Featured Articles

“Too Reflexively Ornery”:  E. Michael Jones and “Culture Wars,” Part 2 of 2

/43 Comments/in , /by

Jones often responds to Letters to the Editor, and the September 2017 issue was no exception, with Jones volunteering that “It is clear that the Jews are orchestrating Muslim migration to destroy European Christian culture.” Yes, Jones has read Kevin MacDonald and is familiar with this and other Culture of Critique theses.

In this issue, Jones concludes his thoughts on Meyer Lansky and ballet, but the topic now becomes homosexuality. Jones notes that even in 1970, “anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of APA [American Psychiatric Association] members believed that homosexuality was pathological.” Well, guess what: by 1973 a cabal of Jews succeeded in removing homosexuality from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fully in line with his thesis about the revolutionary Jewish spirit, Jones here discusses a “small cabal of revolutionaries,” a “small band of very bright men and women,” who “swindled” the APA into accepting their degenerate definition of homosexuality. In research that few others could achieve, Jones exposes a wide range of actors, from psychiatrists, “liberal-minded easterners,” gay activists, a gay grandfather and his granddaughter.” Jones then asks what this diverse group of activists had in common: “The answer is that they were all Jews.” And the granddaughter who wrote about this failed to mention this fact “because she is Jewish, too.”

This is quintessential E. Michael Jones.

The October issue introduces us to a valuable YouTube site that covers the thesis of Jones’ book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Called “The Goy Guide to World History,” it may provide access to Jones’ own revolutionary thought for those who are less than fond of reading.

This issue also gives us the cover essay, “The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism,” in which Jones critiques the arguments of the atheist “Gang of Four” that made big headlines in the beginning of this new century. The four are Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. The topic under discussion certainly deserves a review of its own, so I will ignore it here after adding a few observations.

For instance, did readers know that Christopher Hitchens’ mother died an unnatural death? Jones claims that the mother committed adultery and was subsequently murdered by her lover, who then took his own life, but after a Google search I found a YouTube video where Hitchens himself claims both parties had voluntarily taken drugs, washed down with alcohol, to end their lives. Read more

“Too Reflexively Ornery”:  E. Michael Jones and “Culture Wars,” Part 1 of 2

/14 Comments/in /by

In January, I wrote about E. Michael Jones and his book on usury, Barren Metal (Part one and Part two). In that review, I called Dr. Jones a “Catholic iconoclast” and “welcome maverick,” and I labeled his writing “little short of incendiary.” That seems to be the consensus about him. For instance, one of the most astute commenters to this TOO site recalled that Jones had been dismissed as “too reflexively ornery” to try to work with on Catholic or conservative goals, a charge I suppose is hard to escape. But in our vile times where lies predominate and viciously policed speech abounds, I positively love to read Jones’ ornery writing (though I think he’s actually having a darn good time while doing most of it).

Today I’d like to visit his monthly magazine Culture Wars as my focus. Over the years, I’ve subscribed to many periodicals that intelligently address the battles Western culture has experienced for over a century and I’ve also read specifically Jewish periodicals as well, hoping to get an inside perspective on many of these battles. From First Things, American Renaissance, and The American Conservative to The Jewish Daily Forward and Commentary, I used to receive a steady stream of print publications. Because I lost interest or because the print publication became unavailable, I stopped getting all five of these publications, but I continue to subscribe to Jones’ Culture Wars because Jones writes so courageously about Jews. What a rare commodity.

In this essay, I hope to cover twelve monthly issues of the magazine. For some reason, I have at home the first six months of 2016 followed by the last six months of 2017. Still, that should give us a fine sample of writing in this unique periodical.

I don’t know how many years ago it was, but I came close to abandoning Culture Wars after just a few issues. Quite frankly, I was dismayed by the lack of professional editing and crazy formatting in the magazine, something First Things or Commentary would never allow. For instance, quotes in the text would not be indented, italicized or be bracketed in quotations, so I wasn’t sure who was speaking. Or the index would have the wrong page number for an article. Perhaps it was God’s will, but after unsubscribing, I resumed my subscription because I was practically addicted to what Jones was writing about. Over time, I became used to these stylistic flaws, seeing them as quirks in a one-of-a-kind magazine. Today I am immensely grateful that I kept up my subscription. Read more

Ethnocentric Critiques of the London Conference on Intelligence

/45 Comments/in /by

In January 2018, the anti-science Left that dominates British academia descended into spasms of fury. For decades it has done all that was within its growing power to stop scientists who refuse to let emotion stand in the way of their calling to pursue the truth from researching group differences in intelligence, and especially race differences. Researchers who have dared extend the logic of Darwinian Theory to human sub-groups would lose funding and have papers rejected out of hand from journals by increasingly Politically Correct reviewers, and they might even find themselves fired from their jobs.

But in January 2018, it was revealed that precisely these heretical researchers had been polluting the holy of holies for years. They had been holding an effectively secret conference, by invitation only, at one of Britain’s top universities — University College London — annually since 2015.

Toby Young

The evil of presenting the most straightforward theory based on the evidence, regardless of what dogmas this might undermine, had been happening under the Left’s very noses! UCL’s student newspaper, The London Student, revealed that the conference, organised by UCL honorary lecturer Dr James Thompson, had attendees that included Richard Lynn. Prof. Lynn had established that there are consistent race differences in IQ. It was also attended by numerous other academics connected to the race realist academic journal Mankind Quarterly, edited by Dr. Lynn, including one who had made a presentation on eugenics. Indeed, another version of the exposé, in the satirical magazine Private Eye, revealed that one of the attendees was Toby Young, a prominent conservative media pundit in the UK. His attendance insured that the ‘secret racist conference’ or ‘eugenic conference’ was reported in all the national newspapers and was even mentioned on television. The London Conference on Intelligence had ultimately come to the student journalists’ attention because Young had rashly mentioned it in a recently published speech to a leading conference on intelligence held in Montreal the previous summer.

Leftist students protested in front of UCL (see above photo) and petitioned for Thompson to lose his honorary position. UCL responded by launching an investigation, which is on-going, into Thompson’s failure to tell them that the conference would include ‘controversial’ people and topics. UCL stressed, of course, that they defended free speech, but opposed ‘racism’ in all its forms.

The conference presentations are now available online. They are a daring and fascinating mixture of subjects: race differences in intelligence, dysgenic fertility in the West, the impact of national testosterone levels on per capita Nobel prizes and even race differences in prevalence to ethnocentrism. Read more

Apartheid as Seen by the Boers: The Population History of South Africa

/32 Comments/in , , /by

Editorial note: This is Part 2 of an article that appeared in TOO in 2011 and, relevant to the current program of dispossessing White farmers, gives some of the background of the crisis faced by the Boers whose origins in South Africa date to 1652.

Part 1.

Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival of Boer Afrikaners

South Africa was populated by White and Black settlers. The Whites arrived at the Cape in 1652, predominantly from the Netherlands, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, to find only the Bushman as indigenous natives. These were hunter gatherers whose mode of existence kept overall numbers small. In approximately 1770, the eastward migrating Boers came into contact with the southern migrating Xhosa Africans, originally from Central Africa, at the Fish River in the Eastern Cape. Population pressure disputes over the ownership of farming land and cattle resulted in what is known as the Cape Frontier Xhosa Wars. Many Boers then migrated north to found the Free State and Boer Republics.

One hundred years later, the first census in 1868 revealed a country of 1,134,000 of whom 50% were settlers originally of European origins, and 50% were Black and coloured settlers who arrived respectively from North Africa, or as slaves from the Far East.

In the next 80 years the European population decreased from 50% to less than 25%. By 1948 the census revealed South Africa’s population to be 11,957,000, of which Africans were 8,500,000 (79%) and Europeans 2,500,000 M (21%). Read more

Who Was Revilo Oliver?

/32 Comments/in /by

Revilo Oliver

It is not often one encounters someone with a palindromic name, spelled the same forward and backward.   Revilo Oliver (1908–1994), a classics professor at the University of Illinois, had one.  But Oliver’s claim to fame went far beyond his intriguing name: if a thorough history of the white racial movement is ever written, he will indeed be prominent in it.

The way things have lined up since World War II, those who take the side of white people, as Dr. Oliver did, are certain to be vilified.  The most they can hope for are mixed reviews, call them that, on how they conduct their lives, and Oliver accomplished that: while a colleague at his university called him a “filthy fascist swine,” others thought the world of him and spoke of him with great respect and fondness.  This writing, drawn from my book The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds, paints a portrait of him. ‘

*   *   *

In the 1950s, Revilo Oliver was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society, a group that became prominent in those years and was known for its anti-communism and advocacy of limited government.   Oliver and the Birch Society parted company when his publicly stated racial views made its leadership uncomfortable.   He was alleged to have said in a speech to the Daughters of the American Revolution that the pre-Castro Cuban government under Fulgencio Batista was as good as could reasonably be expected in a country largely populated by mongrels.

Oliver wrote a number of pieces for William Buckley’s magazine National Review in its early years, the late 1950s.  National Review became a very influential component in a rising conservative movement that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980.  Oliver’s animosity toward Jews eventually made him persona non grata at the magazine, as he reportedly referred to the thought of “vaporizing the Jews” as “a beatific vision.” Read more

Richard Lynn, Cultural Marxism, and the War on Objective Science

/53 Comments/in /by

Richard Lynn is one of very few academics whose impact on their discipline is such that the field could scarcely be discussed without referring to him. In psychology, and particularly the study of intelligence, Lynn has carved out a dominant, innovative, and extraordinarily productive career spanning several decades. He remains prolific at age 87, and Washington Summit will soon publish what will surely be a future classic: Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality —- a volume that I have had the honor and great pleasure of editing. Lynn took his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge and worked as lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter, professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at the Ulster University. He has published in such journals as Nature, British Journal of Psychology, Journal of Biosocial Science, and Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, and has served on the editorial boards of Intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences, and Mankind Quarterly. On his retirement, and in recognition of his accomplishments and contributions, the title of professor emeritus was conferred on Lynn by Ulster University. During the last seven days, however, moves have been undertaken to strip Lynn of this title.

The reasons behind the move are symptomatic of the malaise hanging over much of the modern academic establishment, and are a reflection of the great unease with which this establishment has always greeted Lynn’s fearless research profile. There are few leftist sacred cows that Lynn hasn’t seen fit to hunt down. During the same decades that Cultural Marxism was extending its tentacles around the Academy, Lynn’s research argued the case for the existence of race and sex differences in intelligence, and in The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement (2011) Lynn crossed firmly into forbidden territory by offering an evidence-based study of the Jewish IQ. It remains the best available rebuttal to Sander Gilman’s work of Freudian apologetic pseudoscience Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence (1996). It should be unsurprising that Lynn is also one of very few academics whose work caused a stir beyond the ivory tower. Coverage of Lynn’s work often featured in the BBC, a large number of high-circulation international newspapers and, perhaps inevitably, in the “extremist files” of the radical leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. Read more

“The New Jim Crow” As Seen from the Right.

/37 Comments/in , /by

Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a text I’ve come across many times over the years. In fact, I don’t know if there is a single time I have walked into a major bookstore and have not seen the book displayed in prominence on an end cap or center aisle table. I’ve encountered all the arguments made within the text over the years in articles, during debates, and in university classrooms as an undergraduate. Perhaps the significance of Alexander’s work is best assessed in the foreword by Cornel West: “The New Jim Crow is the secular bible for a new social movement in the early twenty-first-century America.” Although the data and arguments found within have been seen both before and after Alexander’s work, this is perhaps the most definitive and comprehensive work on the topic of Black crime and mass incarceration in America, as seen from the left.

The overarching premise is that mass incarceration, Jim Crow laws, and slavery have been the three primary measures adopted as public policy in the U.S. as a means to control the Black population. Several of Alexander’s contentions jumped off the page at me from the very beginning of the introduction, where she states that an essential goal of the Founding Fathers was to ensure citizenship to Blacks would be denied. In a way, I was thoroughly impressed, aghast even. I hear noxious phrases like “we are a nation of immigrants,” “America is for everybody,” and “this is a homeland for all,” almost daily, be it on social media, from politicians, the press, or in the media. And to see an author who has declared her goal is an “egalitarian democracy,” to be so honest, so frank, and so correct, is in many ways to be welcomed. Alexander displays from page one that she has a grasp of historical racialism as it pertains to the foundation of the U.S. and the Founders’ intentions. She finds this to be an unacceptable position, of course, but her admission that the U.S. was founded as a White nation is exceedingly rare nonetheless. Read more