Investigating a Great (Though Flawed) Investigator

/22 Comments/in /by

J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective
Edward Dutton
Thomas Edward Press, 2018
182 pages, $19.89 paper, free in Kindle

Ed Dutton has produced a significant critical study of the life and work of psychologist J. Philippe Rushton (1943–2012). As most readers of this site are aware, Rushton is famous for extending r-K Life History theory—originally developed for understanding animal behavior—to the three major races of mankind. As explained in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1994), Black Africans have a faster (more “r”) “Life History Strategy” than the other races: they mature more quickly, do the least long-term planning, tend to produce a lot of offspring, but do not invest heavily in them. East Asians have the slowest (most “K”) strategy, with a late onset of sexual activity, more long-term planning, lower total fertility and a high-investment parenting style. Europeans are in between, but usually much closer to Asians than Africans. Higher intelligence tends to correlate with a slower life history.

Dutton’s study has two principle aims: to demonstrate that Rushton himself followed a fast life history strategy, and to assess his work in the light of biographical information and subsequent research. We shall begin with Dutton’s account Rushton’s family background and life, based upon his own genealogical research, interviews with many who knew Rushton, and access to Rushton’s unpublished autobiography.

Dutton’s research indicated that Rushton was not, as he believed, descended from the inventor Samuel Crompton. Moreover, his family history reveals a certain tendency to migration and out-marriage: his parents moved from the greater Manchester area to the southern coast of England, and his French name reflects his mother’s illegitimate birth to a French woman and a British soldier during World War I (the couple moved to England after the war, married, and had further children). Dutton argues that migration and out-marriage are consistent with the profile of “smart r-strategists.”

In 1948, Rushton’s family migrated to Durban, South Africa, where his father worked as a building contractor. In his autobiography, he mentions having an Afrikaner girlfriend during this period. Given that he was only eight when the family returned to England, this may not have been a terribly torrid romance, but Dutton notes that an early interest in girls is certainly characteristic of an r-strategist.

According to Rushton’s third wife, Elizabeth Weiss, “Phil mentioned that his parents left South Africa due to his father’s affair with the neighbor’s wife”—further evidence, according to Dutton, of r-strategizing in Rushton’s family background. Read more

Jewish Intellectual Activism for Internet Control

/37 Comments/in , /by

Back in March, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum makes a priority of “fighting cyber hate.” A modern day “Grand Sanhedrin,” the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The Global Forum is essentially a central think tank for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It is also an internationally operational anti-White hate group that devises intellectual and political strategies styled as “recommendations” for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The ‘recommendations’ of the Forum include a demand to adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism.” This, of course, would be a definition of ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ that would serve Jewish interests most effectively. It goes without saying that such a definition would be sufficiently wide-ranging that it would preclude, under threat of severe punishment, any criticism of Jews or Israel. Read more

The Cause of the Second Civil War in America

/36 Comments/in , /by

In 1991 the USSR, beset with problems of debt, glasnost/perestroika, failure of national leadership, democratization, and out-of-control military spending, broke apart into 16 separate countries—some autonomous, others partially so.  Notably, for the most part, this process occurred peacefully, that is, without the central ruling elite unleashing the might of its army against those regions, and without the terror/suicide bombing of the institutions of the then Soviet Union that we see today as a pretextual political statement in other parts of the world.

It was a significant transition made even more so by the fact that the citizens of the 16 regions achieved separation of their geographic areas, then formed governments, when they had never before participated in a fully operational democratic process at the national level.  In other words, the citizens avoided what could have been, in an earlier time in history, a casus belli, by participating in an unprecedented civic event.

It was also unusual that the central state did not resort to force of arms to compel the 16 regions to remain within the united government.  Why it did not do so is, as they say, “complicated.”  But the simple overarching reason is that the citizens of the USSR who also composed the entire geography of the country’s 16 regions spoke clearly that they did not want to live and work together as part of, and be governed by, the same political entity.

They, the citizens, desired to be part and parcel of an area where they exercised their right of governance as they defined it to control their own land mass according to their own geopolitical expectations, be those based on culture, religion, race, ethnicity, language, or a combination of any of these.1  In order to utilize “might” to maintain a functioning central authority, the USSR would have found it necessary to make war against a sizeable population living within the boundaries of the entire country.

When comparing the dissolution of the USSR with that of the United States one hundred and fifty-seven years ago, one must ask why the North and the South could not have split apart, gone their separate ways, and become two distinct governing regions of one contiguous geographic mass? It would have been mutually beneficial—the South providing cotton and tobacco to the North, and the North maintaining its manufacturing infrastructure to weave cloth from the South’s cotton and to sell farming implements and other goods to the South. Read more

The Art of Raising Children to Revere Their Race and Culture

/50 Comments/in /by

People interested in the revival of Western Culture usually focus on the various political and cultural aspects of the problem, which are certainly vital and worthy. A different focus, one that White activists almost always overlook, consists of the actual material, the sine qua non, of the future: children. There are two basic problems connected with the biological perpetuation of the race and culture. The first is, how to motivate and enable men and women to form stable marriages and have children, and the second is, how to raise the children to become mature adults who will perpetuate the White race and Western Culture. In our circles (not to mention the wider culture) not much effort is devoted to either of these problems, especially the second. I have found, to my disgust and horror, that very few parents give much thought to the proper raising of children. To my way of thinking—the Germanic tendency that places everything under periodic reevaluation—that deficiency is appalling. Every badly trained child is a tragedy, a tragedy that ripples through the wider society and down the generations. Therefore, I would like to address the art of raising children.

I offer this advice because I was fortunate enough to snare a bride in my early middle age (finally!), and become father to six children. From the first, I have approached fatherhood with the utmost seriousness, knowing that I am responsible for six souls, and also from a sense of pride, desiring to show the world the mettle of my lineage. Mostly, however, I trained my children the best I could because I loved them and wanted them to have the best chance of success. I must say that all the principles I outline below are just that, principles; my wife and I strove to abide by them, but we were far from perfect in their observance. Stuff happens with six kids, believe me. However, we followed them well enough that adults who interact with our children literally rave about their maturity and competence. (I am not bragging about “my” great work as a parent; I know very well that the good reputation of my children comes partly from a low prevailing standard, and that my children are themselves partly responsible for the formation of their character. I also believe that the grace of God was a crucial element. The only credit I claim is being aware of the issues and doing my best.)

I will discuss the raising of children under three headings (interspersed with my own experiences). Children need moral, social, and political formation. The last of these really falls under the second, but the times call for me to develop it at greater length. I will not offer a comprehensive treatment under all headings, but only certain issues I think are most important. Read more

Vibrancy and Vinegar: Heretical Hatethink on the World Cup

/42 Comments/in /by

Imagine that a new restaurant opens in your town. It’s called Le Cochon Volant and you hear very good things about the food. You finally manage to book a table for four there and turn up with high expectations. At first, you are all delighted. Everything seems perfect — the food, the wine, the service, even the plates and cutlery are the best of quality. The ambience too is perfect: quiet, civilized, conducive to complete relaxation and thorough enjoyment.

A nasty shock

As the delicious meal proceeds, you order a second and even more expensive bottle of wine. Beaming, you and your three companions chink glasses and take your first sips under the approving gaze of the wine-waiter. After a moment of disbelief, you all choke with disgust. It’s not wine but cheap vinegar, with after-notes of rotten fish, burning tyre and wrestler’s jock-strap. The wine-waiter looks astonished and asks what’s wrong. You tell him that vinegar has somehow got into the bottle. He tells you that this is impossible.

You call for the manager, but when he arrives he too dismisses your complaint. How can the wine be bad when it came in the right bottle and has been served in the right glasses? You ask him to sample it for himself and he pours himself a glass with an exasperated sigh. He takes one confident sip, then another. “Delicious!” he pronounces. You and your companions exchange baffled glances. “It’s vinegar,” you insist. “Nonsense!” replies the manager, starting to look angry. “Mon Dieu, you are fluidists. I’m calling the police!”

Read more

Lothrop Stoddard’s “The French Revolution in San Domingo,” Part 2

/12 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

There were complex combinations of oppositions according to race and class. On one hand, poor Whites and wealthy Whites saw a common interest in opposing the mulattos, some of whom were wealthy. From the standpoint of the poor Whites, the wealth of his perceived racial inferiors was particularly galling. In 1789, when the French Revolution had compromised the power of the Royal government, the wealthy Whites “anxious for poor white support, were not likely to embroil themselves to protect their race opponents [i.e., the mulattos]. By this time the local offices were becoming filled with poor whites, and to the will and pleasure of these new functionaries, the mulattoes were now delivered almost without reserve.”

On the other hand, the lower-class Whites (described by Stoddard as “mostly … ignorant men of narrow intelligence”) engaged in class war against wealthy Whites: They were “too short-sighted to realize the results of white disunion or too reckless to care about consequences.” They excluded upper-class Whites from voting by “violence and intimidation.”

Some observers have argued that the revolutionary ideals of moral universalism were an ingredient in the revolt of the non-Whites. Stoddard quotes approvingly an observer who attributes the fervor for revolt among slaves and mulattos to their being exposed to revolutionary rhetoric.  “To discuss the ‘Rights of Man’ before such people—what is it but to teach them that power dwells with strength, and strength with numbers!”  Stoddard expresses his own view that “there seems to be no doubt that the writings and speeches of the French radicals did have a considerable effect on the negroes.” And he provides the conclusion of contemporary investigations: “Both the existing evidence and the trend of events combine to show that the great negro uprising of August 1791 was but the natural action of the Revolution on highly flammable material.” Read more