The Supremacy of Stupid: How Dumb Ideas about Race Flourish on the Left

An ant is an amazing creature, a marvel of miniaturization and compressed complexity. With only a tiny brain, it absorbs and interprets a flood of data from its myriad sense-organs, navigating a complex and constantly changing world, co-operating and communicating with its nest-mates, collaborating in prodigies of architecture, engineering and logistics. No human robot can even come close to matching the abilities of an ant, let alone at such a minute size and on such a small budget of energy.

Dumb beats clever

But the highly sophisticated ant meets its master in the form of a mindless organism far lower in the evolutionary scale. As I described in “How to Cure a White Zombie,” the fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis can subvert the complex nervous system of an ant, turning the ant into a zombified spore-spreader. You can sum up the behaviour of the fungus in two words: sitting and floating. It sits in its victims and then, in the form of spores, floats off to new victims. The behaviour of ants, by contrast, is endlessly subtle and varied. Ant-behaviour has filled entire libraries and fuelled long scientific careers. But the simple fungus beats the complex ant.

The complexity of an ant

Another parasite, the microscopic protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, overcomes an even bigger evolutionary gulf and subverts the even more complex brains of rats and human beings. The fungus and the protozoan have no minds, no consciousness and no purpose but self-propagation. They’re dumb, but they’ve been beating clever for millions of years. That’s why we shouldn’t be surprised at the success of stupid ideologies in the world of politics. In competition and warfare, it doesn’t matter how you win: the only criterion of success is, well, success. The fungus and the protozoan are unconscious experts at chemical warfare, because they interfere with the brain-chemistry of their victims. In the world of human politics, parasites and predators interfere with brains by using words and ideas instead.

Pop-guns against a tank

The ideas can be very stupid ones, but that doesn’t matter. In some ways, stupidity can be an advantage, because stupid-but-simple ideas are easier to transmit than clever-but-complex ones, particularly when the stupid ideas exploit the brain-circuits devoted to morality. For example, the Indian Hindu writer Angela Saini has been spreading some very stupid ideas in her new book Superior: The Return of Race Science (2019). Steve Sailer, James Thompson and Greg Cochran have all pointed out the massive flaws in Saini’s reasoning and the massive gaps in her knowledge, but it’s almost as though they’re using pop-guns against a tank. Superior rolls on regardless.

Ashley Montagu, né Israel Ehrenberg: “Race does not exist, goyim!”

One reason for this is that Angela Saini has morality and goodness on her side. Sailer, Thompson and Cochran are stale pale males, promoting the hateful and horrible idea of inequality between human races. Saini is neither stale, pale nor male, and she’s promoting the beautiful idea of equality in the only race there is, the human race. In fact, some of Saini’s leftist reviewers have gone even further than denying the existence of separate races. Colin Grant, a Black-Jamaican writer based in the UK, has promoted the concept of what you might call “anti-race,” whereby some human beings are more genetically similar to distant relatives than to close relatives. This is from Grant’s review of Superior in the highly influential leftist magazine the New Statesman:

In writing that is as impassioned as it is elegant, Saini charts how the tide turned against eugenicist thought and research, with Unesco declaring in 1950 [under the guidance of the Jewish anthropologist Ashley Montagu, né Israel Ehrenberg] that all mankind “belongs to the same species, Homo sapiens”. [Editorial note: This meant that “Good had won over evil,” as the Indian Alok Jha comments in yet another approving review of Saini’s book.]

Further, in 1972 a landmark paper by the [Jewish] evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin spelled out that there was greater genetic difference within groups than between them. So, for instance, a black man in Nigeria had more in common genetically with a white man in Scotland than he did with a black man in Tanzania. (Data of prejudice: the uses and abuses of the science of race, The New Statesman, 24th July 2019)

Black science expert Colin Grant at the BBC

Colin Grant has worked since 1991 for the BBC, where he produces “science programmes.” That’s no doubt why he was asked to review Saini’s book for the New Statesman: to other leftists, he’s a Black expert in science. And yet he claims something that is both stupid and scientifically illiterate: that “a black man in Nigeria” can have “more in common genetically with a white man in Scotland” than with “a black man in Tanzania.”

Hymns of the hive

However, this stupid argument isn’t original to Grant: it’s been buzzing in the leftist hive-mind for a long time. In 2012, the Jewish journalist Deborah Orr proclaimed that “Race is a myth” and approvingly quoted the views of a Black soccer player: “Race is not a scientific reality. You could find a tribe in Africa who are genetically closer to Europeans than to an African tribe a hundred miles away.” The words differ, the stupidity remains the same.

Another reviewer of Angela Saini’s book is Gavin Evans, a professor of journalism in the “Department of Film, Media and Cultural Studies” at Birkbeck College in London. According to his page at the Guardian, he “has written widely on issues of race, IQ and genetics.” As you’d expect from his academic background, Evans knows about as much about genetics as a fruit-fly knows about deep-sea diving. His review of Saini’s book in the Guardian says this: “Race, like intelligence, is a notoriously slippery concept. Individuals often share more genes with members of other races than with members of their own race.”

Biologically meaningless concepts

Once again someone is claiming that human beings can be more closely related to distant relatives than to close relatives. It’s a ludicrous claim, but you’ll find it made again and again by scientifically illiterate leftists, many of them in positions of great power and cultural influence. For yet another example, try Sir David Cannadine, the Dodge Professor of History at Princeton University (having previously taught at Columbia and Cambridge) and the General Editor of the Penguin History of Europe and Penguin History of Britain. In his book The Undivided Past: History Beyond Our Differences (2013), Cannadine manages to stuff more nonsense on race into fewer words than one would have thought humanly possible:

According to the findings of the Human Genome Project, people of all backgrounds, locations and “races” share more than 99.9 percent of their DNA, and in the case of the remaining 0.1 percent, there is more variation within stereotypical racial groups than between them. This means that 99.9 percent of the genes of a “black” person are the same as those of a “white” person, and that the genes of any “black” person may be more similar to the genes of a “white” person than to another “black” person. Thus understood, race is a biologically meaningless concept, literally no more than skin deep. It is also neither innate nor permanent, for skin colour can change dramatically from one generation to another as a result of mixed-race marriages. (The Undivided Past, ch 5, “Race,” pg 217)

Again, Cannadine is not simply claiming that race doesn’t exist. Like Colin Grant and Gavin Evans, he’s claiming that anti-race exists: an unmixed Black can be more closely related to a White than to another unmixed Black. Let’s take one of these alleged individuals who are more genetically similar to members of another race than to members of their own race. Colin Grant spoke of “a black man in Nigeria” having “more in common genetically” with “a white man in Scotland” than with “a black man in Tanzania.” Nigeria and Tanzania are tropical African countries where languages in the Niger-Congo family are spoken, a good indication that gene flow between these two regions faces no big obstacles.

And where is Scotland? It’s in north-western Europe, separated from both Nigeria and Tanzania by thousands of miles of desert, ocean and mountains. Until recent times, gene flow between Scotland and those two African regions faced huge obstacles. So did other kinds of flow. As you’d expect, Scottish English and Scottish Gaelic have no linguistic kinship with any indigenous language of Nigeria or Tanzania.

Now let’s imagine the family trees of Grant’s three hypothetical men, the two Blacks in Nigeria and Tanzania, and the White in Scotland. You’ll find that at some point – call it time T1 – the Black from Nigeria and the Black from Tanzania have common ancestors. At another point – call it time T2 – all three men have common ancestors. But T1 must be long after T2. The two Blacks obviously have more recent and more numerous shared ancestors. And what do ancestors do? They transmit genes! So the Nigerian and Tanzanian must share more genes with each other than with the Scottish White, unless genes began mutating in the Nigerian’s line of descent in just such a way as to create more matches with the genes of the Scottish White.

Tropical Tanzania vs Cauld Caledonia

The odds against that are more than astronomical. It would be like a language in the Niger-Congo family being linguistically closer to Scottish English or Gaelic than to another language in the Niger-Congo family. Blacks in Nigeria and Tanzania live in the tropical, resource-rich environment of Africa, not the cold, resource-poor environment of Scotland. So how on earth could the genes of a Black in Nigeria have evolved to be more similar to those of a White in Scotland than those of a Black in Tanzania?

Colin Grant is making a ludicrous, scientifically illiterate claim. But it won’t affect his career in the slightest. He will continue to make science programmes for the highly influential BBC, just as the journalism professor Gavin Evans will continue to “write widely on issues of race, IQ and genetics.” Grant and Evans are saying what other leftists want to hear: “Race doesn’t exist! Human beings can be more closely related to distant relatives than to close relatives!”

Nonsense is no obstacle

Leftists like Saini, Grant, Evans and Cannadine do not harm their careers by talking nonsense about race. You can only harm your career by talking sense about race, as the Nobel Laureate James Watson proved in 2007 and the social scientist Jason Richwine proved in 2013. Watson and Richwine were punished and deplatformed because the Left do not want to allow free speech on these topics. They know they cannot win the argument. But even as they censor and silence their opponents, they deny that they’re attacking free speech. Angela Saini herself has written an article called “The Internet Is a Cesspool of Racist Pseudoscience” for Scientific American. She brings her powers of reasoning to bear on the topic of free speech:

What has started with a gentle creep through the back door of our computers could end, if we’re not careful, with jackboots through the front door of our homes. Populism, ethnic nationalism and neo-Nazism are on the rise worldwide. If we are to prevent the mistakes of the past from happening again, we need to be more vigilant. The public must hold the Internet giants to account, recognize hatred dressed up as scholarship and learn how to marginalize it, and be assiduous in squeezing out pseudoscience from public debate. This is not a free speech issue; it’s about improving the quality and accuracy of information that people see online, and thereby creating a fairer, kinder society. (The Internet Is a Cesspool of Racist Pseudoscience, Scientific American, 29th July 2019)

“This is not a free speech issue,” claims Angela Saini: it’s about “creating a fairer, kinder society.” She doesn’t have the honesty to admit that she wants to censor science to create a better world. After all, if she were honest about her intentions she might remind people of Stalinism and the biologist Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), who proclaimed the easy malleability of biological forms and claimed that he could revolutionize Soviet agriculture. Lysenko was a bad scientist whose career flourished while good scientists who disagreed with him were sent to death by starvation in the Gulag.

The debate is over, haters

But Angela Saini’s ideas about free speech are no more original than Colin Grant’s ideas about race. Both Saini and Grant are buzzing with the leftist hive-mind. Here’s another leftist, the possibly Jewish Martha Gill, plugging the same line as Saini and pretending that censorship is not censorship:

Free speech advocates also misunderstand the motivation of those who might want to shut down a debate: they see this as a surefire mark of intolerance. But some debates should be shut down. For public dialogue to make any progress, it is important to recognise when a particular debate has been won and leave it there.

Even the most passionate free speech advocate might not wish to reopen the debate into whether women should be tried for witchcraft, or whether ethnic minorities should be allowed to go to university, or whether the Earth is flat. No-platformers are not scared – they simply think certain debates are over. You may disagree, but it does not mean they are against free speech. (Free speech isn’t under threat. It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so, The Guardian, 23rd June 2019)

“It’s not censorship!”: Martha Gill ends the debate

When leftists decide that a debate is over, it’s not censorship when they silence dissenters. It’s just that the debate is over. The supreme leader has spoken! Or rather, the leftist hive-mind has spoken. In effect, Angela Saini and Martha Gill are claiming infallibility for leftist dogma.

Reeling on the ceiling

As many people have pointed out, leftism is a disguised form of religion. But I don’t know any overt religion that is as irrational as leftism or that denies reality so fervently. For another example, look at the transgender concept of the “cotton ceiling.” Some transgender activists claim that it’s bigoted of lesbians to refuse to sleep with “trans women” who still have penises. Here is one of those activists replying to a sceptical feminist:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

That’s where the leftist denial of reality and biology ends: in the idea that penises are “coded” as male rather than actually being male. Even some leftists – the TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists – think that this is a step too far (see my article “Power to the Perverts!”). But the same leftists who reject transgender nonsense will accept much more harmful nonsense about race. Transgender activists may be noisy and obnoxious, but they aren’t an existential threat to Western nations. Mass immigration by millions of non-Whites is a huge existential threat to Western nations.

Clever will conquer

And what justifies the presence of those non-Whites and the endless privileges they are granted over their White hosts? The supremely stupid ideas promoted by Angela Saini and countless other leftists, that’s what. Just as a dumb fungus can beat a clever ant, so a dumb ideology can beat a clever one. But that too is part of reality: truth is not always mighty and truth does not always prevail.

In this case, however, I think truth will prevail. And soon. As genetic analysis becomes ever cheaper and quicker, and our understanding of human evolution ever richer, the truth about racial differences will become ever harder to suppress. Astute leftists like the Jewish geneticist David Reich already know what’s ahead: We will see the supremacy of science, not the supremacy of stupid.

49 replies
  1. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    Human races are simply breeds. Like dogs or horses for example, they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but something precious is irrevocably lost when doing so.

    With those liberals or mainstream Christians who truly have an open mind (I have met a few; though admittedly there seems to be very few out there – the ones who have open minds are very astute people indeed) I politely challenge their contention that race is simply a social construct. I pose questions such as “If you were going to staff your very own basketball team, would you staff it with Blacks or with Japanese?”.

    It is very disturbing that the same liberal or religious mentality that will choose a Thoroughbred over a Clydesdale to win the Triple Crown, or choose a German Shepherd over a Basset Hound to guard the house, refuses to admit the differences in human breeds.

    Blacks never needed to develop as did Whites or Asians; hence, on the average, their cerebral cortex is about 14% thinner than that of other races. This is visibly evident when comparing profiles. For this reason, they have more difficulty in postponing immediate gratification, and in creating things. They never invented the wheel or the sail. They have a harder time in checking themselves to prevent violent reactions (witness Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc…).

    In Africa, these things were not of great importance as they had only themselves to deal with and did not have to contend with long winters. This is not their fault, and it is cruel to continue to preach to them the equality mantra while they struggle in societies in which they will continue to have difficulty in coping.

  2. royAlbrecht
    royAlbrecht says:

    This is one of those articles that ought to be made into a short comedy video.

    The cynical, satirical and ironic language and ideas, the ludicrous yet hilarious theoretical suppositions, the visuals of the facial caricatures juxtaposed side by side coupled with the respective verbatim quotes of each, the colours and costumes of those involved, the contrasting Spirits of the voices, postures and behaviours and, the possibility of using other races (including their original and usually colourful folk costumes), animals and even aliens from other planets in the comparisons.

    What a free for all for the animation-gifted White Nationalist…

    A product, even if done marginally well, that should be TRANSCRIBED into the several main languages groups (including Chinese-Japanese [kanji]-Korean-Indo-Chinese, Hindu, Spanish, French) and MONETIZED to maximize the initial viral effect and finally released on a WN-ist friendly platform so as to share the wealth with the worthy and deprive the censors You-(Jew)-tube of any share of the profits.

    It was a pleasure to laugh my way through this read… Thank you.

  3. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:


    In some ways, stupidity can be an advantage, because stupid-but-simple ideas are easier to transmit than clever-but-complex ones, particularly when the stupid ideas exploit the brain-circuits devoted to morality

    …As genetic analysis becomes ever cheaper and quicker, and our understanding of human evolution ever richer, the truth about racial differences will become ever harder to suppress

    The task of converting the pseudo-moralizers is as futile as the ant convincing the fungus that it should stop what it’s doing to the ant.

    The task before us is convincing whites of their moral superiority to other races. This is of a piece with the exceptional, heritable individualism of whites. At that point whites will have “cracked the code” of the biological weapon that exploits their morality: the phrase “white supremacy”. They must come to understand that “superiority” does not equal “supremacy”. “Superiority”‘s first definition is about quality where as “supremacy”‘s first definition is about domination. Only in its second definition does the notion of quality enter as connotation to the primary denotation. This is a subtle but profound distinction, the conflation of which exploits the heritable moral superiority of whites: Respecting the moral agency of the individual in the form of consent, consistent with the commons aka community. At that point, the relative immorality of other races, in their insistence on invading our communities without our consent will become obvious. Moreover, the immorality of inclusion of more collectivist races will become as obvious as two men ganging up on an individual man. Appropriate actions, such as assortative migration to subject them to their own devices, will become the obvious moral choice.

    • RoyAlbrecht
      RoyAlbrecht says:

      Superiorly written !
      This comment dovetails with the general line that (((the enemy))) has taken many of our once noble words, aphorisms, abbreviations, etc… and contorted them into the malignant image of itself.
      They must ALL be reclaimed…, perhaps a dictionary of (((twisted terms))) is in order so as to untwist them all in one fell swoop.

    • James Bowery
      James Bowery says:

      I should add that subjecting people “to their own devices” is, at once, true social justice and, because it forces people to walk their talk and “enjoy the consequences”, supremacist. Why? Because they don’t want true social justice — and we’d be imposing experimental conditions on them without their individual consent. Oh, sure, they say they want to live according to their words, but we’re supposed to read their minds and know they merely want to drain the blood from our bodies politic before they move onto the next host. How could we not know that? But of course we know that. We know it. They know we know it, etc. So how can we be so supremacist as to treat them as though they aren’t parasites? To which the obvious response is, “OK, so you’re a parasite. Kill you.” At which point the parasites scream, “SEE! You ARE supremacists!”

      See the encryption of the biologically virulent meme?

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        Reminds me of my involuntary “…intra-territorial…” rendition into the mental hospital. (((The psychiatrists))) subjected me to a battery of questions.

        Answering even a single one is a treacherous affair because the questions are never asked with the intent of discovering your true state of mind, but rather to incriminate you one way or another so your involuntary status can be converted into a long term ward of the state status.

        That’s when the “…real fun…” begins!


        And may the “…White Force…” be with you.

        [mod. note: RoyAlbrecht: your first comment on this article was concise, intelligent and good to read. The ones after that were not concise and not good to read. Please try to keep comments short and to the point.]

  4. Flaps McKinley
    Flaps McKinley says:

    What’s hilarious about the men in dresses who are telling lesbian women “never mind the cultural messages encoding my feminine penis, just get your gums around it, sweetheart”, will be exactly the same “women” for whom only real women with real vaginas will do as sex partners. No women-with-penises as partners for them, no sirree.

    It would therefore be interesting to see how a man in a dress would Talmudise his way out of being partnered with a similar man in a dress, who according to his own logic is just as much a real woman as he is (which is to say, of course, a real woman) when his goal is to get next to the REAL women.

  5. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Wonderfully powerful set of arguments, Mr Langdon! Thank you. Perhaps the best of them is the elegantly simple and very eloquent ‘dumb fungus spores/clever ants’ analogy: it proves itself in the now-ubiquitous sight of the Saini style of idiot capturing far, far more attention than genuine anthropologist, geneticist, etc. But then it is not the Sainis of this world who achieve prominence. Rather, it is the vicious-intentions-loaded mass media that create it for them. Whatever happened to the cultural ethic of yore that insisted on plurality in the mass-media context? Why have we given in to the towering dominance of present monotone Jewish mass media?

  6. Theodore
    Theodore says:

    See this:

    Genetic variation and genetic distance are not the same thing. Anyone claiming that Nigerians are more similar to Scots than they are to other Africans is scientifically illiterate. Any grouping of people will demonstrate more variation within than between – even mixed groups of Whites and Blacks together. That’s meaningless from the perspective of genetic kinship. Also see Edwards’ “Lewontin’s Fallacy” paper.

  7. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    Recall that James Watson said that it’s not just the genes, it’s the combinations of the genes that we know so little about. Now what the hell would a Nobel Prize winner for his work on genetics know compared to Saini or Grant? Logic doesn’t count. If you give a freehand to 2 people, identical piles of lumber, identically equipped workshops, they aren’t going to build identical things. One may build a table, and the other a ladder. It’s how the lumber is put together that is the difference. That is, in essence Watson’s point.
    If we are all the “human race”, why aren’t all societies the same? After all if Watson is wrong, our societies, which are products of our genetics, would be 99.9% the same. The fact that there are different blood types, most of which can become lethal if combined, is a simple illustration that the 99.9% narrative is ridiculous.
    Families are the first place donors for organ transplants are sought. Mixed race children have a much, much lower chance of finding a donor, even from a family member.
    I wouldn’t just blame “the left” for these silly ideas, there are plenty on “the right” that do as well.

  8. JRM
    JRM says:

    Great article. I am not so sure that “clever will conquer” however. Let’s look at how managed blindness can survive 365 days a year exposure to actual facts.

    Everyone with kids wants their offspring to attend a “good school”. “Good schools are very rarely Public Schools. Public Schools are integrated. The POC children are disruptive, and the curriculum has been dumbed down to assist with their self-esteem needs, and simply to get them promoted from one grade to the next. White parents have essentially had to sacrifice the best outcomes for their own children in a huge social experiment.

    But what about Liberal Whites? They usually try to get their kids into “good schools”, which they must know correlates with less diverse schools. In spite of the effort and expense required to get their children out of the destructive path of black kids, these Liberals love the idea of equality and frankly, they love black people much of the time.

    Cognitive dissonance? Not much; engage them in conversation about where they want their children going to school, you’ll hear a lot about the “good schools”, but you will never hear them speak of the demographics behind the logic. They have trained themselves to be blind to the real reasoning behind their own behavior.

    Another problem which can keep “clever” from besting “stupid”: the bit about the racial variation being greater between two obviously similar groups than between two widely varying groups (ala Scot and Nigerian) is just counterintuitive enough to seem true. It has that nice “wow, that’s really interesting” thing going for it. Most people (even the smart ones) don’t really know much about logic or science. This “greater variance” argument is just the kind of thing that makes a White Liberal feel smart upon “learning” of it. It isn’t likely to cause them any real world discomfort, either. “Clever” never had a chance.

    Because “equality” is truly the New Western Faith, true believers are alternately encouraged and rewarded in displaying themselves as adherents. If something *sounds* good (e.g., “let’s build bridges, not walls!”), it probably *is* good. And there is no margin in arguing against it. In fact, if you insist on rigorous logic, you will be viewed with suspicion. The more you rely on logic and real-world derived experience, the more you convince “normies” of your inherent evil.

    Since we live in a world that promotes and rewards emotionalism and moralistic catchphrases, and Liberals are the most obedient servants of the Cathedral, I don’t see much hope in exploding erroneous constructions like the one the article addresses.

    • bruno
      bruno says:

      Ah, schools. That’s a big piece of EuroMan’s pie. Let me give you a brief of what’s really out there. Picking a place for education is no easy task. I know a guy who is raising a grandchild.

      The little one was loved. As for life, she was taught well. She could swim like a fish at age three, was bi-lingual, had seen a decent part of her region, could read several standards above superior, she could ice skate, was decent at gymnastics and had too many skills to list in this fastly composed brief.

      When the kid was 4 years old over a dozen schools were checked. Eventually he selected a Lutheran facility. Later, the principal was fired and it seemed that something above an ape but below humans became top of administration. Results: The school went from being about 95% W (some Asians) to about 40% B. Thus, the child was removed and home schooled for over a year. Illness occurred and home schooling was no longer an option.

      Next, after weeks of cyber research, taking with parents and visiting various institutes… another school was chosen. It was arduous exhausting labour but worth it as nearly all kids were W. The selection had zero to do with the ploy of hate; it was about seeking to remain within EuroMans pool.

      So, what happened. A teacher resigned and was replaced by a non-Euro. Thus, various facilities were again visited. One school had a cost of about 35 grand a year. Expensive for a retired fellow. However, a beloved child was involved. Besides, new building were being constructed and it’s reputation was top notch. Nearly 100% of graduates go to decent universities (per hx. and documentation). In the past the child under discussion had attended summer sessions for two week science courses, etc.

      What was discovered? The institute got a grant. It had changed. A “diversity Department” was now a new pertinent component. For fun the Diversity Director was engaged in conversation. His vernacular was like that of a 12 year old; like a child in an adult body.

      Consequently, that “A” rated private school had to be bypassed. Besides all of the above, lots within EuroMan’s heritage don’t have the funds to consider exclusive schools. Bottom Line: Masses of EuroMan’s fine progeny are becoming destroyed simply due to legalities and the laws of demographics.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        There’s really only one answer: setting up a home schooling program with other like-minded parents. It’s unfortunate that it didn’t work out in this particular situation.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      There’s no question you’re right about the “managed blindness” or, what some might call “willful blindness.”

      But followed to its inevitable conclusion it leads to its own undoing.

      It might be adaptive to itself. But it’s not adaptive to the world. On the contrary. It’s maladaptive.

      That’s why all of the institutions they are control are already falling apart. It’s an unsustainable model.

      This is why I refer to their climb to power as a Pyrrhic Victory.

      One obvious example of this is in all of our major cities. And not just our cities but, as with California, our states. And since California is seen, even by them (albeit with an obviously different intent and emphasis) as the model of the future of the country, the country itself.

      So, the visible result of their worldview put into action can be seen in our cities, states and the entire country.

      Add to this the fact that the Left is famous for turning on itself and the long-term self-destructiveness of it all is getting easier for all to see.

      I agree that there isn’t “much hope in exploding erroneous constructions.” And we don’t need to.

      Reality is going to do it for us.

      Because, sooner or later, reality always wins.


      It doesn’t care what any of us think.

  9. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    The most powerful weapon of power and dominance is the development of the brain and therefore intelligence, all the species on earth even the strongest have been submitted by humans, the current competition is not against other species, it is among the various races, ethnic groups and human groups, obviously following the brain-intelligence pattern, the one that will have the domain is the one with the highest IQ, there are three ways to achieve that goal:

     The first option is natural selection and preservation of the high homogeneous group QI (Caucasians, Asians, Jews). It can take many generations. It is not an option for Zionism.

    The second is to mix groups or ethnicities high IQ.

    (a): (Asian / Caucasic): it leads to lost identity / cohesion, but it is still competition for the Jew, which is not the favorite of Zionist globalism

    (b): (Asian / Caucasian / Jewish): It will never be an option for them.

    The third is to mix races under IQ with those of high IQ:

    (African / Caucasian) or (African / Asian), which leads to degradation IQ, the latter method created by design at the Frankfurt Jewish School (Zionist Talmudism or Jewish supremacy), is preferred and is being applied-
     The current victim is the European Caucasian race, the main weapon to use is open borders to promote mass immigration from the third world to facilitate degrading miscegenation. What would put the Jews on top because they will not mix massively, and by not degrading would retain their high IQ.
     They (Jews) would be above all other groups since they will have the highest IQ, that is the ultimate end of Talmudist Marxism and all its variants including cultural Marxism.
     To achieve and infiltrate Power, Money and Control, there is only one group or tribe with these characteristics.
    Finally it is a fight of biological control of the human being. High IQ will dominate the future but as evolution takes thousands of years the method is to degrade competitors. Do you understand Goy? ..
    War is Deception. Chinese General Sun Tzu, 2500 years ago, book “The Art of War” ..

    • Forever Guilty
      Forever Guilty says:

      It’s a very good explanation. It’s the first time I read a reasonable explanation about Jewish long term goals.

      Because my first impression and second impression etc on all those anti white activities : they are based more on some sadistic emotional motives and hatred than on rational considerations.

      Hate toward whites definitely has its place but now we can see their rational motives too. So they are combining business with pleasure, so to speak.

      It’s no surprise then, that practically every today advertisement promotes some kind of interracial mixture..

  10. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Making the stupid and bad sound smart and good and forcing people to believe it is the sine qua non of Chutzpah.

    It’s where Jewish Supremacy Inc. was always headed.

    But there’s a snake in the garden of this Utopia For Dummies.

    When you introduce the idea that the stupid and bad are really smart and good you give up all of the advantages of human intelligence.

    If this approach is used in one case, why not use it in others?

    Why not return to a barbaric worldview where all facts are explained by attributing to them to a group of vague abstractions, glittering generalities, and absurd absolutes, that are used to explain all of reality by manufacturing, ad hoc, occult qualities or faculties, capable of performing like little demons spirits whatever’s required?

    By doing this we’re falling into something way worse than the occult.

    We’re closing the door on the very things that make life possible in a world more complex and unpredictable than ever before, things such as careful thought, consistent reasoning and cautious judgment, so we can open the door to asylums ignorance, laziness and stupidity, the very things that will force life as we know it to come to a grinding halt just before it goes over the edge and drops into a bottomless pit.

    Is this why they consider themselves the chosen?

    One thing’s for sure. You can be sure “anti-race” doesn’t exist in Israel, and not just Israel.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “This is not a free speech issue; it’s about improving the quality and accuracy of information…”

      How can you improve the quality and accuracy of information without free speech?

      Power really does make people stupid. It doesn’t have to, but it often does. Conformity too.

      In fact, stupidity is conformity’s shadow.

      And these people are conformists with lots of power.

      So that’s a Double Whammy.

      The entire justification for Freedom of Speech is that only such a value makes it possible to discover new truths and get rid of old illusions.

      It presupposes intelligence and excludes stupidity.

      Which explains why these beneficiaries of free speech don’t know anything about it. Nor do they care. So we can add apathy to their ignorance.

      Add to that their radical ingratitude and you have a mob of the most repellant, obnoxious and unimpressive people in the history of the world.

      In any event, free speech makes it possible for us to improve the quality and accuracy of information that is eventually transformed into knowledge and the knowledge into wisdom.

      And developing the attributes of wisdom is exactly what an education in the Arts & Sciences used to be about.

      Attributes such as emotional detachment and intellectual insight. As well as prolonged problem-exposure and solution postponement, so as to avoid the premature termination of the all important process of data-gathering.

      And what exactly would we do with this wisdom?

      Solve problems and improve the quality of life.

      But now, thanks to the hive of dumbells running things now problems aren’t getting solved and the quality of life is in free fall.

      Talk about a Pyrrhic Victory.

      The one bright spot in all of this is that we’re still free to solve some of the many problems we’re facing today as individuals and as members of a race that is now being scapegoated on a global scale.

      Toward that end, the more we know about the subject of scapegoating (starting in families) the better the chances of working our way out of our current dilema.

      Every little bit helps.

      It also wouldn’t hurt to develop a stronger, more sympathetic affection, care and respect for one another.

  11. Charles Danten
    Charles Danten says:

    Races or breeds do exist in domesticated animals but unlike humans, dogs for example do not mingle according to breed or race like humans do because they were not selected for ethnocentrism. All breeds of dogs therefore behave with each other as if they were one of a kind. This is true for all domesticated species. But it is different for wild species who do mingle according to breed (race) because like for humans they were naturally selected for ethnocentrism. Mix a bunch of different human races together and they will eventually mingle according to race like what happens in jails for example. It explains why liberals often think that humans are like dogs, one of a kind, with minor differences in behaviour and physical appearance (phenotype). That’s a major source of confusion. See here on my blog: appearance.

    • lou
      lou says:

      All breeds of dogs therefore behave with each other as if they were one of a kind.

      Nonsense. A dog does not even consciously think ‘I am a dog’–its programming is bio genetic.
      not mental as in self conscious.
      A herding dog will herd small dogs, a fighting dog fight..they will behave according to their genes.

      • Charles Danten
        Charles Danten says:

        Breeds do behave according to their genes, but if you mix them up in a dog park for example, they don’t mingle according to their breed because they were not selected to recognize their breed as one of their own, unlike humans. Poodles, for example, will not associate with poodles more than they would associate with any other breed. Dogs are breed-blind. Liberals therefore wrongly assume that if it is true for dogs it is also true for humans. They forget that humans were selected to recognize those of their breed or race. So if you mix a bunch of people from different races, they will eventually mingle with those that are genetically similar to them (theory of genetic similarity by Philippe Rushton: people are attracted unconsciously by people who have similar genes). That is not at all the case for dogs or any other domestic animal of the same species.

  12. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    What I take away from this is that rationality is not enough. I’ve talked to intelligent liberals and leftists and refuted their arguments. What effect did that have? None. We can write off a large chunk of the non-Jewish white population. By now, they should have wised up. That they haven’t means that they are not worth trying to persuade. There is nothing we can do politically under the current regime except wait for it to fall apart (which I think it will), at which point a white ethnostate (without Jews and non-whites) will become a possibility. .

    • Karlfried
      Karlfried says:

      Hello Andrew, I want to give some hints what we can do.
      Firstly, today we are standing in a fight about our survival as deutsches Volk (or other European-derived folk) and white race. Our ancestors were heroes, and we are obliged to be heroes, too. We have the obligation towards our ancestors, and towards our children.
      Secondly, always the masses of a folk will be dumb and lazy and egostic and cowardly. We should not judge this morally, but we should accept this situation as a fact of nature. In some way it is a good thing, because therefore we can calculate how the masses think and react and therefore we can put our activities towards aims that we can achieve and not towards aims where there will be no success.
      If there is no direct path to our survival, we can und must use helping methods which at first glance are small.
      For example, I keep my home and family and my small company (an arable farm) clean and tidy and strong.
      I speak clearly that Germany is for Germans and that we can only have a (very) limited number of non-whites in Germany or our Volk and race will be destroyed.
      That simple truth is enough to make multicultilovers go away.
      The frontier between those who want to live and those who speak in favour of multikulti (and therefore kill the German people) becomes larger and stronger each day in Germany. And the death-bringers are loosing ground. They are on the loosing side. And we do not stand still, but we are steadily attacking. The right to live is on our side, and our life we are going to preserve.
      And our European neighbours think the same, some are in a better shape, for example Denmark. In recent years, Denmark has drastically changed its policy from “pro-multikulti” to “pro-live ot the Danish folk”.
      At the end, I want to add a song (Deutscher Schlager, Discofox, Daniela Alfinito, Geh doch wenn du sie liebst). Discofox is folk music, dancing music, music for good feeling, music for singing along.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Karlfried: Thank you for your reply. You are right. So many of us are asleep. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything. It’s a fine line to walk between doing nothing and endangering yourself by going up against powerful people who will try to destroy you (be careful, my friend). I think what you are doing strikes the right balance. As for myself, I boycott any company or organization that works against my interests. If only 10% of us did that, it would have a huge impact.

  13. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    “…Thus understood, race is a biologically meaningless concept, literally no more than skin deep. It is also neither innate nor permanent, for skin colour can change dramatically from one generation to another as a result of mixed-race marriages…”

    So if I mix water with ink, then that proves that water or ink don’t exist?

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      What Dialogue is that quote from?

      Because I couldn’t find it anywhere and the authenticity has been questioned.

      Of course, the important thing is that it’s true.

      Well, with a qualification.

      The Hostile Elite, or Jewish Supremacy Inc., have acquired and are currently maintaining power and control through slander.

      It’s kind of a loser’s way of winning. Which is why, in the long run, the best they’ll ever manage is a Pyrrhic Victory.

      Regarding the quote and others such as “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you’re not allowed to criticize.”

      What JSI does in these cases is set its deflection machine in motion. It launches into an ad hominem so as to deflect attention from the actual quote.

      Of course, this is what they’ve done with The Protocols.

      Same with The International Jew published by Henry Ford (required reading in my view and available online at The Unz Review; along with The Iron Curtain Over America by John Beaty).

      In short, they put Personalities Before Principles.

      This is what they did and are doing with Trump.

      Considering how long JSI has been at this, considering how well-organized, well-funded and highly-motivated they are, considering their penchant for devious, secretive planning, one wonders if this isn’t what they started with when they gave him the nod to run for President.

      In any event, it’s for this reason that we can’t give them any reason to question the accuracy of our statements, ever.

      So copy/paste quoting without fact-checking is out.

      They’ll just bonk us over the head with it every time.

      Better to just post the quote and let it go at that. Especially if it’s true.

  14. John
    John says:

    Lewontin’s fallacy in pictures:

    “Nonetheless, at a time when -due to a sort of mental hysteresis- proclamations that “races are social constructs” are still routinely made, the discovery that not only races, but even closely related ethnic groups (e.g. Norwegians and Swedes) can be distinguished with greater than 90% accuracy, serves to illustrate the scientific irrelevance of the ethnic nihilists and the affirmation that nations are, at least in part, genetic entities.”

  15. Chad McChetly
    Chad McChetly says:

    But genes are not in some void. Also why do jewish people denounce race if their IQ and intelligence is high? Wouldn’t they want to promote science that proves they are superior?

    Please explain why jews try to debunk racial science.

    (Of course I see superiority in terms of morality rather than IQ or whatever)

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Good [non-jewish] Science might conclude that jews are not superior.

      When jews were creating early IQ tests, questions that showed female weakness were thrown out, thus “proving” that females are equal. . .Medical schools’ entrance exams were modified so that dumb jews could gain entrance. . .

      Science means observation, as a starting point. Look, up in the sky- it’s a bird, no it’s a plane, it’s WHITE GENIUS. Jews don’t invent, so how in hell could they be “smarter?” Jew “science” says they are, White science says they aren’t. . .

      95% of “research” is financed by the Feds. I wonder (((who))) is controlling the research grants?

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        The only legitimate “test” for intelligence is actual achievement. Non-Jewish white males created at least 90% of civilization and have taken first prizes in virtually every field of human endeavor — far more than any other group. So it tells you that something is wrong when only a little over 10% of Harvard’s entering class consists of non-Jewish white males (who are 30% of the population), while the Jews themselves (who are 2.5% of the population) make up about 22% of the class.

        Ron Unz (who is Jewish) has said that between 65% and 70% of America’s best high school students (based on National Merit Scholar finalists and semi-finalists) are non-Jewish whites, while Jews only make up 6% of that high-achieving group. But Harvard’s freshman class has roughly equal numbers of Jews and whites. As for Asians, they are likewise over-represented (although they are claiming discrimination). Jewish “brilliance” turns out to be Jewish nepotism.

  16. Bantu Education
    Bantu Education says:

    “There are some ideas which are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them”. George Orwell

  17. PhdJKL
    PhdJKL says:

    People know their own race even without genetic testing. Only 5 out of 3,636 did not identify their race/ethnicity correctly in this study!
    Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies by Hua Tang et al. Am J Hum Genet. 2005 Feb; 76(2): 268–275.
    We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

  18. Jack McArthur
    Jack McArthur says:

    Wisdom and IQ are not the same.

    The medjay were the police force during the New Kingdom in Ancient Egypt. They were black.

    The “black pharaohs” were noted for their great piety.

    The only sane voices I have heard recently in the RCC who clearly see the writing on the wall regarding the fall of Europe through mass invasion are black.

    Too much black and white thinking – pun intended.

  19. Jack McArthur
    Jack McArthur says:

    It was a black Pharoah who had inscribed “and thus Maat is given to him who does what is loved and isfet to him who does what is hated”. Wisdom is a divine gift and there is no direct correlation between her and IQ.

    cf. The Mind of Ancient Egypt, Jan.Assmann, p. 352

    • Jack McArthur
      Jack McArthur says:

      Maybe the line of text which follows the above quotation from the black pharaoh’s inscription is relevant in the context of claimed lack of self control.

      “and thus is life given to the peaceable and death to the criminal”.

      “Life” and “death” in Ancient Egyptian texts commonly allude to eternal life or annihilation as well. Centuries later Jesus would say “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of god”.

  20. Amman Mohammed
    Amman Mohammed says:

    I would not write about race and genes – rather, I would write about the inevitable human need for boundaries. I recognize Europe, Africa, Asia and (the Islamic) WORLD as wholes entitled to legitimate boundaries. Together, I consider them the Classical World whereas North/South America are, like it or not, a New (and bounded) World. You can draw your own conclusions going forward…

  21. milan
    milan says:

    A great piece here:

    the quote however, half way down page about Africa by a Lord Macaulay to the British Parliament 2nd February 1835 is shocking and telling. Wow, just wow!

    I have traveled across the length and breath of Africa and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief, such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage and therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the African’s think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.

  22. Rainer Moeller
    Rainer Moeller says:

    Martha Gill is quoted here about debates which are (and shall be) shut.
    My answer to the Martha Gills of this world is Plato’s “Menon”. Here, a slave has wrong ideas about how to find the side length for a square with a given size. And Socrates doesn’t tell him that he has to believe a certain answer because, well, the mathematicians have already proved it and the debate is shut. Socrates doesn’t rely on authority.
    On the contrary Socrates teaches by arguments that the slave must be wrong and how the right solution will be found. This is what good scientists and good teachers do.
    Let us praise our Ancient Greek tradition. And defend it against the Martha Gills of this world.

  23. TJ
    TJ says:

    In the world of human politics, parasites and predators interfere with brains by using words and ideas instead. [from the article]

    . . .instead of chemicals? What about Prozac and Paxil and the others?

    Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

    Bertrand Russell [1952]

  24. T.Gilligan
    T.Gilligan says:

    I had not intended to comment given the regular elevated level of comments but browsing the pages of my Saturday broadsheet newspaper supplement that comes with the (GB) Telegraph called ‘Review’ and the book mentioned by Mr.Langdon is not only appraised by reviewer Steven Poole but extrapolates Angela Siani’s globalist assertions on race. Poole states in his serveral statements and conclusions that anyone merely acknowledging genetic differences is a “Nazi”; “Ten thousand years ago Britain was populalated with people with dark skin (such as the famous ‘Cheddar man’s). African-Americans are often of mainly European decent”.
    A more fitting title would read:” Inferior:The Return of Race Denailists”. In a few centuries time archaeologists might dig up a skull and call it ‘Leftist Erectus”.
    Stupid as stupid evolves; what next from the preposterous left:Chicks with dicks that are really chicks!?

    • Bantu Education
      Bantu Education says:

      “Ten thousand years ago Britain was populalated with people with dark skin (such as the famous ‘Cheddar man’s).”

      There is so much peer pressure in “academia” to keep parroting the “one race, the human race” leftist propaganda that one has to be very suspicious of such welcome (to leftist academia) “findings”. Not to mention the enormous publicity, mutual back-slapping, and Nobel prize-winning potential of such an amazing “discovery”. Bones don’t say anything about skin colour. Maybe ancient Briton’s (or some of them) were darker skinned than us more recent arrivals but does that make them more “African”? There are hundreds of physical and mental differences between Africans and Europeans. Skin-colour is the least of these, but the left keeps parroting the wishful-thinking nonsense that race is only skin deep.

  25. Armor
    Armor says:

    “stupid ideas exploit the brain-circuits devoted to morality”

    The race replacement program is mostly enforced by coercion, not persuasion. Western governments simply keep ignoring popular opinion and importing more migrants. Almost no one honestly believes the propaganda that says the non-white invaders are just like us. So, I don’t expect the progress of genetic analysis will make much difference.

    As I see it, those stupid ideas are used as a space-filler. They don’t need to make sense. They are only needed to fill the void created by the censorship of common sense, and to create an illusion that sincere arguments exist, whether or not they are misguided. The leftists will parrot those stupid ideas out of conformity to authority. And the rightists will waste time criticizing the stupidity of those ideas, without realizing that the government isn’t misguided but hostile to White people. Most people do not really believe the nonsense they are fed by the government and the media, but it helps them stay quiet.

    I think the government-subsidized leftists serve the same purpose as phony “stupid ideas”. Their task is to look like they have some responsibility in the government’s policies. They deflect criticism from the Jews and encourage people to think the problem is leftism, rather than government hostility.

    According to the government, race doesn’t exist, men can be women, ugly architecture is beautiful, and the motto of a good school teacher should be: anything but knowledge…

    Many people will argue with those ideas. For example, they will try to explain why it’s useful to learn things at school, as if the government didn’t know that, and as if the leftists who claim to agree with the government’s “stupid ideas” were not simply conformists that you can’t argue with.

    I think the government is exploiting two flaws of the leftists: 1. Their lack of common sense, coupled either with too much generosity, or with an urge to destroy everything. 2. Their suggestibility and conformism: they are made to think of themselves as rebels, even though they are manipulated, tend to go with the flow, and want to make other people obey too.

    • Armor
      Armor says:

      White nationalists should divide their activism like this :
      – 10% of their time debunking stupid ideas
      – 90% of their time exposing the Jewish networks that push those ideas and censor common sense.

      The people cited in Tobias Langdon’s article belong to Jewish networks : the media, the loony left, colleges (“the Department of Film, Media and Cultural Studies”, at Birkbeck College)…

      If we discuss seriously nonsensical theories, there is a risk that we may unwittingly give some legitimacy to their proponents, even though they are simply frauds or hopeless conformists.

      What’s remarkable is how Jewish networks have been able to colonize the media, academia, the political world, the justice system, the government and the administration… There is now unanimous disapproval of White people among the so-called elites. But they are not real elites. They didn’t rise to the top because they are the best. They were co-opted in Jewish networks while our best people where being silenced, defamed, sued.

      Most people will agree that Jewish theories (“there is no such thing as race”) are nonsense, but it takes some reading to realize that all our institutions have been co-opted by the crazy tribe. A number of methods have been used: fraud, use of crypsis in their ethnic networking, buying people and newspapers up, defamation campaigns, marrying one’s daughters to billionaires…

      They are in power because they hold the institutions. It makes it possible for them to fill colleges and newspapers with garbage and stupid ideas. But they didn’t conquer power by spreading intellectual nonsense. They didn’t win any battle of ideas either. It worked the other way around: first they took power, then they shut us up and started drowning us in intellectual nonsense.

      I think one way the infiltration works is by concentric circles, where Jews dominate the center. The crazy left tends to subvert every institution, without realizing that its political orientations are largely determined by the Jews in control of the media and academia. The Jews are also active within political groups and often decide who gets subsidized with government money.

      People who don’t know anything about Jewish power will keep believing that the central problem is simply leftism. At least, they have to notice that there is no exception to the censorship in the mainstream media. They could start by taking a look at the names of the newspaper owners and editors.

      • Andrew
        Andrew says:

        Well said. I would go a bit further and say that — largely for the reasons you have indicated — trying to convince the sheeple is a waste of time. We need to concentrate our energies on unity and separation. We begin by writing off most of the sheep. They are beyond saving. Then we network with like-minded non-Jewish white people in other countries, focusing on the goal of creating a white ethnostate (no Jews or non-whites allowed) or confederation of white ethnostates. Such an ethnostate will become a possibility when the current system collapses, which I think it will. We might also get lucky and a country (e.g., Hungary) might encourage white immigration. In the meantime, we should be creating de facto white ethnostates by dropping out of the system — homeschooling our kids, boycotting the system to the greatest extent possible, communicating with each other, forming our own enclaves, forming our own cooperatives, bartering, etc. Non-Jewish whites are still a big enough group that if even only 10% of us dropped out of the system (including by going on strike), the system itself would be likely to collapse or at least start on a downward spiral from which it could never recover. .

  26. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Saini was briefly answered by Dutton at The Quarterly Review on line.

    Poor Colin Grant, the wish is the father to the ignorant thought. The “New Statesman” did not print my own letter attacking his “routine-left” prejudicial association of eugenics with genocide. I noted that eugenicists included Herman Muller, W. E. B. DuBois, Magnus Hirschfeld, Harold Laski, Joseph Mier, Nikola Koltsov, Pan Guangdan, Sripati Chandrasekhar & Julian Huxley – yes, folks, four Jews, three non-whites, and six leftists.

    Getting rid of disabilities FROM people (humanitarianism) is not the same as getting rid of disabled people (murder). Who benefits from a world in which people are increasingly ill, stupid and criminal?

Comments are closed.