Richard Lynn Recounts His Life, Part 3 of 3

Editor’s note: I have added the MP3 versions of all three parts of the review derived from Google’s advanced text-to-speech algorithm. I thought that it came through quite well. Comments appreciated. 

Written version, Part 1;
MP3 version:

Written version, Part 2.
MP3 version:

MP3 version of Part 3:

Lynn’s account of his years in Ulster devotes some attention to the ongoing guerilla warfare between racial realism and egalitarian obscurantism, a kind of highbrow analog of the Northern Irish Troubles that did not get anyone killed but ruined a number of careers. In 1975, e.g., a prominent British Conservative politician named Sir Keith Joseph made a speech deploring the large numbers of children produced by the underclass and their dysgenic effect. To combat the problem, he advocated the free distribution of contraceptive pills to less educated girls. This aroused enough outrage, including from within his party, to put an end to his political ambitions. “If he had not made this speech,” writes Lynn, “he would likely have become leader of the Conservative Party and later prime minister.”

In the event, of course, Margaret Thatcher went on to attain both positions. Many years later, long after the end of her term as Prime Minister, Lynn was introduced to Lady Thatcher: “She asked me about my work and I explained my research on race differences in intelligence. She commented that this was very interesting but too incendiary for her to cite.” No doubt she remembered Sir Keith Joseph’s fate.

In 1974, three years after the death of Sir Cyril Burt, Leon Kamin launched an attack on him for some inaccuracies in his papers on the correlations for intelligence of identical and non-identical twins. The purpose of the exercise was to attempt to discredit a researcher who had done much to demonstrate the high heritability of intelligence.

Kamin even went so far as to state that intelligence could well have a zero heritability. The only person Kamin succeeded in discrediting was himself, so overwhelming is the evidence from many studies for a high heritability of intelligence.

Kamin accused Burt of falsifying data. The controversy could not be settled because Burt’s private secretary had

asked Liam Hudson’s advice on what to do with Sir Cyril’s papers after his death, and Hudson told her to throw them all out, which she did.  Hudson was one of Burt’s most ardent opponents. The answers to these questions would have been resolved if Liam Hudson had had a bit more sense and advised that Sir Cyril’s papers should be preserved.

Although Kamin was able to point up some instances of carelessness in Burt’s work, plenty of other researchers have put his conclusions about the heritability of intelligence beyond reasonable doubt.

Lynn includes brief comments on a few books which influenced him during these years. The first was Harry Jerison’s Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence (1973) which showed that species evolve larger brains when they occupy new environments which impose greater cognitive demands. Jerison argued that there have been four principal evolutionary jumps of this kind, including the transition from reptiles to mammals, then to primates, and finally to hominids. “It was a masterly analysis which curiously has not been given the recognition it deserves,” writes Lynn.

The following year saw publication of John Baker’s Race, which summarized what was then known about racial differences in intelligence, a subject Lynn would later do much to expand upon and refine. Baker argues that such intellectual differences explain differences in the development of civilization:

He drew up a list of 21 criteria of a civilization, e.g. the use of writing, arithmetic, substantial buildings, a legal system and the domestication of animals. He concluded that all 21 had been developed by the Chinese about 4000 BC and by the South Asian Caucasoids in India and Iraq at about the same time. He concluded that 10 of the 21 had been developed by Native American Indians and none by the sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines. It is remarkable that the book was published by the Oxford University Press. It would never have published such a book in the twenty-first century, such has been the development of informal censorship among publishers in recent years.  

E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology, a synthesis of sociology and biology, appeared in 1975.

It showed that many characteristics of human societies are also present in animal societies, such as competition between males for status, dominance hierarchies, hostility to out-groups, territoriality and the like. Wilson argued that these characteristics are genetically programmed. I had been thinking along the same lines for a number of years, and I found Edward Wilson’s book a brilliant exposition of my half-formed views.

Lynn considers the development of sociobiology, now known as evolutionary psychology, as “one of the most important developments in psychology during my life.” The following year, he himself contributed to its discussion with an article titled “The Sociobiology of Nationalism.

I argued that nationalism defined as identification with one’s own nation was a further sociobiological characteristic. I supported this position by describing the view of Charles Darwin that “a high degree of in-group loyalty, in combination with hostility to outgroups, makes the group a better fighting force, and more likely to survive.” [This view] was elaborated by the Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith in his largely forgotten 1948 book A New Theory of Human Evolution in which he argued that people have an instinctive preference for maintaining the independence of their group and breeding within it. I predicted from this that in the UK many of the Scots and Welsh would come to demand independence from England, which has proved to be the case.

In 1977, Lynn published a paper calculating the average IQ of Japan as 106.6 in relation to an American mean of 100, and a second calculating the IQ of ethnic Chinese in Singapore as 110. Lynn has done more than anyone else to confirm the high intelligence of Northeast Asians. He was also studying regional differences in intelligence in Britain and France, where he found the highest average IQs in the capitals.

In 1978 Lynn came to America to attend a small conference convened by Jared Taylor at a hotel in Long Island to discuss racial conflict and black underachievement.

Among those who attended [was] Dick Herrnstein, the senior professor of psychology at Harvard. I had read and liked his book IQ in the Meritocracy in which he argued that the United States is a meritocracy in which intelligence and effort led to achievement. He told me his parents had been radical Jewish political activists in Hungary in the 1930s and had fled to the United States. I put to him that the increasing numbers of non-European immigrants in the United States would likely continue, the higher birth rate of these peoples would also likely continue and consequently Europeans would probably become minorities sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century. And, I added, would this would surely mean the end of European civilization in the United States. I was expecting he would refute this prediction, but his reply was short and laconic. “Yes”, he said, “it’s inevitable”.

The meeting was held in a room which had doors that could be opened up to another larger room. Shortly after the start of our discussions we could hear a great deal of noise of clapping and chanting coming from the adjoining room, and Jared opened the doors to reveal about fifty blacks holding a religious revivalist meeting. The noise was so great that we could not make ourselves heard and it was impossible to continue, so we abandoned the room and found a quiet one where we could continue. As we left, Dick Herrnstein looked at me, lifted his eyebrows and observed “Says it all, doesn’t it?”       

Lynn also met Phil Rushton at this conference.

In 1984, the Galton Institute invited Lynn to give a lecture on race differences in intelligence:

I accepted and the gist of my lecture was that Galton had been right in the estimates he gave in his Hereditary Genius, although it was a pity that he had omitted the Chinese and Japanese who according to my calculations had IQs about 5 IQ points higher than Europeans. In previous years all the lectures delivered at the annual conferences had been published in a book but on this occasion, mine was omitted as it was apparently considered too controversial.

That same year, a colleague informed Lynn about the Pioneer Fund, which he had not heard of, and suggested he turn to it for research support.

I send a grant application to continue my work on the intelligence of the Chinese and Japanese. A few weeks later I had a call from William Shockley saying that he was in London and would like to meet me. Shockley had won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the transistor and then taken up the issue of the black-white difference in intelligence, which he proposed was largely genetic. I knew about this, so I readily assented and went to meet him for dinner at the St Ermine’s hotel in London. He told me he was in England to receive an honorary degree from the University of Leeds, but at the last moment some students discovered that he had written on race differences in intelligence and had lobbied the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Edward Boyle, to withdraw the invitation, which he duly did. Shockley issued a press statement on this and the story was covered in a number of newspapers. He loved publicity.

Later during dinner he pulled out my application to the Pioneer Fund, which Harry Weyher, the director of the Fund, had sent him for his opinion. We talked about it and he said it was an interesting project and he would support it.

I invited Shockley to come and give a lecture at Ulster and he agreed to do so, provided his expenses and those of his wife were paid. Although he was a multi-millionaire, Shockley was very close with his money. I assented to this and he duly arrived and gave his lecture on the black-white difference in intelligence, which passed without incident. After the lecture, a few of us took the Shockleys to dinner at a restaurant. The party include Ronnie Wilson, our lecturer on genetics, who said he thought it could plausibly be argued that there is some genetic basis to the black-white difference in intelligence but he did not think this could be quantified. Shockley replied that the only useful statements were those that could be quantified. He told Ronnie to put a £1 coin on the table, which he duly did. Shockley pocketed this and gave him a ten pence coin in return, saying “This will teach you the importance of quantification”. Shockley was notoriously abrasive. However, he was apparently as good as his word in supporting my grant application to the Pioneer Fund, which was approved a few weeks later.

It was around this time that Phil Rushton began to publicize his r-K life history theory of race differences. Lynn’s work on the high intelligence of Northeast Asians was one of the components on which the theory was built, as was his earlier work on national differences in anxiety and neuroticism.

In 1990, Lynn married his longtime research assistant Susan Hampson. That summer, he organized a conference in New York to discuss race differences, dysgenic fertility and related topics. Attendees included Dick Herrnstein, Phil Rushton, Art Jensen and his wife Barbara, Hans and Sybil Eysenck, Frank Miele, Linda Gottfredson, Chris Brand, John Loehlin, Charles Murray and Marian van Court. Chris Brand has recorded some memories of this conference: he learned from Barbara Jensen that her husband’s magnum opus Bias in Mental Testing had been purchased by only seven out of one hundred university libraries they surveyed. Popular opposition to hereditarianism was getting so strong that most academic libraries simply refused to allow such works onto their shelves.

Lynn had spent much of his time during the 1980s collecting IQ data from around the world, and published his first paper on the subject in 1991:

I set the British IQ at 100 with a standard deviation of 15, and calculated the IQs of other peoples on this metric. The results were that other Europeans also had an IQ of 100 except in the south where it declines to the mid-90s. The IQs were 106 for North East Asians; 92 for New Zealand Maori; 86 for Native American Indians; 86 for South Asians represented by India; 70 for sub-Saharan Africans; and 79 for Australian Aborigines. Subsequent studies have shown that these IQs are about right except for Australian Aborigines [later estimated at 62].

Later in 1991 I published my theory that these race differences evolved when early humans migrated out of Africa around 100,000 years ago into the temperate environments of North Africa and South Asia, and then into the cold environments of Europe and North East Asia. I argued that these more northerly environments were more cognitively demanding because people became wholly dependent on hunting to obtain meat.

I well remember how I came to formulate this theory. I was reading The Memoires of Sergeant Bourgoyne, who served in Napoleon’s army that invaded Russia in 1812. The sergeant describes [the] arduous journey back to France. By the time they had made about four hundred miles and were approaching the Polish border it was mid-winter. It was bitterly cold, and for food they had to kill a horse from time to time. The sergeant describes how when the horse was killed it would soon freeze solid, and it became impossible to cut it up into pieces that could be cooked. To overcome this problem, they had to cut it up it into small pieces quickly, so that later they could thaw out one of these and cook it. I realised that this must have been what the Europeans and the North East Asians would have had to do during the last ice age, and they only had primitive flint tools with which to do it. This was when I realized that the European and North East Asians must have evolved a high IQs to survive during the 28,000 years or so of the last ice age.

Shortly after publishing these papers, two busloads of goons showed up in Belfast representing an organization called “the Anti-Nazi League.” They disrupted Lynn’s lectures and put up posters demanding his sacking; the university made no attempt to stop them.

Up until this time, there had existed a broad scholarly consensus that men and women are on average about equal in intelligence. In 1992, however,

Dave Ankney and Phil Rushton independently published papers showing that men have larger brains than women, even when these are controlled for body size and weight. Ankney calculated the average male brain, adjusted for larger body size, is 100 grams heavier than that of the average female brain. Rushton calculated from another data set that the average male brain, adjusted for larger body size, is 1,442 cc and the average female brain is 1,332 cc, a male advantage of 110 cc. One cc of brain tissue weighs approximately 1 gram, so the Ankney and Rushton results are closely similar.

It was evident that these results presented a problem. It is well established that brain size is positively related to intelligence at a correlation of about 0.4. As men have larger brains than women, it seemed to follow that men should have a higher average IQ than women. Yet all the experts were agreed that males and females have the same intelligence. I grappled with this problem for about six months [before] I found the solution. When I looked at the studies in relation to the age of the samples being tested, I found that males and females do have the same intelligence up to the age of 15 years, as everyone had said. But I found that from the age of 16 years onwards, males begin to show higher IQs than females. I showed that if intelligence is defined as the sum of the three major abilities of reasoning, verbal comprehension, and spatial abilities, the male advantage reaches about 4 to 5 IQ points by adulthood, consistent with their larger average brain size.

Lynn presented these results at a conference in Baltimore, USA, in 1994. He recalls: “Phil Rushton was there and we took advantage of being fairly close to Charles Murray’s home in Maryland to visit him.” This was, of course, the year Herrnstein and Murray’s book The Bell Curve was published. Shortly before publication, co-author Dick Herrnstein

notified some of his friends including me that he had begun to cough up blood, and that his physician had told him that he had lung cancer and could expect to live for only a few weeks. He wrote us observing wryly that one of the advantages of dying was that “At least I won’t have to meet any of these damned Harvard liberals anymore.” He was not a wholly typical American Jew in so far as he was by nature a conservative and married a gentile.

At the end of September 1995 Lynn, now 65 years old, retired from the University of Ulster. He expresses considerable pride in the department he founded there and the scholarly work produced by its lecturers and graduates.

A teacher from Lynn’s King’s College days once told him that the moment he retired he was going to toss all his books and papers into a dumpster. Apparently, he had “come to the conclusion that his work was going no-where,” writes Lynn, since “academics who believe that what they are doing is worthwhile go on working after retirement.” The man lived only three more years.

We may be grateful Richard Lynn had a better opinion of the value of his work, for his productivity greatly increased once he was freed from academic duties. Having produced three books in the course of his academic career, he has gone on to publish over a dozen in retirement. The first of these was Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (1996):

which set out the evidence that modern populations have been deteriorating genetically from around 1880 in respect of health, intelligence and moral character. The reason for the genetic deterioration of health was that improvements in public health, medical treatments and welfare were reducing the mortality of those with genetic diseases. The reason for the genetic deterioration of intelligence and moral character was that the more intelligent and those with stronger moral character began to have fewer children. I estimated that the rate of decline of genotypic intelligence has been around 1 IQ point per generation. Although it is not possible to quantify the deterioration of conscientiousness, it has probably been of about the same order and contributed to the increases in crime that have been present in most economically developed countries during the twentieth century. 

The response to Dysgenics displayed a pattern which would recur with most of Lynn’s subsequent books: it was favorably reviewed by a handful of fellow dissidents (Tom Bouchard, Victor Serebriakov and William Hamilton) and studiously ignored by larger circulation periodicals:

I circulated a press release on the theme of the book that modern populations have been deteriorating genetically for approximately a century, but none of the papers ran the story. I sent review copies of Dysgenics to a number of quality papers and magazines but none of them reviewed it.

Lynn offers some speculation on the temperamental differences between conformists and dissidents so clearly revealed in the reactions to recent scientific work involving human differences and heredity. He mentions a colleague, e.g., who “struck me as intelligent but very conformist, as if he had been conditioned against saying anything controversial.” The man was a product of one of England’s prestigious public schools.

At this time, small boys at public boarding schools like Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Winchester were frequently beaten by the prefects and masters for quite trivial breaches of school rules. The objective was to instill a respect for authority and fear of stepping out of line. This was frequently effective and perhaps a good discipline for those who would later enter the armed services, civil service or the church and generally stood them in good stead in their subsequent careers. It was not so good for the few who became academics who have to be breakers of the conventional consensus if they are to do good original work. I have noticed that several of those who attended one of these public schools retained a lifelong fear of breaking the conventional consensus and have a strong aversion to others who do so.

Perhaps men with such an upbringing are as out of their natural element in the academy as the young Richard Lynn was in the British Army. Given the grief upholders of egalitarian orthodoxy have given men such as Lynn, it is generous of him to acknowledge that such a trait may be socially useful in certain contexts; but, as he also notes, the frontiers of human knowledge are emphatically not such a context.

Lynn once questioned Arthur Jensen about his willingness to violate popular consensus:

I asked him why he was one of the very few who worked on race differences in intelligence and what was different about him that led him to work on this controversial topic that generated so much animosity towards him. He replied that he thought the explanation was that he didn’t mind being disliked by a lot of people. Most people, he said, have a dread of being disliked, but this was not something that bothered him.

Jensen was exceptionally indifferent to pressure for social conformity. He once told me that he was when he was eight years old he attended Sunday school, but he said “The stuff they were telling us about miracles and the like just didn’t make any kind of sense, so I kept raising objections and eventually they expelled me.” On another occasion, he told me that he had never had any interest in team sports. This is likely attributable to Jensen’s lack of identification with groups and is a further expression of his independence of mind.

As mentioned above, the young Richard Lynn had evinced this same lack of team spirit at the Bristol Grammar School.

A certain emotional detachment also seems to contribute to the makeup of the dissident. Lynn writes that it “has always been difficult for me to understand” why “work on race differences excites a hostile emotional reaction in many people. For me race differences are simply a matter of scientific interest and I have never felt any emotion about the question.” Elsewhere he recalls attending a conference dominated by academics who favored environmental explanations of human behavior. One of the asked him: “Do you feel you’re among enemies here?”

I said I didn’t because I have never thought of these environmentalists as enemies and it is difficult for me to understand that this is how many of them regard me and others who regard genetic factors as important. 

Richard Lynn would seem to be the very type of that disinterested rationality which has been the source of so much of European man’s historical achievement. Yet I cannot help but wonder whether a certain inability to perceive enemies is not intrinsically bound up with this virtue. If our people and civilization are to survive in an increasingly hostile world, we will need both disinterested rationality and a fierce commitment to collective survival.

I shall end my survey of Richard Lynn’s Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist here, since most of his subsequent work can be followed in the pages of The Occidental Quarterly. Here are the ten previous reviews of Richard Lynn’s books we have published:
  • The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund (University Press of America, 2001), reviewed by Louis Andrews, Winter 2001-2: Vol. 2, No. 1
  • IQ and the Wealth of Nations (with Tatu Vanhanen, Praeger, 2002) reviewed by Edward M. Miller, Winter 2002-3: Vol. 2, No. 4
  • Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis (Washington Summit Publishers, 2006), reviewed by Leslie Jones, Summer 2006: Vol. 6, No. 2
  • IQ and Global Inequality (with Tatu Vahanen, Washington Summit Publishers, 2006), reviewed by Matt Nuenke, Summer 2007: Vol. 7, No. 2
  • The Global Bell Curve (Washington Summit Publishers, 2008) reviewed by Donald I. Templer, Fall 2008: Vol. 8, No. 3
  • Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, 2nd (Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2011), reviewed by F. Roger Devlin, Spring 2012: Vol. 12, No. 1
  • The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement (Washington Summit Publishers, 2011); and
  • Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences (with Tatu Vanhanen, Ulster Iinstitute for Social Research, 2012) reviewed F. Roger Devlin, Summer 2012: Vol. 12, No.2
  • Race and Sport: An Evolutionary Analysis (with Edward Dutton, Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2015) reviewed by F. Roger Devlin, Spring 2016: Vol. 16, No. 1
  • The Intelligence of Nations (with David Becker, Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2019) F. Roger Devlin, Fall 2019: Vol. 19, No. 3
27 replies
  1. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    The fable of the astronaut and the inquisitor.
    Once upon a time there was an astronaut who lived in the year 2200, then while he was traveling in his spaceship, by some phenomenon in space time he went back to the past, to the middle age year 1500, when he landed on earth he met a member of the Inquisition of the time that was prowling nearby, then he approached him and they started a dialogue, they talked about the fact that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it was not flat, then the astronaut invited him to his spaceship, they went to orbit terrestrial, then he showed the inquisitor the earth from a distance, the stunned inquisitor looked at the astronaut with wide eyes, with an angry and scared look at the same time, then he yelled, “THIS IS A HERESY, SINNER”. It sounds similar to the political correctness of current Jewish cultural Marxism.

  2. Appleburger
    Appleburger says:

    ‘a prominent British Conservative politician named Sir Keith Joseph made a speech deploring the large numbers of children produced by the underclass and their dysgenic effect. To combat the problem, he advocated the free distribution of contraceptive pills to less educated girls. This aroused enough outrage, including from within his party, to put an end to his political ambitions. “If he had not made this speech,” writes Lynn, “he would likely have become leader of the Conservative Party and later prime minister.”’

    Goodness me.

    Is this really being published on the Occidental Observer?

    Kieth Joseph is widely known as the (Jewish) svengali behind Margaret Thatcher. He was very much a power behind the throne type and would never have become prime minister.

  3. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    Wonderfully naive. Sending review copies to ‘the quality press’. No mention of wars as possible contributors to dysgenics. No mntion of possible parasitic human groups. Absolutely laughable gullibility.

  4. Tom
    Tom says:

    The thing that kills me about current social science in the West is the extent to which intellectuals of virtually every stripe engage in agonizing attempts to try and prove that race either has no bearing on politics or should have no bearing. But the exact opposite is true and axiomatic even. All politics and all life is racialist in character and anyone who says otherwise is a fool, a liar, or just plain stupid. There is not one person on earth who discounts his discrete humanity such that he considers himself a strictly formal human or a “citizen of the world”. Of course, such BS is spouted throughout academia but even those doing the spouting seek out their blood interests when their sense of self needs sustenance and tending. We have universities these days wherein people play mind games over issues that should amount to ordinary platitudes.

  5. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “This (the mentioning of poor quality genes in some) aroused enough outrage, including from within his party, to put an end to his political ambitions”

    To even mention the fact that some have better genes than others arouses the anger of the lefties more than anything else does.Their hatred of the better goes hand in hand with supporting and favouring the lower – lower withing their own race and also favouring lower 3rd wold races over their own higher race. Their battle against those with better genes so dominates their entire outlook that in the end this becomes more important than anything else in their lives, even to the extent of still supporting third world immigrants even after their own daughter gets raped and murdered by immigrants – even this does not dampen their urges to promote the lower humans.

    Once you start observing this trait in the Left, you can see that it explains absolutely *everything* the left does – from hating white people, to favouring the 3rd world (no matter how anti-green and patriarchal and racist and anti-homosexual they are), and to favouring criminals in their own society. It explains why the left hated white S.Africa so much, and why they work tirelessly towards the destruction of their own white societies.

    Self-interest has nothing to do with it in today’s context, they are acting only on the direction of their genes controlling them. In the same way self-interest plays no part in forcing a pampered cat to fight the pampered cat next door. Both cats have plenty of food and shelter each, so their is no gain from fighting each other, only stress and injury, but nevertheless they are compelled by their genes to fight each other.

    Once in a different wild setting, the cat’s behaviour did confer an advantage to it, but now it causes the individual harm.

    Once, in a different setting, the genes for leftism did have an advantage, but now it causes the left to try and destroy the very society that nurtures them and makes them safe and wealthy. In the past it would favour a small minority to parasite off the main group in a sort of equivalent to a host-parasite relationship – but they ‘were never meant to take over’ as they have done today due to technology creating the MSM which they end up dominating.

    The same applies to the Jews – there is no self-interest now for them to destroy the nations that provide them with wealth and security, but they are compelled by inner urges to do so. We should not excuse them by saying it is some strategy of self-interest that they follow. In prehistoric times we can see how this blanket hostility to ALL other tribes might have helped them at that time to out-compete other tribes, but today it is going to lead to a backlash against them, and they know this is highly likely, but they still cannot help themselves.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      The hatred is for the world of common sense and reason- the world of Aristotle.
      For about 200 years the dominant view has been idealism- especially George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant. The senses are considered in error, sometimes, or always. Kant’s version splits the world into the seen [phenomenal] and the unseen [noumenal]. The noumenal is considered to be “true reality.” The noumenal is home to EGALITARIANISM, and to all the statism we have enjoyed these last 140 years. Recall that dialectical materialism started with Hegel’s dialectical idealism. Plato, first commie, father of idealism. The opposite of Plato is Aristotle- champion of common sense.

      GENETICS has its home in the seen world- the phenomenal. The egalitarians hate us for not embracing the “noumenal” world, for not pretending that it is the real world.

      Here is some good information on idealism:


      First published Sun Aug 30, 2015

      This entry discusses philosophical idealism as a movement chiefly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, although anticipated by certain aspects of seventeenth century philosophy. It examines the relationship between epistemological idealism (the view that the contents of human knowledge are ineluctably determined by the structure of human thought) and ontological idealism (the view that epistemological idealism delivers truth because reality itself is a form of thought and human thought participates in it). After discussing precursors, the entry focuses on the eighteenth-century versions of idealism due to Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, the nineteenth-century movements of German idealism and subsequently British and American idealism, and then concludes with an examination of the attack upon idealism by Moore and Russell.

      1. Introduction
      2. Idealism in Early Modern Rationalism
      3. Idealism in Early Modern British philosophy
      4. Kant
      5. German Idealism
      6. Schopenhauer
      7. Nietzsche
      8. British and American Idealism
      9. The Fate of Idealism in the Twentieth Century
      Primary Literature
      Selected Secondary Literature
      Academic Tools
      Other Internet Resources
      Related Entries

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” The hatred is for the world of common sense and reason- the world of Aristotle.”

        “The hatred is” most likely a natural reaction to the audacity of their slaves/prey/( host organisms ) challenging the divine right of the jewmasters to extract value/wealth from their victims .

        ” And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children
        after you , to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be
        your bondmen forever:…”

        ( quoted from the Jewish Holy Torah [ aka OT ] / KJV /
        Book of Leviticus / chapter 25 / verse 46 )

        where “bondmen” means slave/prey/(host organism ) .

      • pterodactyl
        pterodactyl says:

        @Lucius – “Despite their claim to higher intelligence, the latter don’t have the sense to quit while they’re ahead”
        Precisely. Many posters here try and work out how the Jews’ behaviour somehow confers some benefit to them. They try and think of reasons why some Js have urges to bring down the races that provide them with wealth and security, and who go out of their way to be extra fair to them.

        But perhaps the Jews are not acting from logic at all, and the outcome of their behaviour is that it is going to end very badly for them if the majority ever finds out what they are up to. In fact they surely must be very aware themselves that provocation can lead to a backlash, but as you say, this awareness does not make them ease off and ‘quite while they are ahead’. We can detect their hostility in Breitbart, where they keep going on about their grievances from centuries ago. I once mentioned to one how they gave Russia communism and the Jew said ‘do you blame us?’ What they are trying to do is rationalise and justify their inner hostility that they feel, which they are aware of and are trying to explain to themselves.

        Some say ‘they are only doing it to weaken us so there is not another persecution of the Jews as in Hitler’s Germany’. But surely what they are doing is trying to recreate the circumstances in which the Germans turned on them?

        Also, to interpret what they do as self-interest instead of irrational hostility, to do the former is to excuse them, as self-interest is a ‘valid’ motive. There is no excuse for what they do.

  6. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    I’m wondering why there’s a discrepancy between Lynn’s “The results were that other Europeans [besides the British] also had an IQ of 100 EXCEPT IN THE SOUTH WHERE IT DECLINES TO THE MID-90s” and the World Ranking of Countries by IQ which is represented as based on Lynn’s and Vanhanen’s IQ & GLOBAL INEQUALITY. (My emphasis.)

    While the list corroborates the basic picture, widely and reasonably accepted, of Northeast Asians on top, Europeans second, and blacks on the bottom (the bottom being a solid block of 44 black countries of Sub-Sahara and the Caribbean), it differs somewhat from what Lynn says above concerning Southern European averages. Here it is where European averages down to 98 are concerned:
    1) Italy 102
    2) Iceland 101
    3) Switzerland 101
    4) Austria 100
    5) Luxembourg 100
    6) UK 100
    7) Netherlands 100
    8) Norway 100
    9) Poland 99
    10) Belgium 99
    11) Estonia 99
    12) Finland 99
    13) Sweden 99
    14) Germany 99
    15) Czechia 98
    16) Andorra 98
    17) Spain 98
    18) Denmark 98
    19) France 98
    20) Hungary 98
    21) Latvia 98
    22) Hungary 98

    True, in the case of Portugal the average does dip to 95, and in that of Greece to 92; but Italy at 102 is shown as having the highest average of any Caucasoid nation–behind only East Asians–while Spain and Andorra at 98 have as high an average as far-northern Denmark and are but one point below Germany and Sweden. Also, if Greece is surprisingly down at 92, so is northerly Ireland, while just as northerly Lithuania is at 91.

    Now, I hope no one will suspect me of having some Southern European animus toward Northern Europe if I say I’ve never been convinced that Northern Europeans are as intelligent as some people claim. Anyone who knows me knows that I regard the Europeans as an actual family–MY family–and that I do so in view of genetic studies unanimously attesting to a striking homogeneity among Europeans–e.g., Coop et al, 2013 (“The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe”), which states: “…individuals from opposite ends of Europe are expected to share MILLIONS of common genealogical ancestors over the past 1000 years.” (My emphasis.)

    I recently debated someone who insisted there is a substantial disparity of intelligence between Northwest Europeans and Southern Europeans, a disparity favoring the Northerners. I said the latter have a funny way of exhibiting their superior intelligence, inasmuch as Brits and Swedes and Dutch seemed to be competing with one another over which of them can most resemble contented lemmings. Whenever I looked at European news reports I feared to see what those nations had done next in terms of self-abasement relative to non-White migrants or to non-White elements already within their borders. My adversary said that Northwest Europeans do have a streak of naivete and he was simple enough to suppose that that explanation left his thesis intact. I had seen that same thing–Northwest Europeans (with whom I am very well-acquainted, partly because I lived in Norway three years) trust too much and too easily; plus the “deadly altruism gene” seems strongest in them, and an unparalleled many of them equate “goodness” with self-abnegation on behalf of alien groups. Naivete….not an intellectual defect?

    That same adversary also maintained that Poles are especially slow, and are thus not the equals of a “great” nation like the Germans. My response was again “The proof is in the pudding” and “stupid is as stupid does.” Not only do the IQ data deny that there’s a noticeable German edge relative to the Poles–since the Polish average of 99 is, according to Lynn’s book, equal to the German average–but I don’t suppose that repeatedly electing a traitor like Merkel evinces intelligence more than having a government which is not all that far behind Orban’s splendid Hungary in terms of protecting national and European heritage.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      With your Italian moniker, it’s a little suspect that you came up with a “study” that finds Italy with the highest IQ average in Europe. No one can believe that. Here is a more recent and better known study from Lynn and Vanhanen — 2012 to yours from 2002-2006 that shows a quite different picture.

      The facts refute that Poles/Poland has ever demonstrated a higher national income and standard of living than Germans/Germany, nor even equal. Poles leave their own hard-won nation in droves to go elsewhere in Europe for better pay and a better way of life than Poland can provide. Facts speak for themselves, no matter what the political persuasions people are indoctrinated into. Politics is not a measure of intelligence.

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        That’s right, tedesca: my moniker is Italian and that’s because I am too. But I didn’t “come up with a ‘study'” to gratify my national egoism so much as become acquainted some years ago with the work of the man the above article concerns–Richard Lynn. And the work he did with Vanhanen DID report a 102 average IQ for Italy, three points higher than that for your teure Heimat.

        “No one can believe that,” you say–that Italy could have a higher average IQ than Germany! Lol–certainly YOU can’t, or rather won’t. You’re showing your true color–which is not that of a White Nationalist but of a Nordicist supremacist. With non-European aliens at the gates and getting through too, you’re going to pull your absurd Nordicist shite, and assert with perfect confidence that Lynn’s 2012 research MUST reflect reality while the 2002-6 work CAN’T!

        Well, lemme tell you, meine kleine Deutschlanderin, Italy was the seat of great civilization when your savage forebears (whom I very much like) were typically illiterate, drunken warriors clad in skins and rude linen. And when Europe rebounded from its Hebrew-spawned darkness, Italy was again far ahead of the Germans, with my ancestral town of Florence being the “flashpoint of the Renaissance” and boasting of the greatest concentration of geniuses since Pericles’ Athens.

        Any time you want to compare the great minds and figures of Germany with those of Italy, I’m game! At your website or mine–you choose! Du verstehe?

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          If you are “acquainted with the work of Richard Lynn,” you know that the single study that you copied here to make your point about the great similarity among Europeans is not truly representative of his conclusions up to the current date. Therefore you’re not after accuracy but propaganda, even if it’s White Nationalist propaganda.

          As well, I am not pushing German or Nordicist supremacy but standing up for accuracy and truth. It is my considered conviction that “White” nationalism or European nationalism (as in a tighter European Union financially – with Germans as final paymaster always) does not and will not work to present the united, strong front that is imagined. The FACT is, Whites/Europeans are too diverse, with a tolerance of corruption in governmental and daily affairs – disrespect for the rule of law and low ethical standards – being the main divisors. These traits or tendencies correlate with IQ.

          It’s also true that regions and nations have their heyday, for example Italy sparked the great Renaissance period, England boasts the Elizabethan era, and let’s not forget the genius of ancient and classical Greece which today’s Greece does not resemble at all. Greece doesn’t even appear on your list of 22 highest European national averages. Migration and immigration change populations over time.

          Comparing geniuses of the past accomplishes nothing for understanding today, therefore. The one figure who can still be considered modern that I would put forth is Adolf Hitler, whose preliminary ideas for a Germanic-led united Europe in 1943-44 were sound. Hitler is the only reliable example Europe could follow today, but his very name is censored and repudiated even by White Nationalists. This is why we’re left with only inferior solutions that are not based on how things really are, but on wishful thinking.

          Until we can give up the false idea of Equality that we have accepted along with Democracy, we will continue to degrade as a race.

          • Lucius Vanini
            Lucius Vanini says:

            CAROLYN Y.–I won’t have you thinking that I don’t appreciate the tremendous German contributions to world civilization, or that I don’t know the Germans are among the very greatest of peoples. It’s not that I see them as less impressive than they are, but that other European tribes are similarly accomplished and talented.

            Nietzsche’s is the mind which awes me most. My favorite musician and the one I consider the most remarkable, is Mozart (Austria then was a German state as much as were Bayern and Prussia).

            Hitler unquestionably had the right idea about White racial self-love and in-group preference; but in MEIN KAMPF he profusely admires Mussolini and seems to view him as a mentor.

            Equality?! What the hell is that?!

            Carolyn, thou hast disappointed me deeply by not retorting that the Northern Europeans have done more than the Southerners in making our European Family glorious. I was going to say, lol, “I’d rather not engage in such divisive talk–but face it: Hellas and Roma (and perhaps the Minoans) made European civilization great; the Renaissance, beginning and reaching its highest heights in Italy, brought it back to greatness; and in that same age Italian adventurers (Columbus, Cabot, Vespucci, Verazzano), Spain and Portugal opened the Americas to European conquest and colonization and discovered the sea route to the actual Indies and Far East, inaugurating the establishment of a European Global Hegemony.”

            And now, because you didn’t rise to the bait, I can’t say it! Dio cane!

            P.S. I’m not entirely sold on the notion that intelligence is so correlated with material prosperity. Few Greeks had so small an income as Socrates, who instead of sculpting as he should’ve been was dialectically pursuing truth; and nobody was poorer than Diogenes, who lived under an inverted wine tub and was usually nude to boot. And Instinct too is a category of intelligence; and the 80 or so LGBT-free zones in Poland impress me more than whatever higher per capita income the Swedes enjoy relative to the Poles..

            All the best; love ya.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            “…I am not pushing German or Nordicist supremacy, but…”

            “…The one figure who can still be considered modern that I would put forth is Adolf Hitler, whose preliminary ideas for a Germanic-led united Europe in 1943-44 were sound…”

            Not even other Germanic nations were enthusiastic about becoming part of that Great Germanic Reich, let alone the “inferior” Slavic peoples who would be its major victims.

            With his antiquated ideas of “Herrenvolk” and “Untermenschen”, Hitler is by no means “still considered modern”, not by ordinary people and not by white nationalists.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          Richard Lynn
          45.95Ulster University
          Beraldo (2010) and Cornoldi, Belacchi, Giofre, Martini, and Tressoldi (2010) (CBGMT) have eight criticisms of my paper (Lynn, 2010) claiming that the large north–south differences in per capita income in Italy are attributable to differences in the average levels of intelligence in the populations. CBGMT give results for seven data sets for IQs in the north and south of Italy. All of these show that IQs are higher than in the north than in the south, although the differences are not as great as those I calculated. Other criticisms to the effect that the PISA tests are not measures of intelligence are refuted. The results of two further studies are given that confirm that IQs in the north of Italy are approximately 10 IQ points higher than in south.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        It appears , based on my numerous personal observations , that most USA Whites assess the amount of intelligence of another person based on their perception of that person’s level of political intelligence .

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      Good sentence: “Brits and Swedes and Dutch seemed to be competing with one another over which of them can most resemble contented lemmings. ”

      Today many whites see open treachery towards their own race as a virtue. They have been trained via education and the MSM to think like this, which makes them sheeple, like your adversary.

      Some are unaware that it is going to end in conflict and misery when we are outnumbered, or they think this is a problem for future generations, not them, so they do not care, just as they do not care when the local authorities destroy yet another local historic building.

      Other whites are fully aware that it will end very badly for the whites, and this is precisely what they want to happen and they cannot wait for white downfall, even though fellow whites provide their own wealth and security and pampered lives. These ones (white lefties and ((allies)) are the ones guiding the whole process of national suicide. White lefties rejoiced when white S.Rhodesia collapsed, they will rejoice when S.Africa goes the same way, and they earnestly hope the same fate arrives for their own white country in their own lifetimes.

      We cannot always learn from history – the MSM guiding nations towards their own voluntary downfall, and the people eagerly going down the path, this is a new phenomenon, and never before in history have the strong invited the weak over to conquer them.

  7. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    I added, this would surely mean the end of European civilization in the United States. I was expecting [Herrnstein] would refute this prediction, but his reply was short and laconic. “Yes”, he said, “it’s inevitable.”

    I wonder whether KM agrees with this despairing conclusion of Lynn and Herrnstein. Short of an all-out race war where the government declines to use its WMDs to secure victory, I see no way it can be evaded, and I doubt whether it can any longer even be appreciably slowed.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Non-Whites have access to White stuff- allowed by Whites. This must be disallowed- the open valve must be welded shut.

    • Alastair Ross
      Alastair Ross says:

      The “despairing conclusion ” was reached decades ago by intellects superior to that of Lynn and Herrnstein.

      Both Prof. Enoch Powell ( erstwhile Fellow of Trinity College , Cambridge) and Prof. Revilo Oliver ( U of Illinois , though he deserved better ) predicted White defeat in a futile Churchillian attempt at reverse psychology, to rally the troops. Nothing doing.
      So here we are.

  8. Frozy
    Frozy says:

    Richard Lynn seems to be one of the main responsible for introduction of the idea that East Asians have a higher IQ than Europeans. Apparently he made crude sampling mistakes, resulting in a bias towards educated strata rather than true representation. East Asians have an equal IQ, but not higher than Europeans: That’s a legend, and R. Lynn would be responsible.
    Another disturbing thing is the “Flynn effect”, one of R. Flynn discoveries, that says that test scores increase over time. But then …, it reinforces the environmental against the genetic component of IQ.

  9. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    These are just three quick examples , from this Lynn article , of the relentless worldwide conflation of “IQ” and “intelligence” where “IQ” basicly is a measure of the capacity to correctly process information such as knowing the meaning of the presumably misspelled word “basicly” ; whereas “intelligence” basicly means [ information ] and/or [ knowledge ] ; in the same way that the CIA , KGB , MI6 , Mossad , CCP secret police , Italian Bureau of Police Intelligence , and a multitude of other intel agencies around the world define “intelligence”.

    To wit :

    “… research on race differences in intelligence.”

    “… correlations for intelligence of identical and non-identical twins.”

    “… the high heritability of intelligence.”

    One of the most salient traits of Westernworld Whites is their high IQ average ; their capacity to correctly process information .

    A reason for the demise and genocidal extinction of Whites is their typically low level of political intelligence versus their juwmasters typically much higher level . Many if not most Whites think a high IQ means also a high level of political intelligence . This is a fatal error of conflation in the real world of politics . Whites high IQ average is inconsistent with their typically low level of political intelligence where voting intelligence is only a very small part of the totality of valid political intelligence .

    Is it too late for Whites to correct this widespread fatal error ?

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      I would welcome Dr. Kmac’s opinion on this matter even tho he , as are many psychology experts , is likely guilty of using the terms “IQ” and “intelligence” interchangeably ; which is eventually a fatal error in the nonacademic part of the real political world .

  10. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    “modern populations have been deteriorating genetically from around 1880”

    We can see that the elites who dictate the current culture in white societies today strongly favour the lower types in their own white societies, and we can see that they are diverting each white nation’s tax wealth to pay their lower type of white to breed the most (the underclass are paid per child and are given free houses and no bills), and are also using our wealth to lure over backward 3rd world populations with their lower genes, to share our wealth and breed with our women, encouraged in this by almost every TV advert. This contributes to deterioration of the gene pool.

    The same elite that seeks to increase the number with lower genes (including criminals) also seeks to discourage intelligent white women from breeding by encouraging them to spend their most fertile and high-energy years in extended education right into their twenties and and then pursuing ‘careers’ (especially in engineering and medicine) instead of having children. TV and other media constantly promote the ideal for an intelligent woman being a long career, and they belittle the role of housewife and mother. The state spends huge amounts to subsidise childcare so that those who do have children can easily return to work as soon as possible. The government has made legislation to keep the woman’s job open to encourage her to return to the workforce and stop having children as soon as possible.

    So the decline in the quality of white races is being guided by a minority of whites who are left-wing and hostile to those with better genes. They are hostile to their own people as they hate anyone who is better, and any race that is better, and their own race is better. They are aware of the superiority of their own race and this offends them greatly, due to their inner wiring giving them this mode of thinking about the world in these terms – in fact this hostility to the superior ends up the most important factor/influence in their lives. Unlike dogs and mice, human populations (like ants) have different types and do not end up all the same as each other. The differences are maintained as an equilibrium, as in the land of the honest the lower have an increased advantage. So nat sele keeps us different from each other and does *not* guide us towards an ideal human. You can see this affinity for the lower coming through in the legal system, now that the left also run that, in which all the support and money and sympathy and legal aid is for the lower types, the criminals.

    The very fact that Richard Lynn and others who do research on race differences are excluded from mainstream academia, and their work is censored by the ‘intellectual press’ (Richard Lynn’s book was not reviewed) – this shunning by the current prevailing culture of those who refer to race differences reveals that there is behind it all a strong hostility within the elite to the concept that some people – and races – are better than others. They have even made the word ‘superior’ a derogatory term, to be said with a sneer, and have guided the white majority into being against the superior, including against themselves.

    The question is, why has natural selection ‘allowed’ this if it is ‘contrary to the rules of nat sele’ to take a population downwards? Perhaps the answer is partly that populations acquire their characteristics when the small source population for a group splits off from the main group. So the population starts off as 100 like-minded individuals, and when it reaches 100,000 the genes are the same as each other but different from the original stock. This process can be repeated to make significant differences, and can soon change features such as skin colour if the top males keep breeding from the whitest females (sometimes won in battle) and have multiple wives. Then at the stable and settled stage the population is stuck with the genes they have, and cannot fine tune them. The only way to change them today is civil war followed by geographical split of the different types – ‘racist’ whites in one part and lovers of the third world in another. Or, if the elite is replaced by a right-wing one, just bribe the lower types to go and live in ‘free places’ (their own territory) away from the rest. Give them free stuff via bank cards but ones that only work in Liberia etc available in lands far away, ie send the money to them over there for anyone who wants it for free to enjoy it for life as a bribe. They will follow the money willingly without any war needed (they love their homelands). It will be worth the financial cost to whites for the reduction in crime alone, and cheaper than forced repatriation as they would not go willingly if forced. The Js are a different category of course.

    Self-harm to white populations was never ‘meant to happen’ by nat sele, and perhaps over a few hundred years our behaviour/genes that make us focus on the individual and not the race, these genes that once helped us to be successful are now backfiring on us and causing us harm, but unfortunately we are stuck with the genes we have, unless we can split into subgroups of (a) whites who are pro-white and ‘racist’ (b) whites who would rather die out than favour their own race or stand up to the Js. The process by which it has gone wrong is that the majority of whites are slaves to the prevailing culture, and meanwhile another subsection of whites are white-hating, and the later have taken over the culture and are using it to guide the majority towards their own downfall, and even though we have democracy, the majority are still voting against themselves as they are sheeple following the culture.

Comments are closed.