Black Brains Shatter: The Intellectual and Ethical Bankruptcy of Black Lives Matter

/25 Comments/in , /by

If you’re looking for a truly powerful pleasure-drug, then forget heroin, cocaine or crystal meth. They’re crude, fast-fading and unreliable. No, for a real rush that’s guaranteed not to fade or falter, you need what Black Lives Matter (BLM) and their allies are on — the three most powerful pleasure-drugs known to humanity.

History’s greatest drug-dealer

The three drugs are called narcissism, self-righteousness and malice. And not only are they completely legal and available in unlimited quantities at no cost to the addict, you can receive full instructions in their use from the most prestigious and respected institutions in the Western world. From the Ivy League to Oxbridge, from the New York Times to the Guardian, from the ADL to the BBC, expert drug-dealers are ready and eager to teach you everything you need to know about where to obtain your supplies and how to inject.

But the greatest drug-dealer of all lived and died in the nineteenth century. Fortunately, we still have his instruction-manuals and a host of his disciples have worked to interpret and explain them for each new generation. And who was that world-historic dealer in narcissism, self-righteousness and malice? It was Karl Marx (1818-83), of course. Marx himself never won the power he longed to wield and abuse, but the “toxicity” of his ideas (as Guardianistas would put it) was just as apparent to some of his contemporaries as it was to those who suffered under Marxist regimes during the twentieth century. The Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009) lived through Stalinism and his magisterial critique Main Currents of Marxism (1978) reported the prophetic words of the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814—76):

Bakunin … not only combated Marx’s political programme but, as he often wrote, regarded Marx as a disloyal, revengeful man, obsessed with power and determined to impose his own despotic authority on the whole revolutionary movement. Marx, he said, had all the merits and defects of the Jewish character; he was highly intelligent and deeply read, but an inveterate doctrinaire and fantastically vain, an intriguer and morbidly envious of all who … cut a more important figure than himself in public life. (pg. 248) Bakunin … inveighed against universities as the abodes of elitism and seminaries of a privileged caste; he also warned that Marxist socialism would lead to a tyranny of intellectuals that would be worse than any yet known to man. (Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. I, The Founders, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pg. 250)

Yes, Karl Marx was indeed highly intelligent and fantastically vain, but his latter-day disciples in Black Lives Matter are only fantastically vain. High intelligence is not characteristic of Blacks and BLM are not bucking the trend. Their crusade is emotional, not intellectual. And it’s emotional in the most direct and satisfying way, being fuelled by those three mighty pleasure-drugs of narcissism, self-righteousness and malice. But I think Black brains would shatter if they were asked to properly address one simple question: Why are Whites the evil exploiters and Blacks the virtuous victims?

Omnia Ex Alea

On a progressive reading of history and human biology, there is only one possible answer: It was pure, unadulterated chance. Whites are evil exploiters and Blacks are virtuous victims simply because that’s the way the historic dice happened to roll. If the dice had rolled another way, it would have been the other way around. Blacks could just as easily have enslaved Whites, just as easily have set forth from the heartless headquarters of a cruel capitalist Africa to ravage the gentle, egalitarian societies of a peaceful pastoral Europe. After all, progressive dogma insists that “We Are All the Same Under the Skin” and that “There Is Only One Race — the Human Race.” But Blacks themselves haven’t created that dogma or imposed it so effectively on academia and the media. Blacks don’t have the necessary intelligence and ability to spin seductive webs of high-sounding words.

Progressive dogma: “There is Only One Race — the Human Race!”

But Jews do. And it’s Jews who have been the most effective creators of and propagandists for the progressive dogma of absolute and unequivocal equality between all human groups. “There is only One Race — the Human Race.” Furthermore: “There is Only One Brain — the Human Brain.” The Jewish progressive Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) preached those falsehoods throughout his career in award-winning best-sellers like The Mismeasure of Man (1981). And the Jewish progressive Jared Diamond (born 1937) continues to preach them. Diamond is perhaps the greatest living exponent of the idea that the superiority of White Europeans in warfare, technology and science is owed to mere biogeographic accident. You might say Diamond preaches the doctrine of Omnia Ex Alea — “all things from the dice.” In other words, all apparent White achievements are the product of undeserved luck. But Diamond’s underlying goyophobia, or hatred of White gentiles, is apparent even as he preaches this supposedly objective doctrine. Why did Europe conquer Africa and not vice versa? It was Omnia Ex Alea, ladies and gentlemen — the biogeographic dice just happened to roll in Europe’s favour:

All of Africa’s mammalian domesticates — cattle, sheep,  goats, horses, even dogs — entered sub-Saharan Africa from the north, from Eurasia or North Africa. At first that seems astonishing, since we now think of Africa as the continent of big wild animals. In fact, none of those famous big wild mammal species of Africa proved domesticable [Gregory Cochran disagrees]. They were all unqualified by one or another problem such as: unsuitable social organization; intractable behaviour; slow growth-rate, and so on. Just think what the course of world history would have been like if Africa’s rhinos and hippos had lent themselves to domestication! If it had been possible, African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos would have made mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses. But it couldn’t happen. (Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)

Diamond obviously likes the idea of Blacks making “mincemeat” of White gentiles. You can see the same hostility to White gentiles in Diamond’s award-winning best-seller Guns, Germs and Steel (1997), when he imagines “bedraggled” Spaniards being “driven into the sea” by Aztec cavalry:

That’s an enormous set of differences between Eurasian and Native American societies — due largely to the Late Pleistocene extinction (extermination?) of most of North and South America’s former big wild mammal species. If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses. Instead of the Aztecs dying of smallpox, the Spaniards might have been wiped out by American germs transmitted by disease-resistant Aztecs. American civilizations resting on animal power might have been sending their own conquistadores to ravage Europe. But those hypothetical outcomes were foreclosed by mammal extinctions thousands of years earlier. (Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, 1997, ch. 18)

Jared Diamond isn’t conducting objective science and dispassionately analysing history, as Kevin MacDonald saw during “a talk by Diamond at a large packed lecture hall at Cal Tech in the early 2000s. When he gleefully fantasized about Africa conquering Europe, the crowd burst into applause.” Diamond’s fantasies appeal to the envy and malice of non-Whites and Jews, and to the misguided individualism of Whites, who enjoy punishing members of their own race for ethical transgressions (see the concept of “altruistic punishment”). As Diamond himself put it, Whites are tainted by the “stink of racism.” But if Diamond’s ideas are true, there is no stink and no true ethical transgression. It’s the impersonal forces of biogeography and chance that have governed history, not innate differences between human groups. We are all the same under the skin, but we don’t all occupy the same environment, which is the only reason that some groups have conquered or out-performed other groups.

Leftists pursue power, not truth

It follows, then, that Evil Exploiters and Virtuous Victims can occur in all possible permutations of colour and creed. But it also follows that exploiters aren’t “evil” and victims aren’t “virtuous.” Such terms don’t make sense in leftist ideology, because all groups — Whites and non-Whites, men and women, gays and straights — are capable of any kind of behaviour in the right (or wrong) historical circumstances. However, leftists don’t care when their ideas don’t make sense. Leftism isn’t designed to explain reality or to correct its alleged faults, but to win power for leftists and to meet their emotional needs. That’s why you’ll never see any hint from BLM and other high-priests of anti-racism that non-Whites can be “racist” too, or that non-Whites are capable of abusing the power that they are demanding so self-righteously.

Blacks as Foot Soldiers for What Is Essentially a Jewish Coup: Where Jews lead, Blacks follow: Saul Alinsky, Godfather of Political Chaos

After all, if the high-priests admitted all that, they couldn’t be self-righteous. And self-righteousness is central to the protests and riots organized by BLM. It’s both highly satisfying in itself and highly effective as a stimulus for action. BLM is powered by the idea that Blacks are innately virtuous and Whites are innately evil. That idea makes no sense by progressive ideology and the Omnia Ex Alea school of history, but ideas don’t have to make sense to inspire action and change history. And speaking of history, here is a highly eloquent indictment of its chief villains. Indeed, its only villains:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. [italics in original] (See “Susan Sontag’s Jewish World,” Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, 17th October 2017)

That is the “highly intelligent” and “fantastically vain” Jewish ideologue Susan Sontag (1933–2004) supplying more  ammunition for the unintelligent but still “fantastically vain” non-Whites of Black Lives Matter. I disagree with Sontag, of course. I don’t think the White race is the cancer of human history. If human history has a cancer, that cancer is Jewish ideology and the Jewish Culture of Critique that simultaneously — and self-refutingly — preaches the Absolute Equality of Humanity and the innate depravity of White gentiles.

The Transformation of Europe as an Elite Project: Review of The Blackening of Europe, by Clare Ellis

/28 Comments/in , /by

Clare Ellis
The Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments
Arktos, 2020.

“When this majority-minority shift occurs, there will be an unprecedented transfer of political power from European peoples to non-Europeans, essentially signalling the final endpoint of Europeans’ sovereignty over their ancestral homelands.”

One of the great tragedies of modern times has been the warped and perverse bureaucratic and institutional form taken by the noble idea of European brotherhood. Once promoted by figures like Sir Oswald Mosley as a means to European resurgence, the unity of Europe in recent decades has instead become a byword for mass migration, repressive speech laws, “human rights” insanity, and ethnocultural suicide. How did it happen? The common understanding in our circles is often very simplistic, relying heavily on caricatures of what has become known as the Kalergi Plan. The Kalergi Plan narrative, as we will discuss below, of course has its merits, and its simplicity is one of them. But for some time I’ve been hoping for the arrival of a text that could be considered the definitive, nuanced, and comprehensive account of how the notion of European unity became a vehicle for European destruction. While Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe was a useful step in the right direction, I believe that it is only with the publication of the first volume of Clare Ellis’s The Blackening of Europe that we finally have the account we deserve. And while I have yet to read the second and third volumes, I eagerly await them in the belief that, taken together, this trilogy will represent one of the seminal ‘Third Positionist’ works of the last two decades.

I have to be honest that prior to the publication of The Blackening of Europe I hadn’t heard of Clare Ellis. This is due more to my own ignorance than any lack of activity on her part, and Clare’s credentials really do speak for themselves. A close associate and former PhD student of Ricardo Duchesne, Clare has written for both the Council of European Canadians and The Occidental Quarterly. I think The Blackening of Europe will, and should, raise her profile considerably. Clare’s research at the University of New Brunswick concerned the demographic and political decline of native Europeans in their own homelands. How much of her PhD material made it into the book isn’t immediately clear, but there certainly seems to be a strong crossover in thematic content.

In brief, the first volume of The Blackening of Europe ambitiously attempts to map the various strands of ideological, political, economic, and social thought and action that combined to warp, define, and pervert the idea of European unity, from its inception to its most modern incarnation. The text features a wide range of information I was familiar with, and very much that I wasn’t, including early eighteenth-century concepts of European unity, the ideas of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, the European-Israel relationship, Arab oil embargoes, theories on cosmopolitanism from Kant and Marx to Habermas and Nussbaum, a critical micro-history of Liberalism, Jewish hypocrisy, and an examination of Conservatism and neoconservatism. Fortunately, given the dizzying array of information being offered for consideration, Ellis is a capable guide, structuring the book is a sensible, well-organised manner, and writing in a clear, insistent, and authoritative style.

Ellis begins the book with a familiar, but no less stark and disturbing, fact: “Indigenous Europeans are becoming demographic and political minorities in European nation-states.” There’s a brief discussion of the collapse in European birth rates, but Ellis is clear on the real disaster unfolding before our eyes: “It is not the low fertility rate of Europeans that renders them ethnic minorities within their own nations, but elite-sanctioned large-scale non-European immigration, which began about sixty years ago and which is now integral to the cosmopolitan EU project.” In the context of this project,

indigenous Europeans and their political and cultural institutions and identities are undergoing processes of erasure — stigmatisation, marginalisation, deprivation, and replacement — by mandated immigrationism, multiculturalism, and other methods of forced diversification, while resistance to their political and cultural marginalisation and demographic dispossession is criminalised.

Implicit in Ellis’s account is the accusation both that the decline of Europeans is deliberately engineered and that it violates “various rights of native Europeans as well as international laws that prohibit genocide in any form.”

The book is divided into two parts. The first is “Central Influences on the Formation of the European Union,” which is a mixture of history, politics, and economics. Part II of the book is titled “Deep Ideological Currents,” and is predominantly philosophical and political. The first part of the book is further divided into three sections: “Early European Integration,” “The Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School,” and “International Geopolitical Developments.” In “Early European Integration” we are introduced to the growth of pan-European thought in the middle of the Enlightenment, with references to a European union found in the writings of George Washington, Victor Hugo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. These figures promoted unity and cosmopolitanism as a means to bringing peace to a continent long-steeped in almost perpetual war, and Kant’s ideas were particularly influential in the rise of “Peace Leagues” at the start of the nineteenth century. What we see even at these very early stages, however, was a mingling of intentions and differing interpretations of cosmopolitanism. The cosmopolitanism of Kant retained a national character, and was predominantly geared towards the achievement of peace. Europeans within the peace leagues, such as the Union for Democratic Control (UDC, 1914) more or less echoed the same sentiments, but they unwittingly provided cover for those possessing ulterior motives and radically different ideas about cosmopolitanism. Although not mentioned by Ellis, the British Jewish intellectual Israel Zangwill was a co-founder and key figure on the executive of the Union for Democratic Control, and from October 1914 it was Zangwill who provided the UDC with its headquarters.[1] From this base, Zangwill pumped out European “unity” propaganda that attacked what Ellis calls “the nationalist canon,” not with the sole focus of achieving European peace but of promoting feminism and his own idea of “the melting pot” or widespread mixing of peoples and the end of national identity. As is common with such Jewish activists, however, Zangwill was reluctant to live out his own philosophy, marrying within his ethnic group (Jewish feminist Edith Ayrton) and spending most of his life promoting Jewish causes.

Zangwill was probably a key influence on Count Richard Nikolaus Eijiro von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894–1972), the cosmopolitan geopolitician and philosopher whose name has become synonymous with the worst of the European Union project. Kalergi was himself the product of miscegenation, having an Austro-Hungarian father and a Japanese mother, and he spent much of his life producing a blend of pacifist and European integrationist literature. Ellis carefully contextualises Kalergi, once described by Hitler as a “cosmopolitan bastard,” over the course of some 25 pages, and examines his thought in detail. There were some novel revelations for me, including his self-conscious participation in Freemasonry, his quite extensive reliance upon Jewish finance, and his extremely strange and dangerous fantasy that Jews were the ideal leaders of the future European state. That being said, Ellis provides enough information on Kalergi’s thought to cast doubt on the existence of a clearly-defined “Kalergi Plan.” Much of Kalergi’s work promoted European unity under three banners—peace, civilization (including renewed European colonization of Africa), and trade. Kalergi believed that Europeans shared a common cultural destiny and that Europe should be a world power on the same level as the United States and the Soviet Union. And while he eulogized the notion that the European man of the future would be of mixed race, he does not appear anywhere to have actively promoted immigration to Europe and in fact wrote: “Europe must at all costs prevent that great number of black workers and soldiers from immigrating to Europe.” Ellis comments that although Kalergi was wrong to reduce European identity to a matter of “morals and of style,” he “did not intend for large-scale immigration into Europe from non-European peoples, especially from Africa and the Muslim Middle-East.”

As in the Union of Democratic Control, which housed different goals, interests and ideological trajectories, Kalergi emerges from Ellis’s account as an ideologically and racially confused individual, in possession of eccentric, irrational, and often contradictory theories, and acting often at the hands of much more powerful forces with ulterior motives. By far the strangest of Kalergi’s theories was the idea that the new united Europe should be governed by a “spiritual aristocratic leadership” that “can only be found in the Jewish people.” These traits, according to Kalergi, “predestine Jews to be leaders of urban humanity, the protagonists of capitalism as well as the revolution.” As Ellis puts it:

It would not be the European aristocrats that would lead the new Europe to unification and finally world federation; rather it would be the interplay of the leaders of both Jewish capitalism and Jewish socialism alone who would take over and dominate the forces of European power and determine its destiny.

That Kalergi was probably directly influenced by the work of Zangwill in this regard is almost beyond doubt, and Jewish influence here is compounded by the fact Kalergi was funded by his friend Louis Nathaniel de Rothschild, and the Jewish bankers Max Warburg, Felix Warburg, Paul Warburg, and Bernard Baruch. As well as receiving financial backing, Kalergi was in “constant intellectual dialogue” with Max Warburg, who may have shaped some of Kalergi’s ideas on putative Jewish supremacy. Ellis points out that after World War II, when the first steps towards a unified European bureaucratic structure were being taken, some scholars have argued that “the Pan European Movement and Union were appropriated by people who wished to use it for their own ends.”

These “people,” essentially technocrats, politicians and lawyers, are situated by Ellis within the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School. The Fabian Society, which aimed for a slow and steady socialist revolution in society, is explained as more or less a club of well-intention British utopian socialist eccentrics until it merged in the 1920s with Rothschild finance and received the generous backing of British Jewish banker Sir Ernest Cassel; it also enjoyed the backing of the Rockefeller Foundation and J.P. Morgan. All were involved in the founding of the London School of Economics (LSE) which was intended to train up activists, bureaucrats, politicians for the revolution. Ellis comments:

So here we have a socialist-capitalist alliance whereby Big Business elites utilise socialist institutions to nurture their own aims. This obviously begs a particular question: Why do major capitalists and international finance organizations want to train the bureaucracy for the creation of a future socialist state? Isn’t socialism, in its very essence, antithetical to capitalism? H.G. Wells explained this apparent paradox in 1920: “Big Business is in no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism.”

Ellis adds that it became the strategy of Fabian socialism to “prefer wealthy elites (intellectual, political, economic) rather than the proletariat (working class) as the source of revolutionary potential.” By 1945, the Fabian Society had taken over the British House of Commons, since more than half of the ruling Labour party’s MPs were paid-up Fabians. The same trends are prominent today, most notably in the example of the Fabian Tony Blair, whose Labour Party during his decade of power (1997–2007) ushered in the biggest ever acceleration of immigration to Britain, and who maintains strong links to Jewish international finance in the form of his close friend and ally Moshe Kantor.

Ellis has a very interesting section demonstrating organic links between the Fabian Society and the Frankfurt School, especially in their early stages, and cross-pollination of ideas between British and German socialists. There are clear parallels in the way both groupings set about their destructive tasks with the tactic of gradual infiltration. Permeation, or “honeycombing,” of existing institutions with committed activists and intellectuals was the preferred methodology of bringing about large-scale societal change, and both groupings eschewed the notion of the working class as a viable source for revolutionary socialism. Ellis lists the “products” of Fabian and Frankfurt School activism as:

feminism; affirmative action; deconstruction; the transformation of the traditional family, church, education, and morals; Third-World opposition movements; anti-nationalism; cultural contempt; anti-discrimination; liberal immigration reforms; ‘White Privilege;’ White Guilt; “Diversity is Strength”; ‘tolerance’; Political Correctness; and multiculturalism.

The dramatic changes witnessed in Western society over the last 70 years have been, argues Ellis, wrought by the activity of a “New Class” composed of university-educated, liberal, cosmopolitans who have gained support from financial elites, thus increasing their social capital and expanding their capacity for political action. Both Fabianism and the Frankfurt School are

elite forms of socialism, whether in intellectual political, cultural, or economic terms, as they no longer focus on the working classes. They are bourgeois revolutionary theories that instigate revolutions from above, not below; they are not grassroots or democratic; they are plutocratic, oligarchic, and dictatorial. These socialist intellectuals ‘march through the institutions’ to effect a ‘gradual’ revolution from above and are sponsored by the capitalist forces they supposedly oppose.

The third section of part I, “International and Geopolitical Developments,” is one of the more factually dense elements of the book, but is worth persevering with. The chapter highlights the ways in which early diplomatic support for Israel (led by the United States and Britain) brought Europe into conflict with oil producers in the Middle East, necessitating not only closer economic ties within Europe but also sowing the seeds for the future Islamization of the continent. Ellis dissects the ways in which American imperialism, international finance, and monopoly capitalism influenced post-war European diplomacy and economic recovery strategies (mainly the importation of supposedly “temporary” foreign labor), and links it to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the creation of global institutions like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and NATO — all of which “influenced the opening of Europe and Western nations to non-European immigration from the Third World.”

By a small margin, I found Part II to be more interesting than the first. It’s comprised of a very ambitious survey of the origins and trajectory of all the contemporary ideological currents underpinning the European Union we see today. There are no less than eleven small chapters critically exploring the evolution of cosmopolitanism (including Kantian, proletarian, critical, universal, liberal and pluralistic variants). The text then moves to a three-chapter exploration liberalism, before ending with a three-chapter exploration of conservatism, including a critique of neoconservatism.

I found Ellis’s treatment of the origins of cosmopolitanism to be very interesting, though I felt that something important had been missed in the absence of any mention that Kant had obviously been influenced in his attitudes to tolerance and cosmopolitanism by Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), the Jewish intellectual activist most responsible for initiating pluralism, multiculturalism, and even “open borders” as political ideologies in Europe. As one scholar has remarked, “there is every indication that Kant read everything Mendelssohn wrote,” and the pair often exchanged letters and books.[2] In other words, Mendelssohn was, in a form of intellectual parasitism or symbiosis, the “Zangwill” to Kant’s “UDC”. Ellis may have been helped to improve this already excellent section with at least some reference to Mendelssohn and the ideologies of his co-ethnics among the maskilim, or even with some information from Cathy Gelbin and Sander Gilman’s 2017 Cosmopolitanisms and the Jews. The latter is, given its authors, far from perfect, but is a good introduction to the ways in which Jews have gone about promoting cosmopolitanism and its offshoots in European society for the last three centuries. In making such a suggestion I am, perhaps, playing to my own strengths, but I nevertheless feel that the Jewish influence in the origins of the most pernicious elements of this strain of thought merits at least some attention in a book like The Blackening of Europe. Jewish influence in modern cosmopolitan theories is, of course, treated in Ellis’s analysis of the thought of Martha Nussbaum, who “advocates world citizenship and internationalism” and “criticised patriotic pride.”

The result of centuries of cosmopolitan thought is devastating:

Identity for Europeans is [today] about legal proceedings, universal abstractions, and individual interests rather than substantial and meaningful bonds that are in the interests of a community of people united by ancestral, cultural, and other ties. … The majority population lose their particular ethnocultural identity in their accommodation of all other ethnocultural identities in a pluralistic and ethnically diverse constitutional liberal democracy. European majorities do not even become a minority amongst other minorities with the right to self-determination, for what determines their identity is solely in terms of rational universal rights and legal procedures; they have a post-national identity only. … It is clear that many cosmopolitanists perceive all European-based countries of the world and, by extension, all European peoples, to be guilty of something or other: Nazism, colonialism, slavery, Eurocentrism or Westerncentrism, global capitalism, being White etc. It is through this narrative that the radical transformation of European societies and European peoples to align with the dictates of some form of cosmopolitanism is justified.

Ellis’s treatment of cosmopolitanism ends with an extremely interesting profile of the modern-day cosmopolitan class, including reflections on their mental health. They are composed of

wealthy and influential elites who are either neoliberals motivated by global capitalism, or else some form of socialist (Leftist, cultural Marxists) motivated by universal values and societal transformation, or they are both neoliberal and socialist: a socialist-capitalist alliance. In either case, their primary identity is global or cosmopolitan, which is completely independent from geography, nation, ethnicity, or religion, and they seek to change the world according to their elite visions and ideals of humanity, the future, and the global economy.

I concur with all the above, my only caveat being that there’s an obvious exception to this rule and that’s “the Jewish cosmopolitan,” who can be socialist-capitalist while maintaining an intense attachment to geography and nation (Israel), ethnicity (Jewishness), and religion (Judaism). One need only look at figures like Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, Moshe Kantor, along with the vast majority of the Jewish Big Tech CEOs, hedge fund bosses, bankers, media barons, consumer culture despots, and loan merchants, etc., to see that this is plainly and inarguably the case. What we therefore see in the ongoing story of European cosmopolitanism is the confluence of two separate strains of activism — the generally well-meaning European variant peopled by Kant, the UDC, and some of the non-Jewish utopians; and the Jewish one featuring Mendelssohn, the Frankfurt School, and Jewish Capital. It is the latter that has attached itself to the former, perverting and distorting its vision for their own ends. The present-day European Union is the disfigured and defective offspring of this sinister congress.

Ellis’s analysis of the mental health of the average member of the cosmopolitan elite is excellent. Her assertion that they “have a combined sense of intellectual superiority, moral arrogance, and existential insecurity, often involving fear of ‘natural groups,’” couldn’t be more aptly applied to Jewish activists. One is also reminded of the infamous 2010 confrontation between the Fabian British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Gillian Duffy, one of his own voters. Duffy had mentioned a lack of jobs in the context of ongoing mass immigration, prompting Brown to quickly abandon the exchange and get into a departing car. Unaware that his microphone was still on, a horrified Brown was recorded by the media talking to his aides: “That was a disaster—they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? Ridiculous!” Asked what she had said, he replied: “Everything, she was just a bigoted woman.” The cosmopolitan elite in a nutshell — fleeing from reality and full of moral and dehumanizing condemnations of those members of the “natural group” who dissent.

The book’s treatment of Liberalism and Conservatism is equally masterful, and includes a powerful critique of neoconservatism that includes references to, and quotes from, such figures as Sam Francis. It sets the stage nicely for Volume II of the trilogy, which will deal exclusively with the aftermath of Zionist neocon wars in the Middle East, in the form of mass migration and the acceleration of the Islamization of Europe. The volume concludes with an Afterword offering a summary of findings, and a helpful guide to what can be expected in Volumes II (Immigration, Islam and the Migrant Crisis) and III (Critical Views) of the trilogy.

Clare Ellis is to be commended for producing what is sure to be the definitive work on the co-option of the European unity project from its beginning by hostile forces, and for setting down for all time one of the clearest records yet written of the ideological, financial, political, and ethnic interests behind them.

[1] S. Kadish, Bolsheviks and British Jews: The Anglo-Jewish Community, Britain and the Russian Revolution (Frank Cass, 1992), 62.

[2] J. Schmidt, Kant’s Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 75.

Foreword to Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism by Brenton Sanderson

/28 Comments/in /by

Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism”
By Brenton Sanderson
Paperback (558 pages) available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Book Depository, AbeBooks, Alibris, and Indiebound
EBook available at Kobo

FOREWORD by Kevin MacDonald

Brenton Sanderson began writing for The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly in 2011. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of his work from the beginning – his first essays were on the “War on White Australia” which I am happy to learn will be coming out in a separate, much anticipated, volume.

As an editor, one quickly learns to appreciate essays that are well-researched and well-written, and Sanderson’s work has always been up to the highest standard. Each of these essays is a gem. The general theme of Battle Lines is the difficult question of Jewish influence – difficult at least partly because the literature is littered with apologetic writings, so that getting a firm grasp on such a topic requires great persistence and honesty. As he writes in the Introduction, “The Jewish Question is foundational to the demographic transformation of the West, the revolution in its sexual and ethical mores, and to the trajectory of Western politics, art and culture.” We can’t avoid talking about it if we want to be honest about what is happening. But doing so is a thankless task, a reason for being scorned and ostracized, fired from one’s job, barred from influential positions in the media and academic world. Sanderson quotes Richard Wagner writing in the nineteenth century, “It is distressing to me always to come back to the theme of the Jews. But one cannot escape it if one looks to the future.”

And 150 years after Wagner’s statement, it is still absolutely true. We simply can’t avoid discussing the Jews. Honest discussions of Jewish influence are absolutely necessary if White people are going to have a future.

Much of Sanderson’s work has been on Jewish influence on culture, particularly in the arts and the media. These are major contributions. Beginning in the early twentieth century Jews have had enormous influence on the visual arts as artists, critics, dealers, and collectors. In 1973 Sophy Burnham published The Art Crowd, estimating that 80 per cent of the 2,500 core “art market personnel” – dealers, curators, gallery owners, collectors, critics, consultants and patrons of the arts – were Jewish.[i]

So it’s not surprising that Jewish attitudes would be reflected in what counts as fine art and whose work gets promoted. As Sanderson notes in his essay on Tristan Tzara and the Dada movement, there was a “Jewish intellectual substructure of many of these twentieth century art movements… manifest in their unfailing hostility toward the political, cultural and religious traditions of Europe and European-derived societies.”

Given this reality, it is not difficult to envision Jewish critics championing Jewish artists or non-Jews like Jackson Pollock whose work can be seen as advancing this hostility toward the culture of the West. Nor is it difficult to imagine Jewish art dealers promoting such artists (e.g., Sidney Janis promoting Mark Rothko [Chapter 9] whose fame had nothing to do with any recognizable talent but was inextricably linked to his being a member of a Jewish sub-culture). The same goes for Jewish art museum curators (e.g., Katherine Kuh promoting Rothko), Jewish collectors (e.g., Charles Saatchi promoting Damien Hirst), and Jewish critics (Clement Greenberg promoting Jackson Pollock).

Gustav Mahler and Leonard Bernstein were doubtless very talented musicians and composers. However, their elevation to the status of cultural icons cannot be explained by talent alone. Once again Sanderson documents a coterie of Jews promoting these figures, including Bernstein promoting Mahler. Bernstein in particular has always fascinated me because of his flamboyant personality and style. Sanderson notes that his fame rivaled that of Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe. Even I, who was not particularly drawn to classical music at the time, was quite aware of him and recall being struck by his impassioned performances as a conductor. The issue of Jewish personality is relatively unexplored, but it seems that Jews often have extreme personalities – personalities that make people stand out in whatever their field of endeavor, with Bernstein being a prime example. In my first book on Jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, I summarized data indicating that, on average, Jews rated highly on all the personality systems.

And while Jews have been able to promote certain individuals to the status of cultural icon, they have also attempted to tear down others, Richard Wagner being the most prominent example. In the case of Wagner, his towering musical genius presents a major obstacle in this endeavor, but there can be little doubt that there has been a campaign against Wagner waged by Jewish music critics and producers. Sanderson provides an amazing quote from Bernstein, “‘I hate Wagner, but I hate him on my knees’ – a grudging acknowledgement of the scale of German composer’s achievement.” Despite his prodigious talent, Wagner is now routinely labeled a “deeply pathological personality” – a common description by Jews eagerly seeking out any flaw in a person they dislike for deeper reasons. The result has been that performances of Wagnerian works like The Ring “in the modern era have invariably sought to satirize the drama to subvert the message Wagner attempts to convey.” If they can’t ban him outright because the music is too powerful, they can nip at the edges with satire and false messaging.

Another aspect of Jewish influence on culture has been the sexual revolution. In writing The Culture of Critique I always thought of the chapter on Freud as pivotal for understanding what had happened since the 1960s. Freud’s war on sexual and family mores has had vastly more devastating effects on people at the lower end of the IQ distribution than the solidly middle class or upper class. Those at the lower end of the IQ distribution benefit more from the social supports embedded in religion and traditional culture, but these have essentially been destroyed since the 1960s. Since then, all the markers of family function have declined precipitously, including increases in divorce, lower rates of marriage, births out of wedlock, and single parenting – all of which are linked to negative effects on children and all more common in people of lower socioeconomic status. In recent decades this has been exacerbated by drug abuse, especially opioid abuse, which is again more common among people on the lower rungs of society.

Here Sanderson emphasizes how the ongoing sexual revolution, originated by a vastly disproportionate number of Jewish intellectuals, has filtered into the entertainment industry, focusing on the work of Jenji Kohan (Orange is the New Black) and Jill Soloway (Transparent). When I was growing up in the 1950s, religious and patriotic groups exercised significant power over the content of movies and television. Marriage and having children were generally depicted as rewarding life choices, and all the psychological research indicates that traditional married families are indeed more likely to result in well-adjusted children.

However, such families are a vanishing breed in the Western media landscape, replaced by shows presenting divorced families, single parenting, and homosexual and transgender relationships as normal and fulfilling. Both Kohan and Soloway are strongly identified Jews (Kohan wanted to become a rabbi and Soloway said that Jews in Hollywood are “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust”). Their careers have taken place completely within a Jewish milieu – a good indication of the fundamentally Jewish nature of the entertainment industry. A non-Jew wishing to have a career in the industry could not possibly produce, write, or direct anything that offends Jewish sensibilities.

Another important theme in Battle Lines is Jewish apologia for the crimes of communism, a topic that must remain suppressed “regardless of how many historians (Jewish and non-Jewish) confirm the decisive role Jews played in providing the ideological basis for, and the establishment, governance and administration of, the former communist dictatorships of Central and Eastern Europe.” Daniel Goldhagen is typical of those Jews who want to totally suppress this history, asserting that any linking of Jews with communism is a “calumny.” However, Sanderson provides extensive reviews of two books by Jewish authors with a different slant – that yes, Jews were decisive, but whatever they did was justified by anti-Semitism. For example, the much-exaggerated pogroms of the late nineteenth century are used to justify the murder of millions and the oppressive police states, and Jews are absolved from any role in triggering the anti-Jewish attitudes widely felt by the peoples of Eastern and Central Europe. This is outright falsification of history. And as Sanderson notes,

Free discussion of the Jewish role in communist crimes undermines Jewish pretensions to moral authority grounded in their self-designated status as history’s preeminent victims. In contemporary academia there are, in addition, strong personal and professional disincentives for highlighting the Jewish role in communist crimes, and it is, therefore, not surprising that non-Jewish historians and intellectuals are equally reluctant to recognize the Jewish backgrounds of many revolutionaries and to explore how their Jewish identity influenced their beliefs and actions. The Jewish-controlled media organs in the U.S. have conditioned most Americans to suffer a sort of mental allergic reaction to topics sensitive to Jews.

This is an excellent general description of all topics related to Jewish influence. Jews are ethnically motivated to see themselves in a positive light, while non-Jews rightly fear their careers in academia, the media, or politics will be jeopardized if they honestly and openly discuss the impact of Jews on Western societies. The result is a plethora of glaring omissions, and disingenuous analyses often accompanied by a maudlin philo-Semitism.

The reasons White academics or journalists produce this drivel are easy to understand. Such endeavors are massively incentivized, whether by obtaining tenure in the university system or getting a position in the elite media or politics. The message from our latter-day commissars is clear: “Sell out and we’ll make you a star.” Brenton Sanderson has not sold out. These essays offer excellent scholarship, clear writing, and most of all, honesty – a rare trait indeed in the contemporary West.

[i] Sophy Burnham, The Art Crowd (Philadelphia: David McKay Publications, 1973), 25.

The Dirty Secret: Thoughts on Being a Mischling

/82 Comments/in , /by

Although I’ve had no love for Jews for most of my life, I am ashamed of the amount of time it took for me to accept that those who are vocally opposed to Jewish influence have legitimate grievances. I had always found myself at odds with social and political phenomena that can ultimately be traced back to that influence, but I had never really understood where they came from. My objections to pornography, sex trafficking, and the hypersexualization of women and children in advertising and entertainment were wrongly directed against men in general. My awareness of grave injustices and smokescreens such as 9/11 laid blame at the feet of an entirely faceless global enemy.

It also took longer than I might have hoped to recognize that what I love about humanity — my sense of beauty and aesthetics, musical preferences, values, appreciation for Western architecture, respect for animals, dress, culture, history, literature — the poetry of life — must ultimately all be credited to Europe and her peoples. I now understand that the corruption and subversion of those things close to my heart has largely been the result of external influence and values that are not only foreign but largely antithetical to those of the European tradition.

Slowly, I learned that the enemy is not faceless.

I had believed that people largely hated Jews for their ability to preserve tradition for many thousands of years and for their strong group identity. It took someone explaining to me very politely how others see plainly anti-social Jewish behaviors and in-group preference for me to really understand the animosity some hold against Jews.

But the Jewish question for me is more nuanced than it would be for most people. Growing up in a heavily-Jewish community, most of my friends and teachers were secular Jews. However, I was always aware on a fundamental level that I did not really belong in their world, and rejected it fully by the time I was 12.

I knew I was only half Jewish — a “Mischling.” I knew this because it was obvious that my mother was Jewish and my father was not.

My grandparents had been founding members of their synagogue, but my parents were not allowed to get married there because my father was not of the faith. We celebrated both Christmas and Hannukah when I was a child (the food is a lot better at Christmas) but not Easter. From pre-school to first grade, I attended a Jewish private school where I was taught to revere Israel and encouraged to raise money for it UNICEF-style, as well as spending half the day learning about Jewish culture and reading/singing in Hebrew. From second grade through the end of middle school, I attended public schools comprised mainly of Ashkenazi children. To compensate, my mother made me go to “Hebrew School” three times a week. Hebrew School was an after-school program where Ashkenazi children could learn prayers, Hebrew, and the Torah. (The children in my Hebrew School were most likely attending public schools as well. The more serious orthodox and Hasidic Jews attended private and “Talmudic schools” for the entire duration of their schooling.)

As far as I know, I was always accepted as Jewish, even though I was technically only half. My childhood best friend, an adopted girl with blonde hair and blue eyes whom I met at our private school, was also (from what I remember, being six years old) accepted as Jewish, even though she was not Ashkenazi or any other type of Jew. No one really asked questions. She was far from the only blonde kid there either.

I learned more recently that the act of saying something to try to find out whether someone is Jewish (or drop the hint that you are) is called “bageling.” Once a “bageler” finds out you are Jewish, they seem to light up. You suddenly have something in common. It doesn’t seem to matter if you are half, one quarter, one eighth Jewish — what is important is that you have that component of your identity.

The only one who plays the “Jewish or not Jewish?” game more than “anti-Semites” is my own mother.

As for me, I rejected that component of my identity early on. At the age of 11, I refused to go to Hebrew School any longer. They graduated me early along with that year’s class to avoid shaming my family. I was never Bat Mitzvahed (Jewish rite of passage done at age 12 for girls and 13 for boys.) When it came time for high school, I made a conscious decision to leave the area and went to a decidedly-not-Jewish school in another town that had a magnet program. Suddenly, with few exceptions, none of my friends, teachers, and classmates were Jewish, and I was a-OK with that.

In the early 2000s, my siblings visited Israel on free “Birthright” trips which were available to any Jewish person under the age of 25 who could show that they are at least semi-serious about being Jewish. I had exactly no interest whatsoever in going, and found the idea of living in a desert repulsive even in first grade (my teacher was telling us we would all live there one day.)

Although my ancestry would still technically allow me Israeli citizenship, I was recently called a “shiksa” by a full-blooded left-wing Jew. He seemed to go out of his way to get it in — as if he wanted to be sure I knew he did not accept my Jewishness. I have been called a “fake” or “self-hating Jew” more than once for casting doubt on the holocaust narrative, as well as for scoffing at Jewish holidays and traditions. My beliefs and experiences as someone with Jewish heritage are readily discounted by anyone who finds them inconvenient — unless they are on the right, in which case my Jewish background is often treated as the only thing about me of any real significance — especially if I have upset them somehow.

Most people, even those who are critical of Jews in general, don’t make a big deal about my Jewish heritage if we are talking one-on-one. You might be surprised at the number of blatant “Nazis” I have dated or who have hit on me. I have some very close friends who have had the honor of being mentioned by the SPLC and ADL. But things are always different in a group setting. I was recently rejected whole cloth by a Telegram group called “Alt Skulls’ Charnel House.” I specifically joined this group because I had read an article which discussed the creator’s own Jewish heritage. Yet, someone accused me of having a Jewish name (first I am hearing of this!), and when I answered them honestly, I was immediately banned from the group.

While many think I am decent and attractive enough to be considered an honorable person at least in private, others will stop talking to me when I am honest about my background. I was dismissed and told once I was an “ancient enemy of [the White] race.” Barbara Spectre and countless other Jews are enemies, surely, but I am not. I am an ally. Why would this individual want me on the wrong side?

What prompted me to write this piece was an exchange I had with someone I met through NatConnect. When I mentioned I was half Jewish, I received a response that was almost hysterical, criticizing me for “announcing” that I was Jewish (would they prefer I kept it a secret?) and demanding I disavow White genocide, which I did without reservation. But that wasn’t enough. When I told this person that, while I feel it is important to be honest about my background and that I ultimately consider myself White, I was given an exhaustive list of news articles about how Ashkenazim say they aren’t White and how their DNA is unique, et cetera, et cetera. But that’s a topic for another day.

I do strongly disavow what has been done by Jews and in the name of Jews. That said, I don’t believe in collective guilt. I don’t believe that lay Jews are responsible for the actions of elite Jews any more than I believe that White people are responsible on the whole for “racism” or “colonialism,” although it is more than fair to identify certain phenomenon as having Jewish origins or being Jewish in nature.

I know from my own experience that run-of-the-mill Jews believe all the same lies as everyone else, but view them from a different perspective. Although there are very disturbing patterns indeed, there does not seem to be, for most people from my experience, an articulated conspiracy that is shared by your average Jew. You will have to trust me when I say that most of the elite Jews who are orchestrating subversion are not the same ones studying the Talmud.

No, I’d argue that the cohesion of Jews lies in a sense of otherness and a victimization narrative that is found throughout Jewish tradition and history. It seems particularly important looking back on my early education, for example, that I feel hated and persecuted by a world out for my blood.

At the age of four or five, speakers were already coming to school to talk to us about the “holocaust” and we were shown movies about it. We learned the story of Haman (the Persian official who wanted to exterminate or expel the Jews of Persia for nO rEaSoN wHaTsOeVeR) every year around Purim and drowned out his name with noisemakers during services. We repeated endlessly the story of “our” slavery in Egypt, our persecution throughout the world, the destruction of our temples in Jerusalem, and we lamented the loss of our holy city.

As a child, I was taken by teachers to holocaust museums and even to a Matzo factory that had a portrait of a rabbi with horns on the wall, where it was explained to us that people had once believed Jews had horns.

Why did they feel it was necessary for a young child to see such things? I would propose that the reason is that they found it important, first and foremost, for us little Jewish children to feel hated, rejected, and despised by the world.

Unsurprisingly, I’ve experienced a lot more hostility for being White than for being Jewish. I was lucky enough to get my facial features, skin color, and hair texture from my father’s side. No one has ever been able to identify my cute button nose as Jewish without me specifically telling them about my Litvak mom. I have always found it particularly important that I do tell them in these circles, as I would hate to be misunderstood as someone attempting to infiltrate or subvert the pro-White movement. I am gradually forcing myself to be more reserved on that front.

But I am not alone. I know many others, including full-blooded Ashkenazi and even Sephardic Jews, who are not only pro-White but are “red-pilled on the JQ.”  Even they do not receive any reprieve from the social monitors for going against the grain on the basis of our cultural or racial background.

It is true that we could have, but reject, the possible benefits of a Jewish identity — at the cost of rejecting the truth and our own fundamental values.

Despite identifying strongly with Europe and her peoples, I understand that I will never be fully accepted by some of those most like me ideologically or politically based on circumstances outside of my control. It doesn’t seem to resonate that mischling, having been differentiated from full-blooded Jews (who were assumed by the Third Reich to be Communists), fought and died in the Wehrmacht or worked for Adolf Hitler himself — any taint of Jewish heritage is not to be tolerated by a large segment of the far right.

And I am not asking for tolerance. I am not asking for an exception to be made especially for me. I am asking for nuance and sophistication of thought that allows for an individual of any racial or ethnic group not to be assigned the weight of the actions of other members of said group, while respecting obvious patterns and taking proper precautions.

I reject the idea that my father’s Germanic and Anglo-Saxon ancestors were evil. But I also reject the idea that my mother’s ancestors, whose lineage can be traced largely to converts from Ancient Rome, and who lived simply in poor villages in Lithuania and Russia until the late nineteenth century, were inherently bad or evil. They were, and my family continues to be, a far cry from George Soros or any Rothschild.

Casting aspersions on anyone with as much as a drop of Jewish blood is a mistake. We are at war for the future Greater Europe. Jewish people have the propensity to be exceptionally bright and resourceful. Most are not on our side, but for those who are — can’t we use that? I often feel as if there is a campaign on both sides pressuring me to place undue importance on my Jewish heritage and to identify as Jewish first, when it’s not even in my top ten.

Ultimately, does it not serve the interests of elite Jews and bolster the narratives of victimization and otherness to paint anyone with Jewish heritage, no matter how White they otherwise are, and no matter what they value or believe, into a corner? It certainly presents a roadblock to full assimilation.

O nacionalismo branco e os seus inimigos esquerdistas

/2 Comments/in , /by

A retrógrada esquerda venceu as guerras culturais nos Estados Unidos. Não há dúvida quanto a isso. Até mesmo a “direita” da mídia, do estabilismo (não confundir com a direita clássica ou tradicionalista) já foi cooptada pela esquerda. Juntas, a esquerda e essa “direita” formam o estabilismo americano de esquerda. Apesar de sua extravasante influência sobre a sociedade e a cultura americanas, o estabilismo não se larga do nacionalismo branco, não o considera cacareco velho como um cilindro fonográfico ou gramofone. Em vez disso, a esquerda conserva o nacionalismo branco enquanto objeto de seu ódio intenso e incendiário.

Mas será que haveria algum mérito na reação do estabilismo ante o nacionalismo branco? Pesquisas focando a atitude racial da população branca dão conta de que os nacionalistas brancos não passam de 5% da população americana; eles podem até ser menos do que 1%. Eles não controlam nenhuma grande corporação ou organização política. Odiados e perseguidos pelo estabelecimento, não surpreende que aos nacionalistas brancos falte maior domínio econômico e político.

Dada a pretensão que tem o estabilismo americano de ignorar os direitos inscritos na Primeira Emenda, os nacionalistas brancos encontram-se sob acosso, tendo contra si uma combinação de medidas legais e econômicas. O tratamento dispensado aos “expressores do ódio” inclui demissão do emprego, bloqueio de acesso à mundirrede, censura à literatura nacionalista branca y otras cositas más. Em contraste, seus oponentes antifas e belemistas [BLM] não sofrem nenhuma restrição da parte do Estado. Eles são bem mais organizados, bem mais patrocinados e bem mais capazes de mobilizar as massas de seus seguidores. O Antifas e o BLM podem despedaçar monumentos históricos dos Estados Unidos, podem transformar seis quadras no centro de Seattle numa “Zona Autônoma” fechada à polícia, na maior impunidade. Será que se dissidentes raciais tivessem tomado o centro de Seattle, fazendo dele um enclave branco fechado à polícia, eles também seriam tratados com luvas de pelica? A hipocrisia dá nojo, mas não surpreende, vinda de onde veio.

Uma ínfima percentagem de brancos chama a si toda a atenção de todo o estabilismo esquerdista. Como é que pode? Quase diariamente a mídia propaga de forma exagerada, ou até mesmo completamente falsa, histórias sobre terrorismo nacionalista branco e repentes de violência branca. A intensa preocupação dos esquerdistas com o nacionalismo branco parece irracional, mas de ponto de vista estratégico faz sentido.

Sabe-se que os dissidentes raciais são as pessoas mais odiadas nos Estados Unidos. Afinal, o nacionalismo branco e o marxismo cultural são ideologias concorrentes; entretanto, no mercado das ideias, as pessoas dão de barato a crença de que nem todas as ideias nascem iguais. O argumento do nacionalismo branco contra a diversidade — ao contrário da alegação do esquerdismo pela diversidade, é inatacável. Desde a ascensão do marxismo cultural na política americana, nunca os esquerdistas foram capazes de elaborar argumento procedente em favor da diversidade.

Os esquerdistas execram e temem a consciência racial branca, por isso é que eles quase nunca debatem com dissidentes raciais na televisão ou na imprensa, senão da forma mais superficial. Num estado de subconsciência, os esquerdistas têm medo do nacionalismo branco, porque acreditam que ele levaria muitos brancos a abandonar o sacralizado projeto multicultural, tão turibulado pela esquerda. Vemos claramente que não se nos depara nenhuma ideologia política racional, senão teocracia secular guiada pela mística de um credo igualitário. Nas “igrejas” do esquerdismo, a fé toma o lugar da razão enquanto árbitro supremo da verdade. Este é o calcanhar de Aquiles do estabilismo esquerdista e deve ser explorado pelos dissidentes raciais, com o que conseguiriam muitas vantagens.

As evidências depõem contra a diversidade e mostram por que o estabilismo é patologicamente leucofóbico. Os nacionalistas brancos já denunciaram a imigração massiva de não brancos como a religião de facto das elites esquerdistas. Os defensores brancos deixaram patente que a imigração tem por efeito a redução de salários, a queda da taxa de fertilidade e a elevação do custo da habitação. O mesmo é dizer que a imigração alógena resulta no desterro racial do branco. A cada ano, mais as cidades americanas vão se parecendo com aquelas da África e do México, com alguns bolsões asiáticos. A imigração massiva, especialmente daquele tipo que tem desgraçado os Estados Unidos desde 1965, é preço terrível a pagar pela comida estrangeira, ou por qualquer outra coisa trazida pela diversidade, supostamente para o nosso “enriquecimento cultural”.

Para além dos estereótipos e chavões com que são louvadas as virtudes da diversidade, o estabilismo não tem nenhuma resposta séria a dar ao problema racial, à questão da desigualdade racial, inclusive quanto à inteligência. A apologia esquerdista só oferece razões de fé em favor da igualdade e dos supostos benefícios da imigração do Terceiro Mundo. “Diversidade é força!”, a mais popular dessas razões, é lema místico que não difere do orwelliano “Liberdade é escravidão!” ou “Ignorância é força!”. Comparado com a série de platitudes vazias do multiculturalismo, o argumento nacionalista branco em defesa da autodeterminação branca parece revestido de ferro. Por tal razão, o estabilismo determinou a proscrição do nacionalismo branco.

Como George Orwell (alegadamente) disse: “Falar a verdade quando prevalece a fraude é ato revolucionário”.

As lições de Orwell no 1984

O ódio e a perseguição esquerdistas ao nacionalismo branco cumpre a mesma função que o evento dos “Dois minutos de ódio”, narrado no 1984, de Orwell. [N. do trad.: no episódio citado, a multidão era reunida numa praça para vaiar e xingar o “inimigo”, cuja imagem aparecia numa grande tela.] Emmanuel Goldstein, que defectou da direção do partido para abraçar a organização contrarrevolucionária “Fraternidade”, é a figura que inspira os “Dois minutos de ódio”. Sempre que a imagem de Goldstein era mostrada nos monitores omnipresentes na Oceania, a multidão parava tudo para externar o seu ódio coletivo contra o inimigo ideológico jurado do Grande Irmão.

O sentido dos Dois minutos de ódio consiste em tomar a direção da mente das pessoas para desviar sua atenção do partido e suas falhas, dirigindo a raiva de sua insatisfação para algum único alvo exterior, de sorte que o sentimento negativo deixa de ter por objeto o governo para incidir sobre os inimigos do governo. A demonização a que o partido submete Goldstein é advertência dirigida à população da Oceania. Aqueles que desafiam as determinações do partido serão expulsos de seus quadros e, na novilíngua orwelliana, despersonalizados. O ódio que os esquerdistas sentem dos dissidentes raciais atende a objetivo utilitário bastante similar. Ele impõe a conformidade ideológica, significando ainda advertência quanto aos perigos reservados àqueles que desrespeitam o estado de coisas vigente. O risco de se ver relegado à margem da sociedade, a possibilidade de sua transformação em párias despojados de meios de vida, isso é perspectiva aterradora para o proletariado.

A versão dos Dois minutos de ódio do progressismo contribui para maior unidade entre os esquerdistas e reforça seu devotamento aos ideais de esquerda, assegurando a continuidade do serviço que prestam para a manutenção do status quo. Dessa forma, os esquerdistas tentam apassivar os mais ingênuos entre os brancos, fazendo-os acreditar que neonazistas, fascistas e quejandos são a causa verdadeira de seus problemas, assim livrando de culpa as elites, que importam milhões de não brancos, enquanto exportam milhões dos mais bem remunerados empregos industriais para o Terceiro Mundo.

Enquanto objeto de ódio, o nacionalismo branco mostra-se bode expiatório bastante conveniente, a exemplo da personagem Goldstein no livro de Orwell. Não é difícil entender o porquê disso. Ocorre que o nacionalismo branco resiste como o último bastião da razão e do bom senso em meio ao oceano de irracionalidade e obscurantismo do progressismo. Tudo o que representa a dissidência racial é anátema para o progressismo. Os dissidentes recusam-se a desaparecer juntamente com a sua raça pelos “pecados” da escravidão africana, do “genocídio” ameríndio e do colonialismo europeu, por isso não aceitam o papel de vítima sacrificial a ser sacrificada como um Cristo, destino que lhes tenta impor o estabilismo.

A forte correlação entre a democracia totalitária e a visão distópica de Orwell é flagrante. Decerto Orwell terá sido quem melhor entendeu a psicologia do totalitarismo de esquerda. Isso pode explicar o porquê da confirmação de muito do que ele previra, ao contrário do que se passou com as previsões relativamente mais benignas de seu contemporâneo Aldous Huxley.

O nigriesquerdo contra o branco: polarização atitudinal?

Na visão maniqueísta do estabilismo, o esquerdismo representa força do bem; e o nacionalismo branco, uma força do mal. Por meio da condenação da consciência racial branca, o esquerdista, motivado em parte pelo ressentimento, denigre as virtudes características das sociedades indo-arianas — o orgulho, a força, o autodomínio, o individualismo, a objetividade — como males morais, ao tempo que exalta as virtudes da moralidade judaico-cristã do escravo — a humildade, a fraqueza, a igualdade — elevando-as a posição de supremacia. Daí o conceito nietzschiano de transvaloração de todos os valores, com o qual o filósofo reagiu à grande inversão que fez do bem o mal; e do mal, o bem.

A estereotipagem negativa, irracional dos dissidentes raciais por parte do estabilismo dimana de seu maniqueísmo e “justifica” o ódio devotado ao nacionalismo branco, não apenas entre esquerdistas, mas também entre o público em geral. Igualado o estabilismo ao bem e o nacionalismo branco ao mal, chega-se à injusta caricatura do dissidente racial como um casca-grossa do mato desdentado ou um brutamontes neonazista, propenso à violência criminosa, como os estereótipos andantes e falantes vistos no filme American History X [no Brasil: A outra história americana]. A intenção por trás dessa estereotipagem irracional tão prezada na esquerda é desumanizar e reduzir a uma insignificância patética o que não pode ser refutado mediante argumentação racional. Com efeito, a mídia sob controle judeu e as organizações de direitos civis, entre as quais hollywood e a SPLC [sigla inglesa: Southern Poverty Law Center: trata-se de organização supremacista judaica antibranca] continuam irracionalmente a estereotipar a dissidência racial como movimento de neonazistas e klanistas [membros da Ku Klux Klan].

Essa demonização dos dissidentes raciais brancos reflete ânimo ainda mais profundamente adverso à direita tradicional. Os dissidentes raciais ameaçam o projeto multicultural do estabilismo em suas fundações, se não literalmente, ao menos ideologicamente. No mundo do esquerdismo, a transformação etnográfica do país [EE.UU.] é exigência inegociável; os esquerdistas não podem se alijar dela sem comprometer todo o seu sistema de crenças. Enquanto ideologia capaz de tudo destruir, carregada de ódio racial do branco psicótico contra si mesmo, o esquerdismo perderia sua raison d’être, se dele fosse subtraído o objetivo de minorizar, substituir, alterizar e finalmente suprimir a raça branca, forma de genocídio vista como solução final para o “problema” da branquidão. O ódio racial de si mesmo é o que leva o esquerdista branco a buscar na imigração massiva de não brancos a satisfação de necessidades próprias, o mesmo é dizer, mais precisamente, que o esquerdista branco depende psicologicamente da imigração alógena para seu bem-estar geral, como se a desterritorialização de si mesmo fosse alguma droga muito viciante, muito poderosa.

Dada a profundidade do auto-ódio racial branco, parece que só uma catástrofe natural poderia descarrilar os planos de minorização da maioria nos Estados Unidos até por volta de 2040. Nós já vimos como foi preciso a Covid-19 para que as fronteiras fossem fechadas e, gradativamente, suspenso o tráfego aéreo. Dá até arrepio só de pensar no que poderia levar os Estados Unidos a cancelar seu programa de imigração massiva de forma definitiva. Seria uma devastadora guerra racial? Talvez uma severa depressão econômica que deixasse sem emprego a maioria dos americanos? Ou uma peste que matasse metade da população americana?

Se nenhuma dessas possibilidades, então o quê? Quem sabe o choque de um asteroide contra a Terra? Para os esquerdistas, é “tudo ou nada”: ou o Ocidente torna-se diverso, ou desaparece no nada.

A loucura do estabilismo esquerdista aparentemente não tem limite.

O nacionalismo branco sobreviverá ao estabilismo esquerdista americano?

A decadência do Império Americano não se parece com a de outros. Tomemos o caso de Roma. Desde o caos do terceiro século até as invasões bárbaras do quinto século, o Império Romano resistiu a uma série de violentos cataclismos societários. Na altura do quinto século, ele sucumbiu em meio a uma miríade de negatividades externas e internas: a peste, a guerra civil, o aviltamento da moeda, a invasão dos bárbaros, a diversidade étnica, a expansão do cristianismo na bacia do Mediterrâneo, o despovoamento … Apesar disso tudo, a elite pagã romana ainda acreditava na Roma Aeterna e se orgulhava de descender de Eneias, não obstante todos os desastres humilhantes que incidiram sobre o Império desde o fim do Caos. Roma tombou violentamente, mas de morte natural, no inverno do ciclo de sua existência.

Ao contrário de como se deu a queda de Roma, o declínio dos Estados Unidos tem sido deliberadamente engendrado por elites hostis. Os imigrantes judeus da Escola de Francforte patologizaram o etnocentrismo branco e, na esteira deles, os esquerdistas transformaram a “doença” no imperdoável crime de “racismo”. Daí, então, o “racismo” passou a ser usado como arma para incriminar os dissidentes raciais contrários à diversidade. A dissidência passou a ser perseguida até que seus membros perderam proeminência social, acabando relegados às margens da sociedade. Nessa condição de quase párias, isolados e estigmatizados, os dissidentes servem de lembrete aos brancos do que pode acontecer com aqueles que se recusam a abandonar sua raça e nação.

Mediante operações de engenharia social, o estabilismo esquerdista concertou a rendição unilateral das nações ocidentais ante as hordas escuras; a maioria dos brancos simplesmente obedeceu aos seus mestres judeo-bolchevistas como se fossem animais amestrados. Poucos brancos arrostaram a cometida. Aparentemente, os brancos foram tão completamente endoutrinados pela mídia e pelo sistema de ensino que terminaram aceitando a transformação demográfica dos Estados Unidos como fato consumado.

Nós podemos considerar o declínio dos Estados Unidos como inexorável por uma série de razões, todas endógenas em última instância, em termos de sua etiologia. Algumas delas, arrolamos abaixo:

  1. a atomização da moderna sociedade americana;
  2. a falta de uma consciência racial branca; e
  3. a exaustão da civilização branca.

A atomização da sociedade tem por causa fatores industriais, tecnológicos e sociopolíticos. Em virtude de certos desenvolvimentos tecnológicos, comunidades inteiras foram desarraigadas, os laços do indivíduo com sua raça e nação sendo rompidos. A população dos Estados Unidos é agora mais móvel do que nunca antes, ao contrário das gerações anteriores. As políticas econômicas neoliberais aumentaram a alienação dos trabalhadores no seio da sociedade dominante, transformando-os em simples engrenagens; tornando-se facilmente substituível, o trabalhador não é mais valorizado pelo aporte de que é capaz. Sua posição na ordem social ficou precária, passando a depender dos caprichos do mercado “livre”. Consequentemente, ele não se sente mais responsável pela sociedade ou pela sorte das futuras gerações, que desgraçadamente sofrerão com o legado maldito deixado para trás.

Na falta de maior solidariedade, grassa o fatalismo e a apatia niilista na sociedade americana. Muitos brancos voltaram-se para as drogas e o álcool, ante o vazio espiritual de suas vidas; a crise do fentanil que se alastra nos Estados Unidos ganha força, pelo menos em parte, da desintegração dos antigos liames comunais e familiares que havia nas precedentes gerações de brancos. Em tal contexto, fica difícil, embora não impossível, manter uma identidade racial branca coerente.

Outrossim, ocorre que os brancos não se veem mais como brancos. Até 1965, a consciência racial branca era critério distintivo da americanidade. Muitos americanos brancos viam-se como brancos e defensores dos interesses brancos. Ainda que não chamados de nacionalistas brancos, eles eram nacionalistas brancos. Desde o Período Colonial até a II Guerra Mundial, a denominação “nacionalismo branco” teria sido redundância nos Estados Unidos, dada a conexão histórica entre a consciência racial branca e a identidade étnica americana.

A partir de 1965, a cultura popular ocidental passou a promover a diversidade em detrimento dos brancos. Para a maioria, uma explícita identidade racial branca não parece assumptível pela consequência da desaprovação social. Sendo agora a identificação racial branca vista como vergonhosa, os brancos repartiram-se segundo linhas culturais, num retorno ao americanismo hifenizado [afro–americano, ítalo–americano etc.], o qual Theodore Roosevelt muito deplorou. Os brancos que decidem desafiar o novo status quo em favor da autodeterminação branca são discriminados e perseguidos.

Além da atomização da sociedade americana, existe outra razão ainda mais profunda para o caráter inevitável da morte dos Estados Unidos. Os brancos, enquanto raça, perderam o seu dinamismo, o assim chamado elã vital. O colapso dos grandes impérios coloniais que se seguiu à II Guerra Mundial explica-se pelo cansaço civilizacional branco. Depois de chegarem a dominar 84% da superfície da Terra em 1914, os brancos ocidentais correm o risco de perder seu território em seus próprios países.

Esse cansaço civilizacional mostrou-se mais evidente em lugares como a Rodésia e a África do Sul. Nestes países, o homem branco entregou suas possessões duramente conquistadas sem opor resistência. Os brancos dotados de consciência racial, que acreditavam merecer o Sul da África por direito de conquista, eram muito poucos para lograr êxito na reação à sua desterritorialização. Eles tiveram de lutar contra guerrilhas afro-marxistas apoiadas pelos soviéticos, contra os aliados judeo-bolchevistas delas e ainda contra os traidores domésticos da quinta-coluna. Se os brancos se recusaram a lutar quando tinham esmagadora superioridade tática, o que se dirá do que farão quando os Estados Unidos forem o Brasil 2.0 por volta do fim deste século?

Em seu livro A hora da decisão (1934), Oswald Spengler escreveu fatidicamente sobre o homem branco que baixa a sua guarda racial:

O homem de cor vê o interior do homem branco quando este fala de “humanidade” e de paz eterna. […] Ele fareja a inadequação do outro, a sua falta de vontade para defender a si mesmo.

O perigo bate à porta. As raças de cor não são pacifistas. Elas não se apegam a uma vida que tenha como único valor a longevidade. Seus homens tomam da espada quando nós a depomos. Eles já temeram o homem branco; agora o desprezam. A nossa sentença é lavrada em seus olhos quando homens e mulheres se comportam como nós fazemos em sua presença, em sua terra ou em nossa própria. Antes os homens de cor tremiam de medo de nosso poder — assim como os povos germânicos diante das primeiras legiões romanas. Hoje, quando eles dispõem de poder, sua alma misteriosa — a qual jamais entenderemos — eleva-se e olha para os brancos embaixo como coisa do passado.

Conforme a compreensão que tem Spengler do desenvolvimento histórico do Ocidente, a “alma megalopolitana”—a que inevitavelmente anima o homem faustiano em seu impulso para o infinito — é consequência do declínio da cultura ocidental ou, como antes denominei, do “cansaço civilizacional”. A alma megalopolitana é atradicional, arreligiosa, hedonista, gosta muito de pão e circo, não tem raízes e tudo vê de perspectiva completamente materialista. Ela se situa em oposição aos valores sociais tradicionais das sociedades indo-arianas, quais sejam: a monogamia patriarcal, a hierarquia, o ânimo de guerra, razão pela qual ela se presta à negação desses valores, com apelo aos seus contrários, isto é: a liberdade sexual, a paz universal, a tolerância, a igualdade, valores estes que a alma megalopolitana abraça, porque eles solapam os valores tradicionais que ela despreza. Ao mesmo tempo, os imigrantes não brancos nos Estados Unidos não acreditam tanto na “humanidade” e na “paz eterna” de seus hospedadores.

A ingenuidade do homem branco, que o faz incapaz de discernir os motivos últimos de seus inimigos, é a razão de sua queda, merecida, aliás, infelizmente. O seu sentimento socialista do mundo, seu cristianismo sem religião (ou, segundo Spengler, sua “moral sem dogma”) cegou-o para a necessidade de sua própria autopreservação. O homem branco não mais enxerga a significação funcional de lemas como “Diversidade é força”, tão caros a não brancos e esquerdistas, que os repetem como mantras para promover os interesses étnicos de não brancos nos Estados Unidos. Quando a raça branca recuperar a sua visão, verá que os Estados Unidos vão-se perdendo sob a ocupação de populações alógenas, mas então poderá ser tarde demais para salvar o seu país.

No livro A decadência do Ocidente, a alma megalopolitana é criatura da estação do inverno no ciclo de vida das culturas. Ela marca o começo do seu fim.

Conclusão

Os Estados Unidos provocam guerras, derrubam regimes e instauram ditaduras amigas em nações não brancas, ainda quando nada disso tenha nenhuma implicação geoestratégica de importância para a segurança nacional americana; os Estados Unidos dissipam preciosos recursos com a perseguição de dissidentes raciais,  mas não podem defender a integridade de seu próprio território contra os bandos de aventureiros do Terceiro Mundo que ameaçam seus limes. Uma das maiores ironias da história ocidental é que os Estados Unidos elevaram-se a grandíssima altura entre as nações e depois desmoronaram e agora afundam no lamaçal social dos não brancos. Muito tempo atrás a nação americana traiu os princípios de sua república aristocrática sobre os quais ela se erguera. Estando agora no fim do caminho que escolheu com esse mau passo que deu, ela termina os seus dias como decadente democracia totalitária com pretensões imperiais.

Os Estados Unidos devem morrer porque os brancos que formaram a espinha dorsal de sua civilização são agora alienados cosmopolitas, poltrões desarraigados. Se as destrutivas políticas seguidas pelas elites mostram-se irreversíveis, isso decorre de não existir mais causa comum para os brancos, nada que os possa reunir e mobilizar. Os Estados Unidos devem morrer, o que não quer dizer que o nacionalismo branco morrerá com eles também. Nações brancas surgiram e desapareceram, mas a raça branca perdura pelo correr das idades. Ao contrário da maioria dos brancos, os dissidentes raciais brancos conservam ao menos forte consciência de sua identidade racial. Basta que pequeno número de brancos racialmente conscientes sobreviva à tendência suicida da maioria branca do abalado império americano, para que a raça branca desmorra e prospere para longa e feliz vida na América do Norte.

Fonte: The Occidental Observer. Autor: Ferdinand Bardamu. Título original: White Nationalism and its Leftist Enemies. Data de publicação: 17 de julho de 2020. Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

 

Richard Lynn Recounts His Life, Part 3 of 3

/27 Comments/in /by

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

Richard Lynn Recounts His Life, Part 2 of 3

/18 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1.

Lynn took his final examinations in the summer of 1953, trying to conceal his antipathy for the department: “Apparently, I succeeded as I was awarded the Passingham Prize, which is given annually for the best psychology student of the year. On the basis of this I was awarded a three-year research studentship to work for a Ph.D.” That Autumn, Lynn decided to work on the relation between anxiety, intelligence and educational attainment in school children:

I began my research in a primary school in the January of 1954. I could not find any tests of anxiety for children so I constructed my own and gave these together with tests of intelligence, reading and arithmetic. I completed the work I was doing for my Ph.D. in the early autumn of 1955. The results showed a positively skewed curvilinear relation between anxiety and attainment in reading and arithmetic, which was more pronounced for reading than for arithmetic.

In the course of 1955, Lynn became engaged to Susan Maher, whom he had met during his first year at King’s College. When his fiancée broke the news to her mother, the poor woman wept for three days:

Susan’s parents hoped that she would find an old Etonian or at least a public school product, and she had come up with a former grammar school lad of obscure parentage from the provinces. Despite their disapproval, we had it our own way, as young people generally do. Our wedding took place at St Stephen’s church in London on the first of January, 1956.

In the spring of 1956, Lynn completed his PhD thesis and submitted it for examination. His external examiner was Cyril Burt, whose book The Subnormal Mind Lynn had recently trashed in a review for the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. It was only his second professional publication. “I have since learned,” writes Lynn, “that few academics can forgive a negative review and eventually will take their revenge when an opportunity occurs.” However, whether due to exceptional magnanimity or (more likely) a failure to notice the review, Burt was pleased with Lynn’s thesis and voted to award him the PhD.

Lynn applied for and won an appointment as assistant lecturer at the University of Exeter where psychology was a subdepartment attached to the education department, and Lynn was one of only three lecturers on the subject. He remained at Exeter for eleven years, during which time he and Susan would have three children.

To supplement his modest salary, Lynn served for a time as warden of one of the University’s residence halls. This enabled him to purchase his first car, a 1936 model with no lock on the door, as none was considered necessary in pre-War Britain: “Cars could be left on the streets without any danger that anyone would steal them or their contents.”

Among Lynn’s duties as warden was to make sure none of the students brought girlfriends over to spend the night. Being poorly cut out for the role of moral censor, he once let drop that he considered his duty to be the suppression of scandal rather than vice. A young man soon after called upon him to ask about his views in greater detail. Lynn responded that “the students were adults and not committing any criminal offence by using the condoms that had clogged the drains of the sewage system.” The fellow turned out to be a journalist, and the next day Lynn found his picture splashed across the front page of several national newspapers along with the headline “Girls in rooms, I don’t mind says blind eyed don.” He was relieved of his wardenship.

Lynn’s father advised him that “the trick for a successful academic career was to find your gold mine as early as possible, sit on it, and make your reputation developing it,” as he had done with the genetics of cotton. But Lynn was slow to discover a rewarding program of research: “I did not do anything of significance for the next twelve years or so.”

Lynn’s father also introduced him to the geneticist Reginald Ruggles Gates. Upon hearing that Lynn was a psychologist, Gates asked him what he thought about race differences in intelligence.

I told him that when I was at Cambridge we had been informed that blacks have a lower average IQ than whites and that this is caused by discrimination. Ruggles Gates told me he thought this was incorrect and that it is a genetic difference. This was the first time I had heard this view and as Ruggles Gates was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a distinguished geneticist I took it seriously. Gates also asked me my opinion about eugenics and I told him I had read the studies by Burt and Cattell showing that intelligence was declining and I agreed with Cattell that eugenic measures were needed to correct this. He told me that he took the same view.

In the 1959 UK general election Lynn voted Conservative for the first time because he approved of Harold Macmillen’s decision to end conscription and his promise to restrict immigration from the Britain’s former colonies:

I thought this was sensible because I believed it could be anticipated that there would be tension and conflict between the immigrants and the indigenous population. Some conflicts had broken out in the previous year when white youths in Nottingham and London attacked blacks, threw petrol bombs into their houses and smashed their windows.

Lynn understood that in-group preference is a human universal, and not a moral pathology from which Europeans uniquely suffer.

In December 1959 Lynn met Hans Eysenck: “I found talking with Hans was a real meeting of minds and unlike anything I had experienced before. I told him how uncongenial I had found psychology at Cambridge, and how poor the teaching was. He said this confirmed his own experience.” Eysenck had once had a Cambridge graduate as an assistant and had found her unable to calculate a correlation coefficient.

Eysenck invited Lynn to collaborate in testing certain hypotheses he was developing at the time, but their work failed to confirm Eysenck’s ideas: “I concluded that a beautiful theory had been destroyed by an ugly fact, as Thomas Huxley once put it.”

The quality of psychological research in England at this period seems to have left something to be desired. Lynn recalls:

One day in 1962, when I was reading The Times, my daughter Sophy, aged two and a half, came and sat on my knee and I pointed to the letter T and said “this is a T.” I then pointed to the letter S and said “this is an S.”  Then I turned over a page, pointed to a letter T and asked “What is this?” She answered “a T.” Then I pointed to a letter S and asked “What is this”? She answered “S.” All this may seem unremarkable, but at the time the discovery that a two-and-a-half-year-old could identify letters was revolutionary. The prevailing theory was known as “reading readiness” and was set out by Magdalene Vernon, considered the foremost expert on perception in Britain, and Professor of Psychology at the University of Reading. The theory was that young children’s perceptual abilities are not sufficiently developed to identify letters until they are at least four and typically five years old, and hence it is impossible to teach children to read before this age. Now I had found that in a couple of minutes that a two-and-a-half-year-old could identify letters perfectly easily. It was obvious that Maggie Vernon could never have tried testing whether two-year-olds had the perceptual abilities to identify letters. I wrote a paper on this that was published in 1963 as Reading readiness and the perceptual abilities of young children. This caused a minor sensation in the worlds of education and psychology. I had a number of calls from journalists asking me to expand my revolutionary discovery and its implications, and it had quite a lot of coverage in the press. 

In 1965 the Chairman of Lynn’s department hosted B. F. Skinner during a visit to Exeter and invited Lynn to meet him:

I asked him whether he would not agree than there are important genetic determinants of many behaviours, such as addictions to gambling and drugs, and also some genetic fears such as those of heights, spiders and snakes. He would have none of this. I pressed him on gambling addiction and his reply was that some unfortunate people hit the jackpot early on and this reinforced them so strongly that they became hooked. It could happen to anyone. I thought this was all nonsense and that Skinner was extraordinarily myopic in his world view. Some years later in 1996 when I met Ulrich Neisser who had been a student of Skinner’s at Harvard, he told me he agreed with me.

Lynn also took note of the Hart-Cellar Act passed by the US Congress in that year:

It would inevitably entail a huge alteration in the ethnic nature of the American population. The Kennedy brothers wanted to make the United States a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on earth. I thought there was little doubt that they would succeed in their strategy for the destruction of the American population as an ethnically homogeneous people of largely north-west European origin, and so it has proved.

Lynn takes the occasion of Winston Churchill’s death in 1965 to record his dissenting opinion of the man:

I don’t think he was very bright. He had done poorly at school and failed in his first two attempts to pass the entrance exam to Sandhurst. In 1914 he was the leading advocate in the cabinet for declaring war on Germany, which I believe we should have avoided.

In 1915 Churchill was responsible for the disastrous British invasion of Gallipoli in which nothing was achieved and about 30,000 thousand lives were lost. In 1924 he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and took Britain on to the gold standard, against the advice of Maynard Keynes. This had a deflationary effect [and] contributed to the subsequent depression. In 1938–9 he was a leading advocate for declaring war on Germany. I believe this was yet another mistake and that if we had not done so, Hitler would have attacked Russia and we could have remained on the neutral sideline like Sweden and Switzerland, while Russia and Germany fought each other to a standstill. 

After losing the 1945 election, Churchill returned to power as prime minister in 1951 at the age of 77 and held the position until 1955. He could have privatised the industries that Labour had nationalised and [turned into] loss-making monopolies. He could have repealed the Commonwealth Immigration Act that gave all the one billion or so citizens of the commonwealth the right to come and live in Britain. He could have abolished conscription which served no useful purpose because we had developed nuclear weapons that deterred the Russians from attacking us. He did none of these in these wasted years. He had had a stroke that seems to have impaired him, and most of the time he was drunk and stoned by continuously smoking cigars.

In early 1967 Lynn spotted an advertisement for a professorship at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in Dublin. He applied, came for an interview, and was offered a five-year appointment. He and his family moved to Ireland that August.

The purpose ESIR was to carry out research on the economic and social problems of Ireland and find policies that would help solve them. Foremost among these was that Ireland was quite economically backward compared with Britain, and I researched the literature to see what contribution I could make. It was not long before I discovered a study by John Macnamara that reported that the IQ of Irish 12-year-olds was 90 compared with 100 in Britain.

Lynn arranged to have a sample of Dublin pupils tested, and the results confirmed Macnamara’s findings.

I knew that intelligence is a determinant of earnings among individuals and groups. I knew Cyril Burt’s book The Backward Child in which he showed that children in the boroughs of London had different IQs and that these were highly correlated across the boroughs with the earnings of adults, and that this had also been shown by Maller in the boroughs of New York city. It seemed likely that the same would hold for nations and in particular for the economic backwardness of Ireland. This was how I first came to formulate the theory that differences in intelligence are an important determinant of national per capita incomes that I was to publish later, in collaboration with Tatu Vanhanen, in IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

By this time, Lynn had become somewhat more diplomatic than he had been in his youth. He realized his hosts might not respond positively to the idea that their country’s difficulties were attributable to their lower native intelligence, especially when an Englishman was the bearer of the news. Furthermore, he had been appointed to help find solutions for the country’s problems, and in the present case this could only mean eugenic interventions such as sterilization of the mentally retarded or incentives for graduates to have more children. While such ideas were widely out of favor by this time, Catholic Ireland was one of the few countries to oppose them even during the early-twentieth-century heyday of the eugenics movement.

Lynn contented himself with publishing a monograph entitled The Irish Brain Drain:

It reported research showing that there was a high rate of emigration of graduates from Ireland, and warned that this would reduce the average IQ of the remaining population. I advocated several policies to deal with this problem.  First, the government had recently begun a programme for increasing the number of young people at universities on the grounds that this would be an investment in the economy. I argued there is no evidence that increasing university education enhances economic growth; in the case of Ireland, since so many graduates emigrated, it would be more likely to retard it. I particularly homed in on the medical schools, which produced about three times the numbers of physicians that could find employment in Ireland. The result of this was that the day after graduation the newly qualified physicians chartered a plane to take them on a one-way flight to the United States.  I proposed that the medical schools should be cut down to a third of their existing size. 

The government’s programme for the expansion of university education also recommended that this should be free. I argued that this proposal should be rejected on the grounds that as students benefited financially from a university education, they should contribute to the cost. In addition, I argued that goods and services that are provided free invariably attract a large demand that eventually becomes unsustainable. I also proposed that the government’s priority should be to reduce taxation, which was very high in Ireland and acted as an encouragement to the talented to emigrate.

The reaction to these sensible proposals was such as to suggest that Lynn might just as well have told his hosts they were congenitally stupid.

One of Lynn’s colleagues at the ESRI was John Raven, son of the inventor of the Raven’s Progressive Matrices intelligence test.

Raven junior had a large collection of results from a number of countries but it apparently never occurred to him to calculate national IQs from these. He made these available to me and later I used many of them to calculate IQs for a number of countries and show that these are a major determinant of national differences in per capita incomes.

In 1969, Lynn contributed to a volume critical of progressive education:

I argued that educational attainment is principally determined by intelligence and secondly by the values acquired from the family, that intelligence is largely determined genetically, and that there are innate social class differences in intelligence that would ensure that children from middle class families would always tend to do better in any system. I argued that the progressive agenda would reduce the educational standards of the most able and cited the much lower standards in American comprehensives compared with the selective European secondary schools as proof of this. I also argued that the grammar schools were a valuable conduit by which able working-class children could rise in the social hierarchy.

That same year, Arthur Jensen published his famous paper “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” in which he argued that the 15-point difference in IQ between blacks and whites in the United States was likely to have some genetic basis. Lynn read Jensen’s paper carefully and concluded that he was correct.

During his time at ESRI, Lynn discovered that the Irish tend not to suffer much from anxiety. More generally, he found that northern European nations have low anxiety, while the southern European nations and Japan had high anxiety. This suggested that there could be genetic differences in anxiety among these groups. It was Lynn’s first excursion into racial differences.

My work on national differences in anxiety was my principal achievement of my years in Dublin. I published my conclusions in National Differences in Anxiety, an ESRI monograph, and a fuller version in 1971 in my book Personality and National Character.

Sir Cyril Burt contributed an introduction to the book (“What I should like chiefly to commend are the methods he has adopted”), and Raymond Cattell wrote Lynn a letter full of praise. A number of other researchers have continued and extended Lynn’s research in this area, including Hans Eysenck and Phil Rushton.

One surprising thing Lynn discovered in the course of his study is that Ireland’s reputation as a hard-drinking nation is not born out by the data: the country actually has an unusually low rate of alcoholism. This finding should have come as good news to the Irish, but Lynn met with resistance from some who had taken a kind of pride in their country’s popular reputation, as well as with professional researchers who had made careers out of studying the largely imaginary problem.

In the Summer of 1971, Lynn traveled to Belgium to give a talk on his research:

Art Jensen was also at the conference and gave a lecture on race differences in intelligence. I had not met Jensen and I was interested to hear him and see how the audience reacted. As he began to speak, there were shouts of Sieg Heil! from the audience, but after some pleas from the chairman the shouts died down and Jensen was able to deliver his lecture. Afterwards I met up with Art and we had dinner together. He told me that he began looking at the evidence on the black-white difference on the assumption that this was solely environmentally determined, but the more he considered the data, the more evident it became that genetic factors are also involved.

Lynn had ruffled so many feathers in Dublin that he decided not to wait around to see whether his five-year contract would be renewed. When the University of Ulster advertised for a professor to set up a new psychology department, Lynn applied for and got the position. This was not an ideal time to resettle a family in Northern Ireland, since the three-decade low intensity civil war known as the Troubles had begun just a couple years earlier: “the future looked threatening and we decided it would be best if Susan and the children moved to London, where Susan soon obtained a lectureship in Russian history at the South Bank Polytechnic.” This separation would lead to the couple’s divorce in the late 1970s.

Lynn moved to Northern Ireland in April 1972, getting into a serious accident on the way:

As I came round a corner out of the small town of Tobermore I was confronted by the sight of a car totally out of control and veering from one side or the road to the other. I slammed on the breaks and went smash into the car’s passenger side. The impact put my head through the windscreen and knocked me unconscious. Luckily my car was built on a heavy chassis, almost like a tank. The car I hit was made of light steel and the whole side caved in. It was being driven by a young woman and her father was in the passenger seat. The impact killed him instantly.              

Lynn spent a week in the hospital and was left with a scar on his forehead still visible in photographs.

He bought a ruined Georgian mansion in the Ulster countryside, pulled down about half which he considered beyond repair, and spent the next quarter of a century restoring the rest: “The satisfying thing about building work is that it is always possible to find a solution, whereas in psychology some problems are intractable.”

Lynn appointed two lecturers to make up the new department, and the first thirty psychology students enrolled at the end of September.

At the end of the term I gave a party at my house for my students and lecturers. As the students left, I heard one of them say to another “He must be lonely living in that great house all by himself, poor old bugger.” He was right about this. I have never been entirely happy living on my own.

Lynn found that setting up and running a psychology department occupied a great deal of his time, and he realized that needed an assistant in order to make progress with his own research. He obtained a grant for this purpose and “appointed Susan Hampson, who was to be an invaluable assistant for a number of years.”

End of Part 2 of 3