Last years, the Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, USA published a paper by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy and Henry Harpending titled Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. The paper basically argued that Ashkenazi Jews are considerably more intelligent than other Europeans. To quote:
Author Marek Kohn commented that, in contrast to the anger against racial characteristics expressed in the publishing of The Bell Curve, the [American] public reaction this time was strikingly different. No sirree, there was none of those anger against racism. She said “Instead there were thoughtful commentaries on the paper's arguments, and an undertone of complacency.”
"We evaluate the hypothesis that the high intelligence test scores observed in the Ashkenazi Jewish population are a consequence of their occupation of a social niche over the last millennium that selected strongly for IQ ........"
"There are several key observations that motivate our hypothesis. The first is that the Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group, combined with an unusual cognitive profile …….."
"The second is that the Ashkenazim experienced very low inward gene flow, which created a favorable situation for natural selection …….."
Kohn believed that racial science, which was what both publications were about, has in the latter case discovered the art, and the power, of flattery. Obviously she was referring to the Ashkenazi Jews and the Jewish audience.
In other words, if any author wants to publicise or pontificate on any racial theories, to ensure favourable reception, say them in positive terms - like, "Hey Chinaman, you people sailed around the world in 1421." However, it wouldn't be wise to add the logical followup of "Since then, you have done buggerall until about 10 years ago!"
Yes, praise rather than disparage or demean, especially if your racial theory concerns the race of your audience!
But it tells us something else. It’s OK to say a Jew is superior. The paper by those three gentlemen from the University of Utah actually frightens me by their 2nd observation, that “... the Ashkenazim experienced very low inward gene flow, which created a favorable situation for natural selection …” as one of the explanations for the Jew's superior intelligence.
Don't be lulled by the euphemistic 'very low inward gene flow'. Actually what this means is exactly what the Nazis were propagating – Aryan or racial purity. In this case, the authors have been talking about Ashkenazi Jewish racial purity as one factor for their superior intelligence.
During WWII, the Nazis had considered the Jews as Untermenschen or subhumans, and attempted to eliminate them on the basis of their alleged inferior race. Since the Nazi propagated their race-based theory of Aryan superiority, resulting in the heinous crime of the Holocaust, no one in the West had dared to discuss racial science or any form of difference among the ethnic groups in intelligence or competency, for fear of offending the Jews.
It seems it's perfectly acceptable for a Jew to be racially pure, but not others. Neo-Nazis, eat your bloody Hitler-ist hearts out!
Actually once Singapore had attempted to experiment with the idea of superior intelligence through selective genetic matching. The government encouraged university graduates to marry one another of the of the same educational standards, so that bright Sing-Einsteins might be produced for Singapore.
Who knows, one of those potential Einsteins might one day be able to expand the physical size of their island many-fold, though it would be better if another discover how to develop a "heart" for the Singapore government on their practice of condemning prisoners to death.
I read somewhere that when Lee Kuan Yew put his theory of societial intelligence enhancement through selective gene matching to a visiting Princess Anne, and ask for her opinion, she apparently replied that it was OK for horses.