much need for the Communications degree but building a corporate culture begins with communication that most men, again in my experience are not interested in. Women are heavily involved in the social shaming, rewarding and so on that is the foundation of our societies, top to bottom.
"Communications coordinators" are the type of people who destroy corporate culture, not create it.
Great corporate culture is created from a groups of people working together to solve difficult problems. So to build this culture, you want to hire intelligent and conscientious people who are passionate about solving the types of problems your organization needs.
FireRises
2yr ago
The underappreciated benefits is that: if HBD is true, then "invisible racism that everyone holds" stops being a reasonable explanation for why certain demographics are under-performing. Acknowledging HBD is (in my opinion) critical to reducing racial bitterness that the mainstream media has been trying really hard for the past decade to inflame
FireRises
3yr ago
Most of this website understands that a) intelligence tests have predictive validity and b) that Ashkenazi Jews, as a group, have extremely high average intelligence. Given these two observations, one would expect the country with the most jews-per-capita, Israel, would have a tremendous amount of human capital. I would expect, knowing nothing else about the country, that industry there would thrive and the wages in that country should be among the highest in the world. But wages there aren't that high: the GDP per capita in Israel is broadly similar to an average European country like Belgium.
What could be the cause of this? Ashkenazi Jews make up around 2% of the US's population, but due to their high intelligence, worth ethic, and culture, have a large percentage of positions of power and prestige in the US. You would think that Israel, being 33% Ashkenazi Jewish, would have tremendous number of brilliant 130+ IQ middle-and-upper class, and I'd expect Israel to be a tremendous source of intellectual and economic might in the European region as a result (kind of similar to Singapore or Taiwan in Asia, but with even more economic and technological prowess).
What explains Israel's economic and technological mediocrity? The rest of Israel's demographics are largely Mizrahi Jews and Sephardic Jews, as well as 20% arabs. Mizrahi and Sephardic jews have around an IQ of 92-ish, whereas Arabs have an IQ around 80. Which means that, overall, the IQ for Israel is estimated to be around 92. But even still there are a lot of very bright people in Israel; it should really be a bigger economic powerhouse, but it isn't. Can anyone help me to understand why? Are international corporations just not leveraging these untapped intellectual resources properly? Or does the presence of some dumb people in your society prevent the 30% of the very-smart people from successfully starting businesses/reaching the level of international influence that they otherwise could?
tl;dr: Israel isn't a big economic superpower. Why?
FireRises
3yr ago
As a red triber working in a blue city, it doesn't feel very descriptive of my situation, all of my female friends save one are pro life to the point of donating time and/or money to life focused crisis pregnancy centers
This is extremely the opposite of my experience as a red triber working in a very-blue city. I think it would be difficult to find any of my female friends who would mention being pro-life. People get fired for admitting that they are pro-life; I expect I would lose some friends if I made my opinions about this subject clear to them.
FireRises
3yr ago
I saw someone on reddit link this greentext image which explains some of the difficulties with basic reasoning ability that people with low IQ have.
I've read some books on the basics of intelligence research (which shows that intelligence is positively correlated with many outcomes that are good, and negatively correlated with many outcomes that are bad), but this text somehow phrased it in very concrete terms that I found interesting. Are there any other readings people have found that tries to contextualize the reality of living at a different intelligence level?
I know that, when people empathize with others, they tend to do so by "putting themselves in other people's shoes", which is trying to figure out how you would act given a different set of circumstances. But doing this with people of vastly different cognitive ability than you is flawed, and I want to understand some of the ways in which it is flawed better.
FireRises
3yr ago
Smart watches literally exist specifically to gamify exercise. Run further distances, lift heavier weight, walk more steps? You get more points. Then you can share your high point count on social media with your friends.
Although, as someone who has no interest in owning a smart watch, but is in outrageously good shape, I can say that "being physically fit" and "traveling the world doing fun outdoorsy/fitness hobbies" is much more rewarding than an app ever could be.
...So yeah, my advice is to partake in interesting and physically strenuous hobbies, and to try to find friends who do those hobbies. Not to try to get your exercise while looking at a screen
Ah sorry if this subject is well-worn territory. I haven't been as active of a Motte-izen to keep up with the conversational metagame here.
More options
Context Copy link