Feb 22, 2016

Tyrannical Elites Criminalize Opposition to Jewish Interests

via The Occidental Observer

“The existence of a Zionist State will bring into
relief the separate character of the Jew.”
--Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, 1922
In the course of several articles for TOO (e.g. here and here) I have attempted to explain a slow and gradual tightening of the noose on our freedoms, and to make predictions based on current trends. Despite my close attention to these details and developments, I have to confess that organized Jewry has impressed me with the unparalleled impudence of its latest success story — the effective criminalization in Britain of non-violent protest against Israeli human rights abuses. A report in The Independent states that:
Local councils, public bodies and even some university student unions are to be banned by law from boycotting “unethical” companies, as part of a controversial crackdown being announced by the Government. Under the plan all publicly funded institutions will lose the freedom to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products or Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Any public bodies that continue to pursue boycotts will face “severe penalties”, ministers said. Senior government sources said they were cracking down on town-hall boycotts because they “undermined good community relations, poisoned and polarized debate and fuelled anti-Semitism”.
Thus, in one stunning move, a key aspect of the autonomous decision-making processes of British local government has been abolished. The central government has arbitrarily vetoed the power of local governments and groups of private citizens to divest from trade or investments they regard as unethical. It goes without saying that the move has been introduced without any public referendum, or any public consultation. This is a diktat passed down on the people by an elite so distant from its people as to represent nothing less than the officialdom of an alien colonial power.

It should also be clear to any intelligent observer that the measure wasn’t remotely designed to protect cigarette and oil companies. These types of businesses are only mentioned as a means of offering (poor) camouflage for the real protected special interest group — a special interest group that has sought privileged, protected status from elites for centuries. A reporter for the International Business Times has remarked: “You don’t need to be Ban Ki-moon to see this wide net has been cast to protect just one state — Israel.” The British government has even brazenly boasted of its latest victory on behalf of explicitly Jewish interests. The Independent adds:
Significantly, and underlining the main target of the ban, the formal announcement will be made by the Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock when he visits Israel this week. … Mr Hancock said the current position where local authorities had autonomy to make ethical purchasing decisions was “undermining” Britain’s national security. “We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town-hall boycotts,” he said. “The new guidance on procurement combined with changes we are making to how pension pots can be invested will help prevent damaging and counter-productive local foreign policies undermining our national security.”
Our national security, Mr Hancock? What disdain this man must have for the citizens of his country, to feed them such a diet of empty lies. And what a sad and broken nation to accept them!

Matt Hancock: Friend of Israel, Enemy of Freedom
Matt Hancock: Friend of Israel, Enemy of Freedom

Robert Singer, World Jewish Congress CEO, has welcomed the move to restrict the freedoms of British citizens, stating:
Over the course of the last years, the UK has been a hotbed for BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) activity. We saw a number of universities and local councils adopting boycott resolutions against the Jewish state, severe actions in supermarkets, and attempts to hamper trade relations between Britain and Israel. It’s therefore important and welcome that the British government has now decided to take action.
I cannot stress enough that this move can’t be seen in isolation. The mind-set that has insidiously worked for the introduction of this measure is the same mentality that agitates unceasingly for gun control and restrictions on freedom of speech. It is the same mind-set and set of interests that both provoked Ted Nugent’s indignation, and then exacted a weak and grovelling apology from him. It is the same supremacist mentality that provoked the loathsome Jackie Mason to demand that a blacklist be made of actors who support the boycott against Israel, uttering: “If not for the Jews who created the industry in Hollywood, all these people would never have a job and would never be working.” These measures are part of an overwhelming trend throughout Jewish history:  that Jews have very often been agents and partners of the ruling elite and have often sought and acquired special protections from Big Government in the form of monarchs, politburos, and ‘democratic’ elites.

Jewish political influence thrives in tyranny, when the masses are dispossessed of freedoms. Tellingly in this regard, in Orthodox Judaism the prayer Hanotayn Teshu-ah is not said for the nation or the people of the country in which the Jews have settled, but rather for the monarch or government. Gordon Freeman explains that “In fact, a prayer for the government is a feature of every type of prayer book of every land of the Jewish diaspora irrespective of the specific religious movement of the community.”[1] This stance is ancient. The rabbinic commentary, Pirke Avot, tells Jews to “pray for the welfare of the government, because were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive.” What is really intended and understood by this injunction is that were it not for the fear inspired by the government, the goyim would swallow their Jewish neighbors alive. The favored Jewish position is thus to support a strong, feared, government which is capable of harnessing the resentments, real or imagined, of the gentile masses. This is most commonly achieved by stripping the citizenry of their right to bear arms, and a hard clamp down on their ability to organize through speech or assembly.

History is replete with examples of Jews benefiting from powerful, feared, governments. One of Big Government’s primary methods of instilling this fear into the populace is the slow erosion of its freedoms and the introduction of harsh and restrictive legislation. Such measures, never introduced in a truly democratic manner, are of course nothing but a subtler form of violence. And pressure upon a people’s feelings, mentality, and sense of themselves can be infinitely more effective and damaging than pressure upon their bodies. The steady drip, drip of the bleeding of their freedoms denies them the fight or flight impulse that comes with direct, instantaneous physical assault.

Rest assured that there will be further repressive measures on the horizon. Britain is merely the first nation-state to explicitly introduce such protections for Israel. We have already witnessed the introduction of very similar measures in the U.S. at state-level. In May 2015 Illinois passed anti-BDS legislation, provoking the Washington Post to warn of a “wave of anti-BDS legislation sweeping the U.S.” Recently, California introduced legislation prohibiting state government from ‘contracting with entities that support the practice of boycotts on the basis of national origin.’ The equally corrupt and treasonous Republicans and Democrats have come together in South Carolina to pass similar measures, and Florida unanimously passed ‘anti-discrimination’ legislation in the state senate just under two weeks ago. The New York state legislature has passed “a bill that would suspend funding to educational institutions which fund groups that boycott Israel,” and thirty-five more states are reportedly considering similar legislation.

The anti-BDS campaign has been heating up at the national level as well. An anti-BDS law has been introduced in Congress by four legislators well known to be owned by the Israel Lobby. The proposed law would ensure that state anti-BDS laws would not be pre-empted by federal law and would prevent entities from suing states because they had suffered damages from anti-BDS laws. Most incredibly, it would allow state and local governments to penalize entities that advocated boycott. Since boycott has been ruled as coming under First Amendment protections for free speech, this obviously raises Constitutional issues. The proposed law also fits well with an Israeli campaign to censor social media According to a statement from the Israeli Foreign Ministry, governments should require the adoption of “global terms of service prohibiting the posting of hate speech and anti-Semitic materials.” Given  that anti-BDS arguments are often framed in terms of opposition to anti-Semitism, it is easy to see where this is going.

In October 2015, The Intercept reported on the criminal convictions in France of 12 activists for advocating sanctions and a boycott against Israel. The convictions were upheld by France’s highest court. In transpired that the individuals were arrested and prosecuted for “wearing shirts emblazoned with the words ‘Long live Palestine, boycott Israel’” and because “they also handed out fliers that said that ‘buying Israeli products means legitimizing crimes in Gaza.’” Pascal Markowicz, chief lawyer of the CRIF umbrella organization of French Jewish communities, published a celebratory decree: “BDS is ILLEGAL in France.” In Canada, officials have also threatened criminal prosecution against anyone supporting boycotts against Israel.

As I have stated before when addressing this topic, I believe that such repressive tactics offer only short-term solutions for organized Jewry. Hilaire Belloc probably expressed it best when he wrote:
It dams up and enormously increases the latent force of anger against Jewish power both real and imaginary. It is like the piling up of a head of water when a river valley is obstructed, or like the introducing of resistance into an electric current. The suppression of resentment…is a fierce irritant and accounts for the high pressure at which attack escapes when once it is loosened (The Jews, 263).
Neither elites nor their allies fare well when tyranny is eventually met with revolution. The centuries-old obsessive quest for Jewish security has never produced its (unachievable and insatiable) goal, but has instead contributed to centuries of tension punctuated with expulsions and ethnic conflict. For a people obsessed with the refrain “Never Forget,” they would do well to become better students of their own history.

South Carolina Is Trump Country: Nationalist Populism Beats "Conservatism"

via Occidental Dissent

Trump wins, ¡Jeb! cried, Cruz choked and Rubio declared victory after losing for the third time in a row sums up what we saw last night in South Carolina which succeeded in uncucking itself in a YUGE victory that resulted in Trump winning all 50 delegates.

Dig beneath the top line result:
“WASHINGTON — Donald Trump comfortably defeated his Republican presidential rivals on Saturday in South Carolina’s GOP primary.
Trump’s resounding victory isn’t simply a boon to his prospects for winning the Republican presidential nomination, an outcome once thought impossible that is looking increasingly more plausible. It is also an embarrassing repudiation of conservative orthodoxy that has dominated Republican politics for decades. It suggests that the party’s intellectual leaders, who organized the base around the National Review/Weekly Standard consensus — small government, free trade, pro-Israel, deregulation, low taxes, social conservatism and an aggressive foreign policy — have been generals of a phantom army.
The troops, instead, are marching with Trump, who bested his rivals in South Carolina by campaigning against nearly everything the Bush family, the Republican Party and neoconservatives who supported military interventions advocated for. Among his many breaks with the elite consensus, Trump declared that former President George W. Bush had lied about weapons of mass destruction to march the country to war; blamed Bush for the 9/11 attacks, arguing that he ignored intelligence community warnings; defended Planned Parenthood; boasted that he was the only Republican who would not cut Social Security or Medicare; said he approved of the individual mandate in Obamacare; and promised to slap onerous tariffs on companies who outsource jobs.
And where Washington and New York-based GOP leaders pledge outreach to immigrants, moderate Muslims and other minorities, the reality TV star plays more overt racial politics than any national candidate since George Wallace. Trump’s brand of nativist, nationalist isolationism marked the path to victory. Rival candidate Jeb Bush is a dead man.”
Nevada votes on Tuesday where Trump has a 20 to 30 point lead.

Note: As I predicted, the black block vote sunk Bernie Sanders in Nevada who would have easily won if White working class voters weren’t so alienated from the Democratic Party.

Beyonce, the Superbowl, and How Our Society Has Been Taken from Us

via DavidDuke.com

I admit to having watched the Super Bowl, albeit DVR-delayed and between phone calls from clients. I skipped through the halftime show, not wanting to waste half an hour that could be more hygienically spent cleaning my toilet. However, various controversies forced me to watch at least parts of it, very much to my disgust.

The theme of the halftime show was set by Beyonce’s new song “Formation,” which was performed as a tribute to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X. I am sure that the mostly white Army troops in Afghanistan who were featured during Zio-slut Lady Gaga’s singing of the National Anthem were delighted to know that they were placing their lives on the line in order to protect the freedom of the Zio-media and their well paid prostitutes to promote explicitly anti-white heroes. Thank you for your service!

Still, the halftime show audience was treated to only a portion of Beyonce’s new song/video. The full version includes the following line: When he f**k me good I take his ass to Red Lobster

She repeats this line in her video to make sure everyone gets it. And for the hard of hearing, she displays two middle finger salutes in front of her face.

So what has been the reaction? Well, Red Lobster’s sales are up 33%. I don’t know if she was paid the way Madison Avenue whore and part-time quarterback Payton Manning was paid two spew at every post-game interview that he was going to go “drink a lot of Budweiser.”

It is this type of anti-white and overtly sexual content that has led the music industry to bestow every kind of award on Beyonce, including three Kid’s Choice awards. And what better role model. For the children.

This really goes way beyond Beyonce or rap or the Super Bowl. We have to wake up to the fact that practically every institution of our society and our culture has been taken over by Zionists who are brainwashing the entire population with degeneracy and anti-white ideas. Government, finance, media, education, sports — you name it. We need to stand up and start talking freely, or we will be subsumed in a degenerate, dysfunctional, war-ravaged hell.

Jews Destroy Women: A Response to “Women Destroy Nations”

via TradYouth

There’s a video floating around lately which is overwhelmingly accurate and factually corroborated. It essentially repackages information which is well-known in HBD and Manosphere circles into a polished and well-produced presentation. The thesis is simple: women’s biological drives are contrary to the best interests of civilization and that the past century or so of women’s enfranchisement and liberation has been detrimental to societal stability.

The thesis is correct, but it’s merely a piece of a puzzle, one which easily leads to the false conclusion that women are central to the destruction of Western Civilization. They are absolutely not. Ironically, my primary objection to the video lies in its closing shot at Western men. “Black Pigeon” claims that feminized Western males are the ones responsible for unleashing women to wreak havoc on us. This situation is not something Western males knowingly or willingly signed up for.

Male Impulses Are Degenerate, Too
Patriarchy isn’t so much a conspiracy of males against females as it is a conspiracy of old men against young males and females alike. Monogamy’s a counter-biological imposition on both genders, just in different ways. Your average viewer doesn’t have the grounding in alternative anthropology necessary to grasp the degree to which the presentation is one-sided, leaving one with the false impression that young men afforded the same freedom would develop flying cars and vaporwave cityscapes and such.

Young men generally require acculturation, social pressure, and various forms of accountability in order to invest in what offspring they do have. The female biological impulse is to go for the most socially dominant male regardless of societal consequence. The male biological impulse is to go for just about any female, investing more time and resources in more youthful and healthy females with little regard for “in-group loyalty.”

In-group loyalty in sexual matters is generally a socialized matter for both genders, and the film’s suggestion that women are worse than men in this regard isn’t borne out by either history or dating market statistics.



The Jews Did This
Women are definitely biologically predisposed toward degenerate dating and mating habits, but so are men. In a nutshell, civilization and tradition are the parallax between what we’re inclined to do and what we must do to thrive and survive. What’s happening in our civilization is not one where the once-dominant menfolk foolishly released women from their cages like clumsy scientists in the opening scenes of an outbreak movie. It’s one where the organized Jewish community is maliciously turning Western women against their civilization, …and also the men, and the homosexuals, and the unionized laborers, and the local chamber of commerce, and everybody else.

Save for an ever-shrinking subset of young White males who aren’t sexually deviant, aren’t affiliated with a cucked religious organization, and aren’t gainfully integrated into the educational and occupational sinecures of the anti-Western system, absolutely everybody in the West has been deputized in the liberal modern assault on the West by a well-organized and well-documented project of Jewish subversion. While there’s an organic (and not entirely degenerate) thread of indigenous feminist interest in expanding female power and influence in our society, the nature and scope of feminism in the contemporary West is almost entirely Jewish in origin and character.

Feminism has been described as the women’s auxiliary of Cultural Marxism, Cultural Marxism being a euphemism for Jewish subversion. I’m frequently inclined to blame global capitalism and global capitalists along with the Jews in my polemics. And industrialization definitely presented a series of grave challenges to traditional gender roles, norms, and dynamics. But the West failed to meet every last one of these challenges.

Capitalists would like Western folks to purchase more things, for sure. But market forces could as easily have been directed toward ensuring that the world’s foremost producers and consumers–Western folks–don’t become too derelict and endangered to work in their factories and purchase their widgets. Barren feminists and roving bands of Islamic rapists may be the be the bullet through the head of Western Civilization, but it’s a global capitalist gun with a Jewish finger pulling the trigger.

If you don’t believe that the Jews are primarily responsible for bringing feminist hysteria to its current fever pitch, just ask them. They’ll gladly boast about it unless you’re framing it in the manner it’s being framed here. From early feminist history to what’s hot off the press at the latest feminist blog, it’s overwhelmingly Jewish. The money? Jewish. Those topless chicks shown in the video agitating for things to get even more slutty? They’re basically Craigslist whores directly paid by Jewish billionaire George Soros to run around doing that.

This isn’t some illuminati stuff I’m setting in the table here. George Soros is a Jewish billionaire who invests millions in feminism. He also invested millions in working up the Black Lives Matter riots in Ferguson. He also invested millions in the color revolutions and “Arab Springs” which have victimized the Islamic World. Modern women are very much a major problem, but they’re not the problem, or even the primary problem. Western men aren’t being held down by Western women or by themselves. They’re being held down by Jewish billionaires who do most of this subversion openly, in broad daylight.

Women Are Part of the Solution, Too
As stated earlier, there’s very little about the video that’s outright false, though much of it’s inaccurate and the point it tries to drive home, that we’re doomed, is as vile as it is thankfully false. Some of it is blatantly false, however. For instance, the girl holding the “Will Trade Racists for Rapists” sign is an amusing photoshop of a sign which originally stated, “Will Trade Racists for Refugees.”

There’s much about the feminine disposition to shock the blue pilled normie into a cold sweat, but Black Pigeon takes it way too far in the video. The modern woman is not only subject to biological impulses which are counter to civilizational harmony, they are also subject to a web of subversive lies and perverse incentives designed to exacerbate the problem even further.

Were young women given complete sexual liberation but afforded a truthful and complete stock of the situation, they would make less degenerate choices. They’re repeatedly lied to about the situation. They’re led to believe that their fertility remains reliable well into their forties. They’re led to believe that they can ambitiously pursue a career and achieve a quality man and traditional family. Hollywood confirms that quality providers will gladly wait for them to finish riding the carousel. They’re led to believe that the contraceptives they’re eagerly offered are completely safe and don’t have grave effects on their hormone levels and future fertility.

Most maliciously of all, they’re led to believe that the social fabric will remain intact when they reach the point in their life where they’ll need it the most. If somebody sat them down and explained to them that there won’t be the Affirmative Action advantages, Social Security entitlements, and men hovering around waiting to marry barren middle-aged women when they get to that age, even the girls who can’t help but wish to go clubbing with migrants might be frightened into considering settling for an uninspiring but loyal provider type.

There Is Plenty of Hope
The Jews have been at it for millennia, and they end up losing every time with the sureness of Wiley E. Coyote in a Warner Bros. cartoon. Assuming that this time the Jewish subversion of a civilization will not end in people waking up, getting angry, and driving them out is betting against the house. And if people were able to figure it out before the information age, how easy must it be for our civilization to connect the dots, arrive at the kosher root of the problem, and uproot them from our keystone institutions of societal control?

It’s already happening, and it’s happening more rapidly than most of us imagined it would. The army of frustrated young males that the film identifies are awakening and engaging. Regretfully, this process takes time, and there will be many false starts before a singular focus can be successfully leveled against the Jewish oligarchs. This film delivers a panoply of false start misdirections from the problem, namely pretending that the Islamic World is categorically part of the problem rather than potentially part of the solution. It also, more importantly, pretends that confused and degenerate sluts in urgent need of disenfranchisement and patriarchal submission are the primary problem.

Incidentally, I don’t believe women should be allowed to vote in matters relating to foreign policy or immigration policy. This isn’t due to Black Pigeon’s specious attempt to assert in scientific terms that “them hoes ain’t loyal.” It has more to do with perfectly healthy and natural feminine nurturing impulses clouding their judgment. European women didn’t go all in with the rapefugee crisis because they were ambivalent or subliminally excited about getting raped, but because the media triggered their maternal instincts with that picture of the dead kid on the beach and a firehose of similar pity porn.

Western women have always been a bit more inclined, organically and traditionally, to more autonomy and agency than the rest of the world’s women. They can and should be trusted in a variety of leadership and leading roles in a healthy Western society. They’re not generally well-suited to diplomatic and military concerns, but a West which attempts to solve its (Jewish) problem by subjugating and limiting the agency of its women will deprive itself of much of the energy and talent it requires to prevail. And I trust that we absolutely can and will prevail.

The Woman of Calais

via Cambria Will not Yield

Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.John 11: 40-44

“Is this the promised end?,” Edgar asks. That is what the European people are asking as well. “Is this the end of our world?” It certainly seems so. We are faced with an implacable, malevolent enemy, the liberals, who have let loose the dogs of war: They have opened the gates of Europe to the Moslems from abroad, and they have given free rein to the murderous barbarian hordes of color from within. But the encircling movement would not be complete without the false Aslan. That was the work of the churches. The people must be shown a new Christ, a liberal Christ, so they will be left spiritually naked in the face of their liberal, heathen, and black foes. The false Aslan churches complete the satanic circle. We are trapped in the clutches of the devil.

The woman of Calais tells us how we should respond to the wickedness and snares of the devil. She recommends no specific program, no clever strategy; all she has done is relate her story. She has told how barbarians from hell, barbarians whom her government invited into her nation, have destroyed her native Calais and the lives of the people living there. Her plight is the plight of Europe.(1) If we let people like her perish without fighting back, we will stand condemned for all eternity as the people who once loved Christ and then turned their back on Him in order to embrace the devil. “In so much as you have done it to the least of these my brethren…” If we allow the woman of Calais and the Jonathan Fosters of Europe to perish while we cite democratic, halfway-house Christian, and pacifist platitudes, we will be moral pariahs fit for hell, but certainly not candidates for His Kingdom come.

We are tied to our past by a thousand strings of memory. The woman of Calais talked about how she used to visit her son’s grave, and she remembered the comfort she used to derive from those visits. But that is no longer an option, because the Moslem barbarians bar her way to her son’s grave site. Must every memory we have that links us to our ancestors and their God be taken away from us? Yes, every string of memory must be cut, so that the liberals can move into Satan’s pleasure palace where there are no memories, only the sacrificial altars of the heathen and the colored barbarians. One final flash of the sacrificial knife, and it is all over for the Europeans.

The liberals won’t actually be wielding the knife, but they will be guiding it into the heart of the European people. It’s quite Shylockian; the liberals will not yield to Christian entreaties.
Duke: How shalt thou hope for mercy, rendering none?
Shylock: What judgement shall I dread, doing no wrong?
That is the crux of the matter: The liberals do not believe they are doing any wrong. The pig god of diversity, perversion, and cruelty that they serve demands the blood of the unregenerate white race. The liberals do not just countenance the shedding of white blood, they applaud it and write apologias in defense of the blood-soaked heathens and colored barbarians. When we see our own people, the woman of Calais and Jonathan Foster, crucified for being white, a spring of love gushes from our heart and we know what must be done. Perhaps this is Europe’s last hour, but we won’t go quietly into the dark night of liberal Babylon. Whether this is the final battle or just the beginning of a whole host of battles to last for another thousand years, we are enjoined to fight against liberals and their allies, because charity demands it. Certainly we pray for the woman of Calais and Jonathan Foster, but we also go after the people who are responsible for the murder and torture of the innocents, like the woman of Calais and Jonathan Foster. And don’t tell me we can’t fight because we are not permitted to have weapons. Make crossbows then, or get guns the way the Moslems and blacks get guns, but stop spouting pacifist rot that simply emboldens the enemy and demoralizes the European people. There are more than enough Europeans ready to fight; what they lack is moral leadership. The men in the Christian churches are Christian atheists who preach “loving forgiveness” for the heathens and barbarians of color. Pope Francis advises whites to pacifically accept the torture and murder of their kith and kin while patiently waiting in line for their turn to be tortured and murdered. And the managerial elite in the traitorous conservative camps keep advising us to seek redemption from the devil; they tell us to vote for our executors, while staying nonviolent and supportive of the liberal governments throughout Europe. Or else where would we be? We’d be a lot better off without our liberal democracies that do not protect us from the enemies within or without, but do support, quite wholeheartedly, the dismantling of European civilization and the destruction of the European people.

When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, the holy scriptures tell us there were some that believed in Christ after that remarkable event: “Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.” But some saw what Christ did and were indifferent; they cared only about pleasing the powers of this world: “But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.”

And what do the Pharisees do with the information from the children of this world only? They drop it in Caiaphas’s lap, and he gets to the heart of the matter. Christ must die so he can stay in power and continue to speak in the name of the people:
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. John 11: 47-50
When the Europeans first bent their knees to Christ, they were like unto the Jews who saw and “believed on Him.” But over the Christian centuries the tide turned. First a class of Pharisees and Sadducees developed in organized Christianity, and then that pharisaical class of clerical intellectuals became one with the European intelligentsia. The war was on: The smart angel against Christ. By the late 20th century, organized Christianity and the organized democratic governments of Europe were the same as organized Jewry; the church men and the academics hated Christ. Their hatred was apparent when they turned to the heathen gods, and in many instances actually made gods of the heathens, placing Christ in a subordinate role. The lovers of ‘this world only,’ in imitation of the Jews who were indifferent to Christ’s rising of Lazarus, trusted in organized, pharisaical Christianity and secular liberalism to see them through. Only those Europeans, who are like unto the Jews that did not walk away from Christ when they saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead, have kept the faith. That is what separates the Europeans from all other peoples and every apostate European. The Ancient Mariner knew whom he had to stop and speak to. And we, the Europeans who have seen, through the visionary hearts of our European ancestors, Christ raise Lazarus from the dead, know our fellow Europeans. They are like the woman of Calais, who refused to bow down to the heathens who hate the God of mercy and love.

It’s not a little matter whether Christ made Lazarus who was dead come to life again, nor is it a little matter whether or not Christ rose from the dead and will fulfill His pledge to draw us unto Him at the last day. The people who believe in Christ’s resurrection from the dead have become a minority in Europe. The Catholic churchmen believe in everything but the Son of God while the Protestant churchmen believe in the secular state of Israel. And they are united in their disbelief with the Moslems, the colored barbarians, and the secular liberals. That is the real reason white people have been abandoned by their leaders — their leaders in church and state are like unto Caiaphas. They feel it is expedient for them, who speak in the name of a universal aggregate of colored barbarians and heathen faiths, that all white Europeans should die. The liberals also will die, but they do not see that, just as the demons who entered the swine did not see the suicidal consequences of their hated of Jesus of Nazareth.
Our European faith is based on a sentiment, a sentiment that the vast majority of the European people feel is foolish. But what if our inner life is like that sentiment? Shouldn’t we keep the sentiment and maintain it against all the world?
What you love is what you fight for. The liberals and the liberal conservatives will fight for one, democratic, egalitarian, multi-cultural world. Their differences are within the confines of that abstract world of utopia. They are both wedded to the same anti-European vision, just as the warring Sunnis and Shiites are wedded to the same anti-European vision of God. And so it goes with the colored barbarians. The Orientals have no great love for the black races but they have no great love for the European people either. “The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs,” is the stance of the colored barbarians vis-à-vis each other and the European people. It is tragic that the Oriental races, in the main, look on the crucifixion of Christ with an abstract, detached, speculative eye. They compare the Romans method of torture with their own. And the other colored races also focus only on the outward aspects of the Christ story. It is blood and power that interests them:
The film represented in silent form the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. At the scene in the Palace where the Roman soldiers struck Him with whips and placed a crown of thorns upon His head, excited cries of ‘Pika! Pika!’ rang out from the Congolese. Pika means hit or strike, and quite naturally, as in a Western film we cheer on the goodies and boo the baddies, they were encouraging the strong against the weak. – Congo Cauldron by D. P. Dugauquier
It was only the European people, who viewed existence with the inner eye of the heart, who saw the moral beauty in the Christ story. They were one with the Jews who saw Christ raise Lazarus from the dead and then “believed in Him.” But now the new Pharisees rule the European people.(2) They are the liberals who have become like unto the Pharisees of old who hardened their hearts against the light:
While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? John 12: 36-38
One thinks of that wonderful exchange between Charlie Brown and Linus about the true meaning of Christmas. It is appropriate in a similar context:
“Can’t anyone tell me to whom the arm of the Lord has been revealed?”
“Yes, I can tell you, it has been revealed to the European people whose hearts were pierced with the sword of His divine charity. A sword that harmeth not, but gives life abundant to those who have faith in its healing and life-giving power.”
Darkness has come upon the European people because the men of science, the men of the abstracted minds, who rule in church and state, have closed their hearts to His divine charity. But they have not succeeded in completely obliterating the light. The woman of Calais is not alone; she is one part of the European light that will destroy Liberaldom.

(1) When I say Europe, I mean white people. I don’t think it should be necessary to say Australian Europeans or American Europeans. All whites are of Europe. We live or die together, as Europeans.

(2) It’s quite significant that the Pharisees wanted to put Lazarus to death after Christ raised him from the dead. “But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” The European people, like Lazarus, are a living reminder of Christ, the God who can raise the dead. The Pharisees of multiculturalism must destroy those people in order to destroy the image of Christ, which will be forever present in the European people, even if they try to walk away from Him.

The Digital Ghetto

via Radix

The system wants you to create subcultures, not change the culture. That is why the coming era of “Digital Platform Censorship” with its related shadowbans, de-listings, and other new tech-savvy ways of becoming an un-person will be so dangerous, to our, ahem dangerous thoughts. I’d call it Orwellian, but that’s a phrase that conjures up 20th-century images of Stalinism and direct government reprisal. What we are seeing is far different, and perhaps more thorough and pernicious in its ability to mold narratives and shape thoughts.

Information is constantly bombarding us. Left, right, center, top, down, it never stops flowing. The ability to curate information has now become as powerful, if not more powerful than absolute control. After all, would it be more beneficial to have your opponents, ideological or otherwise, depicted as an embattled minority fighting for their right to free expression, or a weird fringe group that talks only to itself?

Google is the gateway for most of the “millennial” generation and younger to any thought, let alone dissident thought. Imagine if you will, being de-listed from most of the major search engines on the web. How would anyone but the already converted find out about your ideas? In fact, we here at Radix have already seen a very soft version of this with our own podcast being de-listed from searches by Apple(though the podcast is still available).

The idea of “shadow-banning” on Twitter is another pernicious effect of this censorship 2.0. Breitbart ran a story just recently about how Twitter maintains lists of favored accounts:
According to the source, Twitter maintains a ‘whitelist’ of favoured Twitter accounts and a ‘blacklist’ of unfavoured accounts. Accounts on the whitelist are prioritised in search results, even if they’re not the most popular among users. Meanwhile, accounts on the blacklist have their posts hidden from both search results and other users’ timelines.
This is made all the more ominous with the announcement of the creation of Twitter’s new “Trust and Safety Council” which features such luminaries and distinguished groups as Anita Sarkeesian and the Anti-Defamation League. Twitter functions as a digital agora or forum. But if you’re only talking to yourself or the already converted, the network effect and the ability to inject new narratives is taken away.

Of course, it’s not just in the realm of “radical” right-wing thought where this sort of information curation is taking place. Just recently in a controversy over bullfighting, Facebook declared the centuries-old sport “inappropriate”, which led to some outraged commentary by some of the largest Spaniard media outlets.

The point is, it’s not the information that’s being curated, it’s you. What you see on the internet and throughout social media is being filtered, and it is not always through your own designs. Thinking about this new relation to pictures, symbols, and memes through technology is important for the big picture of where we are heading as a civilization(Heidegger’s work deserves careful study here).

But, for those of us with ideas our vast Liberal hegemony wants to de-privilege, thinking through censorship 2.0 has become a necessity. Through the cracks may be showing, there is no more dangerous, or unpredictable opponent than one who is on the ropes. Liberalism seems to be moving in that direction.

Its commitment to free speech was merely a mask for its own will to power.

In many ways, the libertarians were right about market efficiency. Only they probably never thought about private entities being more efficient at censorship than any government could be. Moreover, market forces are shaped by the strongest cultural stalking horses of their times.

“SJWs” and others have never been more successful than when they have worked with corporations. Our culture-jamming only works when we are able to interject ourselves into the broader societal narratives. Restricting us from those puts us back at square one.

What is to be done?

Creating our own platforms is usually the first suggestion. While this would undoubtedly help with privacy, and our ability to say what we want, it would not help us reach beyond our current audience. Part of the reason for the expansion of ‘Alt-Right’ ideas in the past year or so has been its ability to memetically infect and spread across information channels in a rapid way. This would be impossible if our online activity starts to be restricted to just our own.

Moreover, it serves the system to see us splintered into a weird subculture that only talks to ourselves. Just look at how they want to “exploit divisions” now. It’s not a stretch to say that as a pond shrinks, the fight for control over it becomes that much more desperate. We shouldn’t play into our enemies games.

The ultimate solution has probably not presented itself yet. Maybe something akin to Richard Spencer’s idea of the internet as a public good is it. But what is important for us now is to be aware of how we are being corralled by the digital/media/information complex that surrounds us.

We’ve made far too impressive of gains in the last year to give it all up for a ghetto!

Interview with a Pioneer: Richard Lynn Reflects on a Career of Discovery and Controversy

via American Renaissance

Richard Lynn is one of the great, pioneering psychologists of our time. Like other giants in his field, such as Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, and Philippe Rushton, he has pursued truth rather than popularity. This has led to findings that today’s orthodoxy denies: that there is a substantial genetic contribution to individual and group differences in intelligence and other traits. No other psychologist has studied the nature and implications of these differences more extensively than Richard Lynn.

Prof. Lynn is the author of 15 books, of which American Renaissance has reviewed Dysgenics, IQ and Global Inequality, The Chosen People, Race Differences in Intelligence, The Science of Human Diversity, and Eugenics.

In this extensive interview, Prof. Lynn looks back over an astonishingly productive career, and warns of the dangers in store for the West if it continues to deny individual and group differences.

I understand your father was a plant breeder. Did that give you an early appreciation for the importance of genetics?

RL: Yes, he was a plant breeder and also a plant geneticist who published a number of papers on the genetics of cotton in scientific journals, and he was also a eugenicist. He was one of the signatories of The Geneticists’ Manifesto drawn up by Hermann Muller in 1939, which posed the question “How could the world’s population be improved genetically?” My father’s interests did give me an early appreciation of the importance of genetics, although I think I would have adopted this position anyway since the evidence is irrefutable for a strong genetic determination of intelligence and educational attainment and a moderate genetic determination of personality. More importantly, my father served as a role model for scientific achievement and has given me the confidence to advance theories that have sometimes been controversial.

Your degrees are in psychology. What prompted your interest in this area?

RL: When I was in school I was bored by science. It all seemed so cut and dried. All you had to do was learn it. I found a lot of it very tedious, especially the practicals. You could spend a sunny afternoon pouring sulfuric acid on potassium and discover you ended up with potassium sulfate. I was quite happy to learn that this was so. I have a touch of ADHD that make it difficult for me to pay attention to lessons I find boring, and this made science classes even more uncongenial. I liked history and literature, in which there were differences of opinion and we were encouraged to make up our own minds about what was right. I have found this early education valuable, as I have often taken a different view to the received opinion. So when I went up to Cambridge in 1949 I began reading history. I liked it, but I did not fancy making a career in it. So much history has been done already that all you can do is add a footnote of the kind written by one of my contemporaries: “Trade between Bristol and Bordeaux, 1485–1490.” Or you could write another account of, say, the First World War, suggesting slightly different interpretations of some events. I did not think I would find any of these prospects satisfying. So I opted for psychology, a new science with a lot of scope for making new discoveries.

In 1967, you moved to Ireland, and spent the rest of your professional career there. Why Ireland?

RL: My first job was at the University of Exeter (1956–67), which I have described as my wilderness years. My father had advised me that the trick for an academic career is to find your gold mine and then exploit it, but I found this was easier said than done and I had not managed it. However, I was beginning to explore what was to become my gold mine, which was the IQs of nations and their important contribution to economic development. In 1963, I read David McClelland’s book The Achieving Society, which presented a theory that the economic rise and fall of nations is determined by the rise and fall of a psychological trait he called achievement motivation. I was greatly taken by this theory although I later came to the view that it as all wrong. Still, it set me thinking about the psychology of the economic rise and fall of nations and led eventually to my theory that intelligence is the main factor. In 1966, I made contact with Ralph Harris and Arthur Seldon, the people who ran the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, a free-market think tank to which I was sympathetic, and where I developed my interest in the integration of psychology and economics. Then in 1967 a job came up at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, which I thought would be a good environment in which to develop these ideas further.

In the mid 1970s you began seriously studying racial differences in intelligence. Why were you interested in this subject? 

RL: While I was in Dublin I had the idea that national differences in IQs could be an important determinant of economic development. I made two discoveries that encouraged me to develop this theory. The first was that Ireland was performing poorly, economically, and I dug out research showing it had a low national IQ of about 94 compared to 100 in Britain. The second discovery was about Japan. At this time everyone was impressed by the Japanese “economic miracle,” and in 1972, I hit on a way of measuring the Japanese IQ and, at around 107, I found it significantly higher than that of Europeans. These discoveries set me on the road to collecting more national IQs, and also regional IQs within countries, including the UK and France. In the case of regions within nations, I also found IQ associated with economic prosperity. I was conscious that this theory implied racial as well as national differences in IQs and would be highly controversial, so I opted to sit on it for a while and collect more data to be confident that it was right. I began publishing papers on this in 1977, when I estimated the IQ in Japan at 106.6 (compared to an American mean of 100), and the IQ of the Chinese in Singapore at 110. The next year I published a review of national and racial IQs.

During the following years I continued to collect IQs for countries and races from all over the world. I concluded that with the average IQ of Europeans set at 100, Northeast Asians have an IQ of 106, Southeast Asians have an IQ of 90, Native American Indians have an IQ of 89, and sub-Saharan Africans have an IQ around 70. In 1980, I published these results and my theory that these race differences evolved when early humans migrated out of Africa into temperate and then into cold northern environments. I proposed that these environments were more cognitively demanding, and so the peoples who settled in North Africa and South Asia, and even more so the Europeans and the Northeast Asians, had to evolve higher IQs to survive.

In 2000, I met Tatu Vanhanen, a political economist in Finland, and we discussed working together on the contribution of the national IQs I had collected to the economic development of nations. We published our conclusions in 2002 in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. This gave IQs for 185 nations, consisting of all nations whose populations were greater than 50,000 in 1990, and found a correlation between national IQ and per capita real GDP in 1998 of .63.We argued that national IQs are the single most important variable in determining national per capita GDP, and we proposed that the other factors are largely the degree to which nations have free market economies, and the presence of natural resources such as oil.

Tatu Vanhanen
Tatu Vanhanen

I sent a copy of our book to the Economist, but they did not review or mention it. Others gave it a mixed reception. Susan Barnett and Wendy Williams (2004) described national IQs as “virtually meaningless,” and Earl Hunt and Robert Sternberg (2006) called them “meaningless.” However, Earl Hunt later changed his mind, because in his text book Human Intelligence (2011, p. 440) he wrote, “Lynn and Vanhanen’s conclusions about the correlations between IQ estimates and measures of social well-being are probably correct.”

Did the work of men such as Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, and Cyril Burt influence you at that time?

RL: Sure, they were my three role models in psychology. I knew Hans Eysenck well from 1957 onwards, and worked with him on several projects. I was greatly influenced by Art Jensen. When I was a student at Cambridge in the 1950s, we were told that the low IQs of blacks in the United States were due to social deprivation and discrimination. This was the almost universally accepted view, promulgated by experts like Ashley Montagu and Theodosius Dobzhansky, and I saw no reason to doubt it. It was Art Jensen’s now famous 1969 paper in the Harvard Educational Review that first began to make me question this. Jensen concluded that there is likely to be a genetic difference underlying the black-white IQ difference. His actual words were that it is “a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference” (p.82). I read the paper carefully and thought Jensen made a good case. Two years later, the same conclusion was reached by Hans Eysenck, whose judgement I had come to respect, in his book Race, Intelligence and Education (1971). Jensen presented further evidence in his 1973 book, Educability and Group Differences and confirmed my view that he was right.

I came to know Art Jensen well from the 1970s. Apart from being very able, he could be very amusing and was an excellent raconteur. I once asked him how he came to marry his wife Barbara. He said he had noticed her doing a good job looking after the monkeys in the animal lab at UC Berkeley, and he reckoned that she would be equally good at looking after him. He said he was a bit concerned that she liked socializing but said “I was able to cure her of that.” I once asked him why he did this work on race differences in IQs that attracted so much hostility. He replied that he thought it was because he did not much mind being disliked. I think this must have been right. Most people have a strong “herd instinct” as it used to be called, that makes them terrified of being disliked and excluded from the herd. I am like Art Jensen in having a weak herd instinct.

Arthur Jensen
Arthur Jensen

I also knew Cyril Burt, whom I met first in rather intimidating circumstances when he was my examiner for my Ph.D. We corresponded subsequently on cordial terms on a number of occasions and he was always very helpful.

I was also influenced by William Shockley who, in the late 1960s, began supporting the view that the black-white IQ difference has a genetic basis. As a Nobel Prize winner, his views generated a lot of publicity and respect, although I don’t think he made any significant scientific contribution to the issue.

And who among your contemporaries do you value most? 

RL: I have published papers with Helen Cheng at University College, London, Roberto Colom at the Autonomous University in Madrid, Andrei Grigoriev at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, Satoshi Kanazawa at the London School of Economics and Gerhard Meisenberg at Ross Medical University in Dominica. I am indebted to all of these for their invaluable contributions to the work we have done together. In addition, I have had many fruitful discussions with Edward Miller, Jan te Nijenhuis, Helmuth Nyborg and James Thompson.

Was your work in the late 1970s the first serious scholarship on the intelligence of the Japanese? For centuries, whites had noticed the generally low intelligence of Africans, but had any scientists concluded that East Asians were more intelligent than whites? 

RL: No, curiously Francis Galton did not include the intelligence of the Japanese or other Northeast Asians in his Hereditary Genius (1868), in which he quantified the intelligence of Africans as much lower than that of whites, and of Australian Aborigines as lower than that of Africans. I was the first to publish work on the high intelligence of Japanese. This was a shock for environmentalists, many of whom argued that whites performed better than other races on intelligence tests because whites devised the tests to suit their particular skills, and that other races would be more intelligent than whites in their own environments. Einstein is reported as having said that he would be much less intelligent than Australian Aborigines in the Australian outback. My work showing that the Japanese performed better than whites on intelligence tests designed by whites was a setback for this position. When I met Phil Rushton some years later he told me that reading my work on the high IQ of the Japanese was one of the things that led him to formulate his theory of Mongoloid-Caucasoid-Negroid r-K differences.

Philippe Rushton
Philippe Rushton

In 1982, you reported that Japanese IQs had risen rapidly since the 1930s, and in 1987 you found similar IQ gains in Britain. These broad gains have since been called the Flynn Effect, but since you were the first to discover them, should they not be called the Lynn Effect?

RL: It was Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray who called these IQ gains “the Flynn Effect” in their book The Bell Curve (1994). Richard Herrnstein sent me the book before publication for my comments, and I replied that it was all splendid except that I could not understand why they had designated the increases in intelligence that had been recorded in several countries from the 1940s onwards as “the Flynn Effect,” after Jim Flynn who published a couple of papers on it in 1984 and 1987. I suggested it should be called the “Tuddenham effect” after the author of the first major study on this subject in 1948, in which he showed that the IQ of American military conscripts increased from World War I to World War II. They took no notice of my suggestion.

I had reported an increase in the Japanese IQ in 1982 and some people have called the rise “The Lynn-Flynn effect,” but many people now believe and assert that the increase was discovered by Jim Flynn, who rediscovered it in 1984. In 2013, I published a paper “Who discovered the Flynn Effect? A review of early studies of the secular increase of intelligence,” which summarized about 30 studies from the mid-1930s onwards that had reported increases in numerous countries.

Left to Right: J.
Left to right: Philippe Rushton, Helmuth Nyborg, Jim Flynn, Richard Lynn, and Satoshi Kanazawa

Is the gain real? 

RL: I find it is a difficult question to answer. On the positive side, intelligence tests seem to be a sound measure of IQs and measured IQs have increased quite a lot. On the negative side, Michael Woodley, Jan te Nijenhuis and Raegan Murphy, for whom I have a great respect, believe the gain is not real because they have shown reaction times have become slower during the last century. So I remain open-minded on this question.

Michael Woodley

You argue that nutrition accounts for most of the rise. What is your basis for this view? 

RL: I wrote a long paper in 1990 (“The role of nutrition in secular increases of intelligence”) presenting the evidence for this. The main points are that the quality of nutrition undoubtedly affects intelligence and that the quality of nutrition improved during the 20th century, as shown by increases in height. The rise came to a stop in several countries including Norway, Denmark, and Britain in the early 21st century and has now gone into decline most likely because of dysgenic fertility (see below).

Who are the rising stars in the field of intelligence research today?

RL: I would particularly nominate Heiner Rindermann, Davide Piffer, Michael Woodley, and Edward Dutton. Heiner Rindermann in Germany is a risen rather than a rising star, who has done brilliant work contributing to my collection of national IQs and fine-tuning them, in particular by showing that the IQ of the top 5 percent of a nation makes a more important contribution to economic development than the average IQ.

Davide Piffer has done brilliant work identifying the genes responsible for race differences in intelligence. He is from the north of Italy where the more intelligent Italians are found.

Michael Woodley is a brilliant young Englishman who has published numerous papers on a wide variety of topics, and Edward Dutton is another brilliant young Englishman who has published some excellent work on race differences in sporting abilities.

Sex differences in intelligence are as controversial as race differences. You have written that the average adult male IQ is four points higher than the average adult female IQ. What is the evidence for this view?

RL: I have written quite a lot about this. In all fields of scholarship we have to take a lot on trust. If all previous scholars are agreed on something, we take it for granted that they must be right. All the experts from at least World War I on had stated that there is no sex difference in intelligence, and many scholars whom I respected repeated this assertion. For instance, Herrnstein and Murray wrote in The Bell Curve that “The consistent story has been that men and women have nearly identical IQs.” I had no reason to doubt this consensus, but in 1992 I was shaken when Dave Ankney and Phil Rushton independently published papers showing that men have larger brains than women, even when controlling for body size and weight. 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 men and women have the same intelligence.

I grappled with this problem for about six months. I went through dozens of studies, and the experts seemed to be right that males and females have the same intelligence. Then at last I found what I believed to be the solution. When I looked at the studies in relation to the age of the subjects 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 onward, males begin to show higher IQs than females, and that by adulthood, the male advantage reaches about four IQ points, entirely consistent with their larger average brain size. I proposed that the explanation was that males continue to mature from the age of 16 years, while the maturation of females stops. I published this solution to what I called the Ankney-Rushton anomaly in 1994.

Most people ignored my solution, including Art Jensen in his 1998 book The g Factor. He concluded that “the sex difference in psychometric g is either totally non-existent or is of uncertain direction and of inconsequential magnitude.” I continued to publish papers showing that up to the age of 15 years males and females have approximately the same IQ except for a small male advantage on the spatial and visualization abilities, but from the age of 16 males begin to show greater intelligence, but most people continued to assert that men and women have equal intelligence. For instance, in 2006, Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams published an edited book Why aren’t more women in Science? They brought together 15 experts to discuss this question. They began by saying “We have chosen to include all points of view,” but none of the contributors presented the case that men have higher intelligence than women, and that high intelligence is required to make a successful career in science. Several of the contributors asserted that there are no sex differences in intelligence.

The only person who attacked my theory was Nick Mackintosh. In 1996, he contended that the Progressive Matrices is an excellent measure of intelligence and of Spearman’s g, that it is known that there is no sex difference in scores on the Progressive Matrices, and therefore that my claim was refuted. He made no mention of my maturation theory, namely, that it is only from the age of 16 years that males begin to show higher IQs than females. In response to Mackintosh’s criticism I collaborated with Paul Irwing in carrying out meta-analyses of sex differences on the Progressive Matrices in general population samples and in university students. We found that in general population samples there is no sex difference up to the age of 15 years, but among adults, men have a higher IQ than women by 5 IQ points. Among university students, we found the male IQ advantage is 4.6 IQ points.

While most experts ignored our results, I did have some supporters for my conclusions. In the next few years several people published data supporting the theory, including Helmuth Nyborg, Juri Allik, Doug Jackson, Phil Rushton, Roberto Colom, and Gerhard Meisenberg. By 2016, many studies have shown that men have a higher IQ than women. Nevertheless, some scholars continue to assert that there is no sex difference in intelligence. For instance: “Women tend to do better than men on verbal measures, and men tend to outperform women on tests of spatial ability; these small differences balance out so that the average general score is the same” (Ritchie, 2015, p. 105). Likewise: “In adulthood, there is scant evidence for sex differences in g, although women tend to perform better than men in verbal tasks, whilst men outperform women slightly in spatial tasks” (Cooper, 2015, p.207). The assertion that women tend to perform better than men in verbal tasks is incorrect and it is astonishing that some scholars are making this contention. The only explanation would seem to be that they have never read the literature on this issue.

Why is the study of group differences so controversial? In particular, why do whites so strongly resist the rather obvious fact that they are, on average, more intelligent than blacks?

RL: Whites have become so nice and sensitive to the feelings of others that they hate to accept that some individuals and peoples are more intelligent than others. Denial of these differences has become known as political correctness. Denial has become so strong that intelligence has even become a taboo word. Here in Britain, children lacking in intelligence who were formally described as imbeciles and then as mentally retarded are now designated as having “special needs.” This sensitivity to the feelings of others has evolved over the last two centuries and first appeared in Britain in 1807 with the abolition of the slave trade and in 1834, with the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire. It appeared in the United States in 1865 with the abolition of slavery, and later with the abolition of slavery in Brazil. In the 19th century it was acceptable to assert that some races are inferior to others. Alfred Tennyson, the British poet laureate, wrote: “The black Australian dying hopes he shall return a white” (Locksley Hall 60 Years on). Probably he was right about this, but it would be impossible to publish observations of this kind today. Just why whites have become so sensitive to the feelings of others is difficult to explain.

Society punishes people who break taboos. Have you faced opposition in your career?

RL: I encountered a certain amount of hostility when I was at the University of Ulster from students disrupting my lectures and demanding my dismissal but it could have been much worse.

What are your hobbies, pastimes, pleasures?

RL: My main pastime is bridge which I find is so potentially addictive that it could take over my life if I allowed it. As it is, I ration myself to two evenings a week. I get a great deal of pleasure from novels (my favorites are those of Tom Wolfe) and classical music (my favorites are the middle and late works of Beethoven). My other pleasure is my extended family, including nine grandchildren and a great-grandson. I would have been hugely disappointed if I had not had children and not passed on my genes to succeeding generations. When I read, all too often, of successful people, and especially the many successful women, who are childless, I think “what a wasted life.”

Of your many books, which do you think are the most important? If someone were to read just three books by Richard Lynn, which ones should he choose? 

RL: Difficult question but I would nominate (1) Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. (2012). Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences. London: Ulster Institute for Social Research.

This was our last work on national IQs and their numerous educational economic, sociological, demographic, geographical and climatic causes and effects.
(2) Lynn, R. (2015). Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Second edition. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers. This documents racial IQs worldwide and explains how they evolved.

(3) Lynn, R. (2016). Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers (not yet published). This book documents racial differences in psychopathic personality worldwide, showing that they are the reverse of those in intelligence–highest in Australian Aborigines and lowest in Northeast Asians–and explains how they evolved. This is a book-length treatment of the theory I set out in a paper in 2002.

Richard Lynn and Tom Sunic
Richard Lynn and Tom Sunic

Are there other books you would like to mention?
RL: The Global Bell Curve (2005) took as its starting point The Bell Curve, in which Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray showed in 1994 that in the United States there is a racial hierarchy in which Europeans have the highest IQs and perform best in earnings, socio-economic status, and a range of social phenomena, Hispanics come next, while blacks do least well. In The Global Bell Curve I examined whether similar racial intelligence and socio-economic hierarchies are present in other parts of the world, and documented that they are. They are found in Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand. It is invariably the Europeans and Northeast Asians who are at the top of the racial hierarchies. These are followed by the brown-skinned peoples who occupy intermediate positions, e.g. the Coloreds and Indians in Africa, the Mulattoes and Mestizos in Latin America, and light-skinned blacks in the United States, who are in the middle of the IQ and socio-economic hierarchies. Dark-skinned African Blacks and Native American Indians invariably are at the bottom of the hierarchies.

In Australia and New Zealand, it is the lighter-skinned Europeans and Chinese who are at the top of the IQ and socio-economic hierarchies, while the darker-skinned Aborigines and Maoris are at the bottom. In Southeast Asia, in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand, it is invariably the Chinese who have higher IQs than the indigenous peoples and outperform them in education, earnings, wealth, and socio-economic status.

These color-related social hierarchies are so inescapable that sociologists and anthropologists have coined the term pigmentocracy to describe them. A pigmentocracy is a society in which wealth and social status are related to skin color. I argued that intelligence differences provide the best explanation for the racial hierarchies that are present in all multiracial societies.

I would also like to mention my work on dysgenics and eugenics. I became interested in eugenics when I was a student in the 1950s. I read the papers of several psychologists in the United States, and of Sir Cyril Burt, Sir Godfrey Thompson and Ray Cattell in Britain, showing that the average IQ of the population was declining because people with low IQs were having more children than those with high IQs. I thought this must be an enormously serious problem. But it was not until the early 1990s that I began to work on eugenics.

My first book on this subject was Dysgenics (1996), which described the deterioration of genetic intelligence in many economically developed nations caused by the lower fertility of those with high IQs, especially women. It sets out the evidence that modern populations have been deteriorating genetically from around 1880 in terms of health, intelligence and moral character.

In 2001, I published a sequel, Eugenics: A Reassessment. It begins with a historical introduction to the ideas of Francis Galton and the rise and fall of eugenics in the 20th century. I then discuss the objectives of eugenics, which I identify as the elimination of genetic diseases and the improvement of intelligence and moral character. This is followed by a consideration of how eugenic objectives can be achieved using methods of selective reproduction and concludes that there is not much scope for this.

Finally, I discuss how eugenic objectives could be achieved by the “New Eugenics” of biotechnology using embryo selection and how these are likely to be developed in the 21st century. I conclude by predicting the inevitability of a future eugenic world in which couples will select genetically desirable embryos for implantation and there will be huge improvements in the genetic quality of the populations of economically developed countries where these technologies are adopted. I have also published several papers demonstrating dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States and Britain, and one showing that there is also dysgenic fertility for moral character.

There is also my book on the high IQ of the Jews: The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievements (2011). I was stimulated to write this because some years ago I read that about a third of the Nobel Prizes won by Germany in the years 1901–1939 had been awarded to Jews. I found that Jews were about 0.85 per cent of the population, and reflected that Jews must have had a very high IQ to achieve this astonishing over-representation. I had a look at the research on the intelligence of the Jews and found that a number of studies had been published reporting that Jews do indeed have high IQs. They were all quite old, since comparative studies of the IQs of different peoples have become increasingly taboo. I investigated the Jewish IQ, and estimated the Ashkenazi IQ at approximately 110, and the IQ of Oriental Jews at 91. I also wondered whether Jews might have some personality characteristic, such as a strong work ethic, which might contribute to their high achievements, but in a paper I published in 2008 with Satoshi Kanazawa we reported that we could find no evidence for this.

I then read a number of papers in economics and sociology journals going back to the first half of the 20th century on the educational attainments, earnings and socio-economic status of Jews in the United States, and found that these are all higher in Jews than in gentile whites. But the strange thing was that none of these mentioned that the explanation for these remarkable achievements could be high intelligence. The more of these papers I read, the more it became apparent that work needed to be done investigating whether high Jewish IQ explains their high educational attainments, earnings, and socio-economic status in all countries in which they are, or have been, present. I have documented that this is so in my book, The Chosen People: Jewish Intelligence and Achievements.

It may be surprising that the book was largely ignored by Jewish academics and intellectuals. It was not reviewed in the Jewish journal Commentary or in the Jewish Journal of Sociology. It seems  Jews have become so politically correct that they have become embarrassed by their high IQ and their huge contributions to knowledge.

And finally there is my Race and Sport: Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability (2015, written jointly with Edward Dutton) which documents that there are some sports at which blacks are better than Europeans and Northeast Asians, notably sprinting in the case of West Africans and long distance running in the case of east Africans. I thought it was time to show that there are some things at which blacks are better than whites, though I believe that in the United States people have been dismissed from their jobs for saying this.

Given your view on dysgenics and racial differences in IQ, what future do you see for the West?

RL: I am very pessimistic about the future of the West. I think there are four problems. First, our populations are declining because we have below replacement fertility in all Western nations. Second, we have dysgenic fertility, i.e. high-IQ women are having fewer children than low-IQ women, with the result that the genetic IQ of our populations is declining.

Third, most Western countries have been experiencing massive immigration of non-Western peoples who will eventually become majorities. In the United States, the European peoples will become a minority around the year 2042 and a declining minority thereafter. The United States will inevitably become like Latin America and resemble Mexico, Venezuela, and other Latin American countries, and cease to be a superpower. The replacement of Europeans by non-Europeans is also taking place throughout Western Europe. In Britain, non-Europeans are expected to become a majority around the year 2066, and in other Western European countries some time in the second half of the century. I believe this demographic transition is unstoppable because of continuing non-European immigration and the high fertility of the immigrants.

Fourth, in the world as a whole there is much higher fertility in the low IQ countries. The effect of this is that the world’s IQ is deteriorating genetically and there is every reason to expect that this deterioration will continue for many decades.
This is certainly a pessimistic scenario. Do you see any cause for optimism?

RL: Yes. First, Western Civilization will probably survive in Eastern Europe and Russia and in Israel, at least for a while, as these countries are fairly successful at preventing the immigration of non-Western peoples. Second, China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have highly intelligent populations and are also preventing the immigration of non-indigenous peoples. I believe that these countries will carry the torch of civilization and within a few decades China will replace the United States as the world superpower. Whether this is an optimistic scenario I will leave others to decide.

How do you hope to be remembered?
RL: As one who made some contribution to advancing the understanding of truths that were politically incorrect but scientifically correct–like my fellow Englishman Thomas Malthus, who was buried in 1834 in Bath Abbey, about 15 miles from where I live. His memorial tablet in the Abbey reads as follows:
Thomas Malthus was one of the best men and truest philosophers of any age or country raised by native dignity of mind above the misrepresentations of the ignorant and the neglect of the great. He lived a serene and happy life devoted to the pursuit and communication of truth supported by a calm but firm conviction of the usefulness of his labours, content with the approbation of the wise and good. His writings will be a lasting monument of the extent and correctness of his understanding. The spotless integrity of his principles, the equity and candour of his nature, his sweetness of temper, urbanity of manners, tenderness of heart, and his benevolence are the recollections of his family and friends.
Malthus Gravestone


Allik, J., Must, O and Lynn, R. (1999). Sex differences in general intelligence among high school graduates: Some results from Estonia. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 1137-1141.
Ankney, C.D. (1992) Sex differences in relative brain size: the mismeasure of women, too? Intelligence, 16, 329-336.
Barnett, S. M. & Williams, W. M. (2004). National Intelligence and the Emperor’s New Clothes: A Review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations, by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. Contemporary Psychology, 49, 389-396.
Ceci, S.J., & Williams, W. (Eds.) (2006) Why aren’t more women in Science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Colom, R. & Lynn, R (2004). Testing the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence on 12-18 year olds. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 75-82.
Cooper, C. (2015). Intelligence and Human Abilities. London: Routledge.
Dutton, E. & Lynn, R. (2015). Race and Sport: Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability. London: Ulster Institute for Social Research.
Flynn, J.R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51.
Herrnstein, R. & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: The Free Press.
Hunt, E. (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R.J. (2006). Sorry, wrong numbers: An analysis of a study between skin color and IQ. Intelligence, 34, 131-139.
Irwing, P. & Lynn, R (2005). Sex differences in means and variability on the Progressive Matrices in university students: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 505–524.
Jackson, D.N. & Rushton, J.P. (2006). Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17-18 year olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence, 34, 479-486.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Lynn, R. (1977a). The intelligence of the Japanese. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 30, 69-72.
Lynn, R. (1977b). The intelligence of the Chinese and Malays in Singapore. Mankind Quarterly, 18,125-128.
Lynn, R (1982). IQ in Japan and the United States shows a growing disparity. Nature, 297, 222-223.
Lynn, R. (1990). The role of nutrition in secular increases of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 273–285.
Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 257-271.
Lynn, R. (1996). Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration in Modern Populations. Westport, CT., Praeger.
Lynn, R. (2001). Eugenics: A Reassessment. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lynn, R. (2002). Racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 273-316.
Lynn, R. (2008). The Global Bell Curve. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.
Lynn, R. (2013). Who discovered the Flynn Effect? A review of early studies of the secular increase of intelligence. Intelligence, 41, 765-769.
Lynn, R. (2015). Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Second edition. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.
Lynn, R. (2016). Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.
Lynn, R. & Harvey, J. (2008). The decline of the world’s IQ. Intelligence, 36, 112-120.
Lynn, R. & Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the Progressive Matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481-498.
Lynn, R. & Kanazawa, S. (2008). How to explain high Jewish achievement: The role of intelligence and values. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 801-808.
Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. (2006). IQ and Global Inequality. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.
Lynn, R. & Vanhanen, T. (2012). Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences. London: Ulster Institute for Social Research.
Mackintosh, N.J. (1996). Sex differences and IQ. Journal of Biosocial Science, 28, 559-572.
Meisenberg, G. (2009). Intellectual growth during late adolescence: Effects of sex and race. Mankind Quarterly, 50, 138-155.
Nyborg, H. (2005). Sex-related differences in general intelligence: g, brain size and social status. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 497-510.
Rindermann, H. & Ceci, S. J. (2009). Educational policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 4, 551-577.
Ritchie, S. (2015). Intelligence. London: John Murray Learning.
Rushton, J.P. (1992) Cranial capacity related to sex, rank and race in a stratified sample of 6,325 military personnel. Intelligence, 16, 401-413.
Woodley, M. A., te Nijenhuis, J. & Murphy, R. (2013). Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time. Intelligence, 41, 843-850.