Assault on Psychology: Research on Race Differences Anathematized

Nelson Rosit

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) has been called the Father of Modern Science. So it is fitting that he was, perhaps, the first scientist to be censured and silenced by political forces represented in his day by the Catholic Church. The issue then was evidence Galileo presented supporting the Copernican heliocentric model of the solar system that contradicted the Aristotelian geocentric theory espoused by the establishment.

Elites have often used science to support the dominate ideology while suppressing evidence incompatible with their beliefs. One notable case was the rise of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union during the reign of Joseph Stalin. Trofim Lysenko (1898–1976), a Ukrainian biologist, rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of the inheritance of environmentally acquired characteristics. This theory won favor because it fit well with the creation of the New Soviet Man: human nature was not innate, but as malleable and adaptable as were the characteristics of spring wheat.

The ideological orthodoxy of today is egalitarian multiculturalism, sometimes described as social or cultural Marxism. According to this doctrine the perceived differences between racial groups are superficial physical traits or cultural characteristics determined externally by history and the social environment.  All ethnic groups have equal potential for social development. A multicultural society is the most desirable and progressive social arrangement. There are no legitimate group interests that would preclude social harmony in a diverse and inclusive society.

Over the past half century, as social Marxism has tightened its ideological grip on the main stream media (MSM), education, corporations and the government, very few public persons have challenged its canon. But a handful of social scientists, mainly psychologists, have, along with Galileo, gone where the evidence led them. Because psychology deals with intelligence and behavior, the field is especially important for egalitarians to control. This essay will take a brief look at five psychologists who have contested established dogmas, and paid a price for doing so.

Five Dissidents

Arthur Jensen (1923–2012) received a PhD from Columbia and after two years of post-doctoral research in Britain returned to teach at Berkeley where he had earned his undergraduate degree. Prof. Jensen’s conventional career ended in 1969 with the publication of an article in the Harvard Educational Review.[1]  In this and a subsequent HER article Jensen claimed that efforts to raise IQ and academic achievement of low-IQ children had little long-term success.  Individual differences in IQ are largely inherited. He cited data indicating that both genetics and environment need to be considered in educational assessment, and instructional strategies involving rote learning and memorization are most effective when teaching low-IQ children.

Reaction to Jensen’s articles was vehement and protracted. His classes were disrupted, his office and vehicle vandalized. Leftist groups demanded his firing. From Minneapolis to Melbourne his lectures produced riotous demonstrations. Despite the tremendous strain put upon him and his family, Jensen refused to retract his findings or switch to less controversial topics of research. Over his long career Jensen continued to study the nature and causes of racial disparities in academic achievement.

In the face of incessant criticism, his research has stood the test of time. Today some of his recommendations, such as early childhood (pre-K) intervention, have been implemented by educational reformers, without, of course, attribution to Jensen.  Experimental charter schools that have developed highly structured lesson plans incorporating rote learning have had some success in raising scores of minority students on standardized achievement tests. Overall, however, the educational establishment has rejected Jensen’s conclusions and remains tenaciously egalitarian.

The refusal of the educational establishment to accept Jensen’s findings led to the search for other remedies to close the racial achievement gap. The most destructive and costly solution implemented was massive forced busing to achieve racially balanced schools. This failed policy cost billions, destroyed communities, and disrupted the lives of millions of Americans.


One scholar who found Jensen’s research convincing and thus realized that busing would be counterproductive was Ralph Scott, an educational psychologist at the University of Northern Iowa.

In the early 1970s Prof. Scott was involved in designing Home Start, a birth-to-kindergarten enrichment program for poor families in Waterloo, Iowa. Such early intervention was one of Jensen’s recommendations. Although Scott’s program was well received, the problems began when he advocated early intervention as an alternative to forced busing. In 1976 he organized a series of symposia entitled, “Constructive Alternatives to Forced Busing.”  That is really all it took. To support Jensen’s findings and oppose massive busing could only mean one was a hateful bigot. The news media in several cities where the symposia were held alleged Scott had racist affiliations. Reporters, including Grace Lichtenstein of the New York Times, called administrators at Scott’s university to complain about his activities. This led to an investigation to see if there were grounds for dismissal.

Fortunately, Prof Scott’s tenure prevented termination.

While the university could not rid itself of Scott, leftist students and “colleagues” could make his life unpleasant. He and his family received threating messages including death threats.  Follow professors denigrated Scott to their students, resulting in decreased enrollment in his classes. The university reduced his teaching assignments.  The harassment and opprobrium lasted for decades until Scott’s retirement in 2014.

In 1988 Scott’s teaching and research came under scrutiny of the baleful eye of leftist academic activist Berry Mehler. Mehler, who received his undergraduate degree from Yeshiva University, is the Jewish director of the so-called Institute for the Study of Academic Racism (ISAR) at Ferris State University in Michigan. As part of his investigation Mehler had an assistant use a pseudonym to make calls to Scott posing as a reporter seeking an interview for the Baltimore Sun.

Characters such as Mehler bring up an interesting aspect of scientific censorship in America. Due to our liberal tradition and First Amendment rights, the establishment must employ surrogates to enforce ideological conformity. For anti-White NGOs such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the ISAR, however, the separation between private and governmental action is blurred. For example, the SPLC and ADL conduct training courses for law enforcement to help officers identify “right-wing extremists.” SPLC propaganda posing as educational materials is distributed in public schools.

The fact that a disreputable organization such as the Jewish-funded SPLC has any credibility is due, in large part, to the support it receives from the MSM. We see in the controversies covered by this essay how the media works in tandem with the so-called “watchdog” groups to attack dissident scholars. Over the last several decades, the bias in the MSM has led to widespread distrust of these news outlets among Americans.  Despite this backlash and the rise of internet news, the MSM is still able to frame the dominate narrative, thus exercising tremendous influence on public opinion and policy.


Another distinguished psychologist to run afoul of the self-appointed thought police was Raymond Cattell (1905–1998).  The author or co-author of 500 research papers and over 50 books, the British-born Cattell was, without question, one of the leading psychologists of the twentieth century. After receiving a PhD from King’s College London in 1929, Cattell eventually moved to the US and taught for many years at the University of Illinois. Upon retiring he continued his research and writing.

In 1997 the American Psychological Association (APA) nominated the 92-year-old professor for its highest honor, the Gold Metal Lifetime Achievement Award to be presented in Chicago during their annual conference. In the weeks prior to the event leftwing academics “waged an intense media blitz of distortions, rumor, and innuendo. These axe-grinding ideological adversaries worked vigorously behind the scenes to undermine the APA’s presentation of the Gold Metal Award. They accused Cattell of [among other sins] ‘racism and anti-Semitism’”[2]  (see the SPLC for particulars). Two leftists leading the charge were above-mentioned Berry Mehler, and William H. Tucker, a psychology professor at Rutgers University –Camden, who has made a career of attacking fellow psychologists who have gone off the reservation.

Much of the material that disturbed the PC enforcers was contained in two philosophical works that Cattell wrote later in life: A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (1972), and Beyondism:  Religion from Science (1987). Cattell advocated for a new religion and was critical of the “Judaic-Catholic-Christian complex.” Cattell had relatively little to say about race, but was, no doubt, a race realist. The real heresy came from his lifelong interest in the potential for eugenics. He also had a very evolutionary view of human culture believing that societies and nations should develop largely as autonomous units, the antithesis of globalism.

One of the techniques used to discredit Cattell was the tried-and-true tactic of guilt by association. While the left is still wailing about McCarthyism sixty years after their assault on Tail Gunner Joe, they have perfected the art of linking their opponents to other individuals they find objectionable and attributing the ideas of one to the other. Cattell’s “unsavory affiliations” included Roger Pearson, Wilmot Robertson, Revilo Oliver and Carlton Putnam, the dissident right intellectuals of his day.

As a result of the intense lobbying effort by the left, the APA postponed the presentation of Cattell’s award pending an investigation. The old professor defended his research and writing, but in the end decided to withdraw his name from consideration. He died a few months later in February, 1998.


  1. Phillippe Rushton (1943-2012) was another British-born psychologist who departed from the politically correct consensus and paid a price. Rushton settled in Canada and spent twenty-five years as a teaching and research professor at University of Western Ontario.

The author of six books and over 250 articles, Rushton began his career studying altruism, eventually developing the Genetic Similarity Theory as an explanatory framework for why people behavior altruistically. He found that close genetic relationships, including outside the family group, promote altruistic behavior. This phenomenon operates on both an individual and collective level, and could help explain ethnic conflict.

Rushton believed that observable racial differences in IQ and behavior were attributable, at least in part, to genetic inheritance. In his best-known book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Rushton applied Life History Theory to explain racial differences. Life histories run on an r/K continuum from fast r, to slow K. “A life history is a genetically organized suite of characteristics . . . [that] allocate energy to survival, growth and reproduction.”[3] For example, the r strategy for reproduction includes a high quantity of offspring with little parental care, while the K strategy produces fewer offspring with higher levels of parental investment. Rushton suggested that Blacks tended towards an r strategy while Europeans and East Asians pursued more of a K strategy.

The reaction from the establishment to Rushton’s research findings was intense outrage. The Ontario premier, David Peterson, demanded Rushton be terminated from his position at the university. When that could not be done, the premier instituted a six-month investigation for possible criminal violations under Canada’s hate speech laws. Unfortunately Canada does not have the same constitutional protections as the US. But fortunately the investigation found that, while Rushton’s pronouncements were deplorable, they were not criminal.

As we have seen there are extrajudicial methods for punishing heretics. “Because of his scientific and political convictions, Rushton endured decades of social ostracism, professional discrimination, grotesque smears, mentally unhinged stalkers, attempts to have him fired from his job, and physical assaults at the hands of Canada’s egalitarian peace-and-love mongers.”[4]


Wisconsin-born evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald is another social scientist condemned by the ADL, SPLC, and ISAR. After receiving a PhD in 1981 MacDonald taught for many years at the California State University – Long Beach. His early research and writing were noncontroversial, focusing on child development and European monogamy from an evolutionary perspective. In the 1990s, however, he began a study of Judaism as an evolutionary group strategy. Going where the research led him, MacDonald found that Jews have been extremely effective in promoting their ethnic interests at the expense of Europeans and European-American majorities. His scholarship produced a trilogy on Jewish social history.[5]

As a result of his studies MacDonald developed a strong ethnic identity and became an articulate advocate for the interests of White Americans. This obviously did not sit well with those anti-White groups seeking to define the scope of acceptable academic activities.

Starting in 2006 the SPLC mounted an all-out offensive to discredit Prof MacDonald’s work, and have him fired from his position at CSULB. The campaign began with emails to the Cal State Long Beach psychology faculty linking to highly critical comments on the SPLC website. Next, SPLC heavyweight Heidi Beirich visited the campus to gin up opposition to MacDonald among the university’s faculty and administration. Unrelenting, Beirich made another campus visit in April, 2008 in conjunction with charges from the ADL that the professor was promoting hate and anti-Semitism. This combined attack led to censure of MacDonald by various academic departments. In 2010 leftist students invaded MacDonald’s classroom to disrupt his teaching. In 2012 Mark Potok, SPLC’s “senior fellow,” wrote a defamatory article complete with misquotes and prevarications to make the case that, despite tenure, MacDonald violated the terms of his employment and should be terminated. The good professor was a real thorn in the SPLC’s side! The campaign against Prof. MacDonald did not end until his retirement from the university in 2014.[6]

It should be noted that the five men featured here are not the only psychologists who have challenged the prevailing orthodoxy and been demonized for doing so. Glayde Whitney (1939-2001), Richard Lynn, Linda Gottfredson, and others could make the list.


So what larger lessons can be learned from the above stories? One of the most obvious is that the forces tasked with policing the social sciences and suppressing dissent, the anti-White NGOs, the MSM, and the leftist street punks, are well-organized and well-funded. It is truly shameful that in their time of troubles these men stood largely alone to face the left’s harassment and abuse.  There was no supporting counter force to push back. Thankfully they had the courage of their convictions. They could have easily taken the careerist path and enjoyed the benefits of academic life undisturbed.

The above five were academic psychologists. Today the academy is, to an extent, a closed guild. Especially in the liberal arts and social sciences, graduate study is essentially proscribed to those on the right. To pursue a graduate degree, a student needs a faculty mentor to supervise his thesis or dissertation. That is just the first step. Then a young scholar needs to be hired and achieve tenure from a system completely dominated by the left. Of our five, four were tenured and one was retired before they ran afoul of the PC police. Except for Cattell who graduated in 1929, none could have started their career as dissidents.

Incredibly, despite the vituperative attacks from the left and the lack of institutional support from academia, the right is, in large measure, winning the scientific debate on racial differences and the costs of multicultural societies, especially for formerly dominant groups. But winning arguments and exercising power are two very different things. As we have seen with educational policy, the establishment is generally impervious to data incompatible with its ideology. Thus a second lesson is that scientific findings in and of themselves will not bring about needed change.

A third takeaway; the present system may be strong, but it is very brittle. It cannot bend, modify its policies, or compromise in response to the critique from the right. If it did so, its paradigm would shatter. The establishment’s only choice is to double down and unleash its curs, the twenty-first-century America’s equivalent of the Red Guard. The system perceives the White right as the only truly revolutionary ideology existent in the West today. No wonder elites hate and fear it.

This fear and hatred cannot be signs of confidence. The elites are not confident of validity of their dogmas and shibboleths, so their reaction is to attempt to eradicate free speech. They are worried their multicultural concoction could prove to be a volatile brew—all the more reason to maintain strict limits on acceptable thought. And as noted, the establishment finds it literally impossible to concede any point to the White identitarian right. While no one has a crystal ball, the election of Donald Trump, the rise of the Alt Right, and the increased frenzy on the left, point to an acceleration of the long-term trend of social and political polarization. It is going to get ugly and messy, but let’s be optimistic. The present censorship of science and distortion of culture cannot stand. The combination of scientific rationalism and passionate idealism that makes the West great will prevail.

[1] Arthur R .Jensen, “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement,” Harvard Educational Review (Spring 1969) 39.1, 1-123.

[2] Kevin Lamb, “Malicious Smearing of a Psychological Pioneer,” The Occidental Observer, January 19, 2010.

[3] J. Phillippe Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1995) 199.

[4] Greg Johnson, “Remembering J. Phillippe Rushton; December 3, 1943 – October 2, 2012,” North American New Right, October 5, 2012.

[5] Kevin B. MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy With Diaspora Peoples (Praeger 1994).

Kevin B. MacDonald, Separation and its Discontents: Toward as Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger 1998).

Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Social and Political Movements (Praeger 1998).

[6] MacDonald recounts his eight-year ordeal at: Kevin MacDonald, “Campaign Against Me by the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

63 Comments to "Assault on Psychology: Research on Race Differences Anathematized"

  1. John's Gravatar John
    September 1, 2017 - 8:50 am | Permalink

    From the CNN article “The Gap 50 years after the Brown ruling”.

    The average SAT score for wealthy black students is less than the average SAT score for poor white students.

    YouTube video “MOJA AFRIKA (Etiopija; ljubljana – Nairobi. Z motorjem!)” showing hunter gatherer blacks in Africa today

    YouTube video showing the innate criminality of black Americans

    UNODC, BJS, CDC and British government stats showing that blacks are the most murderous people on earth and in the western countries where they live.

  2. Jude's Gravatar Jude
    September 1, 2017 - 9:01 am | Permalink

    Interesting that Galileo is a hero/martyr to both the Liberal “anti-racist” left AND to the more eugenically minded white nationalists – who, though they would presumably deny it, share many of the same ideological roots as their ostensible opponents on the left. No group is more eugenicist minded than modern leftists – they favour wholesale abortion and euthanasia for the disabled, elderly
    etc. And of course they play the racial supremacist card all the time., e.g. Peter Beinart’s recent article suggesting sneering at white nationalists as being only fit to serve in Wendys.

    I’m also struck by how uncritical so many white nats are in relation to official IQ stats. For me they’ve never added up. For instance the official stats state that the Italians and the Spanish have significantly higher IQs than the peoples of former Yugoslavia. Most Arab countries have much lower official IQs again. Yet even if one goes by physical appearance alone (never mind the demographic history of these countries) it’s easy to see that the Spanish and Italians share more racial heritage with north Africans and Arabs than Croatians or Serbs share with north Africans and Arabs. So something clearly doesn’t tally.

    I’m opposed to immigration on moral grounds but eugenics comes from the same liberal nihilists who imposed this immigration and cultural Marxism upon the West.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      September 1, 2017 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

      @ Jude

      Eugenics does not mean, and should not, entail euthanasia. Modern mainstream eugenics, started by Francis Galton, was essentially humanitarian. It aimed to reduce hereditary illness and improve competence in future generations, by sound mate selection, family planning and, in extreme cases, temporary or permanent sterilization. It was supported right across the political spectrum, from Madison Grant and Winston Churchill through H.G. Wells and Dean Inge to Yuri Filipchenko and Herman Muller.

      Some future possibility of direct intervention in the germ-line now has a variety of pros & cons. My own view is that unborn humans, whatever their race or disability, should not be killed when they are both sentient and viable, though this puts me (as in other matters) in a minuscule minority among both eugenicists and pro-lifers, “racists” and “liberals”.

      Many “Cultural Marxists” favor abortion irrespective of the race or health of the baby on the hedonistic demand of the promiscuous female, while at the same time opposing any idea whatever of eugenics because they hate the idea of biological improvement and “elitism”. Disabled, stupid and criminal people are their clientele, though these groups are not to be lumped together – eugenics aims to eliminate disabilities FROM people in future NOT to eliminate disabled PEOPLE in the present. This distinction was recognized by e.g. Hans Guenther and Lothrop Stoddard, though not by e.g. Bernard Shaw who was publicly reprimanded by Galton for using the term “extermination” in this regard.

      The white peoples of Europe are roughly a loose “mixture” of closely related Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean types. Many southern Europeans have a strong element of Mediterranean characteristics also found among many Arabs, Sephardim, and northern Indians, but they are nonetheless European, albeit more artistic and less phlegmatic than “pure” Nordics.

      • Jude's Gravatar Jude
        September 2, 2017 - 3:38 am | Permalink

        I’ve nothing against sound “mate selection” – which in one sense can be just another term for the old fashioned arranged marriage (not to be confused with forced marriage – which I would oppose).

        “Family planning” I would argue is a major cause of the rapid demographic decline of the west – and shows how eugenicist ideas can be used against the interests of those who promote them.
        Wells and Shaw were men of the Left. I’m guessing they wouldn’t approve of modern multracialism but that’s the whole point of leftism – there is no ideological core to it – it is defined by its relativism. Once upon a time communists, and even feminists like Betty Fridean, despised homosexuals, whereas these days radical leftists hunt down “homophobes” in packs. If white nats embrace moral relativism they are the losers because their political and cultural isolation makes them sitting ducks in any struggle against competing tribes of moral relativism. Appealing to will to power when one is practically powerless isn’t very rational.

        I didn’t mean to disparage either Italians or Spaniards (for what it’s worth I’m very fond of both races. My point was that the disparity between their official IQs and those of Serbs and Croats seems puzzling if we are to believe that other mediterranean peoples have much lower IQs than Serbs or Croats. This is only one of many inconsistencies I found in the official data.

        It’s easy to forget that IQ tests, like any other kind of exam, are only as reliable as those who conduct and oversee them, and that the real facts are capable of being falsfied for all
        kinds of political or cultural reasons.

        None of which is to suggest that I doubt the existence of significant differences in intellectual ability between different races.

      • Jude's Gravatar Jude
        September 2, 2017 - 4:01 am | Permalink

        One other point: Dean Inge was something of a philo-Judaic who took Chesterton and others to task for alleged anti-semitism. I don’t believe most modern leftists are “egalitarian”. Even Marx called equality a bourgeois ideal. Inequality flourished as never before under New Labour in Britain – a government made up of erstwhile communists like Peter Mandelson and Alan Milburn, and most of the party’s big donors were super-rich tribal Zionists. Leftists will use egalitarian rhetoric to lure the naive into supporting their agenda, but observe how quickly they resort to vicious snobbery when they feel threatened, e.g, the scoffing at Trump voters as uneducated white trash (which was a complete travesty of the facts of course).

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          September 2, 2017 - 12:19 pm | Permalink

          I agree that “egalitarianism” is to a large extent a fake ideology to advance the interests of an would-be elite. The labels of “right” and “left” are not always helpful in the precise definition of political ideas.

          Wells favored eugenics, in early literature spoke ill of the non-white races, and later attacked Zionists.

          Many politicians and publicists during the 19th & 20th centuries differed in their views on many issues, and sometimes changed their minds; and cannot simply be separated into two groups of sheep and goats, with respect to a crudely imagined JQ.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      September 1, 2017 - 6:34 pm | Permalink

      Italy has the highest human biodiversity of all continental Europe. The nation isn’t even 200 years old and a collection of different peoples.

      • Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
        September 2, 2017 - 9:08 am | Permalink

        The Romans brought millions of slaves from North Africa and the Middle East to the peninsula – they simply became Italians. Do the Cuomos of NY look white?

        • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
          September 2, 2017 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

          There is a difference between North and South Italians in this respect.

          • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
            September 2, 2017 - 8:33 pm | Permalink

            It’s much more than just a North/South division, true as that is. The geography itself fostered many isolated, unique populations. Zaida’s comment is fair but not nuanced. Immigrants weren’t spread evenly across the peninsula. Aggregates aren’t helpful with diverse populations.

        • Anon's Gravatar Anon
          September 2, 2017 - 5:45 pm | Permalink


          Most of the slaves the Romans captured were the blue eyed very fair skinned Slavs, Celts and Germans.
          The Romans conquered N Africa and the Middle east 8 to 700 years before the dark skinned black haired Arabs conquered the area between 650 and 700 AD.

          There are millions of non Arab descendants of the original peoples of the Middle East and N Africa living there today. The Berbers, Lebanese who were never conquered and Christians are significantly lighter and more European looking than the Arabs.
          The N African slaves were neither negroes nor dark skinned Arabs. They were Berbers.

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          September 2, 2017 - 10:01 pm | Permalink

          Sicily had one of the largest per capita Jewish populations in Europe prior to the Edict of Expulsion.

      • Laurence Almand's Gravatar Laurence Almand
        September 6, 2017 - 2:43 pm | Permalink

        When the Roman Empire fell, millions of German Visigoths and Ostrogoths poured into the Italian Peninsula, as well as Spain and even North Africa. This is why many Italians have blue eyes – like Frank Sinatra, even though his family came from Sicily. Even in Roman times, millions of Germans settled in Italy, so the Italians are a huge mixture.

    • Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
      September 2, 2017 - 9:26 am | Permalink

      Egalitarianism is a product of Christian dogmatism. Giordano Bruno was incarcerated for ten years in the dungeons of the Vatican and savagely tortured – and subsequently burned at the stake- for the heresy of rejecting monogenism, which is the central belief of Abrahamism as well as its offshoot Marxism. All Western science and culture are a product of European creativity, not semitic Abrahamism.

      • Jude's Gravatar Jude
        September 2, 2017 - 11:47 am | Permalink

        Zaida: You seem to believe “dogmatism” is a dirty word. I don’t. Without dogma, it is the law of the jungle. The”creativity” of Europeans has not protected them from the onslaught of tribal supremacists intent on their destruction. And the more they’ve embraced scientism and other progressivist nostrums the more powerless they have become. In fact modern scientism and modern technology are absolutely crucial weapons in the war being waged against European mankind.

        The other point is of course that the white nats who decry Christianity as a Jewish offshoot never plausibly explain why Zio-Hollywood and the Zio-media generally spend so much tiime attacking Christian dogmatism – but never go after Odinism, the New Age movement or gentile secularism. Their view of who their enemy is seems to differ very markedly from what the anti-Christian wing of the white nationalist movement says it is.

        • Anon's Gravatar Anon
          September 2, 2017 - 6:57 pm | Permalink

          Jude, you’re absolutely correct. Back in the old days when Europe was
          “Wallowing in poverty, wretchedness, superstition and ignorance under the evil Catholic and orthodox churches”

          The churches and governments protected the people rich, middle and poor from the Jews.

          When the church was weakened by the enlightenment the Jews took over.

          As to why Italians and Spanish have higher IQs than S East Balkan Europeans don’t forget the hundreds of years of Turkish occupation and Central Asian bandit raids.

          • September 3, 2017 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

            That’s the theory. Whether it’s true is a different matter. Throughout the entire ‘middle ages’ Jews lent money to the Church, and tempted them into over-spending, to keep the church subservient. ‘Usury’ did not mean simply paying interest, but forfeiting entire estates. Jews were given monopolies in usury, so that normal people could not lend at interest.

    • September 10, 2017 - 7:18 am | Permalink

      Jude – the ‘left’, i.e. Jews, favour wholesale slaughter of all non-Jews. Your early comments are out-of-focus.

  3. Gerry's Gravatar Gerry
    September 1, 2017 - 9:08 am | Permalink
  4. September 1, 2017 - 9:52 am | Permalink

    It’s important to recognize the importance of the Internet as the contemporary analogue to the Gutenberg Press, instigating a memetic sea change. It’s interesting to note that, at the time I wrote the aforelinked essay on this analogy, the network architecture I was promoting among the likes of David P. Reed, AT&T Bell Labs and some colleagues involved with Paul Baran’s startup “Packet Cable” was, what is now known as, “information centric networking”. ICN is, finally, in early deployment as part of the 5G communications standard. ICN will profoundly disrupt the power of the Internet giants to censor because it will reverse the recentralization of the Internet.

    Sailer points out a source of the re-centralized Internet censorship hysteria emerging among what John Robb calls “The Mean Girls”: The relentless march of progress in bioinformatics colliding with the moral zeitgeist’s denial of race differences — and gives these two sisters as exemplars, representing control of 23AndMe and Youtube. What he misses is that natural monopolies like social media are the primary platform on which the implications of this collision are being — or I should say have been made public. Censoring social media is crucial to covering up the scientific bankruptcy of the moral zeitgeist. We’ve seen this movie before. It was called The Trial of Galileo with its Thirty Years War subplot and its sequels and prequels such as Gutenberg, etc.

    One way in which the current situation differs is that there was no stage in The Gutenberg Revolution during which the theocracy managed to recentralize control of duplication of memes.

    In the current situation, the 5G deployment pits the common carriers against the Internet giants (as a theocratic Mean Girls aristocracy). Common carriers have a tradition going back to Common Law, that shields them against liability for the content of of their carriages. But it also removes that shield if they begin editing that content. 5G will provide profits that go straight to the bottom line of the common carriers. It may be that Apple and Google will fight back by playing games with their control over the iPhone and Android OS, but it is going to be a real fight between powerful players.

    When the dust settles, I expect to see 2 things: 1) Social media will become peer-to-peer (hence beyond private, and possibly public, sector censorship), and 2) Ad revenue, such as that now enjoyed by Google, will be gutted by peer-to-peer-compatible technologies like Basic Attention Tokens.

    As a result, The Mean Girls are going to find themselves confronting some very angry, and technically sophisticated “Bad Boys”. At the same time, ad revenue that once went into Youtube/Google’s pockets will be going straight into the pockets of content providers. Think Red Ice going big time.

    At this stage Machiavelli’s advice to the tyrannical prince will become operative:



    Although the Romans succeeded happily in being liberal to people, yet when danger came upon them from Porsenna coming to assault Rome in order to restore thy Tarquins, the Senate apprehensive of the plebs who might want to accept the Kings than to sustain a war, in order to assure themselves (of the plebs), relieved them of the salt gabelle and all other taxes, saying that the poor did much for the public benefit if they reared their children, and that because of this benefice that people should submit itself to endure siege, famine, and war: let no one who trusts in this example defer in gaming the people over to himself until the time of danger, for it will not succeed for him as it succeeded for the Romans; for the people in general will judge not to have gotten that benefit from you, but from your adversaries, and becoming afraid that once the necessity is past, you would take back from them that which by force you gave them, they will have no obligation to you. And the reason why this proceeding turned out well for the Romans was because the State was new, and not yet firm, and that the people had seen that other laws had been made before for their benefit, such as that of the appeal to the Plebs: so that they could persuade themselves that that good which was done, was not caused so much by the coming of the enemy as much as the disposition of the Senate to benefit them: In addition to this the memory of the Kings, by whom they had been ill-used and injured in many ways, was fresh. And as similar occasions rarely occur, so it rarely occurs that similar remedies do good. Therefore Republics as well as Princes ought to think ahead what adversities may befall them, and of which men in adverse times they may have need of, and then act toward them as they might judge necessary ((supposing some case)) to live. And he who governs himself otherwise, whether Prince or Republic, and especially a Prince, and then on this fact believes that if danger comes upon him, he may regain the people for himself by benefits, deceives himself, because he not only does not assure himself, but accelerates his ruin.

    The implication of this is that “The Alt-Right”, being seen as “your adversaries”, will be credited with _any_ loosening of the thumb-screws following on the re-decentralization of the Internet, and the corresponding rise — quite likely explosive — of scientific truth and awareness. This means The Mean Girls will have to crack down very hard on the population to maintain their theocratic rule.

    There will be blood.

  5. Gerry's Gravatar Gerry
    September 1, 2017 - 11:31 am | Permalink
  6. Gerry's Gravatar Gerry
    September 1, 2017 - 11:52 am | Permalink
  7. Lynda's Gravatar Lynda
    September 1, 2017 - 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Then there are the social and ethnic groups whose IQ is borderline retarded. They might have an average or even above average IQ but in terms of a reality based programme – where will it get them?

    • Laurence Almand's Gravatar Laurence Almand
      September 6, 2017 - 2:45 pm | Permalink

      Keep in mind that Blacks have complained that IQ tests were biased, simply because they are too incompetent to pass them.

  8. norman sunden's Gravatar norman sunden
    September 1, 2017 - 2:34 pm | Permalink

    The recent purge of the Alt Right by Google and U tube show the power that the right was gathering, Unfortunately We are becoming the USSA

  9. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    September 1, 2017 - 3:31 pm | Permalink

    What make west great was its ambition or better the megalomaniacal ambition of its elites. Idealism was always rejected or distorted. Its rationalism has been also rejected or distorted, only when its fitted with “elites” interests. The greatness of west wasn’t based on strong real moral basis nor intellectual ones and look like a mirage of social evolution. The wild west wasn’t only in the western side of USA during XIX century…

  10. September 1, 2017 - 4:43 pm | Permalink

    To the putative, entitled subject, “Assault on Psychology”.

    I have a friend (sort of, after years of Doom & Gloom from me, I wonder if our friendship has survived) who, as a Psychologist (Ph.D.) would deny camaraderie with the individuals singled out as exemplars, especially Kevin MacDonald! A pole the length of a football field (NFL units of measurement, of course) could not separate this man from K. MacD. and others! He is not THAT KIND of Psychologist!

    No, this is not an assault on “psychology” per se, the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that led to DSM-IV, DSM-V, probably headed to DSM-1984. These are attacks on individuals, who unlike most professionals, stood their ground, ethically, with integrity. I think we can easily find others of similar ilk in other “disciplines”. We can consider a “Hall of Fame” for such great souls!

  11. AntiYuppie's Gravatar AntiYuppie
    September 1, 2017 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Jewish domination of academia is important as much as their dominance in media/entertainment or the “financial industry”. Whenever they are pushing a new ideology (multiculturalism, gay rights, feminism, gender studies etc. to cite but a few “movements” they come up since WWII) they always seem to be able to point out at some sympathetic “research” from their minions in Berkeley or Harvard or Princeton. This then gives these otherwise preposterous ideologies a serious scientific underpinning. Who are you – goyshe kopf – to dispute the work of the esteemed professor Silverstein from Columbia University?
    That is why any dissenting voices in academia are weeded out vigorously. They want to have a monopoly on “scientific truth”.

  12. Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
    September 1, 2017 - 7:16 pm | Permalink

    The Galileo case is far more complex than you let on. The Church had historically been the major patron of science. Many scientists were churchmen. Galileo pushed the Church too far at a sensitive time, the Protestant Revolt, when the Church was on the defensive. The scientists of the time period were as set against Galileo as the Church was. Actually, his “proofs” of the Copernican system were no such thing: “The only three scientific arguments he used, the movement of the solar spots, the phenomenon of the tides, and the phases of Venus, either proved nothing in favor of the Copernican theory, or were in absolute contradiction to the facts.” Conway (

    • Amateur Brain Surgeon's Gravatar Amateur Brain Surgeon
      September 2, 2017 - 6:08 am | Permalink
      • September 3, 2017 - 3:34 pm | Permalink

        One of the ‘myths’ in your first URL is that Churchmen etc refuised to look through Galileo’s telescope. It’s worth commenting that many scientific disputes include similar refusals, whether or not the Galileo claim was true. Using equipment is often difficult or tricky or hard to assess. At our time, refusals to examine: electron micrographs, pictures attributed to Hubble, the processes involved with DNA analysis, NASA images, are commonplace.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          September 4, 2017 - 11:44 am | Permalink

          It’s no myth that in 1611 two Jesuit priests, Fathers Christopher Clavius and Christoph Grienberger by name, resident at the Vatican in the early seventeenth century, looked through Galileo’s telescope at the moons of Jupiter and various other things wiggling around in the sky and came away persuaded (in Father Grienberger’s case) or almost persuaded (in the aged and near-death Father Clavius’s case, as Father Grienberger later privately related) to abandon geocentrism and embrace the Copernican model. Rerevisionist or anyone else who still knows what a book is can read about these gentlemen in several scholarly sources, including Giorgio de Santillana’s highly esteemed volume The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press, 1955), a study that those others who have read it will confirm (i.e., since Rerev is unlikely to believe moi-même) is by no means sympathetic to Galileo’s foes.

          Incidentally, these two thick-witted, ignorant Jesuits—via their completely indequate astronomical observations doubtless combined with unimaginably good luck—somehow managed to devise an utterly pointless little record-keeping reform usually called the Gregorian calendar. As some may know, equally stupid people the world over still employ this calendar virtually unchanged for all sorts of matters that Rerev’s own calendrical computations will surely supersede any day now. Harder still to credit, professional astronomers, an equally cowardly, benighted, and dull-witted lot, have actually kowtowed to Jewish and Vatican pressure to the extent of naming features of our own moon’s landscape after these two priest-mathematician-astronomers. Oh, the infamy!

          • September 10, 2017 - 7:29 am | Permalink

            It’s always difficult to disentangle the various threads of (presumably) official Catholic teachings in Pierre de Craon. I’m uncertain what he means about the calendar. However, imho decoding the heavenly bodies was one of the first triumphs of science — it’s not easy to find (e.g.) how long a year is, and I suspect early civilisations who’d done this were one of the roots of priestly groups. (I’m not talking about Kepler etc but far earlier things). But if so, once a discovery has been discovered, subsequent generations are liable to take it all for granted. It wouldn’t surprised me if astrology was invented as a way of sexing up the boring technical work of astronomers, just as the Internet supports vast quantities of drama and absurdity. The psychology of blacks, imagining that medical techniques and methods etc were invented by blacks, and of Jews, who seem to think the world can be arranged by words on command, suggest we may be in for a very long night indeed.

  13. Karl Nemmersdorf's Gravatar Karl Nemmersdorf
    September 1, 2017 - 8:07 pm | Permalink

    It is good to be reminded of these truly great men. Their courage is an example to us. They sacrificed themselves in the service of truth, so that succeeding generations could access this truth. God bless them!

  14. September 1, 2017 - 8:16 pm | Permalink

    [1] I read (but haven’t tried to check) that Lysenko was a Jew. Doing Jewish research on wheat in Ukraine …
    [2] Another psychologist attacked etc was Hans Eysenck.
    [3] People often overrate IQ tests – probably people who think they have high IQs are the worst, since the tests are obviously badly administered. The reading-writing-math-spatial based components of IQ are suited to employees — any tests which ascribes equal intelligence’ to a 15-year old and 40-year old must be suspect. IQ obviously has obviously has some connection with intelligence. But it’s not synonymous. A JQ for Jews test would have measure cunning, cheating, skill in lying, deception, and acting, skilled promotion of verbal BS, secret collaboration, and so on. Who can say these things are not part of ‘intelligence’? Many high IQ people are useful idiots. Perhaps some young psychologist might compile a JQ test — though inherited wealth might turn out to be necessary.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      September 2, 2017 - 12:42 pm | Permalink

      The high number of non-observant Jews in the communist movements has spawned several bizarre lists which describe all kinds of Russians and others as “really” Jewish. If I remember correctly, Maurice Pinay’s book on RC subversion had just such a list, different from one published by the journal “Candour” years ago. Stalin is still often mistakenly described as a Jew, along with Khrushchev, whose “real” name was supposedly Pearlmutter, and many more.

      What is it about “Them” that makes some people see them everywhere like spots before the eyes?

      On Jewish IQ scores, see e.g. Richard Lynn, “The Chosen People” (2011). The cerebral processes of calculation that produce financial racketeers are possibly close to those that produce high-achieving physicists.

      • Anon's Gravatar Anon
        September 2, 2017 - 7:04 pm | Permalink

        The average Jewish IQ in Israel is 95. Hmmmm. The Mizrahi IQ is probably lower

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        September 2, 2017 - 8:38 pm | Permalink

        “Them” sunglasses is what.

      • September 10, 2017 - 7:33 am | Permalink

        As always, Ashton manages to talk tripe. Jews themselves are cautious in announcing their supposed Judaism. Under these conditions, of course it’s uncertain who ‘Jews’ are. Fairly simple point.

  15. Theodora's Gravatar Theodora
    September 2, 2017 - 6:10 am | Permalink

    In ‘Seven Lies About Catholic History’ Diane Moczar writes on page 104 that the legend of Galileo as the victim of the evil Catholic Church was created in the times of the Enlightenment. The atheistic philosphes used the trial as a hammer to pound the Church for (supposedly) being anti-science and ant-progress.

    All lies of course as any serious researcher can find. Galileo was not sentenced for his science but because he confused his theory of things with hard facts! Had he stuck with his findings as his theorie of things, there would have been no trial. According to Arthur Koestler in ‘The Sleepwalkers’ the Church would have been attacked afterwards for her gullibility had she accepted Galileo’s theory because the theory was full of errors.

    And Paul Feyerabend: ‘The Church in Galileo’s time adhered to reason much more than Galileo himself.’

  16. Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
    September 2, 2017 - 6:41 am | Permalink

    But you can have opposition to this assault on psychology that is designed to allow for the continuance of anti-White trends. That’s because IQ is not race, and honesty about intelligence is not White Nationalism. It’s not clear to me why we should focus so much on a non-essential matter such as IQ.

    In the 90s when Duke was ascendant culturally and politically, Jews organized into existence and as alternative to Duke, the paleoconservatism movement led by Jews Murray Rothbard and Paul Gottfried, with Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and at junior level, Richard Spencer, acting as recruiters for Whites. They were a significant factor in drawing away White support from Duke and his politics of simple racial self-interest.

    So it’s important to put the IQ issue in its place. It is a non-essential matter for us politically. But it is known to be a viable weapon that can be used against our movement. There are better issues we can focus on.

    • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
      September 2, 2017 - 7:48 am | Permalink

      Arguably the most developed single work from the paleoconservatives switching tracks on Whites, leading us away from a growing White group self-interest and toward a study of racial differences and an IQ first libertarian response, was Michael Levin’s book WHY RACE MATTERS – Taylor still hawks it.

      Its title is obviously intended to appeal to Whites grappling with these issues and feeling a lack of knowledge and ability to argue their case. But the book would have been more accurately titled WHY IQ MATTERS. It leads its reader to think loyalty toward fellow high IQers, regardless of genetic relatedness, is the most rational position. It is an appeal contra Duke, to favour Jews in our political programs and to be unconcerned with Whites as such.

      So this book was a Jewish assault on Whites using psychology and IQ as a weapon, and was part of a significant and successful political movement orchestrated by hostile Jews to undermine pro-White politics, utilizing White frontmen who lacked either common sense or probity. (This is MacDonald territory but sadly he tends toward friendliness to these people and their idea

      • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
        September 2, 2017 - 4:32 pm | Permalink

        Indeed this is called “cognitive elitism”, the adoration of populations with high average IQ, no matter of what race. It boils down to acceptance of intelligent Whites, Jews and Chinese as your elite and no rejection of immigration of and miscegenation between such groups. An example of a person with such an attitude is John Derbyshire, who is married to a Chinese woman, has two Eurasian children with her, and always tells us how he feels “at home” with Chinese people because they are so intelligent. In American Renaissance this attitude is accepted.

        • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
          September 3, 2017 - 7:17 am | Permalink

          Yup. At Amren conferences over the years many of the White speakers have had Asian wives – and I imagine most of the Asian (Jewish) speakers, also had. For these people to call their work White Nationalism cannot be simple error – it is a lie intended to further an effort to undermine White Nationalism. With friends like these ….

    • Kelly's Gravatar Kelly
      September 2, 2017 - 11:34 am | Permalink

      On the contrary, understanding of IQ and its relation to functioning society is fundamental to our survival. Lower IQ races will always blame high IQs for their inability to compete. They will always follow r selection and ultimately overrun the high IQs. In short, understanding IQ is one of the most important aspect of the social structure.

      • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
        September 3, 2017 - 7:31 am | Permalink

        Kelly, if you’re already racial then IQ is a distraction when we’re facing genocide, not a culling of the smart fraction. If you’re not already racial, then a focus on IQ allows for arguments coding for White replacement like selecting immigrants with higher IQs than our average.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      September 2, 2017 - 12:54 pm | Permalink

      Prove that Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer are just tools of “the Jews”. Miles Mathis has said the same about Kevin MacDonald. Some people think that Hitler was a puppet too or even partly Jewish himself. Others claim that David Duke is such a disadvantage to WN that he must be working for them too.

      What matters is what people actually say and do.

      We should certainly protect our white western heritage, simply because it is ours, but there is no need to jettison the argument that invasions from Africa or Arabia would damage of our great intellectual achievements as a civilization.

      What is the use pr benefit of attacking those Jews, however few, who support the western defense?

      • September 3, 2017 - 9:43 am | Permalink

        Short answer – because Jews are the most subversive, duplicitous race on the planet.

        Longer answer – One cannot trust the Jew to maintain any position, legal, religious, political et al, when it provides no benefit. Hell, Jews won’t even maintain their own names when it benefits them or might be potentially detrimental.

        Like Ashley Montagu after all, how much more (((Chooish))) can one be? Note the lack of the “e” at the end of the name? Mont-a-goo. No doubt a signal to fellow Jews of the true racial heritage underlying the adopted one.

        There are numerous examples of devout atheist, communist Jews that “rediscovered” their religious heritage just before making “aliyah” to Israel. My favorite example of obvious Jewish duplicity was when Madeleine Albright, much to her surprise and delight, discovered she was Jewish. Apparently she was the last person of any note in America to recognize her racial heritage, imagine that. Ov-Vey! Like she never had a mirror in the house?

        Weigh the balance on a Machiavellian scale. Given Jewish history, what profound benefit might result from trusting the Jew versus the truly grave potential for horrendous destruction? Therefore, is it worth the chance to give any Jew the benefit of the doubt?

        What about David Cole who has now admitted the real reason he went on national television to “debunk” the sacred Hallowedhoax was so Jews could gain some control over the growing dissent about the Hallowedhoax lie that until then, had been wholly controlled by the goyim. This provides the only rational explanation why Cole received so much face time on national TV shows like Donahue and Oprah.

        The only truly honest Jew (think “hen’s teeth” or “butterfly boots”) I can discern in history is Benjamin Freedman, an insider who blew the whistle on the Zionist conspiracy for global domination, but in the long run what good did it do to allay the situation?

        Thus, the only wise conclusion is never trust a Jew! – Any Jew!.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          September 3, 2017 - 3:08 pm | Permalink

          @ Arch Stanton
          Johann Eisenmenger, Bernard Lazare, Otto Weininger, Oscar Levy, Benjamin Freedman, Josef Ginsburg, Alfred Lilienthal, Lawrence Auster, Albert Lindemann, Gilad Atzmon, Paul Gottfried….&c – all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of those who can never give any credit when it’s jew.

          You should judge everyone by what they do and say. Trust is not required except in organization, and there we have enough mad and malignant non-Jews to worry about.

          • September 4, 2017 - 6:24 am | Permalink

            Jews have evolved as a parasitic sub-race. What they do and say is designed to deceive the ‘goyim’. It takes time to understand Jews, and many people, such as yourself (if you’re being honest) never achieve this. You’re like a bird saying “cuckoos are just like all other birds.”

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      September 2, 2017 - 11:48 pm | Permalink

      The very recognition of distinct racial groups with differing capabilities threatens the outcome-equalizing policies that drain resources away from whites. Many whites will need physiological/psychometric evidence to instill a sense of racial distinctness, perhaps not feeling the them/us demarcation as viscerally as other races.

  17. September 2, 2017 - 6:50 am | Permalink

    r/K selection theory doesn’t apply to the races of Man. Human races are not local populations.

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      September 4, 2017 - 8:26 pm | Permalink

      Interesting comment, thank you. I’m going to have to think it over.

  18. September 2, 2017 - 7:02 am | Permalink

    Academia is FULL of superstitions and taboos, INCLUDING in the sciences (try taking an objective look at global warming, for example). History also (the Holocaust). And here, genetics? Anthropology?

    The chief product of academia is its conceit of knowledge (HT to Hayek). This is, of course, conferred precisely where it pays best.

  19. Loveofknowledge's Gravatar Loveofknowledge
    September 2, 2017 - 8:41 am | Permalink

    I like the offhand description of SPLC and ADL as “anti-white NGO’s”. I think everybody should start using that.

  20. bliss_porsena's Gravatar bliss_porsena
    September 2, 2017 - 9:45 am | Permalink

    I doubt you are right in your optimism.

  21. Fenria's Gravatar Fenria
    September 2, 2017 - 1:42 pm | Permalink

    The reality in all this (((leftist))) academic window dressing is that the architects of this current paradigm care nothing about the test scores of poor black kids, or the self confidence of new Latino arrivals. All they care about is that the white power structures built into socio-economic society here in the west are destroyed by a constant series of cuts made in the soundness and continuity of the fabric of white civilization. If a termite were smarter, it would make up an elaborate excuse for its behavior, but that wouldn’t mean that it still wasn’t going about the business of destroying the supports of your home.

  22. September 2, 2017 - 2:41 pm | Permalink

    No surprise that Grace Lichtenstein is actually (((Grace Lichtenstein))).


  23. September 2, 2017 - 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Please also write up Prof Arthur Butz persecution because of having written a 500-page book:The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry.

    • Nick Dean's Gravatar Nick Dean
      September 5, 2017 - 1:01 pm | Permalink

      A classic of the twentieth century!

      Free pdf of this and other essential works at

  24. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    September 2, 2017 - 9:36 pm | Permalink

    Jewish activists and their allies are simply liars. There’s no need to be a scientist to see that non-Whites are NOT just like us. We want the White race to survive. Our survival instinct doesn’t really need scientific confirmation. Even so, I wish we had more professors on our side in the fields of psychology, history, social sciences… It would be intellectually interesting and politically helpful. But what is happening around the subject of race is not a scientific debate, it is a political battle. Instead of producing scientific arguments, the Jewish frauds are trying to silence pro-White intellectuals. What’s effective is the censorship and intimidation, not their nonsensical theories.

    I bet most psychology professors would rather not be associated with Jewish theories about the absence of racial differences. I bet they would rather stay away from racial matters. Patrick Slattery says that discussing political science without mentioning the Jews is like doing physics without acknowledging the force of gravity. But I think you can still study many aspects of psychology while staying away from race.

    “The system perceives the White right as the only truly revolutionary ideology existent in the West today.”

    I think what they fear is common sense, intellectual honesty, White racial awareness, courage and popular resistance to Jewish shenanigans. It isn’t a particular political movement nor a scientific theory, it is the natural behavior of White people under oppression.

  25. September 3, 2017 - 8:06 am | Permalink

    The refusal of the educational establishment to accept Jensen’s findings led to the search for other remedies to close the racial achievement gap. to achieve racially balanced schools. The most destructive and costly solution implemented was massive forced busing. This failed policy cost billions, destroyed communities, and disrupted the lives of millions of Americans.

    “The most destructive and costly solution implemented was massive forced busing.” There is the key that belies the rest of the statement. “This failed policy cost billions, destroyed communities, and disrupted the lives of millions of Americans.”

    This was not a failed policy, this was a planned trainwreck. Jews aren’t stupid.They never for a moment believed the nonsense they put forth to the gullible goyim with this legislation. Never for a moment did they think they could raise “schvartzer” IQs by changing their environment. Jews were the foundation of such concepts. They know better as demonstrated by their action concerning these miscreants in Israel and by private schools run specifically for Jews.

    However, Jews have long been aware of the destructive, shall we say, “talents” of the Negroid race and the mayhem that results when they mix them with other races. From the Jewish standpoint, busing was a howling success at reducing white intelligence by mingling them with monkeys of a far lower intellect. The only good bussing occurs between white, heterosexual people on hayrides – that is, if Jews haven’t outlawed them yet as haterides.

    • September 3, 2017 - 9:28 am | Permalink

      And it was “successful” financially; most of the extra costs were funded by paper money, adding to the USA’s debt, with guaranteed payments of interest to Jews. Buildings, salaries, prolonged timewasting of ‘remedial’ teaching, money for housing, costs of illegitimate blacks etc all profited Jews and damaged whites.

Comments are closed.