Featured Articles

Remembering a Scientific Pioneer—Arthur R. Jensen (1923–2012)

/48 Comments/in , /by

Jen-sen-ism (jen’se niz’em), n. the theory that an individual’s IQ is largely due to heredity, including racial heritage. [1965-1970]; after Arthur R. Jensen (born 1923), U.S. educational psychologist, who proposed such a theory; see -ism]—Jen’sen-ist, Jen’sen-ite’, n., adj.

— The Random House and Webster’s Unabridged Dictionaries

Arthur Jensen’s death on October 22 is a pathetic reminder of the strangehold of political correctness on our society. To the extent that it has been mentioned at all, Professor Jensen’s death has been contextualized in such a manner that leaves little doubt among readers that Jensen was wrong about his ideas on race differences in IQ. Thus the New York Times obituary mentions Stephen Jay Gould’s critique of IQ testing, despite Gould’s well-established track record as a leftist activist who likely engaged in fraud to support his views (see also here). The obituary also gives far less prominence to Jensen than to one Sonja C. Grover, an educational psychologist at Lakehead University in Ontario who feels that “you cannot separate social science from human rights.”

However it also quotes Prof. James Flynn whose work has indicated rising intelligence over recent decades and has taken the rather cautious view that “The best we can say is that it is more probable that the I.Q. gap between black and white is entirely environmental in origin.”

“Jensen was a true scientist, and he was without racial bias,” Professor Flynn added. “It never occurred to Arthur Jensen that people would use his data to argue for racial supremacy. Now, to be fair to his critics, over time he became more and more convinced that the evidence did show a genetic component.”

I suppose we should be grateful for the statement that Jensen was a true scientist, but how in the world are his critics supported by the simple fact that Jensen continued to believe that racial differences were genetically influenced when his own views are hardly a ringing endorsement of environmentalism? Read more

Is the Press freer in the United States than in Europe?

/126 Comments/in /by

What follows below is the author’s translation of his piece in French (Fall 2012). The original text in French can be accessed here or here. It is published in Réfléchir et Agir, a political-cultural quarterly published in France. It can be roughly categorized as non-conformist “national-anarchist” journal with critical articles on art, literature and politics. The journal has published interviews with prominent French personalities from cultural and political life (Brigitte Bardot, Jean Raspail, Alain de Benoist, Vladimir Volkoff, etc).

America does not yet know freedom-killing laws that have by now become the trademark of the Federal Republic of Germany and France. Compared to the French Penal Code, especially the Fabius-Gayssot law, or the dreaded Section 130 of the Criminal Code in Germany, the famous First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution opens up avenues to freedom of expression that one could only dream about in Europe. Intellectuals who write for newspapers labeled “racist” or “extreme rightwing”, or heads of U.S. institutions who voice doubts about the official casualty figure of the Jewish Holocaust, such as The Barnes Review or The Institute of Historical Review, could be liable to a 4-year prison sentence in Germany, or subject to heavy legal fines in France. None of this exists as of yet in America, where one can see even proscribed European scholars such as Robert Faurisson and David Irving as guests of honor of different revisionist groups. Moreover, openly anti-Black, indeed racist gatherings are not uncommon in America, just as wearing the Waffen SS uniform, or sporting the swastika by U.S skinheads, or for that matter displaying the Celtic cross in one’s own back yard — all this baggage, all of this behavior is strictly protected under the U.S. legal system.

One must not be fooled, however. American media and especially the mainstream press attuned to the System, such as The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, let alone the major television channels, such as CNN, are careful not to venture into open discussions of the great taboos of our postmodernity: the Jewish question and the race question. It is not fear of judicial censorship that rules over the intellectual landscape in America; fortunately there is none for the time being. Rather, self-censorship among journalists and well-known professors, or the paranoid anticipation of inadvertently crossing paths with an “evil thinker” produces unprecedented psycho-anthropological knee-jerk reflexes. Fear of social ostracism and fear of being consigned to professional oblivion turn out to be stronger antidotes than fines, imprisonment, or the loss of job [American professors with tenure can’t be fired for expressing their views on politics or scholarly issues]. Read more

Denzel Washington in “Safe House” and “Flight”

/120 Comments/in , , /by

The gala premiere of Denzel Washington’s latest film, Flight, was held last week at the ArcLight Cinemas in Hollywood. Washington plays the leading role of airline pilot “Whip Whitaker,” who saves his plane from certain disaster. According to the trailer, however, he might be in trouble because of his drinking problem. We regular Americans will have a chance to find out this Friday, Nov. 2nd, when the film opens nation-wide in theaters.

I’m intensely curious about how African American Washington will be portrayed. What I am hoping is that TOO readers who see the movie will discuss it here at the TOO site in the comments section. I’ve already written about the background to the film in the racial context we have in America (seehere), so we don’t have to start from scratch.

Still, since I suspect some surprises, I will further lay out ideas on what it means to have Washington appear as yet another heroic figure, particularly when he is cast completely against reality. Here are my thoughts. Read more

Lee Siegel: Exuding Jewish Triumphalism

/202 Comments/in , , , /by

A bit of Jewish triumpalism by Lee Siegel in the Wall Street Journal (“Rise of the Tiger Nation“). The basic plot line is that Jews overcame WASP dominance to attain the high ground in American culture. Now there is a rising Asian minority which, according to a Pew  Research Center Study is “the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States.”

My basic premise is that it is entirely reasonable for elites to resist displacement. For Siegel, the Jewish displacement of the WASP elite is a morality tale, with Jews as the good guys. The WASPs resisted by establishing quotas at Ivy League universities. They resented Jewish incursions into “WASP bastions such as rarefied country clubs, exclusive professional clubs, white-shoe law firms, prestigious foundations and the like…[;] these were the very institutions that resisted them the most intensely.” Writing from his position as a dominant elite, Siegel is not shy at hinting that some complaints about Jews were quite reasonable:

One reason that anti-Semitism persisted even as Jews ascended in American life was that Jews were frequently in the vanguard of American social and political dissent, from the anarchist Emma Goldman to Yippie Abbie Hoffman and beyond. Not only that, but many of the architects of America’s archenemy, Soviet Communism, had been Jews. As the WASP establishment lost ground to Jewish newcomers, the words “communist” and “Jew” often became synonymous. The association of Hollywood with lax morality, and of Jews with Hollywood, heightened a kind of low-grade hum of anti-Jewish feeling, even as it proved the general acceptance of the Jewish sentiments and sensibility that permeated American entertainment.

Read more

Dr. Virginia Abernethy’s Response to USA Today article

/98 Comments/in , , , /by

Editor’s note: Dr. Virginia Abernethy is running for Vice-President for the American Third Position. (Merlin Miller is A3P’s presidential candidate.) The following is her response to an article on her, also reprinted below, that appeared in USA Today and The Tennessean (Nashville). Dr. Abernethy has also given two video interviews on these issues, link below

Dr. Virginia Abernethy

The Tennessean and USAToday ran the same article about me. I write in hopes that one or both papers will print my comment.

The article is accurate in several respects, but inaccurate in others, and thus disturbing. The SPLC’s negative and hateful characterizations of people like me who oppose mass immigration are factually untrue.

The SPLC has upped the ante by adding the false charge of neo-Nazi to the tired old [and incorrect in my case and in most cases] label of racist.

Organizations like the ADL are complicitous in these hateful smears and, at the least, do themselves a disservice by repeating charges designed to tar people who disagree with them.

Apparently, their ideal for the United States is to be part of a borderless world, while Israel, they think, is entitled to secure borders.

The SPLC clearly hates patriots like me. This demonstrates that their “anti-hate” stance is merely a cover for their globalist Marxist agenda. They want Europeans-Americans to “tolerate” their own dispossession. This suicide of a whole people is the goal of their ‘Teaching Tolerance’. Read more

Plaasmoord and the Sigma Signals

/89 Comments/in , , , /by

Recently a low-budget piece of cinematic schlock had a vast swath of the world’s population foaming at the mouth, simply because it represented a slight upon their religiously-based identity. Compare this with the almost blanket indifference that has greeted another small film, this one touching on a campaign of genocidal murder against another group

As far as I know the short film Plaasmoord, which means “farm murder” and which shows the aftermath and reaction by relatives to the kind of attack that has become common against Boer farmers, has not led to any South African embassies being stormed or even seriously disturbed. Why is this?

The conventional reason given by various right wingers and nationalists is that there is some kind of leftist, liberal conspiracy by government and media to suppress anything that will adversely impact the “sensitive” state of race relations that invariably develop in all multi-racial states.

No doubt this is part of the reason, but it is not the whole story. Another reason is what I call the “Sigma Signal” that is implicit in the farm murders themselves, and which this film succeeds in heightening. Read more

Ann Coulter’s Jewish Problem

/80 Comments/in , /by

This article was originally posted on my website on November 19, 2007, before TOO came into existence. Coming before the 2008 election, it required a bit of updating, but I thought it an appropriate follow-up to Sterling Cooper’s review of Ann Coulter’s Mugged.

Ann Coulter probably wishes she had never said  “We just want Jews to be perfected” on the Donny Deutsch show. The ADL was first in line to trace such ideas to a theological tradition that is anathema to Jews—the idea that the New Testament supersedes the Old.

But the best defense is a good offense, so Coulter apparently decided that she understands Jewish interests better than even the ADL. Maybe she’s right, but I don’t think she really understands how Jewish organizations like the ADL think about America.

Ann Coulter asks “How Long Before the A.D.L. Kicks Out All its Jews?” Her point is that the ADL is a leftist activist organization that is dangerous for Jews—dangerous because the left is “increasingly dominated by people conniving in the destruction of Israel.” The ADL also opposes public manifestations of Christianity but is in favor of appeasing Muslims in the U.S. by using the Koran to swear in public officials. It also promotes other leftist causes that she imagines are bad for Jews: gun control, gay marriage, illegal immigration — “You know, all the issues that have historically kept the Jews safe.”

Oddly, while she goes after the ADL for condemning critics of Muslim immigration, she can’t bring herself to oppose legal immigration in general. I suppose that even a “conservative” like Ann Coulter would not want to intimate that our present legal immigration policy is bad for anyone, much less Jews. Opposing legal immigration is so far beyond the mainstream that even Coulter can’t bring herself to condemn the ADL for being a major player on the pro-open borders lobby. Coulter seems to think that masses of illegals, mainly Mexicans, are bad for Jews, but there’s no problem importing masses of Africans and Asians as long as they aren’t Muslim. Read more