Jesse J. Prinz is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York and an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina. His academic specialism is the philosophy of psychology, and he has produced books and articles on emotion, moral psychology, aesthetics and consciousness. His latest book, Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, was published earlier this year. Like much of his previous work, this new book is an attack on “psychological nativism.” Prinz (who is Jewish) claims that his latest book “concerns the cultural impact on human variation” and is part “of a critique of approaches that oversell the role of biology.”[i] The Jewish ethno-political agenda behind this critique soon becomes clear when the author acknowledges his “intellectual heroes who hover silently in the background. I mention here Franz Boas, whose pioneering work in anthropology has been an inspiration to many who try to establish universal human dignity through the study of diversity.”[ii]
In arguing for the primacy of nurture over nature, Prinz devotes a significant part of his book to attempting to explain why measured racial differences in IQ can be ascribed to environmental rather than genetic factors. He believes that “The IQ controversy is an extreme example of a more general tendency to explain human abilities by appeal to biology,” and regards it as “a particularly egregious case because it legitimates biases against many subjugated groups and mistakes social injustice for biological necessity.”[iii] For Prinz “one of the great tragedies of IQ testing is that researchers have used their results to argue fallaciously that certain groups of people differ in intelligence.”[iv] Introducing his case for an environmental explanation for racial differences in IQ, he notes that
everyone agrees that intelligence can be affected by the genes. The fact that humans are smarter than dogs is clearly a consequence of our biology. Everyone also agrees that differences in human intelligence can be genetic. Some people can be congenitally retarded, and extreme forms of genius are likely to be genetically based as well. But what about the vast majority of us who lie somewhere between Einstein and Tweedledumb [note the standard invocation of the Jewish Einstein as the quintessence of human genius]. Genius and retardation are rare conditions, which may result from genetic mutations. Are the differences between people who fall in the normal range distinguished by the genes? Is the run-of-the-mill dullard biologically different from a garden variety whiz-kid? And if so, are those biological differences fixed, or might they be altered by experience? These questions become even more heated when we turn from individual differences to differences between groups.
Do biological differences in brain power come pre-packaged with biological differences in pigmentation? These are touchy topics, and naturists have felt considerable heat for defending positions that are politically incorrect. I don’t think we should let politics arbitrate in this case, however. I think naturists simply get the science wrong. While some differences in intelligence may be linked to biology, most people have pretty comparable biological endowments. If we want to find an explanation for group-wide social inequity, then we would be better off studying the negative effects of poverty, and the positive effects of cultural practices that encourage learning.[v]
Totally ignoring the work of Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen and others, Prinz claims that the most recent example of this supposedly wrongheaded psychological ‘naturism’ is Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life from 1994. According to Prinz, Herrnstein and Murray make several “startling claims” in The Bell Curve. Among these are “that men are capable of greater extremes of intelligence than women, that White people are more intelligent on average than people of color, and that east Asians and Jews are on average more intelligent than Christians.”[vi] Prinz repeatedly promotes the lie that Judaism is merely a religion by comparing Jews to “Christians” rather than Europeans. He seems unconcerned that many millions of “east Asians” (and indeed some Jews) also happen to be “Christians”.
For the author, these “highly provocative — even offensive” claims are “consistent with the widespread pre-theoretical assumptions that are usually dismissed as hateful bigotry: women aren’t as smart as men, Black people are dumb, and Jews and Asians are dangerously clever.” According to Prinz, “Herrnstein and Murray give these attitudes an air of scientific respectability by presenting a hundred pages of charts and tables documenting measurable differences in intelligence.”[vii] Dismissing the validity of this data, and the conclusions that Herrnstein and Murray draw from it, Prinz maintains that “the central claims in the book are based on faulty assumptions, bad inferences, and questionable methods.”[viii]
Prinz scornfully notes that the authors of The Bell Curve “reveal their politics” in recommending major policy changes like disbanding affirmative action programs. These policy recommendations being ultimately based on assumptions that “affirmative action programs cannot increase the intelligence of their beneficiaries, and people with lower IQ will perform less efficiently in the average job.”[ix] Herrnstein and Murray’s central thesis — that racial differences in intelligence go a long way to explaining differences in educational attainment, earnings, socioeconomic status, crime, longevity, fertility and other social phenomena in the United States – is, for Prinz, “based on a simple fallacy: one cannot study traits within groups of people and then draw conclusions about differences between groups of people.”[x] This rejection of reductionist scientific method, because it inevitably oversimplifies real processes, was pioneered by Harvard population biologist (and ethnocentric Jew) Richard Lewontin. Kevin MacDonald notes in Culture of Critique that the result of this rejection “is a hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology. In developmental psychology such a program would ultimately lead to rejection of all generalizations, including those relating to the average effects of environments. … By adopting this philosophy of science, Lewontin is able to discredit attempts by scientists to develop theories and generalizations and thus, in the name of scientific rigor, avoid the possibility of any politically unacceptable scientific findings.”[xi]
To illustrate his point, the author uses an analogy first developed by Lewontin, whose philosophy of “developmental contextualism” has clearly influenced Prinz’s own ideas. Suppose, Lewontin proposes, we take a packet of seeds and plant half in nutrient soil and half in bad soil. Then we let them grow, providing equal water and sunlight to both groups. After a few months, we measure how tall they have grown. Height in plants (like height in people) is highly heritable, and the variation in height within each group of seeds will be entirely due to the genetic differences between the seeds. As all seeds had exactly the same light, water and soil, any within-group variation will be based on the intrinsic genetic potential of each seed. But suppose we compare the two groups. It is extremely likely that the seeds planted in bad soil will be much shorter than the seeds planted in nutrient-rich soil. Suppose the average height of the seeds that were planted in bad soil is fifteen centimeters lower than the average height of seeds grown in the good soil. Since height is heritable, and these groups are significantly different in height, we might conclude that the difference is genetic; we might say that the seeds of the short group are biologically inferior to the seeds of the tall group. But this, Lewontin tells us, would be a misconception. All the seeds came from the same packet. Both groups had exactly the same potential for growth. The difference between the groups is entirely attributable to an environmental difference. The plants in the short group would have been just as tall as the plants in the tall group, on average, if they had been planted in nutrient-rich soil.
the plant case exactly parallels the IQ case. If the average IQ for White Americans is 15 points higher than the IQ for Black Americans, that difference does not show that Whites are biologically smarter than Blacks. The difference might be completely explained by environmental differences. Black Americans might be nurtured in the sociological equivalent of bad soil [which, however, apparently does not affect their athletic performance]. The data are ambiguous between a genetic explanation and an environmental explanation. How, then, should we explain which explanation is right? The answer is simple. We should favor the biological explanation if Blacks and Whites are reared in the same environment, and we should favor the environmental explanation if there are significant biological differences between Blacks and Whites. When things are presented this way, it should be absolutely obvious that the best explanation for the IQ discrepancy between Whites and Blacks is environmental.[xii]
The problem with this analysis is that Prinz simply ignores evidence that undercuts (if not totally demolishes) his position, such as transracial adoption studies which show that, even when reared in very similar White middle class environments, the mean IQ of non-White adoptees remains the same as their racial group of origin. The largest and most carefully scrutinized study was the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. In this study the average age of adoption was less than two years, and the adoptees included White, Black, and mixed-race children. The adoptive parents were upper middle class Whites who were working in professional and managerial positions, were well educated, and whose mean IQ was about 120. The children in each racial category scored higher than usual for seven-year-old children for each racial group. However, when the children were tested again at 17, the improvement in IQ scores had vanished. Michael H. Hart notes that “for the adoptees in the study, the gap between the mean IQ scores of 17 year-old Whites and Blacks was over 16 points – every bit as large a difference as found in the general population. Note also that despite the similarity of the environments in which they were raised, the mixed-race adoptees scored much higher than the Black adoptees, which is just what would be predicted on hereditarian grounds.”[xiii] The premise underlying Lewontin’s plant analogy, that differently-evolved human racial groups are analogous to “seeds from the same packet” that only need to be raised in “nutrient-rich soil” to realize their equivalent biological potential is, therefore, not applicable.
Furthermore, Prinz fails to mention that the Black-White IQ gap is not a phenomenon unique to the United States. Low Black scores on IQ tests are not observed in just one school, one city, one state, or one country, but are a global phenomenon. This phenomenon therefore requires an explanation that holds in all countries, not one that depends on the socioeconomic characteristics of American Blacks, and can therefore only explain the low IQs of Blacks in the US. The international consistency of the racial differences in IQ (and socioeconomic status) throughout the world is a powerful indication that these differences must have a strong genetic basis.
Richard Lynn notes that if racial differences in IQs in the United States and Britain were solely environmentally determined, “we should expect to find different racial hierarchies in other continents. Historical accident would have seen that, in some of these places, other races had secured the most privilege and wealth, the best nutrition and education for their children, and the highest IQs accruing from these economic advantages.”[xiv] Instead we find that lighter skinned peoples (i.e. Europeans and East Asians) invariably outperform darker-skinned peoples. Lynn makes the point that “only the race differences in intelligence theory can provide a coherent explanation for the consistent worldwide racial inequalities.”[xv] Rushton similarly reminds us that: “Only a theory that looks at both genes and environment in terms of Darwin’s theory of evolution can explain why races differ so consistently throughout the world and over the course of time.”[xvi]
In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray showed that IQ differences between Blacks and Whites remain even when controlling for socioeconomic status. Prinz admits this finding would strongly support the case for a biological explanation for the IQ gap, were it not for the fact that there are “other enormous environmental differences” separating Blacks and Whites.
The fact that Black people are generally much poorer and, hence generally much more likely to be less educated and engage in criminal behavior, has an enormous impact on how Black people are perceived. We all involuntarily form stereotypes on the basis of the most salient members of a class, and we then use those stereotypes to judge all members of the class. Affluent Black people are regarded as less intelligent and trustworthy than affluent White people, because the Black stereotype is formed by exposure to Black people who are poor. White Americans see people of color working in low-paying service positions, or being carried off in handcuffs by police on the nightly news. These experiences have a measurable and unconscious effect on White attitudes. … Prejudice inevitably exerts a negative influence on its victims. Black Americans are stopped by police on highways more frequently than White Americans; they are regarded with fear by White pedestrians; and they are regarded as less intelligent than Whites by their educators. Racial prejudice influences Black Americans’ self-assessment and behavior …. The evidence for racial bias is overwhelming. Black Americans are raised in bad soil. They are subjected to an environment that promotes inequality by chronically and pervasively conveying the message that Black people have less potential than Whites. The result is an erosion of confidence, a dearth of opportunities and a drop in aptitude.[xvii]
The notion that a lack of racial self-esteem among American Blacks (resulting from negative stereotyping by Whites) is responsible for their low scores on IQ tests ignores the critical fact: the low IQ of Blacks is a worldwide phenomenon. Very low Black IQs have been uniformly recorded in the racially homogeneous Black nations of sub-Saharan Africa, where the racial bias of higher status Whites is presumably irrelevant. Psychological tests show that, on average, Black teenagers have higher self-esteem than Whites, rather than lower. Lynn notes that mulattos, despite being a small minority in the Caribbean where Blacks have political power, record higher IQs and do better than Blacks.[xviii] Likewise, despite being historically discriminated against in Western nations, the Japanese and Chinese have nevertheless recorded IQs as high as, or better than, Europeans. Likewise, the widespread antipathy toward Jews has not prevented them from obtaining high scores on IQ tests. Ignoring these obvious and problematic counter-examples, Prinz maintains that
in sum, we have solid evidence that black Americans grow up in an environment that significantly reduces their chances of success. This can explain the differences in black and white IQ scores. There is no reason to think these differences are biologically based. Similar morals can by drawn for the reported differences between men and women, between Jews and Christians and between Westerners and Easterners. Each of these groups has very different life-experiences, on average. Those differences may account for differences in IQ. Until all cultural influences are ruled out, we should assume that IQ discrepancies are environmental, rather than genetic. This should be our default assumption, because cultural differences are known to exist, and cultural differences have an impact on psychological traits.[xix]
Note Prinz’s claim that environmental differences ‘can explain’ Black IQ; he has no data that any particular environmental influence is the actual explanation for low Black IQ. His proposal is therefore nothing more than a politically correct hypothetical.
Indeed, there is no reason to think that the measured racial differences in IQ are not biologically based (or at least substantially so). Because important biological differences between the races are known to exist, and these differences have been tied to specific psychological and behavioral tendencies, it is rational to assume that IQ discrepancies are mostly genetic. Lynn observes that the sociological theories offered by Prinz and others “are no more than ad hoc and unquantifiable surmises and have so many exceptions that they are unable to provide a coherent explanation of the worldwide existence and consistency of racial hierarchies. To achieve credibility, a theory must explain the totality of the phenomena. Only intelligence theory can do this.”[xx] Accordingly, this should be our default assumption, because genetic differences between the races are known to exist, and genetic differences have an impact on psychological traits.
Perhaps conscious of the inherent weakness of his theory, Prinz hedges his position of biological racial equality by simultaneously arguing that “race” itself is not a biological reality, insisting that
there are no human breeds or races. The categories by which we divide people into “racial groups” have little or no meaning biologically. For one thing, there is vastly more biological variation within racial groups than between them, whereas biologically defined categories tend to have greater internal uniformity. The features we use to classify people are often superficial, and do not correlate with deeper biological similarities. For example, dark skin pigmentation is shared by sub-Saharan Africans and by some indigenous peoples of New Guinea, who are genetically closer to East Asians.[xxi] [Prinz neglects to mention that both of these groups share very low mean IQs. In any case, the racial classifications used by Lynn are biological descent groups, with Blacks linked to populations currently living in sub-Saharan Africa.]
Given his stated position, Prinz would ostensibly have no problem with mass non-Jewish immigration to Israel, since the distinction between Jew and Palestinian (and sub-Saharan African) has, according to him, little or no meaning biologically. His own behavior in his personal life indicates otherwise, with the author (who is a prominent atheist) thanking his very Jewish girlfriend (Rachel Bernstein) in the acknowledgements section of Beyond Human Nature.
Ignoring the many human population genetic studies which confirm the existence of human genetic clusters (or races), Prinz’s argument — that there is more biological variation within races than between them — is an argument frequently leveled against race realists, and yet it is invalid. In his On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter has shown that the when world populations are sampled, genetic variance between groups is on average about 0.125—equivalent to the kinship between grandparent and grandchild. This is a far from trivial amount, and the result is that humans have an enormous genetic interest in their ethnic groups (or their race) compared to other groups.
Another error comes from assuming that small differences in the input to a system must yield small differences in the system’s output. On the contrary, it is often the case that small differences in the input result in large differences in the final outcome. For instance, it has often been pointed out that human beings and chimpanzees differ in less than 2 percent of their DNA; nevertheless, the difference in intelligence between the species is enormous. Likewise, a large part of the difference between males and females is due to a single chromosome, indeed to a single gene (the SRY gene). Many genetic diseases are caused by a single gene, and some of these are deadly. Despite this obvious reality, Prinz persists with this specious argument, maintaining that:
From the gene’s eye point of view, members of different “ethnic” groups — such as Blacks and Whites, Asians and Westerners, Jews and Gentiles — are very similar. Indeed, within-group genetic differences are much greater than between-group genetic differences. Two randomly chosen Black people may be less genetically similar than a randomly chosen Black person and a randomly chosen White person. Many researchers believe that the term “race” has no biological meaning when it comes to our species. The racial groups we talk about have insufficient genetic uniformity to be classified together. Ethnic categories are created by us on the basis of superficial features. Differences in skin color are genetic, or course, but so are differences in eye color, and differences in ear lobes. There is little reason to think that any of these superficial traits correlate with genetic differences in psychology.[xxii]
On the contrary, given the known mechanisms of human evolution, there is little reason to think that the physical traits of human racial groups do not correlate with genetic differences in psychology. Different environments cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations in brain size, just as they do in skin coloring and external morphology. Since genes have caused so many physical differences between the races, it is implausible that they have not caused any mental differences. The process of human evolution did not stop with the emergence of Homo sapiens. Lynn and Rushton contend that groups that resided for many millennia in regions with cold winters gradually — through the process of natural selection — evolved higher intelligence than groups living in milder climates. Rushton notes how “colonizing temperate and cold environments leads to increased cognitive demands to solve the problems of gathering food and gaining shelter and general survival in cold winters.” He points out that “cognitive demands of manufacturing sophisticated tools and making fires, clothing, and shelters (as well as regulating the storage of food) would have selected for higher average intelligence levels than in the less cognitively demanding environment in sub-Saharan Africa. Those individuals who could not solve these problems of survival would have died out, leaving those with alleles for higher intelligence as the survivors.”[xxiii]
This selection pressure for intelligence was the key driver for the increase in brain size among Europeans and East Asians. The groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed a larger brain, but the process of building a bigger brain, Rushton observes, takes more time and energy during a person’s development. So increased brain size was counterbalanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity. “This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans.”[xxiv] Rushton has also pointed out that the overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44 – suggesting brain size significantly underlies intelligence. Prinz is dismissive of such findings, making the following outrageous argument:
The idea that IQ results from big brains rests on a hopelessly simplistic theory of brain function. It used to be believed that the entire brain contributes equally to every cognitive task. If that were true, big brains might be brilliant. But everyone in neuroscience now recognizes that different brain areas do different things. So the idea that brain volume is directly responsible for higher IQ doesn’t make much sense. Having a big olfactory bulb, for example, may help you smell better, but it won’t make you Einstein.[xxv]
But of course, a larger brain would also be expected to have larger volume of areas that are important for IQ and academic success, such as areas supporting working memory. While not contesting the fact Blacks have smaller brains on average than Whites, Prinz dismisses this as a possible causal factor in the IQ gap between the races. This is despite Black people’s brains being about six percent smaller on average than the brains of White people, and the high correlation between brain size and IQ. It is logical to expect this to lead to a substantial difference in average intelligence between the groups, and this is confirmed by the empirical data. Hart makes the important point that, “as a substantial part of the brain is involved in activities other than reasoning (such as regulating temperature and heartbeat, receiving signals from sensory receptors, and coordinating muscle activity), and as the number of brain cells required for those activities is the same in Blacks and Whites, a difference of 6% in overall brain size would result in a somewhat larger difference in the number of neurons available for reasoning. Indeed, this factor might by itself explain a large part of the differences in the average intelligence of the two groups.”[xxvi]
Nearly a century of psychometric testing has established that differential selection pressures for general intelligence did exist and resulted, after 40,000 years, in significant differences in mean IQ (and associated behavioral tendencies) among the races – and that this has had, and continues to have, profound consequences in determining the civilization-building capacities of different racial groups. It is also a key reason why Third-World immigration to the West is so dysfunctional. Aside from the massive and ever-growing welfare burden on White taxpayers, Blacks commit at least five times more violent crime than Whites, and are fifty times more likely to commit a crime of violence (assault, robbery, rape) against Whites, than Whites against Blacks. Indeed, based on international samples, Rushton has shown that Blacks are as disproportionately more likely to commit an act of criminal violence than Whites as men are more likely than women. “Data from around the world and over the course of history show that males commit more crimes, especially violent crimes, than do females. And just about all scientists agree this difference has some biological basis.”[xxvii]
Homicide Offending by Race in the United States 1976-2005, from the Bureau of Justice
Prinz traces the “egregious” practice of ascribing racial differences in IQ back to Francis Galton and the eugenics movement of the nineteenth century. According to the author:
Eugenics was, from its inception, an instrument for promoting the in-group at the expense of all others. … This frenzy over eugenics was driven by the intuitive plausibility of the idea that good traits can be biologically inherited. Those who know anything about breeding farm animals or show dogs know that one can exercise some control over an offspring’s characteristics by carefully selecting the parents. The problem is that this intuitive idea collapses into dangerous pseudo-science in the case of human beings.[xxviii]
Prinz does not say exactly how eugenics as applied to humans is pseudo-science. Moreover, it would surely be more accurate to say that Judaism has been, from its inception, an instrument for promoting the Jewish in-group at the expense of all others. Instead of being “pseudo-science,” eugenics is likely responsible for the relatively high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews like Prinz himself. Rather than accepting this, Prinz holds that high Jewish IQ is solely a product of environmental influences. This amounts to saying that Judaism is only a cultural construct, and is not centrally preoccupied with the preservation and flourishing of a coherent ethnic community. While few would question the significance of cultural traits in promoting Jewish educational attainment, such traits have been formed by, and are mediated through, the unique genetic inheritance of the Jews – which is the outgrowth of centuries of eugenic practices particularly among the Ashkenazim. Kevin MacDonald pinpoints why Jews like Prinz seek to ignore the immense importance of Jewish eugenics, noting that “in the case of eugenics and Jews, the reason for this historical obfuscation is clear: In recent decades, eugenics has been reconstructed as an anti-Jewish ideology — indeed, as the ideology of the Holocaust. Therefore, all Jewish involvement in eugenics must be expunged from the historical record. … In the end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect of the ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.”
Accordingly, for Prinz, “cultural difference is sufficient to explain the [Jewish] pattern of academic achievement” and “there is no solid evidence for thinking that the Ashkenazi advantage in IQ tests is genetically, as opposed to culturally, caused.”[xxx] The Cochran, Hardy and Harpending study of Ashkenazi IQ, which concluded that Jewish eugenic practices (and natural selection pressures) played a role in bringing about their relatively high verbal and mathematical intelligence, yet low visual-spatial intelligence, is flatly rejected by the author. The paucity of great Jewish visual artists is, he insists, solely a legacy of culture and environment.
Jews don’t have an enduring tradition of representational art, because Jewish law prohibits representations of people, and European art production was controlled by wealthy Christian patrons for centuries. Once we move into modern times, Jews are not under-represented in art. Jewish artists include Camille Pissarro, Marc Chagall, Max Beckmann, Amedeo Modigliani, Man Ray, Frida Kahlo, Mark Rothko, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauschenberg and Diane Arbus.[xxxi]
Unfortunately for Prinz, three of the figures he cites to prove his case (Beckmann, Kahlo and Rauschenberg) had no Jewish ancestry at all. Pissarro was half-Jewish, while Ray and Arbus were photographers rather than painters. Regarding the artistic merits of Mark Rothko, I refer readers to my series of articles on Rothko posted on TOO last year (see here).
While Prinz vainly attempts to debunk the evidence that racial differences in intelligence are largely due to genetic factors, he fails to offer any direct evidence of the alleged equality of Black and White native intelligence. If his thesis — that all racial groups have the same genetic potential for intelligence — is correct, he should have been able to assemble large amounts of evidence directly supporting it. Noting the general absence of this direct evidence in the critiques of race realism, Hart proposes that: “it is reasonable to infer that such evidence does not exist, and the reason it does not exist is that their assertion is incorrect.”[xxxii] This is especially the case given that there is no a priori reason to assume measured racial differences in IQ are mostly environmental in origin.
Given the vast array of “scholarship” that is predicated on the assumed biological equality of the races – it still comes as something of a shock to see the totally fraudulent and unscientific basis upon which the cultural-Marxist dogma of multiculturalism rests. Rushton makes the point that these attempts to deny race differences amount to a new form of creationism. He notes that “The scientific data fit the Darwinian-Galtonian viewpoint, not the egalitarian one”; the Darwinian-Galtonian model has been abandoned for political reasons, not because scientific research proved it wrong. Rushton certainly had books like Prinz’s Beyond Human Nature in mind when he observed that the result of this political contamination of the humanities is to leave “the social sciences closer to medieval theology or Renaissance humanitarianism than to modern science.”[xxxiii]
In the final analysis, Prinz’s book is just another effort by the Jewish intellectual Left to shore up the weak conceptual foundations of multiculturalism with its anti-White “diversity” fetish, performed with a sense of intellectual superiority and supreme self-confidence. In attempting to sure up these foundations, books like Beyond Human Nature seek to ensure that the ongoing White dispossession and displacement, which are at the core of this ideology, continue apace and unchallenged. It is the kind of casuistic arguments in Beyond Human Nature that sustain a racially desegregated social model in the West that guarantees that White people currently are, and will increasingly become, the victims of non-White aggression and violence. It is therefore incumbent on us to do what we can to expose the fraudulent basis of a set of beliefs which have been deliberately deployed to harm the economic, physical, and genetic welfare of our people.
Hart, M.H. (2007) Understanding Human History: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.
Lynn, R. (2008) The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.
MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.
MacDonald, K.B. (2011) ‘Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics”’, The Occidental Observer at: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/review-of-john-glads-jewish-eugenics/
Prinz, J.J. (2012) Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, Allen Lane, New York.
Rushton J.P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition, Charles Darwin Research Institute, Port Huron.
[i] Prinz, p. x
[ii] Ibid. p. xi
[iii] Ibid. p. 79
[v] Ibid. p. 52
[vi] Ibid. p. 62
[viii] Ibid. p. 63
[ix] Ibid. p. 62
[x] Ibid. p. 64
[xi] MacDonald 1998/2001, p. 47
[xii] Prinz, p. 65
[xiii] Hart, p. 109
[xiv] Lynn, p. 297
[xv] Ibid. p. 290
[xvi] Rushton, p. 10
[xvii] Prinz, p. 65-66
[xviii] Lynn, p. 297
[xix] Prinz, p. 67
[xx] Lynn, p. 296
[xxi] Prinz, p. 56
[xxii] Ibid. p. 67
[xxiii] Rushton, pp. 228-229
[xxiv] Ibid. p. 11
[xxv] Prinz, p. 78
[xxvi] Hart, p. 110
[xxvii] Rushton, p. 23
[xxviii] Prinz, p. 55-56
[xxix] MacDonald 2011
[xxx] Prinz, p. 71
[xxxi] Ibid. p. 70
[xxxii] Hart, p. 111
[xxxiii] Rushton, p. 27-28