The Dirty Secret: Thoughts on Being a Mischling

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

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 [afroamericano, ítaloamericano 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

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

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

Featured Video Play Icon

Richard Lynn on the Dysgenic Effects of Non-White Immigration

https://youtu.be/M2HNPiQY8Tw

Richard Lynn Recounts His Life

Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist
Richard Lynn
London: Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2020
476 pages, £25

Richard Lynn, who turned 90 earlier this year, has published an account of his life and intellectual development, including portraits of some of the outstanding men he has known and worked with.

Lynn’s father was Sydney Harland, the world’s leading expert on the genetics of cotton. His mother Marjorie was the daughter of William Freeman, Director of Agriculture at the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture (now University of the West Indies) in Trinidad, another early researcher on plant genetics. Harland was, alas, married when they met in Trinidad, but Marjorie followed him to New York, where she conceived. The sight of homeless men in New York convinced her that capitalism was not working, and she became a lifelong communist. Harland concocted for her an imaginative story according to which she had married a mining engineer named Richard Lynn who had been tragically killed in a mining accident shortly after the wedding. With little except this story and her new political convictions, Marjorie returned to the UK in 1930 and settled in Hampstead, a suburb of London. On February 20, 1930, she gave birth to a son whom she named “Richard Lynn” as an expression of piety toward her lamented fictitious husband.

Richard Lynn had a mostly unremarkable childhood. When the war came, his mother sent him for his own safety to acquaintances at Ambleside in the Lake District of Northern England. He enjoyed the outdoor activities the area offered, following the course of the war on the wireless. “By the end of 1943,” he writes, “I was becoming increasingly conscious that my life at the Ambleside village school was on a slow track to no-where, and that if I was to make anything of my life I needed to get a decent education at a good school.”

By this time, his mother had moved to Bristol and there was little danger from the Luftwaffe. At his own request, Lynn rejoined his mother and applied to the Bristol Grammar School, the best in the city. He found that the entrance exam included many questions his schooling in Ambleside left him unable to answer. He performed well enough to gain admission, but was mortified to be assigned to the school’s “C stream,” for the dull boys. “I never worked harder than I did in that year,” he recalls, and the following year he was promoted to the A stream: “Once I had achieved this, I was content to rest on my laurels and coast along somewhere in the middle of the A stream.”

The young Lynn was no science nerd, being initially drawn more to history, literature, and classical music; the scientists in his family tree also seem on his account to have been men of broad interests. He writes that he was always attracted to “big ideas,” which the science classes at the Bristol Grammar School neglected in favor of minutiae. In biology class, e.g., the students were taught about stamens and pistils rather than the theory of evolution.

Partly from his mother’s influence, and partly from his own attraction to big ideas, Lynn joined the Young Communist League when he was fourteen. The YCL sponsored evening social hours, weekend bicycle trips, and summer camps where Lynn could join in the singing of communist songs: “It’s the same the whole world over, It’s the poor as gets the blame, It’s the rich as gets the pleasure, Ain’t  it all a bleeding shame.” He learned how to answer objections to the faith:

For instance, when people objected that communist Russia only permitted one party, I was able to explain that capitalist countries needed two parties, one to represent the capitalists and one to represent the workers, but as communist societies have only one class, they only need one party.

Within about a year, Lynn developed doubts about what he was being taught at the YCL, though he continued with the organization for a time in order to enjoy the social benefits.

In England at this period, grammar school students were tested in nine academic subjects at the age of sixteen, an ordeal known as the School Certificate examination. Six months beforehand, they were given a practice version known as the “mocks.”

I had not done much work since I had got into the A stream and had a full social life with the Young Communists and I was not well prepared for these mocks. After they had been marked and the results put up on the board, I found that I had not done well. Our form master asked me to stay behind after school. “Now Lynn”, he said, “I don’t know what to make of you. You seem to be intelligent but your performance in the mocks has been most disappointing”. He asked me how much homework I did each night and I said about half an hour. He urged me to pull myself together and do at least three hours homework a night. He said he thought that if I applied myself I might get a scholarship to Oxford or Cambridge, but if I continued on this rake’s progress I would end up serving behind a counter.

Once again, the prospect of failure motivated Lynn to succeed: “I left the YCL, worked hard for the School Certificate examination, and managed to do quite creditably.”

In the summer of 1946, Lynn’s grandmother revealed to him the fictional nature of his supposed mining engineer father: “She said my father was a very clever but very immoral man, which sums him up pretty accurately.” The information came just in time: shortly thereafter, Lynn received a call from his half-sister Margaret to say their father Sydney Harlan was staying with her and would like to meet him:

I went round and met my father for the first time. He asked me about my political views and I said I was a socialist. He told me that he too had been a socialist at my age but that he was now a liberal. He gave me a copy of Wilfred Trotter’s Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War and told me it was an important psychological study, and suggested I might consider studying psychology. I read this book that proposed that people have an instinct to identify with the groups and follow them, that religion plays an important part in binding groups together, and this is one of the causes of wars. I found this very interesting and began to think about studying psychology.

Lynn still had two years of school to complete. During this time, he had to prepare to take the Higher School Certificate examination (now known as the A levels) in three or four different subjects in order to go on to university. He chose to concentrate primarily on History and English:

One of the main reasons I liked History and English Literature was that we were encouraged to make up our own minds about controversial issues. For instance, our history teacher asked us to consider which side was in the right in the English and American civil wars, or in the disputes in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries between laissez-faire capitalism and socialism. We were encouraged to think through these questions for ourselves. Similarly, in English literature the master would ask “Is Shakespeare any better than Pearl Buck, and if so, why?” I found all this much more interesting than science and mathematics which just entailed learning what was already well known.

In December 1947, Lynn was summoned to the headmaster’s study, where he anticipated a flogging for having violated some rule. Instead, the headmaster told him that King’s College at the University of Cambridge was offering examinations for three scholarships in English and History the following month, and encouraged Lynn to try for them.

So in January of 1948, Lynn took the train to Cambridge. He includes a little vignette of British postwar austerity:

The candidates were put up in the college and it was freezing cold. The bedrooms provided jugs of water and bowls for washing. One of the other candidates told me that in his room the water had frozen solid, but I told him that in mine the ice was only about a quarter of an inch thick and if he gave it a hard knock, he would probably strike water.

Lynn had to compete against about a hundred other boys, but was among the five invited to an oral interview. His headmaster at Bristol Grammar School had advised him, at this stage of the process, to “take an unconventional line in order to stand out from the crowd of conventional answers.” Lynn may have taken this too much to heart. Examined in recent history, he explained that Neville Chamberlain had been perfectly correct to appease Hitler at Munich, but wrong to declare war following the invasion of Poland, in view of Britain’s loss in the subsequent war. When the examiners asked him how he figured Britain had lost World War II, Lynn responded that they had fought to preserve the independence of Poland, but had ended up handing it over to Stalin along with the rest of Eastern Europe. At this point, recalls Lynn, his examiners lapsed into silence.

Although he might have been better advised to stick with what he had learned at the Young Communist League, the Dons were broadminded enough to pass the young know-it-all. Three days later he learned via telegram that he had been awarded a scholarship: “This news threw me into a state of hyper-manic euphoria whose intensity I had never experienced before or was never to experience again.”

Lynn began to consider what he would focus on at Cambridge:

I thought that history left a lot of questions unanswered such as why humans incessantly fight wars. I began to think that psychology might provide answers to some of these questions. I read a few psychology books to get a feel of the subject. One of these was William McDougall’s Introduction to Social Psychology which set out his theory of the instincts of aggression, home-making, social bonding and so on. I was quite favourably impressed, not realizing that all of this was passé. I began to think seriously about reading psychology when I went up to Cambridge, as my father had suggested when I met him two years earlier.

Lynn was so lacking in esprit de corps that he had found it impossible to care whether Bristol Grammar School won or lost its athletic contests against other schools. He was, therefore, an extremely poor fit for the armed services. Nevertheless, like all British 18-year-old boys at this time, he was conscripted in July 1948 and served until September of the following year. Despite his lack of enthusiasm, he was selected for officer training, where he made his first acquaintance with the Progressive Matrices intelligence test he would later use in research. Weapons training involved Boer-War-era bolt-action rifles with six bullets that had to be transferred from the magazine manually, making for a very slow rate of fire. By this time, the Red Army had Kalashnikov AK-47s which functioned like light, handheld machine guns.

We received instruction in leading an attack on an enemy position. The gist of this was that you led your men towards the enemy position while the enemy fired at you. If you were lucky, they missed and when you got near to their position you could shoot them at close range, or run at them and stick your bayonet into one of them. When I heard about this, I was not surprised about the enormous casualties in World War One.

Upon receiving his commission, Lynn was assigned to training raw recruits such as he himself had been seven months earlier. They were not an impressive lot:

The new conscripts had one session of learning to fire an air rifle. I was astonished to find that most of them found this very difficult and failed to hit the target at all. I found no difficulty in doing this because I had occasionally been to fair grounds and shot at targets. It was simply a matter of aligning the sights on the rifle against the target and pulling the trigger, and the bullet went into the bull’s eye or very close to it. I used to give them a demonstration of how it was done, and the sergeant would bring the target and show it to them with six neat little holes in the bull’s eye. The conscripts would gather round with exclamations of “Cor, blimey, look at the officer’s.”

As an officer, Lynn had a private room and leisure for reading and study. Besides tackling Dante’s Commedia in the original Italian, he made some time for psychology:

. . . including Galton’s Hereditary Genius, in which he argued that intelligence is a single entity, is largely hereditary, that high intelligence is required for civilisation and that in advanced civilisations the more intelligent individuals tend to have fewer children, with the result that the intelligence of the population declines and with it the quality of the civilisation. I found all this very interesting and it confirmed my intention to take psychology when I went up to Cambridge. 

Lynn matriculated at King’s College, Cambridge, in October 1949, where he found it was not possible to read (or, in American English: “study”) psychology until the third year. In the meantime, he continued the study of history, which involved producing a weekly essay.  Lynn found it a valuable exercise: “you had to grapple with a problem, structure an argument and write it up.”

Social life at Cambridge was centred largely on the college. After dinner several of us would usually gather in someone’s rooms (generally we had both a sitting room and a bedroom) where the host would make coffee and we would discuss the problems that young men always have and probably always will discuss – the meaning of life, politics, literature, history, war, pacifism, religion, and of course, sex and gossip.

Most of the students came from elite backgrounds and public schools like Eton, but nearly all were socialists of some sort.

A Christian fellow student attempted to convert Lynn, but he was too rationalistic to get the hang of religion:

I had read Francis Galton’s paper on the efficacy of prayer, which he tested by examining the longevity of kings and queens. He argued that many thousands of people pray for the life of kings and queens, so these should live longer than ordinary folk if prayer is effective. He found that this was not the case and concluded that prayer is ineffective.

Lynn found this demonstration dispositive.

King’s College was all male in those days, which fostered a highly competitive atmosphere:

Those who made their mark were designated “smart” and were elected to the elite societies and invited to the “smart” parties. Invitations to parties were issued by cards that students placed on their mantelshelf, where they were displayed like trophies. The number of cards you had on your mantelshelf was an index of how “smart” you were, so we were conscious of who was and who was not “smart”. The competition between the young men resembled that of young males in many animal species and primitive societies, where young males compete to be admitted to become full members of the adult group and are allowed access to women while those who fail are excluded. From the 1980s the Cambridge colleges admitted women and most of the inter-male competition has gone.

Lynn reports only meeting two girls during his entire seven years at Cambridge; one of these was Susan Maher, who would become his first wife.

I completed my history course at the end of academic year of 1951. I had enjoyed it, particularly the course on political theory where we had to master, among other writers, Plato and Adam Smith. Plato’s Republic was an introduction to the concept of a eugenic state in which people were bred for desirable qualities. I had already encountered this idea in Galton’s Hereditary Genius, which curiously makes no mention of Plato. I was intrigued with this idea and continued to think about it for many years.

Lynn found his socialist convictions no match for Adam Smith, the reading of whom “was a road to Damascus experience.”

Although I had enjoyed the history course, I was fundamentally dissatisfied with it because it was impossible to find the patterns that can be found in the sciences. History has been described as just one damn thing after another, and this did not suit my temperament. So I stuck to my resolve to take psychology for the rest of my degree.

Lynn enthusiastically began the formal study of psychology during the Autumn term of 1951: “Here, I thought, I would be on the frontier of a new and challenging science.” His early studies did not live up to these hopes. The head of the department was Sir Frederick Bartlett, a renowned and much-honored psychologist whose books Lynn found vapid and many of whose results were later found not to be replicable: “He had an impressive presence derived from a high opinion of his own self-importance. I thought his real gift was in producing an unending flow of words that sounded impressive but had virtually no content.”

Just as I realized at school that people are divided into conformists and dissidents, and that I was by nature a dissident, I soon found it was the same in the Cambridge psychology department. As usual, the conformists were the majority. These all thought Bartlett was a genius, and in their books and papers acknowledged their indebtedness to his inspiring work. [They] struck me as like one of those religious sects headed by a charismatic leader which believe that they alone have the truth and are saved, while everyone else is in ignorance and are damned. The people they hated most were those of the London school, represented at this time by Sir Cyril Burt and Hans Eysenck. They never tired of deriding this group. My father told me that Sir Cyril Burt was nominated for fellowship of the Royal Society from time to time, but Bartlett invariably blackballed him.

After many false starts, Lynn would eventually realize it was precisely with this group that he belonged. Arthur Jensen has described it in part as follows:

The London School is not really a school or even a doctrine or a theory. Rather, it is a general view of psychology as a natural science and a branch of biology. Its central concern is variability in human behavior. It is Darwinian in that it views both individual and group differences in certain classes of behavior as products of the evolutionary process. The neural basis of behavioral capacities is subject to these evolutionary mechanisms the same as other physical characteristics. It is quantitative in that it emphasizes the objective measurement and taxonomy of behavior.

In October 1951 there was a general election in Britain which the Conservatives won. Although still a Labour supporter at this point, Lynn did not think they had achieved much in six years of governing:

I did not think there was any improvement in the mines, railways and other industries that had been nationalized. There was no sign that the workers had become more satisfied now that they were no longer working for the profits of bosses and shareholders, as we had hoped, and they continued to strike for higher wages.

I was also concerned about the Commonwealth Citizens Act of 1948 which gave all Commonwealth citizens the right to come and live in Britain. As there were about a billion of these, I doubted whether this was sensible. When [it] was questioned in the House of Commons by a conservative, a Labour minister assured him that very few would actually come. A week or two after the act was passed the first immigrants from Jamaica arrived on the Empire Windrush.

By the time Lynn began his second year of study in psychology, Sir Frederick Bartlett had retired and been replaced by Oliver Zangwill. This man was the son of Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill, famous in the United States for popularizing the idea that America is, or should be, a “melting pot” in which various immigrant strains are fused into a new race. The younger Zangwill was an uncritical Freudian, dismissive of factor analysis, the concept of general intelligence, and any psychologist whose work featured them. Lynn recalls: “He once told me that whenever he was asked to referee any of Eysenck’s papers that had been submitted to a journal for publication he always recommended rejection on the grounds that Eysenck’s work was not valid psychology.”

The King’s College psychology department favored environmental explanations of both mental disorders and intelligence. The department’s intelligence expert was Alice Heim, who taught students that the low IQ of blacks in the US was attributable to discrimination. At other times she maintained that the relative contributions of genetics and environment to intelligence could not be assessed since they could not be separated. Lynn recalls: “I explained to her that Ronald Fisher, who had been the professor of genetics at Cambridge, had shown in 1918 that the genetic and environmental contributions to a trait could be quantified by analysis of variance, but I failed to get her to understand this.”

The lecturing staff in the Cambridge department struck me a pretty mediocre lot. [The lecturer on perception] was seriously addicted to both alcohol and cigarettes. He turned up at his morning lectures unshaven and reeking of alcohol, often hung over, and chain smoked throughout his delivery. He once turned up wearing two neckties. On another occasion he put a chalk between his lips, mistaking it for a cigarette, and tried to light it, slowly raising a match with his shaking hand.

Lynn’s negative view of the King’s College lecturers was not unusual:

It was generally considered at Cambridge that most lecturers were at best mediocre and that it was more effective to read books and articles than to attend lectures. I followed this consensus and read widely, and I discovered other kinds of psychology that were much more to my taste. I was attracted by the ethological work of Konrad Lorenz and Nicholas Tinbergen, which was just beginning to become known in Britain in the early 1950s. But my chief interest became the work on intelligence done at University College, London, inspired and endowed by Francis Galton and developed by Karl Pearson, Charles Spearman, Cyril Burt and Raymond Cattell, and extended to personality by Cattell and Hans Eysenck. . . . Both Burt and Raymond Cattell were concerned that the intelligence of the population was declining and proposed ways of quantifying this. I thought this was much more interesting and important than the experimental psychology that was being studied at Cambridge.

Lynn occasionally patronized a pub opposite King’s College known as The Eagle. Here he ran into Francis Crick and James Watson just as they were working on their celebrated discovery of the double helix structure of DNA:

This made immediate news as one of the greatest discoveries of the century for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize some years later. Shortly afterwards when I met Jim Watson again I asked him whether he thought one needed a very high IQ to make a discovery of such importance. He replied that he thought not, and that he believed his own IQ was not especially high, because when he was a student at the University of Chicago he was by no means the outstanding student of his year and that he found that mathematics did not come easily to him. He said he thought an obsessive interest with a problem combined with a fairly high IQ were the essential ingredients for a significant scientific discovery. I think he was right about this except perhaps for discoveries in physics for which a very high IQ is probably needed. Francis Crick was quite a party animal and on a few occasions he invited me to the parties he and his wife Odile gave at their pretty little house in Portugal Place. On one of these occasions I talked with him and James Watson about the probable decline of intelligence resulting from dysgenic fertility. They both agreed it was a serious problem. I found Francis Crick charming and amusing, and I found Jim Watson a touch hypomanic and I was not too surprised when on later occasions he made indiscreet remarks.

Go to Part 2

Kevin MacDonald’s Preface to Giles Corey’s The Sword of Christ

 

 

Note: Giles Corey’s new book, The Sword of Christ, may be purchased here. Get it before it’s banned!

Giles Corey has written a book that should be read by all Christians as well as White advocates of all theoretical perspectives, including especially those who are seeking a spiritual foundation that is deeply embedded in the history and culture of Europeans. This is excellent scholarship combined with a very fluid writing style. He has thought deeply about all the issues confronting the peoples and cultures of the West.

Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted. Mainline Protestant and Catholic Churches have become little more than appendages for the various social justice movements of the left, avidly promoting the colonization of the West by other races and cultures, even as religious fervor and attendance dwindle and Christianity itself becomes ever more irrelevant to the national dialogue. On the other hand, Evangelicals, a group that remains vigorously Christian, have been massively duped by the theology of Christian Zionism, their main focus being to promote Israel.

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West—Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.

Much of my scholarly interest has been to attempt to understand the people and culture of the West, resulting in my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future. As I argue there, individualism lends itself to moral and ethical universalism which led to the religiously based eradication of slavery long before the rise of an elite hostile to Christianity itself. And White intellectuals in the nineteenth century attempting to understand their own moral universalism often attributed it to their racial origins.

Such individualism was not disastrously self-destructive. As Corey notes, “Christian universalism historically posed little to no danger to White survival because it was preached by Whites living in a world ruled by Whites; it was only in the multicultural Egalitarian Regime inseminated in the mid-twentieth century that Christian sacrifice was transformed into a call for racial suicide.” The individualist, Christian West was thus highly adaptive—until the rise of a hostile, Jewish-dominated elite bent on corrupting adaptive forms of Christian individualism in favor of a completely deracinated individualism, now accompanied by powerful religious, media, and academic voices preaching White guilt, often from a Christian perspective.

Instead, Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.” This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity, a Christianity that was compatible with Western expansion, to the point that by the end of the nineteenth century, the West dominated the planet. Christianity per se is certainly not the problem.

The decline of adaptive Christianity coincides with the post-Enlightenment rise of the Jews throughout the West as an anti-Christian elite, and Corey has a great deal of very interesting material on traditional Christian views of Judaism. Traditional Christian theology viewed the Church as having superseded the Old Testament and that, by rejecting the Church, the Jews had not only rejected God, they were responsible for murdering Christ. My view, developed in Chapter 3 of Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism is that traditional Christian theology was fundamentally anti-Jewish and was developed as a weapon which was used to lessen Jewish economic and political power in the Roman Empire. Here Corey describes the writings of the fourth-century figure, St. John Chrysostom, who has a chapel dedicated to him inside St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome as well as a statue outside the building. His writings on Jews are nothing less than scathing and reflect long-term tensions between Jews and Greeks in Antioch. And Chrysostom was far from alone in his hatred. For example, St. Gregory of Nyssa, also writing in the fourth century: “ [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness.” The traditional Church was certainly far from friendly toward Jews.

And although Protestantism was generally far more amenable to Jewish interests even before its current malaise, there certainly are exceptions. Here Corey emphasizes Martin Luther’s writings on Jews. Luther emphasizes Jewish hatred toward Christianity and their sense of superiority vis-à-vis Christians, seeing the latter as “not human; in fact, we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them.” But he is also concerned about Jewish economic exploitation and domination of Germans via usury—certainly the biggest complaint about Jews in traditional Europe. And he is repulsed by Talmudic ethics which promote very different moral codes for Jews and non-Jews.

However, much has changed since the origins of Christianity. In the contemporary United States, Christian Zionism has had a very large influence on Evangelical Protestantism whose theology departs radically from traditional Christianity, particularly with respect to the Jews. Corey has an excellent section on how Jews helped shape this new theology; it should be required reading for Christian Zionists because it would open their eyes to the sordid history of the movement. The result of such thinking is that Zionism has often become a vehicle of moral idealism in the minds of a great many gentiles, from Lloyd George to the present, who believe that the restoration of Israel is far more important than the fate of their own people.

Jews have not stood by idly on this but have actively supported the Christian Zionism movement. I noted in a 2010 article on the delusional Pastor John Hagee:

Beginning in 1978, the Likud Party in Israel has taken the lead in organizing this force for Israel, and they have been joined by the neocons. For example, in 2002 the Israeli embassy organized a prayer breakfast with the major Christian Zionists. The main organizations are the Unity Coalition for Israel which is run by Esther Levens and Christians United for Israel, run by David Brog. The Unity Coalition for Israel consists of ~200 Christian and Jewish organizations and has strong connections to neocon think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, pro-Israel activist organizations the Zionist Organization of America, the Likud Party and the Israeli government. This organization claims to provide material for 1,700 religious radio stations, 245 Christian TV stations, and 120 Christian newspapers.[1]

Corey notes that Hagee’s organization, A Night to Honor Israel, has donated over $100 million to right-wing causes in Israel over the years. He has been well rewarded financially for his efforts and is the recipient of numerous awards from Zionist organizations.

Christian Zionism is a fitting reminder of how humans, unlike animals, can be motivated by ideas, including ideas that are completely unrelated to believers’ real interests. These ideas may be disseminated by people who are only doing so for selfish reasons, such as the dishonorable Cyrus Scofield, whose annotated Bible has become central to Christian Zionism. Maladaptive ideas may also be disseminated by people who are utterly opposed to the legitimate interests of believers or even hate Christianity and the West in general. Here Corey discusses the role of Felix Untermeyer, a wealthy Jew, in promoting Scofield and his Bible. It was a religious ideology “with a new worship icon—the modern state of Israel,” and Corey does an excellent job showing how Christian Zionism is a radical departure from traditional Christian theology. I found the following passage quite stunning:

The heresy of Christian Zionism, using an arbitrary and self-contradictory literalist and futurist hermeneutic, contends that the Jews remain God’s chosen people, separate from and superior to the Church; indeed, they believe that earthly Jewish Israel will replace the Church, and that as such, “Christians, and indeed whole nations, will be blessed through their association with, and support of, Israel.”

Although Christian Zionism is far less influential than the Israel Lobby in furthering Jewish interests in the United States, it has certainly had some influence and creates a ready-made cheering section for wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. After all, other attitudes typical of Christian Zionists, such as opposition to abortion or pornography, have had much less traction with the current left-oriented establishment despite their powerful commitment to the state of Israel.

Religious thinking is by its nature unbounded—it is infinitely malleable. It is a dangerous sword that can be used to further legitimate interests of believers, or it can become a lethal weapon whereby believers adopt attitudes that are obviously maladaptive. One need only think of religiously based suicide cults, such as People’s Temple (Jonestown), Solar Temple and Heaven’s Gate. Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life. It was compatible with a culture characterized by extraordinary scientific and technological creativity and standards of living that have been much envied by the rest of the world.

Corey has great material on Jewish perceptions of Christianity in the Talmud and on negative Jewish influences on culture in the present West, including pornography and the sexual revolution generally. As is so often the case with Jewish activism, the pornography movement has been motivated not solely by money but by hatred toward Christian morality and Christian family functioning. The results have been devastating: huge increases since the 1960s—the breakthrough decade of Jewish power—in all the markers of family dysfunction and poor child outcomes: lower marriage rates, higher births out of wedlock, higher rates of teenage pregnancy, precocious sexuality, high divorce rates, and unstable pair bonds. In other words, the Western family pattern of monogamous nuclear families based on strong husband-wife pair bonds has been under attack from Jewish dominated movements, the most noteworthy of which was psychoanalysis promising an idyllic future if only people would jettison traditional Christian constraints on sexuality. These negative trends in family functioning have been most pronounced among the lower social classes and thus have much less effect on high-IQ middle- and upper-income groups, including Jews as a relatively high-IQ group. The disaster in family patterns has fallen far more severely on the White working class.

Corey’s has an extended treatment of the corrosive effects of pornography, now extended to child pornography and legalized pedophilia as the “final frontier” in the sexual revolution. As in other areas, this starts out by advocating language that makes the activity more or less acceptable depending on the interests of advocates. In the case of pedophilia, the first step is to label them “minor attracted persons,” whereas in the area of free speech, we find labels like “hate speech”—even for speech that is reasonable and fact-based. If issues related to free speech are any guide, there will soon be articles in law journals arguing that pedophilia is normal and should not be punished, and eventually courts will begin to adopt this logic in particular cases. Already Supreme Court justices like Elena Kagan have signaled a willingness to curtail speech on diversity issues,[2] and this would be joined by the other liberals, which would mean that curtailing free speech on race is at most one Supreme Court appointment away. And when that happens, it won’t be long before it is embraced by conservatives. As Corey notes in the case of pedophilia, “We are presumably one Supreme Court ruling away from the National Review cocktail ‘conservative’ crowd celebrating pederasty as the next great achievement of individual liberty.”

Given the exhaustive summary of the negative effects of pornography—including neurological impairments related to impulsivity and lessened interest in familial relationships of love and nurturance—it is horrifying indeed that “sixty percent of boys and thirty percent of girls were exposed to pornography in early adolescence, including ‘bondage, rape, and child pornography’, and another which concludes that children under ten years old now account for over twenty percent of online pornographic consumption.” This definitely was not happening when I was growing up in the 1950s, prior to the deluge. I agree with Corey’s conclusion, “We have conclusively established that Jewish leadership and participation was instrumental in and a necessary condition of the pornographic war that has struck at the most sacred foundation of the West, the family.” As Freud famously said, “we are bringing them the plague.”

Corey has an excellent and exhaustive section on Jewish ritual murder—an absolutely convincing presentation on a topic that, like so much of Jewish history, is a minefield for serious scholars. As he notes, “There are … hundreds of accusations and cases of Jewish ritual murder, each just as sadistically depraved as the last, involving barrels of nails, crucifixion, decapitation, spit-roasting, stoning, and a litany of other barbaric evils; we could fill entire volumes with the accounts of each of these innocent lives so cruelly taken from this world.”

 

This is a topic that I have never written about, although I was somewhat familiar with Blood Passover, Ariel Toaff’s book on the topic. As to be expected, Toaff’s book was condemned by the activist Jewish community and he was pressured into publishing an apology, promising to prevent distribution of his book, etc. However, we should not be surprised to find that such practices occurred. Ritual murder is an extreme manifestation of normative Jewish hostility toward the surrounding society which is an important facet of the entire subject. The eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon was struck by the fanatical hatred of Jews in the ancient world:

From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind.[3]

The nineteenth-century Spanish historian José Amador de los Rios wrote of the Spanish Jews who assisted the Muslim conquest of Spain that “without any love for the soil where they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally without sentiments of generosity, they aspired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancor, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up so many centuries.”[4]

As I noted in an article titled “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the Soviet Union,” “Hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews and the image of enslaved ancestors as victims of anti-Semitism have been the Jewish norm throughout history—much commented on, from Tacitus (“they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies”[5]) to the present.”[6] Toaff brings out the revenge motive: “In their collective mentality, the Passover Seder had long since transformed itself into a celebration in which the wish for the forthcoming redemption of the people of Israel moved from aspiration to revenge, and then to cursing their Christian persecutors, the current heirs to the wicked Pharaoh of Egypt.”

Hatred and revenge were clearly on display in the early decades of the Soviet Union, a period in which around 20 million people were murdered. From “Stalin’s Willing Executioners,” a review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century:

There can be little doubt that Lenin’s contempt for “the thick-skulled, boorish, inert, and bearishly savage Russian or Ukrainian peasant” was shared by the vast majority of shtetl Jews prior to the Revolution and after it. Those Jews who defiled the holy places of traditional Russian culture and published anti-Christian periodicals doubtless reveled in their tasks for entirely Jewish reasons, and, as Gorky worried, their activities not unreasonably stoked the anti-Semitism of the period. Given the anti-Christian attitudes of traditional shtetl Jews, it is very difficult to believe that the Jews engaged in campaigns against Christianity did not have a sense of revenge against the old culture that they held in such contempt. …

Slezkine seems comfortable with revenge as a Jewish motive, but he does not consider traditional Jewish culture itself to be a contributor to Jewish attitudes toward traditional Russia, even though he notes that a very traditional part of Jewish culture was to despise the Russians and their culture. (Even the Jewish literati despised all of traditional Russian culture, apart from Pushkin and a few literary icons.) Indeed, one wonders what would motivate the Jewish commissars to revenge apart from motives related to their Jewish identity. …

Slezkine’s argument that Jews were critically involved in destroying traditional Russian institutions, liquidating Russian nationalists, murdering the tsar and his family, dispossessing and murdering the kulaks, and destroying the Orthodox Church has been made by many other writers over the years. …

The situation prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American Communists and their sympathizers assumed power. The “red diaper babies” came from Jewish families which “around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.”[7] … It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

As the quote from neocon Elliott Abrams—and much else—indicate, this fear and loathing continues into the present. Consistent with what we know of the psychology of ethnocentrism, a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals and activists involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the non-Jewish power structure perceived as anti-Jewish and deeply immoral—Susan Sontag’s “the white race is the cancer of human history,” which was published in Partisan Review, a prominent literary journal associated with the New York Intellectuals (a Jewish intellectual movement), is emblematic.

As I write this in the summer of 2020, we are experiencing what feels like the end game in the Jewish conquest of White America. Because Jews have become a hostile elite with a powerful position in the media and educational system, Jewish attitudes in the 1950s that the U.S. is an “awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society” are now entirely mainstream and the cancel culture that we see now is indeed directed most of all toward White red state voters, particularly in the South. Cancel culture started with toppling Confederate monuments, but of course it didn’t stop there, so now statues of the Founding Fathers are being destroyed and there are demands that statues dedicated to Christian religious figures be removed. Jews in particular have demanded the removal of a statue of King Louis IX of France because of his attempt to curb Jewish moneylending in the interests of his people and for burning 12000 copies of the Talmud.

The Cathedral of Notre Dame burning, April 15, 2019. Much of the cathedral was built during the reign of St. Louis.  

This hatred won’t end if and when Whites become a minority. Jews were responsible for the 1965 immigration law that opened up the United States to immigration from all over the world, and they have energetically worked to make alliances with these immigrant groups who are encouraged to hate White America and often adopt anti-White rhetoric almost as soon as they arrive because they can see the political advantages of doing so.

This won’t end well. As I concluded in my recent book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

I agree with Enoch Powell: “as I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’”[8] All the utopias dreamed up by the Left inevitably lead to bloodshed—because they conflict with human nature. The classical Marxist Utopian vision of a classless society in the USSR self-destructed, but only after murdering millions of its own people. Now the multicultural utopian version that has become dominant throughout the West is showing signs of producing intense opposition and irreconcilable polarization. 

Given the very large Jewish involvement in these projects consequent to the Jewish rise to elite status throughout the West, the big picture is that the thrust of Jewish power has been to create societies envisioned as being good for Jews, inevitably advertised in idealistic, morally uplifting, humanitarian terms [to appeal to the evolutionary psychology of individualism where social ties are based on belong to moral communities rather than communities based on kinship ties]. Historically, such projects have typically not ended well and have resulted in massive social upheavals. It would thus not be surprising if current social divisions result in a movement characterized by anti-Jewish overtones. …

All of the measures of White representation in the forces of social control will continue to decline in the coming years given the continued deterioration of the demographic situation. At this point, even stopping immigration completely and deporting illegals would not be enough to preserve a White America long term.

The left and its big business allies have created a monster. Whites have to realize that if they do nothing, they will be increasingly victimized and vilified in the coming decades as the monster continues to gain power. Better that any blood be shed sooner rather than later. 

What happened in the early decades of the Soviet Union is a chilling reminder of what can happen when an alien hostile elite seizes control of a country.

I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity—the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds. A Christianity that is adaptive in the evolutionary sense of survival and reproduction and fundamentally cognizant of the mistakes of the past.

We must not tolerate subversion. Liberalism must go; we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the Enlightenment. We cannot afford to countenance any further anti-American, anti-family, anti-White speech, and this should be reflected in a new Constitution. Just as conservatism was not enough, the United States Constitution was not enough, with gaps that left it gaping wide for judicial “interpretation.” For another thing, we must circle the wagons and inculcate the männerbund, restraining our individualism at least for the time being. For another, we must return to our Lord and Savior. A nation without faith can have no guiding light, no purpose, no drive, no Mission. Izaak Walton, writing of his friend John Donne’s last days, described the body “which was once a temple of the Holy Ghost and is now become a small quantity of Christian dust.” His last line: “But I shall see it reanimated.”

Kevin MacDonald, August 9, 2020


[1] Kevin MacDonald, “Christian Zionism,” The Occidental Observer (March 12, 2010).

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/03/12/kevin-macdonald-christian-zionism/

[2] Kevin MacDonald, “Elena Kagan: Jewish Ethnic Networking Eases the Path of a Liberal/Leftist to the Supreme Court, The Occidental Observer (May 20, 2009).

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/05/20/elena-kagan/

[3] Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol.1, ed. J. B. Bury (London: Methuen, 1909), 78.

[4] Quoted in W. T. Walsh, Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader (New York: Robert M. McBride, 1930), 196.

[5] Tacitus, The History 5, 4, 659.

[6] Kevin MacDonald, “Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR.” Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. The Occidental Quarterly, 5(3), 65–100, 93–94.

[7] This quote comes from Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, Chapter 3.

[8] “Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ Speech,” The Telegraph (November 6, 2007).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html