Bias in Academia

Igor Shafarevich and the Jews

One way to become an unwitting dissident is to assume that the truth will set everyone free.

Igor Shafarevich, in his 1989 essay “Russophobia” (my review here), spoke the truth about the overwhelmingly negative impact the Jewish Left has had on Russia, and he received merciless defamation from the Jewish Left in return. Much of this abuse came from the mostly Jewish “Third Wave” of Russian émigrés who were known for their undue and quite racist insults of Russians during the 1970s. (Russians being either brutal, slavish, or messianic were the most prominent stereotypes.)

The essay uncovered the Jewish complicity in the October Revolution and its bloody aftermath as well as tied contemporaneous Jewish revolutionary spirit to the ancient Judaic concept of being “the Chosen People.” For Shafarevich, left-wing, revolutionary Jews made up the core of what historian Augustin Cochin referred to as “the Lesser People,” an elite minority spiritually and ideologically at odds with the established order, as represented by the majority, or “Greater People.” Cochin was describing the French Revolution, and Shafarevich deftly borrowed his terminology to portray the much greater Russian catastrophe of 1917.

Beyond any commentary on Jews, Shafarevich intended with “Russophobia” to promote healthy self-esteem among Russians (based on a realistic understanding of history, of course). He also wished to assess in what ways Western-styled democracy and technology might help or not help Russia. Yes, of primary interest was what’s good for Russia and Russians, but there is nothing in “Russophobia” which denigrates the national aspirations or human rights of other peoples. Shafarevich had previously made this point in his essay “Separation or Reconciliation?” which appeared in the 1974 collection From Under the Rubble. This essay echoes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of Nations” (which appeared in the same volume) and demonstrated that nationalism, even intense, passionate nationalism, does not necessarily result in chauvinism. When defending “Russophobia,” Shafarevich himself stated that “it is much more wholesome to discuss openly all sides of all national relations.”

But this point got lost entirely among his critic-enemies, who couldn’t see past the Jew thing. As Krista Berglund notes in her 2012 volume, The Vexing Case of Igor Shafarevich, a Russian Political Thinker, Shafarevich had no intention of libeling Jews. He wished only to

treat Jews on equal terms with other peoples, without the demand to apply to the Jews any special standards. . . . The major reason for him to raise the Jewish issue in Russian history was again his conviction that when discussion of historical tragedies is suppressed and when there are unhealthy taboos, this tends to breed frustration, friction, artificial antagonisms and irrationality. One such suppressed issue was the disproportional Jewish contribution to the Russian Revolution. When raising it, Shafarevich’s intention was to systematically separate myths and irrational notions from historical facts and to contribute to the normalisation and amelioration of Russo-Jewish relations.

In other words, the truth will set us free and reduce tensions between peoples. Unfortunately, this didn’t turn out to be the case, despite Shafarevich’s good intentions. Speaking the truth about Jews—which was merely one of several things Shafarevich accomplished in “Russophobia”— enflamed not only the Jews he referred to in his essay but much of the Jewish intellectual class worldwide. And they used their considerable influence quite spitefully to ruin him. In my previous article on “Russophobia,” I described some of the backlash, but in truth it was far worse than that.

As one would expect, there were the hysterical ad hominems and overreactions, none of which was at all substantive. Philologist Efim Etkind called “Russophobia” as “a call for pogroms” and likened Shafarevich to “Stalinist pogrom-makers.” He also wailed that the ideas in “Russophobia” would ultimately result “in the poisonous smoke of Treblinka’s crematoria.” Art historian Igor Golomshtok made Mein Kampf comparisons and accused Shafarevich of propagating the idea of “Jewry as the embodiment of universal evil.” Astonishingly, lit critic Grigory Pomerants (whom Shafarevich names in his essay) hadn’t even read “Russophobia” when he opined that its author’s world is only black and white, and then reiterated his claim that Russia is a “land of slaves”—thereby refuting himself in the eyes of those who had actually read the essay.

In a nearly perfect act of projection, Valentin Liubarsky, another Third Wave writer, claimed that “Shafarevich is concerned with the rationalisation of mass hysteria.” Writer Benedikt Sarnov made the expected comparisons to Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg, and Julius Streicher, and called for the KGB to investigate Shafarevich. He then darkly reminded his readers that Rosenberg and Streicher had died from hanging. Andrei Sinyavsky, a writer and gentile ally of the anti-Shafarevich movement, dubbed Russian russophobes as “Satan” and declared that “Russophobia” “fully coincides with the theories of German Nazism, from Hitler to Rosenberg.”

Shafarevich’s closeness with Solzhenitsyn could not save him from Jewish Solzhenitsyn defenders, such as Israeli émigré writer Dora Shturman, who lamented how “Russophobia” engendered in her the “horror – no, not of simple-minded pogrom, but of a Holocaust; of ruthless, inhuman abandonment which is a precondition for destruction.” Jewish writer and émigré Boris Paramonov responded provocatively with an article entitled “Shit. An Attempt at Public Psychoanalysis.” In it, he insinuated that because Shafarevich is supposedly part of a native soil movement in Russia, he is literally obsessed with feces. He also risibly claimed that in “Russophobia” “Shafarevich’s subconsciousness beating of children is taking place.” A paradigmatic example of psychoanalytic fantasy unmoored from any need for empirical justification.

Paramonov’s vindictive psychoanalysis becomes more sinister when considering that, as a human rights activist during the 1970s, Shafarevich strenuously protested the Soviet practice of punitive psychiatry. When it became less acceptable to ship political prisoners to gulags (thanks, in large part, to the worldwide success of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago), Soviet authorities pivoted to insane asylums, which in many cases amounted to the same thing.

Berglund adroitly dismisses Paramonov when stating that he

resorted to the cheapest and flimsiest kind of below-the-belt pseudo-psychoanalysis with the intention of establishing Shafarevich as a pitifully traumatised old man whose ideas do not deserve serious consideration (but, apparently, need necessarily to be rebuffed time after time).

This lunacy made its way to Western journals as well. In my previous essay, I mentioned how Walter Laqueur, Josephine Woll, and others overreacted to “Russophobia.” Berglund gives us much, much more.

Newsweek, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and The New Republic all labeled Shafarevich an anti-Semite. Liah Greenfield of Harvard claimed that in terms of anti-Jewish polemics “Russophobia” excelled even Medieval anti-Semitism. David Remnick and Alan Berger both fueled false speculations of impending pogroms in Russia as a result of this essay.

It should be noted that Jonathan Steele of The Guardian wrote the following in 1990 about these pogrom rumors:

[S]ome sources have suggested that the rumours may have been started by extremist Jewish groups which are unhappy with the US Congress’s recent decision to deny Soviet Jews refugee status and treat them as economic migrants. Creating a climate of fear could change the US Congress’s mind.

In the same year, our old friend Joe Sobran summed up the Western response to “Russophobia” thusly:

None of Shafarevich’s fuming denouncers has produced a single quotation from him advocating any sort of injury to Jews. . . .Yes, in spite of his courage as an advocate of human rights, he is being lumped together with the sort of hooligans who favour beating Jews in the street.

These “hooligans” Sobran mentioned most likely refers to the Pamyat movement in Russia (albeit unjustly). This was a pro-Russian activist organization which took advantage of Glasnost to stage patriotic demonstrations. Aside from promoting Russian ethnic identity, speaking out against alcoholism, and “lobbying against the rechanneling of the great Siberian rivers,” Pamyat was also fairly hostile to Jewish interests, according to Berglund. They promoted anti-Zionism and propagated the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theories expressed in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ironically, the Soviets tolerated Pamyat when it was attempting to dampen the mood on Israel, but as soon as people in Pamyat began speaking about the disproportionately Jewish nature of early Bolshevism—which apparently hit a little too close to the Kremlin—the Soviets cracked down on the nationalist organization.

At the time, Pamyat was suffering from much internal strife and had never been a major force in Russian politics (historian John Klier describes the organization as “fissiparious”). When asked about it, Shafarevich correctly downplayed its significance. Indeed, Shafarevich had never had any personal involvement in Pamyat. But because members of Pamyat naturally connected with “Russophobia” and propagated it through Samizdat (without his knowing, of course), Shafarevich’s enemies falsely condemned him for being linked to this anti-Semitic, nationalist organization. It was guilt by association when there really wasn’t any association—and probably not a whole lot of guilt, either. In fact, a Pamyat leader named Dmitry Vasilev had condemned Shafarevich for his “purely Jewish point of view.”

It seems that the Jews in academia (both Western and Soviet) needed Pamyat, and manufactured much of its infamous reputation. Berglund cites a 1992 study which demonstrates the general lack of anti-Jewish extremism among members of Pamyat as well as a somewhat shaky understanding of “Russophobia” to begin with. She also quotes Klier’s late-nineties interview with a Pamyat propaganda distributer who complained that “Foreigners are more interested in what we say than our own people.”

None of the predictions of Russian pogroms actually played out—even during the economic misery of the 1990s when one would presume an easily identifiable scapegoat would be just the thing to ignite mass violence. In spite of this peace and restraint on the part of these brutish, messianic Russians, influential Jews needed a villain, a reconstructed Black Hundreds Frankenstein of fascism which they could point to and say, “There! There is Russian anti-Semitism in the flesh!”

Why? To pressure Soviet authorities to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate and to pressure Western governments to give these Jews refugee status. As a result, many of these émigrés wound up in Western Europe or the United States instead of Israel, despite their purported persecution as Jews. And a third reason: to destroy the most prominent White gentile in the world at the time who was telling the truth about Jews—Igor Shafarevich.

“Russophobia” caused a great stir in science and mathematics circles as well, mainly because Shafarevich is considered one of the twentieth century’s most prominent mathematicians. From his Wikipedia page we learn that:

Shafarevich made fundamental contributions to several parts of mathematics including algebraic number theory, algebraic geometry and arithmetic algebraic geometry. In algebraic number theory the Shafarevich–Weil theorem extends the commutative reciprocity map to the case of Galois groups which are extensions of abelian groups by finite groups. Shafarevich was the first to give a completely self-contained formula for the pairing which coincides with the wild Hilbert symbol on local fields, thus initiating an important branch of the study of explicit formulas in number theory.

Not even such a resume could protect Shafarevich from the coming indignities. His nomination for an honorary degree at Cambridge was instantly withdrawn. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States (NAS) urged him to renounce his membership. Numerous mathematics and science societies applauded this move, including the Union of Council for Soviet Jews, whose leaders declared that Shafarevich is “inimical to the fragile causes of human rights.” This, of course, maligned an unimpeachable human rights activist who stood up to the Soviet system, side-by-side with Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov, on the Moscow Dissidents’ Human Rights Committee in the early 1970s.

After this came suspicions and utterly unfounded accusations of anti-Jewish discrimination. Even some of Shafarevich’s former Jewish students defended him on this count—although not for “Russophobia.” Indeed, as an academic who was responsible for launching or aiding numerous careers (including many Jewish ones) his reputation had been impeccable. It was only after “Russophobia’s” publication when it all was conveniently called into question.

A condemnatory letter initiated by mathematician Laurent Swartz garnered over 200 signatures. Another one with over 450 appeared in a Russian periodical, to which Shafarevich made this dry yet cutting response:

[T]he people who signed the letter and whom I knew 15 or 20 years ago as Soviet mathematicians . . . witnessed the deportation of Solzheni[tsyn], exile of Sakharov, persecution of religion, detention of sane persons in psychiatric hospitals for political reasons. We [did not hear] their protests against it then. Do they really believe that my paper is more dangerous?

By summer 1991, according to Berglund, “Shafarevich’s reputation as a notorious anti-Semite had been cemented virtually in all circles of self-respecting liberals in both the East and the West.” She goes on to name over 30 people who had heaped undue scorn upon Shafarevich.

Berglund makes The Vexing Case quite unique when she analyses “Russophobia” alongside its criticisms to demonstrate, as if in a court of law, how Shafarevich was not only not anti-Semitic, but was also in fact quite reasonable, evenhanded, and most likely correct. She also shoots down every single one of her subject’s critics. In one or two cases, Shafarevich faced reasonable—if perhaps flawed—reproaches, which Berglund appropriately dispenses with. All the others she reveals as shoddy and irresponsible at best or deceitful and malicious at worst. It must be said that most of the villains here were Jews. It must also be said that, at least in Berglund’s comprehensive analysis from over two decades after the fact—and with Shafarevich still living to provide commentary—none of these villains had ever apologized or faced a comeuppance.

At times Berglund does wade into the weeds when exploring all the argumentation needed to exonerate Shafarevich. For example, she includes long discussions of Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, and many other works and topics in order to provide greater context for this important and potentially explosive subject. The book is nearly 500 pages (with more than a quarter of it dedicated “Russophobia” or anti-Semitism), and sometimes feels like it. This is not a biography; it is a vindication of a man who in a perfect world would not need vindication at all.

Instead, Igor Shafarevich told the truth and became a dissident once again, and in some ways suffered more hyperbolic abuse than when he was a Soviet citizen. Berglund suggests that Shafarevich, in his frank and fair-minded appraisal of Jews, actually suppressed anti-Semitism in his native Russia.

While many vociferous commentators have alleged that in the person of Shafarevich Russian anti-Semites had got a prominent frontman, there are actually strong hints that he managed to effectively “neutralise” the message of many of those obsessed with Jews among his Russian contemporaries.

Of course, this is nice. But, in turn, did “Russophobia” also suppress the real-life russophobia that Shafarevich so meticulously described? Did it neutralize the message of many of those obsessed with Russians (or Whites in general) among his Jewish contemporaries? Jewish neocons and their incessant anti-Russia posturing during the current war in Ukraine may give us a clue. But sadly, this is a question Berglund fails to ask, and so in The Vexing Case of Igor Shafarevich, goes unanswered.

Retraction of My Article on Jewish Influence

On January 1 of this year my paper “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence” was published in the peer-reviewed Israel-based academic journal Philosophia. As I noted at the time:

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone. I have updated quite a bit of the material, particularly the scholarly writing on Jewish involvement in influencing U.S. immigration policy—Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. I have always felt that Chapter 7 was the most important chapter in the book. …

Besides updating some critical aspects of The Culture of Critique, the paper emphasizes the point that the enactment of the 1965 immigration law did not occur in a vacuum and cannot be understood apart from the wider context of the rise of a new Jewish elite with influence in a wide range of areas. As I note in the article, the rise of this new elite “implies that vital issues of public policy, including immigration, the civil rights of African-Americans, women’s rights, religion in the public square (Hollinger’s “secularization of American society”), the legitimacy of white racial identity and interests, cosmopolitanism [identifying a “citizen of the world”], foreign policy in the Middle East, and many others will be affected by the attitudes and interests of this new elite.” The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America.

Publication resulted almost immediately in hostile comments from Jewish academic activists, calls for retraction, and condemnation of the journal’s editor for allowing such horrifying breach of academic sensibilities to happen. On January 4th, the publisher, Springer Nature, posted the following statement with the article.

04 January 2022 Editor’s Note: The Editor-in-Chief and publisher are aware of concerns raised with the content of this article and are investigating. Editorial action will be taken as appropriate once investigation of the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.

The editor or whoever was in charge then sent the paper out for three more reviews. The reviews arrived toward the end of February and I sent in my reply in early March. My reply ran to around 9000 words and responded to each of the issues raised (one of the reviewers was simply blowing off steam, so there really wasn’t anything to respond to). I prefaced my reply with the following summary statement:

General Comments

Far too often the reviewers fail to make an argument or specific criticisms of my work but seem to think that simply providing an invidious summary of my views is sufficient to rebut them. Most surprising to me is that none of the reviewers mention even one objection to the long section on immigration—by far the most critical and longest section in the article (amounting to 13 pages and 6500 words); nor is there any discussion of the rise of the intimately related topic of the rise of a new, substantially Jewish elite in the post-World War II era in the U.S., particularly since the 1960s. This is important because my paper addresses the three “core issues” raised by Cofnas, but the Jewish role in immigration policy is, as I note, “The only claim that, if true, would seriously endanger an important aspect of what Cofnas labels ‘the anti-Jewish narrative.’” The other issues discussed are interesting and important in a general discussion of Jewish issues, but they pale in comparison to the material on immigration policy. And, as noted in the paper, some of the most discussed issues, such as intermarriage and the issue of Jewish hypocrisy—two of Cofnas’s three core issues (not to mention Karl Marx’s Jewish identity), are completely irrelevant to central work Cofnas describes as being part of “the anti-Jewish narrative,” most notably The Culture of Critique (hereafter, CofC), which is what Cofnas is supposedly criticizing. Moreover, none of the reviews critique my analysis for why higher average Jewish IQ by itself fails to explain Jewish influence (i.e., Cofnas’s “default hypothesis”).

But all was for naught. I was informed in mid-May that the paper would be retracted and (amazingly) asking me if I agreed with this decision but notifying me that any objection that I had to the retraction would not be included along with the retraction statement. I of course objected and wrote yet another reply, this time to their retraction statement. This is their retraction statement, including specific statements of my scholarly malfeasance:

The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication concerns were raised regarding the content in this article and the validity of its arguments. Post-publication peer review concluded that the article does not establish a consistent methodology or document its claims with well-established sources. The article also makes several comparative claims without providing appropriate comparison data. Kevin MacDonald does not agree to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as supplementary information.

Springer Nature formally retracted the paper sometime in early July—the title and the retraction notice are all that remain on the article’s main page, but the article can still be accessed on their site as “Supplementary Information,” with  “RETRACTED ARTICLE” emblazoned diagonally on every page.  However, anticipating this, I had enough sense to save a local copy, so it still lives on on my website as it originally appeared in Philosophia.

Retraction Response

I disagree with the retraction of my article “The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence.” The editors of Philosophia should be ashamed of themselves for retracting this article for such obviously spurious reasons. I am quite aware of the reality that academia has become intensely politicized and that Jews in particular are very sensitive about any discussions of Jewish influence. But I really didn’t think that my article would be retracted without any detailed response to my ~9000-word rebuttal to the post-publication reviews—a response that meticulously responded to every claim made by the reviewers. One expects a reasoned give-and-take in an academic venue, but this retraction is simply an assertion of authoritarian control. And to make matters worse, this response to the retraction statement will not be posted by the publisher.

The astonishing thing is that the retraction statement includes the following as the only reasons for the retraction:

Post-publication peer review concluded that the article does not establish a consistent methodology or document its claims with well-established sources. The article also makes several comparative claims without providing appropriate comparison data.

But none of the three post-publication reviews ever mentioned that I had failed to provide a consistent methodology, so obviously I felt no need to discuss this point in my response. And only one reviewer complained about sources, noting that I had cited evolutionary psychologist Edward Dutton. The complaint about citing Dutton is simply ad hominem rather than an honest attempt to dispute what Dutton wrote on Jewish intermarriage—a topic that is, in any case, of only marginal relevance to the main points of my paper. As I noted in my reply, “my practice is that citations should be to information that I consider reasonable and reliable, not what the political affiliations of the authors are.” I cite many authors who have political beliefs that I do not subscribe to, and in fact, the vast majority of my sources come from Jewish authors.

Regarding the issue that the paper contains “several comparative claims without providing appropriate comparison data,” I responded to each proposed instance in my reply to the reviews. But the retraction statement fails to make an argument for why my rebuttal fails.

All of my responses to this issue made the point that I was not arguing—and it was not necessary for me to argue—that Jews are more ethnocentric than any particular group, only that Jews are indeed ethnocentric. For example, in my reply to one of the post-publication reviews, I noted:

The reviewer quotes me: “… Jews under discussion were ethnocentric as indicated by ethnic networking” and comments “Does that mean that blacks are ethnocentric because of their ethnic networking?  Or Catholics?  Or fundamentalist Christians?  This is gibberish because he is making statements about Jews as a group and arguing that they are different from gentiles but he presents no comparison data regarding relative ethnocentrism.”

[My response:] Notice that I do not make a point that Jews are more ethnocentric than any particular group either in the paper under review or in The Culture of Critique—apart from the 2002 Preface to the First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique (pp. xviii–xxxi) contrasting Western European and Jewish cultural forms on a variety of traits. The material in the 2002 preface is a preliminary version of the ideas in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (2019) and is in no way essential to the argument in Culture of Critique as published in 1998, where the only relevant claim I make is that Jews are ethnocentric—a claim that I document exhaustively. However, for completeness, my view is that Jews are in general more ethnocentric than Western European groups (I make no other comparisons), particularly northwestern European groups—the thesis of my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (2019). My emphasis on the uniqueness of Western individualism is entirely congruent with Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World (2020) … . When Henrich uses the superlative ‘WEIRDest’ (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) in the title, he is emphasizing the uniqueness of the Western peoples; individualism is the polar opposite of collectivism and its associated ethnocentrism endemic to Jewish groups.

Thus there is no rebuttal to my argument that between-group comparisons are irrelevant to the argument presented in The Culture of Critique where the only point was that in fact Jews are in fact ethnocentric as indicated by Jewish ethnic networking, not that they are more ethnocentric than any other group. And in my later writing I did provide comparative data based on Western individualism—data that are irrelevant to the argument in The Culture of Critique; these data show that the individualism of the West is unique among world cultures but such data are not relevant for the argument in The Culture of Critique. None of this is considered in the retraction statement.

This retraction is a disgrace to the academic profession. At the very least, this statement should be included along with the retraction statement so that readers can judge for themselves the legitimacy of retracting it.

To his credit, Nathan Cofnas, my adversary in all this, publicly objected to the retraction, posting this on Twitter:

Two important points. The retraction is unprecedented: It’s “the 1st time a paper has been retracted from a philosophy journal for political reasons.” And more importantly, his email notifying Jonathan Haidt, one of the founders of Heterodox Academy, that the paper was retracted got no response. Heterodox Academy represents itself as follows:

Heterodox Academy is a nonpartisan collaborative of 5,000+ professors, educators, administrators, staff, and students who are committed to enhancing the quality of research and education by promoting open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in institutions of higher learning.

And they note:

All our members have embraced the following statement:

“I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education.”

But apparently some viewpoints are not allowed, and there can be no disagreement on certain issues. Their commitment to open inquiry is a farce.

Jonathan Haidt is well known to me because of his work criticizing the groupthink that is so prevalent in the academic world; I cite him several times in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition in Chapter 8 where I discuss the academic world as one of the pillars of elite power in the West (“the academic world can accurately be characterized as a moral community of the left in the sense of Jonathan Haidt”[1]). He is Jewish, and one is tempted to conclude that Heterodox Academy is simply another example of controlled opposition in the service of safeguarding Jewish interests in restricting the boundaries of academic debate on Jewish issues.

Jonathan Haidt, “Post-partisan Social Psychology.” Presentation at the meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX., January 27, 2011.

Prof. Lee Jussim’s “Social Perception and Social Reality” and the Leftist Bias of Social Psychology

It’s well known that social psychologists are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics—exactly three people in a crowd of 1000 at a psychology conference raised their hand when Jonathan Haidt asked how many identified as politically conservative. In fact, social psychology is a good example of Haidt’s concept of “tribal moral communities” that infest our political discourse on race, multiculturalism, gender, etc.  People within the (liberal) tribe believe themselves morally (and intellectually) superior to people who don’t think the way they do. And we know that liberal social psychologists are perfectly willing to discriminate on the basis of their political attitudes in hiring decisions, etc.

It is also well known that there is a replication crisis in social psychology. Prof. Lee Jussim’s Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Oxford University Press, 2014) describes several examples of non-replicable findings which have become hugely influential in the field. My favorite is the study claiming to show 100+ point improvements in IQ scores as the result of expectancy effects, placing these individuals in the top 99.9999999987th percentile. How long can it be before everyone has an IQ of 200 just by having someone in authority tell teachers that their students are “late bloomers”?

Here I have compiled some particularly striking passages (please read the whole thing) from a masterful review  by Thomas Jackson at AmRen. It is essential reading for anyone interested how the leftist politics of academic social psychologists have corrupted understanding of group differences. Read more

American Education is a War on Whites

Is there really any use in trying to show that education in America is firmly in the hands of enemies of the White race?  Probably not, since it is so obvious. Plus it has been well addressed already time and again, including by gifted writer F. Roger Devlin, who delivered an address six years ago at the fourth annual meeting of the H.L. Mencken Club.’s editor, Peter Brimelow, called Devlin’s presentation “a searing account of how the historic American nation has been, in effect, decapitated — its higher education facilities are now entirely in the hands of hostile forces.”

In his talk, “Higher Education: The Impossibility Of Reform,” Devlin began by noting   that by now there must be “a sizeable class of academically trained non-leftists for whom there is essentially no place in the contemporary academy.” This sense of not being welcome has now trickled down from potential teachers to White male students as well. “Young men,” Devlin observes, “are staying away to avoid what their enemies would describe as a ‘hostile learning environment.’

Not surprisingly, the knowledge that all levels of American education show hatred toward White males — either implicitly or explicitly  — is the reason that the younger cohort of what constitutes today’s Alt-Right addresses the topic so often. I can think of no better example than Mike Enoch, main host of the “Daily Shoah” on The Right Stuff alternative media platform. He and his fellow hosts speak from personal experience when discussing the hostile environment they encountered in school as White non-Jewish males. Typically, this is from kindergarten on up.

While neither Brimelow nor Devlin mentioned any Jewish influence on the transformation of higher education into a bastion of anti-White male positions, other sources easily confirm this. For instance, Ron Unz, a wealthy Jewish businessman who runs The Unz Review, provided us with a stunning 26,000-word treatise that convincingly shows how White Gentiles are systematically excluding from Ivy League schools precisely because undeserving Jewish students are taking their place. Titled “The Myth of Meritocracy”, this seminal essay includes numerous graphs showing that once Jews are disaggregated from Gentile Whites, the number of White students in the Ivy League is drastically out of proportion to the actual number of qualified White students out there. To me, this is part and parcel of higher education’s undeniable War on Whites.

Again, this hyper-critical and destructive (of White civilization) process at American universities is well known. (I wrote about it earlier this year: ”No Campus for White Men.”) Nothing new here. For instance, Jewish writer Mona Charen lamented six years ago that “Academia is a conquered land — the playground of the ultraleft.” Well, isn’t “ultraleft” a proxy for “anti-White”? I’d say it’s close. Charen goes on to say, “We scrape together our hard-earned income (lots of it) to deposit our cherished offspring at schools that are determined to teach them to despise everything we revere — even learning.”  Sounds like the culture of critique to me! Read more

Anthropology’s Obsession with African Origins

There is renewed interest in the “Out of Africa” theory of human origins because of a study showing sub-Saharan Africans interbred with an extinct hominid species. This article, originally posted in January, 2014, provides other reasons for being skeptical of African origins and shows how the “Out of Africa” theory has been promoted partly for reasons of political correctness.

When did humans first become human?  The answer is far from simple, because the question assumes that sometime in the past, humans achieved modernity and were locked within an evolutionary loophole where natural selection no longer applies.  Despite the absurdity of this scenario, and in stark contrast to empirical data, it is widely believed that humans have not changed physically or mentally for the past 50,000 years or so.

After the discipline of anthropology was hijacked by Cultural Marxism and it became crimethink to observe average group differences, a preoccupation with tracing everything back to Africa developed.  Africa does have an outstanding archaeological record revealing many firsts: the first bipedal hominids, the first stone tools, and the first anatomically modern humans that looked roughly like we do today (a vertical forehead, round skull, flat face, and prominent chin).  But largely due to the anti-racist politicization of anthropology, the currently accepted evolutionary paradigm is that Africa was the source of an intellectual watershed event sometime between 100,000 to 50,000 years ago, and that it was only a matter of time before this new breed of clever Africans spread out and replaced all the dim-witted archaic human populations in the rest of the world, such as Neanderthals.  (As used here, the term ‘racist’ refers to views that race and racial differences are a legitimate variable in research on humans, with none of the usual negative connotations found  in the popular and scientific literature.) The concept of behavioral modernity as it has been applied to the Paleolithic seemingly arose out of the Cultural Marxist obsession with proving that Africans are just as good as, and even better than the evil racist nineteenth-century White scientists who dared to rank societies and point out that advanced civilization never developed in certain areas of the world, such as south of the Sahara.

The problem with this paradigm is that, using the same set of criteria proposed by those scholars pushing for an African origin for modern behavior, it seems to have originally appeared in Europe instead, when modern humans first arrived there and replaced Neanderthals.  Furthermore, the so-called modern behavior in the African Stone Age is not qualitatively different from that of Neanderthals, who were supposedly replaced by cognitively-advanced modern humans. Read more

Science and the Suicide-Cult: The Irrationalism of Richard Dawkins

The basis of science is the same as the basis of life: pattern-recognition. Even plants recognize patterns in the weather and the attacks of insects. The difference between scientists and trees, or scientists and sharks, is that scientists use reason and method, not instinct and other forms of biological automation.

Mathemodels of reality

Scientists try to identify and understand patterns in the world by creating patterns of their own: they perform experiments, they model and analyse data using mathematics, trying to create symbolic patterns that behave like real ones. Astronomy is the paradigm of this endeavour. There was sufficient regularity and permanence in the heavens for the ancients to predict lunar and solar eclipses. Ptolemy had an effective mathemodel of the solar system in the Second Century A.D.; Copernicus put forward a better one in 1543; Newton refined and expanded it in 1687. The power of Newton’s mathemodel was confirmed by the successful predictions it made: there were undiscovered planets out there. Neptune was mathematics before it became matter.

Stale pale male Charles Darwin

Biology proved much more difficult than astronomy and other branches of physics. The great pattern of evolution escaped the notice of Aristotle before Christ and Linnaeus long after, and when Darwin and Wallace recognized it in the nineteenth century, their description was linguistic, not mathematical. Their logic was good and their evidence substantial, but evolutionary biology didn’t become a proper science until it had a solid foundation of mathematics. Stale pale males like Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and W.D. Hamilton (1936–2000) built mathemodels of biological systems that behaved like the real thing and made good predictions. Indeed, biology turned out to have a mathemodel of its own: the three-dimensional double helix of DNA carries a two-dimensional genetic code, which synthesizes proteins, evolves, and protects itself from error in ways that are illuminated by the human mathemodel of information theory.

Digital Dawkins

As Richard Dawkins puts it: “The essential difference between classical Darwinism (which we now understand could not have worked) and neo-Darwinism (which does) is that digital genetics has replaced analogue.” Dawkins will need no introduction. He’s much more famous than Fisher or Hamilton and a much better and clearer writer than his late rival, the Jewish Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002). Dawkins’ line about Darwinism comes from the lecture “Science and Sensibility,” which is collected in a new book of his called Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist (Bantam Press 2017). I’ve enjoyed the book and it’s reminded me again both of what I admire about Dawkins and of what I deplore.

Powerful pattern: The DNA double helix

Read more

Doused and Denounced

A cold civil war has been brewing within academe, a war between “biologians” and “culturists.” Many modern biologists, genomic scientists, and physical anthropologists are biologians.  They think evolutionary adaptations are partly responsible for some racial disparities.   On the other hand, most historians, social scientists, public leaders, and mainstream journalists are culturists.  They minimize the importance of biology and evolution and say that history and culture explain the variations in the distribution of human characteristics.

One of the landmark events in this academic civil war occurred in 1975, when E. O. Wilson, a biology professor at Harvard, published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.  Professor Wilson presented a mountain of evidence to establish that biology influenced many forms of social behavior in the animal kingdom.  Then, in the last chapter of the book, Professor Wilson maintained that this was also true for human beings.

Among biologists, the initial reaction to Sociobiology was overwhelmingly favorable.  The response of many historians and social scientists, however, was quite critical.  This was not surprising, for most historians and social scientists regard human nature as relatively unaffected by our evolutionary past, as something that is shaped by social forces.  Some scholars, especially those with Marxist beliefs, have emphasized the special importance of economic forces that are extraneous to human biology.

As it happened, a Marxist group at Harvard, Science for the People, responded to Sociobiology with printed leaflets and teach-ins that were harshly critical of Professor Wilson.  For a few days a protester in Harvard Square used a bullhorn to demand that the university fire Professor Wilson, and on one occasion two students invaded the professor’s class on evolutionary biology to shout slogans and deliver anti-sociobiology monologues.  To make matters worse, Professor Wilson received little support from his colleagues on the Harvard faculty, and to avoid embarrassment he stayed away from department meetings for an entire year.

Professor Wilson considered offers to move to other universities, but he decided to stay at Harvard.  “The pressure was tolerable,” he has written, “since I was a senior professor with tenure . . . and could not bear to leave Harvard’s ant collection, the world’s largest and best.”

The opposition reached something of a climax in 1979, when Professor Wilson was scheduled to speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.    As he sat at a table near the lectern, a young man from the audience grabbed the microphone and harangued the assembled scholars.  A young woman then poured a pitcher of water over Professor Wilson’s head and demonstrators chanted, “Wilson, you’re all wet,” and “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”

Despite the vilification he received in the 1970s, things eventually turned out well for Professor Wilson.  By the turn of the twenty-first century, he was widely celebrated as the pioneering founder of two new academic fields, the evolutionary biology of humans and evolutionary psychology.  He was the author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, and he received many academic awards.  When Harvard University Press published a twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Sociobiology in 2000, it was evident that Professor Wilson’s theory appealed to many of the best minds in science.  By then listed 416 titles under “sociobiology” and 1, 218 under “human evolution.”

Nevertheless, as I have recently learned the hard way, many historians know little or nothing about sociobiology, evolutionary biology, or evolutionary psychology.

Read more