Archive for Jared Taylor

Send Them Home

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey explain how the Obama administration used “temporary protected status” to grant de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants from “s**thole” countries. Donald Trump is withdrawing that status and sending home Haitians and Salvadorans. Trump is also enforcing other regulations to speed up deportation. Taylor and Kersey also praise Victor Orban’s strong statements on migrants, and laugh at Mayor De Blasio’s attempts to sanitize “offensive” public monuments in New York City.



The post Send Them Home appeared first on American Renaissance.

Who Wants to Abolish the White Race?

The post Who Wants to Abolish the White Race? appeared first on American Renaissance.

Let Them Build Wakanda!

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey discuss the racial implications of the new Disney/Marvel movie The Black Panther. They also describe the astonishing lengths to which white men are being kept out of design and construction of the Obama presidential library, the Israeli policy to expel African “infiltrators,” and the disturbing implications of Germany’s new anti-free-speech laws.



The post Let Them Build Wakanda! appeared first on American Renaissance.

The Definitive Word on Intelligence

Arthur R. Jensen, The g Factor, Praeger Publishers, 1998, 648 pp., ISBN: 0275961036, $39.95

Arthur Jensen of U.C. Berkeley is one of the greatest social scientists of our time. He virtually single-handedly resurrected the scientific study of intelligence, and he has been at the center of many breakthroughs in this field. Needless to say, he is a courageous man, who has never let hysterical opposition or even death threats keep him from studying some of the most important and contentious issues we face.

The g Factor by Arthur Jensen

The g Factor is only the latest of the many publications that resulted from what can now be seen as a watershed event: the 1969 appearance in the Harvard Educational Review of Prof. Jensen’s famous article on the heritability of IQ and how difficult it is to raise. This article not only reestablished the connection between genetics and intelligence but set the direction of Prof. Jensen’s career. He has since written countless articles in this field and three major books: Educability and Group Differences (1973), Bias in Mental Testing (1980), and now, The g Factor.

These books chart the recent remarkable progress in the study of intelligence. If Prof. Jensen had so dominated any less controversial field he would certainly be a candidate for the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, his real stature is recognized only by a small number of specialists and professional colleagues, but the implications of his work continue to reverberate through the larger society. Whatever recognition he may ultimately receive, his work has gone far to set the study of mental ability once more on a firmly scientific basis.

The g Factor

This book is an investigation of the nature of intelligence, the extent to which it is under genetic control, and its uneven distribution between individuals and groups. The first part is a complete and sometimes technical treatment of “the g factor” itself, which appears to be a unitary mental ability underlying all activities we think of as requiring intelligence. “Factors” are the end result of a mathematical procedure called factor analysis, and the g factor is the “general” factor of intelligence, first hypothesized by the British psychologist, Charles Spearman (1863-1945). Spearman thought of g as a direct analogy to the “G” of physics, that is Newton’s gravitational constant. Spearman’s view, substantiated by almost a century of research, was that g is of central importance to psychology just as g was to Newtonian physics.

G can be thought of as the undifferentiated raw cognitive power of the brain. It cannot be directly measured, but it manifests itself in all types of cognitive activity, and people who are good at one kind of mental test tend to be good at all of them. To use the statistical term, a person’s different abilities are correlated, and similar abilities tend to correlate most closely with each other. For example, someone who is exceptionally good at any mathematical test is likely to be very good at all mathematical tests — but he is likely to perform well on verbal tests, too. As we will see, g is at work when even the smallest demands are made on the mind.

If people take enough different kinds of mental tests, their scores can be analyzed for factors, or the tendency of the correlations between similar abilities to cluster in groups. There will be factors for such things as verbal, musical, mathematical, and spatial manipulation abilities. Further analysis of these factors reveals a fundamental factor common to them all, which is the g factor.

We can therefore imagine a series of different factories in the brain, all powered by the same energy source. One of the factories manufactures solutions to mathematical problems, while another produces correct understandings of words and sentences. Other factories produce solutions to other kinds of mental problems, but all of them can be thought of as running off a common power source, which is g.

People differ in the efficiency of their individual factories, which is why smart people have different strengths in different areas despite being smart in a general sort of way. But people differ most significantly in the level of the general power source, or g. Someone with an IQ of 100 may have a math factory that is relatively more efficient than his verbal or music factory, but even in math he is likely to fall well behind someone with an IQ of 130 whose math factory is relatively less efficient than his verbal factory. It is the difference in levels of power available to all of a person’s factories that produce the marked differences in ability that characterize our species.

Many kinds of mental performance can be taught and people can show improvement, but what is improving is an ability that is not g. As Prof. Jensen explains, “At the level of psychometrics [mental testing], ideally, g may be thought of as a distillate of the common source of individual differences in all mental tests, completely stripped of their distinctive features, of information content, skill, strategy, and the like.”

Interestingly, Prof. Jensen reports that it is at the highest levels of g that people show the most variation in abilities that are independent of g. Thus, very intelligent people may have markedly different mental ability profiles despite similar levels of g. If all the factories are getting lots of power from their common source, some of the factories are likely to be unusually efficient so that the pattern of different levels of efficiency can differ considerably from one smart person to another.

Some critics have complained that g is not real because it cannot be measured directly and must be derived by a complex statistical process. Prof. Jensen shows that it is not, for this reason, artificial. If there were no g factor, sophisticated mathematics could not coax it into existence. Moreover, the same g factor is found in all human populations, and can be derived from the results of mental tests prepared by people who have never heard of g or who have even doubted there was such a factor. g can be calculated only because it exists, and in that sense is purely objective. Prof. Jensen believes that it reflects one of the basic functions of the brain, and that although all normal people share the same biological structures they differ greatly in the efficiency of certain neurological processes.


Direct assessment of brain functions gives strong evidence that g is a real, physiological phenomenon, and Prof. Jensen has been a pioneer in using what are called elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs) to study intelligence. The simplest sort of ECT involves a test device with two push-buttons (see illustration, below). The subject holds down the black button while he waits for a light to go on inside the smaller, white button. He then presses the illuminated button as quickly as possible. This measures two things. The first is reaction time: the time between the light going on and the subject taking his finger off the black button. The second is movement time: the time it takes the subject to move his finger from the black button to the illuminated button.

Obviously, this is a very simple (indeed, elementary) task, though tests of this kind can be made more complicated. For example, there can be a number of smaller buttons that can light up in different patterns, requiring the subject to make slightly more complicated decisions before moving his finger. We do not think of this sort of thing as mentally demanding — no one ever “fails” these tests — but the neurological processing that goes into these very simple tasks is closely related to intelligence.

Prof. Jensen has found that reaction speed is strongly correlated with g level, but that the highest correlation is between g and consistency of reaction time. With a set of scores from various different ECTs, it is possible to achieve a 0.7 correlation with g as calculated from conventional IQ tests. This approaches the g correlation (0.8) of Ravens Progressive Matrices, the IQ test that comes the closest to measuring g itself. Surprising as it may seem, careful monitoring of the processes that underlie ECTs can give results that are so reliable they rival pencil-and-paper tests.

ECT performance matches group differences in intelligence. It is worse in children than in adults, and better in gifted children than in normal children. Blacks have quicker movement times than whites while whites have quicker and more consistent reaction times. Asians do slightly better than whites, and performance for no group improves with practice; ECTs appear to measure something basic to the brain.

Another direct assessment of mental processing is the inspection time test. This uses an instrument called a tachistoscope to throw an image on a screen for a very brief period. Starting at the millisecond level, which is too quick for anyone to see the image, the exposure is gradually increased until a subject can just make it out. There is a correlation of .54 between speed of inspection time and IQ — remarkably high for a task that is so different from an IQ test. Once again, the test seems to be measuring a neurological process closely associated with mental processing.

Yet another direct assessment is the study of brain waves. Prof. Jensen explains that a wave pattern called average evoked potential can be analyzed in specialized ways that show a surprisingly high correlation with IQ.

Finally, researchers have devised something that is essentially a direct test of brain efficiency. The brain’s fuel is glucose, or simple sugar. When a radioactive isotope of glucose is injected into a subject’s blood stream it is possible to measure the rate at which the brain takes it up and metabolizes it. When rate of metabolism is measured while subjects are taking an IQ test, the high scorers use less sugar than the low scorers, with a remarkable correlation with IQ of around .7 or .8. The less powerful brains get wrong answers despite burning more fuel. If we return to the analogy of the brain as composed of factories, the common power supply simply appears to be less efficient.

If advances continue to be made in direct assessment of the brain, conventional IQ testing may be superseded. This would certainly silence any complaints about “test bias.”


Because the issue of whether education or environment can influence IQ levels is central to so much policy-making, The g Factor thoroughly covers the question of heritability. Kinship and adoption studies have provided some of the most illuminating data on this question, and Prof. Jensen reports them in detail.

Some of the most significant findings are the correlations of IQs of identical twins reared in the same family (.86), identical twins separated at birth and reared in different families (.75) and fraternal twins reared in the same family (.60). That identical twins separated at birth should have more similar IQs than fraternal twins reared by the same parents is perhaps the single most powerful argument for the view that genes have a greater effect on IQ than environment. As Prof. Jensen points out, “similarities in the MZA’s [monozygotic (identical) twins reared apart] environments cannot possibly account for more than a minute fraction of the IQ correlation of +.75 between MZAs.”

Studies of siblings and adopted children likewise confirm the power of heredity in determining differences in IQ, and it is now generally agreed among specialists that 60 to 80 percent of human IQ variation is due to genes. This does not mean, however, that the remaining environmental influences are well understood or can be used to raise IQ. As Prof. Jensen explains, “a large part of the specific environmental variance appears to be due to the additive effects of a large number of more or less random and largely physical events — developmental ‘noise’ — with small, but variable positive and negative influences on the neurophysiological substrate of mental growth.”

What is this developmental “noise”? “[S]uch effects as childhood diseases, traumas, and the like, as well as prenatal effects such as mother-fetus incompatibility of blood antigens, maternal health, and perinatal effects of anoxia and other complications in the birth process, could each have a small adverse effect on mental development.” These appear to be the kind of non-genetic factors that influence IQ, and they are not the sort of thing that can be easily manipulated.

As Prof. Jensen makes emphatically clear, the non-genetic influence comes only slightly, if at all, from what are called between-family differences: education of parents, social status, family income, school quality, etc. Liberals believe that these are the crucial factors that make people different from each other, but liberals are wrong. IQ (like other personality traits) is astonishingly impervious to any but the most degraded and unfavorable environments.

Prof. Jensen calls the environmentalist view “the sociologist’s fallacy.” It is true that children from wealthy homes tend to be smarter than children from poor homes, but wealth does not make them smart. They get genes for intelligence from their smart parents, and their parents are likely to be well off (and have homes full of books and speak in complete sentences) because they are smart. Of course, children do differ from their parents in intelligence, and these differences explain how families rise and fall. A person’s IQ has a correlation of .7 with his own adult socio-economic status but only about .4 with that of his parents.

Error though it be, the sociologist’s fallacy has driven not only an enormous number of government uplift programs but several well-publicized private efforts to raise the IQs of poor black children. Prof. Jensen reviews the results of the Milwaukee Project, Head Start, and the Abecedarian Project, some of which made extraordinary attempts to improve environments.

In some cases, the early results were very encouraging: gains of 20 or even 30 points compared to control groups. But as Prof. Jensen convincingly argues, what the children learned at intensive “infant stimulation centers” and the like was information and strategies that helped them take the tests. g very probably did not change. In most cases, administrators did not give a battery of tests and attempt to calculate g. Instead, they gave the same test at different ages and rejoiced to find improvement.

Professor Jensen gives a striking example of how training can improve test results without raising g. He notes many children’s IQ tests have a memory component: How long a string of letters or numbers can the child repeat back to the tester? Most adults can’t remember more than about seven numbers, but with lots of practice and training, people can remember as many as 70 or even 100 digits. They can do this because they develop a specific strategy or skill, not because their memory or g level has improved. The tricks a person uses to remember 70 digits are so specialized, in fact, that they do not even help the same person remember more than an average number of letters (rather than digits)!

Children who took part in these widely-acclaimed IQ-raising programs probably learned specific skills of this kind during the thousands of hours of instruction they received. But even the most intensive enrichment programs had virtually no permanent effect on school performance or IQ, which suggests that g itself was unchanged. Prof. Jensen concludes that IQ cannot be appreciably increased by specialized education.

It is true that the IQ test scores of children are affected to some degree by the environment their parents make for them. This is almost certainly because they learn more facts and absorb test-taking strategies and not because the love and care of good parents improves g. In fact, as children grow older they create environments that suit their own genetic endowments, and Prof. Jensen is categorical about what then happens: “By adulthood, all of the IQ correlation between biologically related persons is genetic . . . [T]he environmental contribution to the familial correlations is nil.” Surprising as it may seem, once a child grows up, his IQ score is similar to that of family members only because he is genetically related to them, not because they spent many years in the same household.


Arthur Jensen

Racial Differences

Prof. Jensen is equally forthright in explaining that genes account for the well-established IQ differences between the races. First, he points out that approximately half — or 50,000 — of the genes that vary in human beings play a role in brain functions, and that 30,000 affect the brain exclusively. It would be astonishing if genes did not play a central role in intelligence and if the races, which differ physically in so many ways, did not differ in brain function.

He also offers an arresting refutation of the fashionable view that race is purely a social construct and is not biological. Prof. Jensen likens race to the visible colors. A rainbow forms when the wave-length of light changes continuously and uniformly, but we do not perceive a continuous change. Instead, we see distinct bands of color. Though there may be some blurring of race at the edges because of cross mating, races are as distinct as the bands of visible color. Prof. Jensen also cites the increasingly persuasive genetic evidence for the biological distinctness of different populations (see figure, below).

A number of elegant demonstrations based on the principle of regression toward the mean strongly suggest a genetic origin for group differences. This principle is a biological law according to which parents who are at the extremes of any trait are likely to have children who are less extreme. Two very tall parents are likely to have children who are not quite so tall, and two very short parents are likely to have children who are not quite so short. In the children, these traits revert toward the average, or the mean. The same effect is found in intelligence, but the mean toward which the black IQ regresses is a full 15 points lower than the white mean.

Therefore, when black couples and white couples are matched for IQ, the black/white IQ difference in their children increases as parental IQ increases. In other words, high IQ is an anomaly in all races, but more of an anomaly for blacks than for whites, and the children of high-IQ blacks regress further because they are regressing toward a lower mean.

Prof. Jensen reports a study of high-IQ children in one school district that provides more evidence for the difference in means. When white and black students were perfectly matched for IQs of 120, the average IQs of the siblings of the whites was 113 whereas the average IQs for the siblings of the blacks was 99. Among blacks, an IQ of 120 is simply a much greater deviation from the norm than it is for whites, and this is reflected in the IQs of their more ordinary siblings.

Regression toward the mean explains something that has always baffled the “sociologists:” children of low-income whites (and Asians) get better SAT scores than the children of high-income blacks. If environment controls IQ, the children of wealthy blacks should be enjoying the benefits of good environment. They are, but those benefits are meager and do not make up for the effects of heredity and the lower mean toward which black children regress.

There is no non-genetic explanation for group differences that can account for phenomena of this kind, but they are perfectly consistent with widely accepted principles of genetics. Specialists understand the force of arguments of this kind, which is why the view that “racism” and other environmental factors cause the black/white IQ gap persists mostly among the ignorant — who are the great majority.

More strong evidence for a substantially different biological mean for IQ is found in studies of the low end of the IQ distribution curve as well. Mental retardation — IQs below 70 — is generally of two types, familial and organic. Familial retardation occurs in children who are otherwise normal but were simply dealt a very poor hand of the genes that affect intelligence. Given a normal distribution of intelligence, a few people are inevitably going to have very low IQs, just as a few will have very high ones. Organic retardation, on the other hand, is caused by clear biological defects, like Down’s syndrome (Mongolism) and children who suffer from it are obviously abnormal.

An important racial difference lies in the fact that half of whites with IQs below 70 are organic retardates but only 12.5 percent of the blacks are. The source of this difference is the racial disparity in naturally occurring distributions of intelligence. Given that the distribution curve for black intelligence is shifted approximately 15 points toward the left, a substantially larger proportion of otherwise normal blacks will fall below an IQ of 70.

The opposite is true at the high end of the curve. The percentage of whites with IQs higher than 130 is 20 times that of blacks. Because there are approximately six times as many whites as blacks in America, in real terms there are perhaps 120 times more whites than blacks with IQs at this level. This is why, without racial preferences, it is impossible to admit large numbers of blacks to competitive universities or to promote them to challenging positions.

Brain and head size studies likewise confirm the biological origins of group differences. It is now well established that brain size correlates with intelligence, and Prof. Jensen reports that the heads of black newborns are a full .4 standard deviation smaller than those of whites.

Likewise, it has long been known that near-sightedness, or myopia, is correlated with intelligence; children with IQs over 130 are three to five times more likely to be nearsighted than children with normal IQs. There seems to be no functional, cause-and-effect connection between myopia and intelligence, but a pleiotropic relationship exists in that some of the same genes affect both traits. Intelligence and myopia are somehow “side effects” of each other to some degree. Prof. Jensen finds that myopia is most common in Jews, next in Asians, then in whites, and least common in blacks — precisely the distribution one would expect. Moreover, reading does not cause myopia. An oculist can examine the eyes of children who are too young to read and who are not yet near-sighted, and accurately predict whether they will need glasses later in life.

It is well known that the test score gap between blacks and whites varies from one IQ test to another, and that the gap narrows on the least abstract, most information-laden tests. Prof. Jensen explains that the real difference lies in the extent to which a test measures g; the more g-“loaded” a test is and the fewer specific non-abilities it measures, the greater the black/white gap.

Like many others who have studied the question, Prof. Jensen finds that the racial gap in IQ is increasing because of dysgenic birth patterns. In both races, less intelligent mothers are having more children than more intelligent mothers, but the disproportions are higher among blacks than whites. Also, since blacks have children, on average, two years earlier than whites, the generation time for blacks is shorter and dysgenic effects spread more rapidly.

One of Prof. Jensen’s most interesting racial findings is that the average IQ difference for blacks and whites in the same social class is 12 points — almost as great as the average difference between the two races (there is an average 17-point difference between any two people in the population picked at random). This is explained not only by preferential policies but also by racial differences in IQ distribution. If, for example, a demanding profession requires a minimum IQ of 125, blacks in that profession will tend to have IQs that cluster at the minimum, whereas whites will show greater variety. Because of this effect, the IQ gap between blacks and whites in the same social class narrows as one moves down the social scale.

Prof. Jensen finds that the geographic distribution of IQ is also uneven. For both blacks and whites, there is a continuous gradient that rises from the south towards the north and west. The gradient is sharper for blacks than whites, and both gradients are apparent in pre-school children, so regional differences in education do not explain it.

It has been widely reported that from infancy black children develop motor skills more rapidly than whites. Interestingly, Prof. Jensen finds that lower-class children (both white and black) develop more quickly than upper-class children, which suggests that slow maturation and high intelligence are correlated not just between races but within races.

For the most part, Prof. Jensen does not make policy recommendations; the facts alone are persuasive enough. He does point out, though, that life itself is a kind of continuous intelligence test, and that high g is one of the most important ingredients of success. He explains that scores on a highly g-loaded test are the best indicators of performance on any but the most specialized jobs. IQ is an excellent predictor for performance even on jobs that require manual dexterity and coordination. To a remarkable degree, g is the central mental characteristic of humans. Of course, intelligence is not everything. It takes more than brains to become a doctor — it takes persistence and discipline, too — but persistence is not enough. For many things, a certain level of g is indispensable, and low g cuts off desirable options at every stage of life. Low g is therefore a more accurate predictor of achievement than high g, since a lack of intelligence cannot usually be made up for by other qualities whereas high intelligence can be wasted.

When people with low g are scattered through otherwise normal communities it affects only individuals. Friends and relatives step in to help them. However, as Prof. Jensen points out, when people of low intelligence gather in large numbers, as they do in welfare housing, society falls apart. Prof. Jensen notes that in America there are now entire apartment blocks in which, even with welfare, the residents cannot get by without help from social workers. Dysgenic trends and increased immigration of low-stock mean areas like this will only expand.

In this connection, Prof. Jensen makes some interesting observations about adult illiteracy. Most people assume that the cause is poor schooling, but he argues that the problem is usually not the process of decoding written language but understanding it. Most illiterates do no better on reading comprehension tests when the selections are read to them than when they try to do the reading themselves! Illiteracy, in Prof. Jensen’s view, is much more a problem of low g than of somehow not learning how to read.

There are a few points on which Prof. Jensen’s data differ from results AR has reported elsewhere. Some researchers have found that although the average IQs of men and women are the same, a greater standard deviation for men means that more of them are bunched at both high and low IQs. Prof. Jensen does not find sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion. He does confirm the standard sex differences in verbal and spatial abilities and even reports that some higher mammals show the typical male superiority in spatial ability. He also writes that in addition to their well-known advantage in verbal ability, one of the largest sex differences favoring women is in something called “speed and accuracy,” which is similar to clerical checking.

Prof. Jensen also takes up the question of why black women are so much more successful than black men. They are more likely to graduate from high school and college, pass high-level civil service tests, and enter skilled professions. This difference is not found among whites, and some researchers have wondered if black women may have a higher average IQ than black men. Once again, Prof. Jensen finds no such difference — but he offers no other explanation.

Prof. Jensen also differs from researchers who explain part of the black/white crime rate difference in terms of high black testosterone levels and an inability to defer gratification. He argues that population differences in g alone explain differences in crime rates. He notes that criminals of all races have IQs that are some 10 points below those of their siblings, and finds that within the same ranges of IQ, blacks and whites have essentially the same crime rates.

More than Generous

Needless to say, Prof. Jensen has spent his career disagreeing with others, and from time to time in The g Factor he must explain why his critics are wrong — and he is always a gentleman. Even with those who have disagreed with him in strong terms, he is more than generous in pointing out the parts of their theories that may be correct, and couches his own criticism in the gentlest terms. He treats his wildest, least scientific critics to nothing more than dignified silence: The names of Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould do not even appear in an otherwise exhaustively researched and footnoted work.

The g Factor is not an easy book to read. Prof. Jensen writes clearly and repeats explanations when it would be unreasonable to expect perfect recall in his readers, but he writes for an informed, even specialist audience. He has already begun collaboration with a journalist on a more popular version of The g Factor. But those who are willing to invest the effort this book requires, will find that it is the monumental work of an extraordinary mind. A review can only begin to touch on its breadth and detail. This book is likely to become one of the landmark works in psychology, and it is the great good fortune of our society that a man of Prof. Jensen’s stature has made his career in this crucially important but thankless field.

The post The Definitive Word on Intelligence appeared first on American Renaissance.

Can America Be Saved?

Patrick J. Buchanan, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, Thomas Dunne Books, 2006, 107 pp.

This marvelous book appears at exactly the right moment: just as Congress is returning from vacation to resume debate on comprehensive immigration control. Patrick Buchanan, who has already written nearly a whole shelf of conservative classics, is topping the best-seller lists with one of the most eloquent and influential calls for immigration control we are likely to see for many years. One of the rare public intellectuals who can look past economic arguments to the ties of blood and heritage that make a nation out of a rabble, Mr. Buchanan knows that the demographic transformation we are witnessing threatens the very survival of the country he loves. This book is a cry from the heart of a deeply committed American patriot.

Patrick J. Buchanan, State of Emergency

Mr. Buchanan covers just about everything that has gone wrong: government failure to protect our borders or punish companies that hire illegals, the crushing burden of medicine and education for immigrants, the abandonment by elites of the concept of nation, the indifference and even hatred of many newcomers for America, the lust for reconquista, and the loss of will that means we must adapt to immigrants rather than the reverse. But most remarkably, Mr. Buchanan does not shy away from race.

He takes deliberate aim at people like Ben Wattenberg who tell us that anyone can be an American because we are a “creedal” or “proposition” nation. “Language, faith, culture, and history — and, yes, birth, blood, and soil — produce a people, not an ideology,” he writes. Elsewhere, he scoffs at the diversity we are supposed to be celebrating: “Nowhere on this earth can one find a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual nation that is not at risk.”

Mr. Buchanan even quotes approvingly the late Sam Francis’s words at the 1994 AR conference: “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.” He points out that if Francis had said this about the Chinese, for example, no one would have been shocked, but to speak of the genetic endowments of Europeans is a hanging offense: Francis lost his job at the Washington Times.

Mr. Buchanan even puts in a good word for the people who passed the 1924 “national origins” restrictions on immigration: “We may call them bigoted, but they preserved the America we are losing.” Although at the time he supported the 1965 Celler-Hart bill that led to the current Third-World invasion, Mr. Buchanan now understands why Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina opposed it. “What is wrong with the national origins of the American people?” the senator asked. “What is wrong with maintaining them? What is wrong with preferring as immigrants one’s own kinsmen?”

This book is undoubtedly the strongest defense of an essentially European America now available from a mainstream publisher.

Much of the data and most of the arguments in this book will be known to readers of AR, but State of Emergency ventures into less well known territory as well. In a brief account of the history of US immigration policy, Mr. Buchanan points out that the Statue of Liberty was first publicly linked to immigration in a speech by Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 — on the 50th anniversary of its dedication. Ironically, this was at a time when the US was receiving hardly any immigrants. As Mr. Buchanan explains, people who would have us believe we are a “creedal” nation are always trying to hijack America’s past; they tell us the statue always meant immigration.

Mr. Buchanan also gives us a review of our stormy relations with Mexico, laying to rest the idea that Mexico has never willingly given up territory. He points out the Mexicans once offered to sell us Baja California for $10 million but Congress rejected the offer.

Mr. Buchanan has a knack for marshalling familiar numbers in interesting ways. He points out, for example, that the figure of 36 million for immigrants and their children living in the United States is almost as large as the entire number of immigrants who came between 1607 and the Kennedy election of 1960. And today’s newcomers, he adds, are people who “have never been assimilated fully into any Western country.”

Likewise, if we accept the figure of 12 to 20 million illegals in our country, this is more than all the German and Italians who ever came here — and they were the most numerous immigrant peoples until everything changed in 1965.

In another interesting juxtaposition of figures, he notes that during the 1990s, the Hispanic population of LA County increased 27 percent — and the poverty rate increased 28 percent. During the same period the white population fell by 18 percent.

We are told over and over that illegals are essential to our economy, but Mr. Buchanan points out that they do not dominate a single profession. Illegals are most numerous as drywall/ceiling installers (27 percent) and landscape workers (26 percent), and their share of every other trade is even less.

State of Emergency includes a good account of deliberate Mexican efforts to fill our country with Mexicans and keep them loyal to the motherland. One of the most blatant operators has been Juan Hernandez, a former University of Texas professor whom Vicente Fox picked to run his Presidential Council for Mexicans Abroad. Mr. Hernandez, a dual citizen but loyal Mexican, told ABC’s Nightline how Mexican-Americans must think: “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’”

How did we sink so low? Mr. Buchanan writes that “there has arisen among our intellectual and cultural elites a contempt for the West,” and that our rulers worship at the “Church of GDP,” which believes in nothing but economic growth. Business wants an endless stream of cheap labor, and nanny-state bureaucrats want endless queues of clients for their handout programs.

Some kinds of support for immigration come close to certifiable insanity. As Mr. Buchanan explains, Republicans can never hope to win much Hispanic support because “there is an irreconcilable conflict between being a conservative party and being a party of Hispanics.” George W. Bush’s Mexico-boosting means that “today’s champion of open borders is a president whose own party is mortally imperiled by open borders.” Mr. Buchanan notes that in healthier times, our president’s failure to guard the border would have brought articles of impeachment.

There is considerable space in State of Emergency devoted to Europe, which is facing exactly the same crisis with exactly the same cowardice and willful blindness. Mr. Buchanan mentions an event in France that took place shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, and went largely unrecorded in the United States. On Oct. 6, 2001, a much-heralded match took place between the French and Algerian national soccer teams — the first since Algeria won independence from France in 1962. Arranged as a sign of friendship and reconciliation, the game was held in the French national stadium, Stade de France, just outside Paris. Prime Minister Lionel Jospin was in the presidential box, along with half a dozen other ministers.

Things got off to a bad start when the French-Algerians in the stands — almost all of them French citizens — set up a terrible din of boos and whistles at the first note of La Marseillaise.The ministers could hardly hear their national anthem, but bellowed grimly through to the end. Every time a French player touched the ball he was met with jeers. With the French in the lead, four to one, the Algerians could stand it no longer. A woman, draped in the Algerian flag, jumped out of the stands and ran across the field. A stampede of spectators followed her and stopped the game. The crowd shouted “Algeria, Algeria!” and “We won!” as it began to pelt the presidential box with water bottles and cell phone batteries. Two lady ministers were hit. Minister for Youth and Sport Marie-George Buffet took a water bottle on the nose, and another had her fur coat ripped by a missile. The two sought safety in the ladies restroom. Security guards — beefed up from the usual 800 for such events to 1,200 on this occasion — managed to evacuate the stadium without much violence but home-bound Algerians sacked a commuter train and mugged passengers. As Mr. Buchanan notes, the weeks of arson and mayhem France went thorough in October and November of last year were hardly without warning.

The French have been as bumbling and indecisive in the face of mortal threat as the Americans — and the British and Germans and Italians and Australians. Whatever the combination of reasons — and I believe no one has adequately explained their psychological capitulation — elites have imposed the Third-World on Western societies against the express wishes of their inhabitants and voters. As Mr. Buchanan points out, countries like the United States and Australia can no longer be said to be democracies, and every white government has failed the test Enoch Powell set in 1968: “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils . . . [T]he discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician.”

The result is that, in Mr. Buchanan’s words:

We are conducting an experiment rooted neither in common sense nor the American experience, but in an ideology that declares, against all historical evidence, that people of every country, creed, culture, or civilization are equally and easily assimilable into America, and all have an equal right to come here.

Mr. Buchanan proposes a sound list of remedies. He would build a 2,000-mile barrier along the entire southern border. He says it should be a 15-foot-high double wall with a road in between for the Border Patrol. It would cost about $8 billion but could be paid for if we charged $2.00 per person to enter the country legally.

Mr. Buchanan recognizes it would be a big job to cart off all the illegals, but believes they will go voluntarily if employers are strictly punished for hiring them, welfare and education benefits are cut off, and local police get the power to arrest on immigration charges.

Mr. Buchanan would end the “diversity lottery,” abolish birth-right citizenship, and make illegals ineligible for Social Security or the Earned Income Tax Credit. He would also end federal subsidies for cities that declared themselves “sanctuaries” for illegals, and would stop issuing visas to countries that refuse to take back unwanted citizens. If we do this, he writes, “in five to ten years our crisis will be at an end. But if we don’t do this, the crisis will end America.”

These measures would, indeed, be a marvelous beginning, and the success of Mr. Buchanan’s book suggests such a program would have broad support. Even if only half his program were enacted, it would be a great achievement. In the long term, of course, even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were halted tomorrow, differential birthrates would continue to eat away at the white majority, but our decline would slow from a gallop to a walk. Whites might even have babies again if they lived in a society they knew was dedicated to preserving European civilization and the people who created it.

The day may yet come when our people can say, along with Pat Buchanan, “America belongs to us, not the world.”

The post Can America Be Saved? appeared first on American Renaissance.

2018 Will Be a Year of ​Progress!

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey explain why they expect continuing progress in our movement. Our contest is not a sprint but a marathon, and patient efforts will be rewarded. They also discuss the significance of the return of a white farmer to Zimbabwe, latest developments in the Justine Damond killing, and the shameful of Islamization of Christmas in Europe.



The post 2018 Will Be a Year of ​Progress! appeared first on American Renaissance.

Is It OK to be White?

The post Is It OK to be White? appeared first on American Renaissance.

A Tweet Too Far

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey agree that Twitter’s new policies prove that the establishment must silence the most convincing forms of dissent. They also discuss an AP analysis of crime that actually hints at what the problem is, the black woman who is to be president of the Heritage Foundation, new frontiers of nuttiness in “whiteness studies,” and the European Commissioner for Migration’s call for white suicide.



The post A Tweet Too Far appeared first on American Renaissance.

The Politics of Tribe

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey discuss two recent elections: the senate race in Alabama and the mayoral race in Atlanta. The stark racial divide in Alabama was widely noted; in Atlanta it was ignored. They also summarize the remarkable findings of AmRen’s study on hate-crime hoaxes and a surprisingly subversive op-ed in “The Hill” that proposes “elective separation” of the races.



The post The Politics of Tribe appeared first on American Renaissance.

The Psychology of Hate Crime Hoaxes

The Hate Crime Hoax Map is available here.

The post The Psychology of Hate Crime Hoaxes appeared first on American Renaissance.

Why Race Matters

Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, Michael Levin, Praeger Publishers, 1997, 415 pp., $65.00.

Michael Levin’s long-awaited book on race has finally arrived, every bit as powerful and insightful as his admirers had hoped it would be. Why Race Matters does exactly what the title promises — it removes all illusions about the insignificance of race, and explains what racial differences mean for a multi-racial society. It is a thorough, overwhelmingly convincing treatment of America’s most serious and least understood problem. Like the work of Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton, it destroys the egalitarian myth, but Prof. Levin parts company with other academics in his willingness to tell us what biology means for policy. Facts imply conclusions, and this book draws them.

Why Race Matters

Basic Data

As Prof. Levin points out, a book like Why Race Matters should not have to be written. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from simple observation is that races differ: “To put the matter bluntly, the question is not why anyone would believe the races are unequal in intelligence, but why anyone would believe them equal.” For centuries, people as different as Arabs and Englishmen have judged Africans to be unintelligent, lascivious, jolly, and keen on rhythm. Today, in whatever corner of the globe one looks, blacks behave in certain consistent ways.

Nevertheless, every important racial policy in this country is based on the assumption that race differences in ability are known not to exist. Current beliefs are a remarkable victory of dogma over not only the evidence of our senses but the findings of science.

Prof. Levin begins by presenting the data. This has been done many times by others, and the basics need not be repeated here. Prof. Levin capably and thoroughly presents twin studies, adoption studies, test data, and heritability estimates, all while dismantling the desperate attempts of egalitarians to dismiss them.

There is now not much informed opposition (though a great deal of uninformed opposition) to the conclusion that IQ tests test intelligence, that intelligence is at least partly hereditary, and that the races differ in average IQ. The last-ditch battle of the egalitarians is to try to save the idea that race differences are caused by environment — primarily by malevolent white people, past and present.

To counter this view, Prof. Levin gives a thorough account of recent work on the strictly biological correlates of intelligence. When smart people think, their brains emit different electrophysiological signals from those of the less smart. Prof. Levin notes that advances in the study of brain waves could probably establish quite precise racial differences, but fear appears to have halted the research. Brain size also has a robust correlation with intelligence, and intelligent people’s brains metabolize glucose relatively slowly.

Egalitarians claim that childhood nutrition accounts for this sort of thing, but the differences remain when nutrition is held constant (when only those blacks and whites who get the same diet are compared). Moreover, black children mature more rapidly than white children, are more athletic, and go on to dominate professional sports — not what one would expect from the malnourished. Likewise, diet does not explain metabolic or brain size differences in fraternal twins reared in the same family on the same food. If the anti-biology camp is not to be silenced completely it must argue that people unconsciously single out children with large heads for favorable treatment or give white children subtle training in how to retard glucose oxidation.

It is nevertheless theoretically possible that the most hotly-defended egalitarian position is correct: that the black-white IQ gap persists only because the two populations are reared in different environments. According to this view, blacks and whites should be thought of as identical twins reared apart, but with the black twin’s environment so dismal it robbed him of 15 IQ points.

Such a view might be plausible if intelligence is easily molded, but it is not. Prof. Levin points out that since it is generally accepted that 70 percent of the variation in IQ is controlled by genes and only 30 percent by environment, “it is almost but not quite irrational to believe that the interracial IQ difference of +1 SD [standard deviation, or 15 points] can be completely explained by differences in black and white environments.” Blacks and whites would have to live in fantastically different worlds (Prof. Levin calculates them as 1.85 SD apart) to account for this IQ difference, yet the difference has been unchanged by integration, huge transfers of wealth, and the very considerable reduction in the gap between black and white environments.

There have, of course, been many attempts to raise black IQ by “enriching” the environment. As Prof. Levin explains, the most ambitious such efforts, including Head Start, the Perry Preschool Program, and the Milwaukee Project all failed to produce lasting gains in IQ. Recent ingenious testing methods for young children have shown that the one SD difference between blacks and whites is present by age three. It is hard to imagine white society managing to damage black children permanently during the very years when most blacks have virtually no contact with whites.

The tenacity with which egalitarians hold to social rather than biological explanations for group differences probably bespeaks a fear that biology is immutable in its power to determine our lives. And yet, if blacks are so vulnerable to environment that they have been collectively beaten out of 15 points of IQ, environment must be just as ruthless and deterministic as biology. The difference is that so long as there is a chance that white people are to blame for black failure, there is joy in denouncing and persecuting “racists.” All the fun goes out of the game if nature, not bigots, is to blame. Thus, as Prof. Levin explains, so long as there is even the flimsiest, post facto environmental explanation for differences, there will be zealots to defend it.

In the end, however, unless the data are somehow suppressed, Prof. Levin expects the Human Genome Project to identify intelligence-related genes and to show that they are not distributed with the same frequency in all races. He expects the distributions to match the social science data, which is indirect but relentlessly consistent. He tips his hat to W.E.B. Du Bois who, he says, will stand vindicated by science. When Du Bois spoke of “the talented tenth” — the minority of blacks on whom racial progress depends — he was very close to the truth. Approximately 12 percent of blacks are born at or above the white average in intelligence.

Mental Acrobatics

The modern debate about IQ has been quietly raging ever since Arthur Jensen relaunched it in 1969. Since many of the data are now unassailable, debate centers on how they should be interpreted. Much of Prof. Levin’s book is therefore devoted to taking the stuffing out of the sometimes comical arguments of people like Steven Jay Gould and Andrew Hacker. As the book shows, egalitarians are always shifting their ground, ignoring data, and creating mysteries where none exists.

Examples of the latter are the currently fashionable views that race is a purely social artifact that should be junked, and that intelligence is undefined and unknowable. Prof. Levin notes that acrobatics of this kind are pure tendentiousness. Those who would discard the idea of race in any discussion of IQ find it essential for affirmative action. As for the pose that intelligence is unknowable:

People who make a point in argument of not understanding ‘intelligence’ invariably do understand it in all other contexts. They know an ‘intelligent’ child is one who learns quickly, and that, of the two, Nobel laureates tend to be more ‘intelligent’ than manual laborers . . . People pretend not to understand ‘intelligence,’ I suspect, to avoid embarrassment over race.

There is also much ignorant shrieking about the “bias” of IQ tests designed by white men, but it is an odd bias that permits Asians to outscore whites. As Prof. Levin explains, a real example of bias would be a test of hand-eye coordination that involved only the right hand. Lefties could prove the bias of such a test by demonstrating their ability with their left hands. “If the races are equally intelligent,” he writes, “it should be possible to find a task intuitively requiring intelligence that blacks perform as well as whites.” No such task has ever been found.

This is what leads otherwise reasonable people to insist that musical and athletic abilities are forms of intelligence in which blacks may surpass whites. As Prof. Levin points out, it tortures the language to claim that Babe Ruth was a genius, but egalitarians must either take fantastic positions or cease to be egalitarian.

Even scientists lose their bearings when it comes to race. It is now fashionable to point out — correctly — that there is more genetic variation among African populations than in all other groups combined and then to suggest — stupidly or deceitfully — that this means genetic racial differences do not matter. Prof. Levin patiently explains that there is vastly more genetic variation in dogs than in giraffes, but that does not prevent people from noticing that giraffes are taller than dogs. The egalitarian literature is full of “science” of this kind, and one of this book’s great strengths is its relentless pursuit and exposure of claims that may well be deliberately deceptive.

Egalitarians may be best at deceiving themselves, as Prof. Levin shows in his neat analysis of the trendy view that blacks cannot be racists. When people say this, they are probably thinking of “racism” as the claim that one’s race is superior to others. In some dark recess of their minds, liberals cannot imagine anyone really believing that blacks are superior to whites, so blacks cannot be “racist.” Since this reasoning is taboo, they instead claim that only members of “the dominant culture” or the group with “power” can be racist.


Prof. Levin is at his most original and provocative when he sets aside well-established data on intelligence and takes up the even more controversial question of morality. Other researchers have suggested that blacks differ from whites in ways other than IQ, but have not followed this argument very far.

For example, the widely used Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which subdivides personality into a number of categories, shows consistent differences in how blacks and whites evaluate themselves. Blacks, for example, hold themselves in higher regard than whites (or, in today’s jargon, have “higher self-esteem”). They are consistently more likely to agree with statements like:

I am an important person.
I am entirely self-confident.
If given the chance I could make a good leader of people.
I have often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did.

The common assumption that blacks are “taught to hate themselves” is wrong; blacks are quite pleased with themselves. At the same time, they consistently score higher than whites on the MMPI scales for such things as Hypomania, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia, and Masculinity, which are precisely the traits that distinguish incarcerated criminals from the rest of us. They tend to agree, for example, with statements like:

Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught.
Most people make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them.
Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than lose it.
It is not hard for me to ask help from my friends even though I cannot return the favor.

Another finding is that blacks are more impulsive or present-oriented than whites. Given a choice between a small candy bar today and a big one tomorrow, black children are more likely than white children to want the small one today.

Finally, even within races, moral reasoning is closely associated with intelligence. Intelligence does not guarantee good behavior, but a certain level is necessary for self-knowledge and the comprehension of moral distinctions.

Prof. Levin does not flinch from drawing what may appear to be an unkind conclusion: Given the crime rates, social irresponsibility, lack of foresight, impulsiveness, and general self-centeredness of black behavior, blacks probably have a different inherent capacity and appreciation for morality.

He proposes that this difference can be explained by the environments in which blacks and whites (and Asians) evolved. In a warm climate where food can be gathered year-round, people do not need to develop habits of cooperation and planning in order to get through the winter. In the north, it took mutual trust and cooperation for groups of men to bring down large game, so reciprocal morality evolved along with intelligence.

Climate and terrain could also have influenced sexual behavior. Since African women could gather food for themselves and their children even if a mate abandoned them, there was less pressure to insist that men support their children. For the same reason, there was less evolutionary pressure on fathers to stick around. In the north, a man who abandoned his children might well leave no descendants to behave in like manner. And in fact, the family habits of Africans and transplanted blacks are extremely loose by white standards.

What we think of as moral behavior, including sexual morality, is now known to be heavily influenced by genes. As Prof. Levin points out, there is no biological reason to expect different populations to have evolved exactly the same distribution of morality-influencing genes. Therefore it is likely that “the races have . . . evolved divergent evaluations of cooperativeness, aggression, rule-following, and concern with the future.”

That blacks care less about others and worry less about the future is suggested in virtually every area of behavior. Crime is only the most obvious example, nor is it the expression of wretchedness and self-loathing that excuse-making whites pretend it to be. Prof. Levin notes that “the criminal behavior of young black males just does not look like an expression of despair. In account after account, these individuals come across as full of themselves and unrepentant.” He might have added that if blacks were really reduced to hopelessness by white oppression, they would presumably have high suicide rates, whereas in every age group blacks kill themselves at only one half to one quarter the white rate.

The other prominent black deviation from white morality is reckless procreation, but other traits are just as striking: unwillingness to do volunteer work, support charities, donate organs, volunteer as medical test subjects, keep quiet in theaters, recycle trash, save money, exercise, or keep houses in good repair. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to smoke, drink, and take drugs during pregnancy, even when doctors tell them not to. Blacks between ages 15 and 24 are ten times as likely to have fatal gun accidents as whites of the same age even when gun availability is controlled for. By white standards, black behavior is impulsive, shiftless, and inconsiderate.

People respond better to norms their ancestors evolved than to norms imposed on them by strangers. This may explain why black children get into trouble when held to standards of classroom decorum not “natural” to African societies. It may also explain current calls for “respecting the black learning style” or for Afrocentric curricula, but it is hardly fair of blacks to insist that the rules be changed to suit them after pushing their way unbidden into white institutions.

The personality differences Prof. Levin emphasizes explain why standardized tests “overpredict” black performance. Black students do not get grades as good as their SAT scores suggest they should, and even when IQ is held constant blacks are more likely than whites to be criminals. Why? It is likely that impulsiveness, a lack of concern for the future, and a lower regard for moral norms keeps blacks from performing at the levels IQ alone would predict.

Prof. Levin nevertheless warns whites against the mistake of thinking any human standard is absolute. Blacks can find whites moralistic, repressed, and incomprehensible: “A degree of helpfulness considered obligatory by hunters is considered foolish by gatherers, whereas hunters might regard gatherers as selfish. Each may think “something is wrong’ with — and dislike — the other.” He goes on to say that for people who have evolved under different circumstances “a propensity to violate white norms need not be disordered or dysfunctional.” Such differences are inherently no more value-laden than the fact that owls live in trees and moles live in holes. Blacks are simply different from whites and it may be foolish to expect them to behave like whites.

Of course, in a society built to white standards, it is difficult to refrain from ranking groups invidiously according to intelligence and morality. Prof. Levin argues that whites may therefore have valid reasons for wanting to avoid blacks. In this sense whites may well think whites (and Asians) “better” than blacks. Is this shocking? “The ranking of individuals and groups goes uncontested in nonracial contexts,” he notes, and adds that “few egalitarians would have the effrontery to deny that the average minister has more qualities he admires than the average murderer.”

At the same time, low intelligence and low self-control may mean blacks are simply less able to govern themselves. In Prof. Levin’s view, “a person of limited mental ability, not given to worrying about the quality of his desires or the likely consequences of following them, is relatively less free. So are people who follow an impulse as soon as it enters their heads.” This suggests that “the white advantage in intelligence and self-restraint implies that, on average, whites are more autonomous and responsible for their actions than are blacks . . .” and that blacks may be “less capable of scrutinizing the self and its choices.”

Curiously, many liberals unintentionally speak of blacks in much the same way. They describe deviance as the understandable and even inevitable consequence of “oppression,” thus implicitly accepting black helplessness. The literature on race is filled with the hunt for “root causes,” which is another name for excuses. And yet if the environment excuses blacks why does it not excuse the whites who are said to oppress them? That liberals never speak sympathetically of the “root causes” of racism suggests they think whites are more autonomous and responsible than blacks.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a somewhat less controversial subject but Prof. Levin tackles it with characteristic thoroughness and none of the mumbled apologies common even among “conservatives.” He notes that justifications for preference keep shifting:

“As the compensation argument has tottered — mainly with growing awareness that the beneficiaries of affirmative action have never been discriminated against, and that its white victims have never discriminated — there has been a migration to new grounds, few of which were heard of in 1965.” Nonsense about role models, self-esteem, fighting stereotypes, diversity, etc. is now spouted by “people who have forgotten, or never knew, why they supported racial preferences in the first place.”

Prof. Levin explains that the only valid excuse for preferences is compensation for past wrongs, but far from deserving compensation, American blacks have benefited enormously from life in a white-dominated society. Since black limitations are overwhelmingly likely to be inherent, whites have no obligation to help them overcome them. If anything, whites deserve compensation for the continuing violence and larceny they suffer at the hands of blacks.

Prof. Levin also points out the contradictions in affirmative action thinking when preferences are justified on probabalistic grounds: Even if it cannot be proven than any given black has suffered from white wickedness or that any given white has benefited from it, the chances are high enough to justify rewarding the one and punishing the other. However, preference advocates refuse to consider any probabalistic procedures that might inconvenience blacks. Blacks are vastly more violent than whites but liberals would gasp at the idea of making it more difficult for blacks than whites to own guns. Preventing violence is a far more legitimate role of government than promoting “diversity,” so why is probabalistic reasoning unwarranted in crime control?

Affirmative action also violates the liberals’ cherished notion that “separate is inherently unequal.” If separate employment or promotion standards are valid for blacks, why not separate schools — which would presumably be designed to meet their special needs? Incoherence on questions of this kind is mere cover for the conviction that the state may never allow race to be used against blacks but can require that it be used against whites.

Affirmative action is, of course, a policy that Prof. Levin would abolish today. While he is at it, he would legalize all private forms of discrimination. On libertarian grounds, people should be free to choose their associates or neighbors even for irrational reasons, and on empirical grounds it is often rational for whites to avoid blacks.

Prof. Levin would also abolish welfare. He argues that a social safety net may be a permissible luxury in a society of whites who will not abuse it but is, for blacks, too great a temptation to indolence. Likewise, the minimum wage is an unnecessary obstacle to blacks (and others) whose labor is simply not worth what government insists it should be.

Although blacks may be less able than whites to control behavior it does not mean wrongdoing should go unpunished, but that different punishments may be appropriate for different races. For blacks it should perhaps be swifter and include corporal punishment, especially for men who treat a jail term as a badge of honor and a rite of passage. It might also be sensible to try some black juveniles as adults, since blacks mature more rapidly than whites. Finally, since blacks have frequently shown themselves unable to transcend racial loyalty, they might be excluded from juries in trials that could inflame racial passion.

Interestingly, Prof. Levin’s exhaustive study of racial differences leads to policies strikingly similar to those of the pre-civil rights era American South. It may be no coincidence that the latest scientific findings support the traditions of whites who lived, for generations, in the most intimate contact with blacks.

The only real objection to this excellent book is what some readers will consider its excessive thoroughness. As the author himself concedes, he sometimes appears to be “defending the obvious with complicated rejoinders.” He explains that “where race is concerned, however, people seem capable of doubting what they elsewhere find self-evident, so argumentative overkill is difficult to avoid.”

The symbolic logic is confined to footnotes, but some readers will still find the overkill heavy going, especially when Prof. Levin veers into his own field of philosophy. Nevertheless, this is an invaluable volume, packed with insight and information, and deserves the close attention of anyone with a serious interest in the American racial dilemma.

[Editor’s Note: Why Race Matters is now available through American Renaissance for $19.95.]

The post Why Race Matters appeared first on American Renaissance.

Why Plexiglass Is So Racist . . .

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey discuss Asian resistance to the Plexiglas ban, how the campaign to impeach Trump puts tribe over principle, John Conyer’s “retirement,” the California lawsuit to cure illiteracy, and the scandal over leaked Swedish crime data.


RSS Feed

The post Why Plexiglass Is So Racist . . . appeared first on American Renaissance.

Arrest Donald Trump!

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey discuss the hysteria in Britain over Donald Trump’s retweet of three short videos critical of Islam. They also analyze the verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial, the media assumption that we (racial dissidents) are monsters, the latest anti-white hate tirades, the NFL’s $89 million bribe to black players, and fresh demographic projections for Europe.


RSS Feed

The post Arrest Donald Trump! appeared first on American Renaissance.

YouTube Sends Another AmRen Video to the Back of the Bus

We all know that major internet companies are in on a campaign to stop “hate.” That means disabling Facebook accounts, banning Twitter users, censoring YouTube, and even deactivating URLs.

YouTube has just quarantined another video on the American Renaissance channel. On October 17th, we put up a video about eugenics called “Let’s Break a Taboo, Part II.” YouTube just informed us that it has made the video impossible to search, will never recommend it, has disabled comments, and now makes you click through a warning screen telling you some people think it’s “offensive.”

At least YouTube did not ban it completely. It does that if it thinks a video’s primary purpose is to incite violence or hatred. YouTube seems to think we are inciting hatred or violence only as a secondary purpose.

You can still watch the video, but only because this is a direct link. A Google or YouTube search will never find it. You might watch it and try to figure out what were the specific words or phrases YouTube thinks are so offensive.

Because, you see, YouTube never tells us. It just sends us a note saying, “Upon review, we have placed restrictions on how the video will be shown.” YouTube generously lets us “appeal” a quarantine—but gives us only about 40 words to do it. It then writes back to say, “After re-reviewing your video we’ve decided to leave the restrictions in place.” In other words, YouTube won’t—or more probably can’t—explain what it didn’t like.

Several weeks ago, YouTube sent “How to Achieve Racial Separation” to the back of the bus. Take a look at it here. We’d like to know what is offensive about a plan to eliminate racial friction.

As for “Let’s Break a Taboo, Part II,” you can read the entire script below. Let us know which are the passages you think triggered the censors.

Let’s Break a Taboo, Part II

My last video was called “You Already Believe in Eugenics.” In it I explained that eugenics simply means encouraging human genetic combinations that avoid bad traits and promote good traits.

The word was coined by the great British scientist, Francis Galton, and eugenics was at its height during the first half of the 20th century. Some famous supporters were Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Teddy Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Arthur Balfour, Luther Burbank, Alexander Graham Bell, and Woodrow Wilson.

By 1925, over a hundred colleges offered courses in eugenics, and most Ivy League schools provided massive funding for eugenic studies. High school text books said eugenics was necessary to protect American society.

Socialists and women promoted eugenics because they thought improving the nation’s population would help the poor and reduce inequality. H.G. Wells supported eugenics for that reason, and so did Bertrand Russel and Beatrice and Sidney Webb. The Webbs founded Fabian socialism. Harold Laski, who later headed the British Labor Party was also a strong supporter.

Opposition to eugenics came from Catholics and from conservatives who thought decisions about mating should be left entirely up to individuals.

In the United States it was common to give free lectures on eugenics, and eugenics societies held fitter families contests, in which families were judged by experts on their desirable qualities. Here is a family of three generations of winners, with their trophies.

Encouraging people with good qualities to have children was not so controversial; sterilization to prevent reproduction was. In 1907, Indiana was the first state to pass such a law, which was intended “to prevent the procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists.”

By 1931, 30 states had eugenic sterilization laws.

Most people now associate eugenics with Nazis and the Holocaust, but Germany passed its own sterilization law relatively late, in 1933, after many other European countries. As a percentage of the population, the Swedes sterilized twice as many people as the Germans did.

The policy against Jews was not a eugenics policy. Nazis considered Jews an enemy people, not genetically inferior. The Nazis also had a notorious euthanasia program, under which 80,000 severely retarded and incurably insane people were killed to free up hospital beds, but that wasn’t part of the eugenics program either.

After the war, eugenics became so associated with Nazism that it drove people to take crazy positions. Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky of Columbia said that there is no such thing as a bad gene. J.D. Smith of the University of South Carolina wrote that we need to protect the genes for mental retardation because it “is a human condition worthy of being valued.”

Fortunately, few people are that nutty anymore, but Americans are still very skittish about applying genetic principles to people.

Asians are much more realistic. Japan didn’t repeal its sterilization law until 1996. The Chinese will not let you marry if you have any of a whole list of conditions. In Singapore, the government gave tax incentives to better-educated women to have more children. The idea was that smart women marry smart men, and they have smart children. The percentage of Singapore births that were to college-educated women rose from 37 to 48 percent.

Meanwhile, in the United Sates, trends are in the opposite direction. Lower IQ people are having more children than higher-IQ people. If you test American children for IQ and then find out how many brothers and sisters they have you get a clear correlation: The higher the IQ, the fewer the siblings. There is a negative correlation of .18 between child IQ and family size.

The British scholar Richard Lynn, who has probably studied the question more thoroughly than anyone else alive, concludes that this means the genetic basis for intelligence for white Americans is dropping at a rate of about one IQ point per generation.

For blacks, it’s worse. Black women are about twice as likely as black men to get a bachelors degree, and even more likely to get a masters degree. Many educated black women never end up marrying, while blacks on welfare have many children. Prof. Lynn estimates that the genetic basis for intelligence for blacks is declining by about two IQ points per generation.

Prof. Lynn also notes that more than half of the single women on welfare in the United States are in the bottom 20 percent of the IQ range. They are likely to be passing on other undesirable traits, along with low intelligence.

What can be done about this? First, many people think that any woman on welfare should not bring more children into the world for the rest of us to feed, house, clothe, and try to educate. Would it be wrong to require that woman have implantable contraceptives so long as they are on welfare?

Nobel-Prize winner William Shockley had a different idea: Offer people $1,000 for every IQ point below the average of 100, in exchange for voluntary sterilization. A person with an IQ of 90—ten points below the average—would get $10,000. Some people would object that low-IQ people aren’t competent to make decisions like that, but I don’t hear them saying low-IQ people aren’t competent enough to vote. And if they can’t make decisions, should they have children?

What about promoting desirable traits?

Psychologist Raymond Cattell suggested that the government should seek out the most intelligent children in the country and pay their parents to have more. David Lykken of the University of Minnesota suggests that only people who are screened and licensed should have children. Sociologist Hugh LaFollette points out that couples have to meet strict standards to adopt a child. Why should it be any different for making a child?

In a healthy society, it would be possible to promote the idea that smart, capable people should have many children, and others should have fewer.

But, as usual, in practical terms, Asians are way ahead of us.

The Beijing Genomics Institute is the largest genetic research facility in the China, probably in the world. BGI is hunting very hard for the genes that influence intelligence and other traits. And when they find them, they will do what’s called embryo screening.

This is how it works: You take, say, 100 eggs from a woman and fertilize them in vitro with sperm from her husband. You screen the embryos and implant the one that is most promising. In intelligence alone, you would have a 30-point variation above and below the average child that couple would have had, so you could choose an embryo that was 15 points higher in IQ. You would have a similar range of other traits. It’s only a matter of time before the technology is perfected.

In the West, squeamish governments will certainly ban embryo screening, but facilities for it will pop up on the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas. Rich people will go for designer babies; poor people won’t have the choice.

What may turn out to be a simpler procedure is CRISPR gene editing. This involves making direct changes to the genome by removing undesirable genes and adding better ones. In the West, scientists want to ban this technique for humans. Not the Chinese.

They have a plan: First, eliminate mental retardation, mental illness, and all genetic diseases. Second, promote intelligence, diligence, and other favorable traits.

Any country that uses modern techniques on a large scale—and China is determined to be the first—will shoot to the top in every field.

Francis Galton, who coined the term “eugenics,” saw this coming 100 years ago. “The nation which first subjects itself to rational eugenical disciplines,” he said “is bound to inherit the earth.”

One reason we refuse to take genetics seriously is that it would mean we could no longer pretend that all groups are equal, that blacks are genetically no different from whites and Asians. Our refusal to accept genetic differences between races makes it hard to understand population genetics at all. Asians don’t have that problem, so they can think clearly about the long-term genetic future of their people.

We have a choice: Are we going to take modern science seriously? Or are we going to keep pretending that preschool programs can turn every ghetto child into a nuclear physicist? Do you or don’t you care if our population continues to decline while other countries take a different course?

If you don’t care, I have some advice: Make sure your grandchildren learn Chinese.

The post YouTube Sends Another AmRen Video to the Back of the Bus appeared first on American Renaissance.

‘Gentrification’ or ‘White Flight’

The post ‘Gentrification’ or ‘White Flight’ appeared first on American Renaissance.

“Black Identity Extremists:” Not a Threat After All

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey describe the media reaction to the FBI’s warning about black extremists who believe killing white cops is a form of liberation. They also dissect the latest attacks on Thanksgiving, Google and Twitter’s attempts to censor the internet, and draw lessons from the 37-year reign of Sir Robert Gabriel Mugabe.


RSS Feed

The post “Black Identity Extremists:” Not a Threat After All appeared first on American Renaissance.

What We Owe Our People

Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, Peter Lang, 2003, 388 pp., $38.95 (softcover)

With the publication of On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter has made a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs. Dr. Salter, an Australian who has been a researcher since 1991 at the Max Planck Society in Andechs, Germany, offers a perspective that is no less significant than that of Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, or anyone else whose work throws light on scientific questions long obscured by taboo.

On Genetic Interests by Frank Salter

Dr. Salter demonstrates through principles of population genetics that racial or ethnic groups are equivalent to large, extended families, and that ethnic loyalties are as legitimate as family loyalties. Indeed, he argues that members of an ethnic group may have more compelling duties to the group even than to their own families. He then outlines the social and political implications of his position, with particular emphasis on the role of the state and the disastrous consequences of mass immigration.

His views bring Dr. Salter into almost perfect harmony with the positions of American Renaissance. His book can therefore be seen as a scientific justification for racial consciousness and activism.

What is Genetic Interest?

According to Darwinian theory, the goal towards which all living things strive is to make copies of their distinctive genes. This is seen most clearly in the devotion of parents to children. As Dr. Salter writes, “The importance of genetic continuity is an end in itself, for humans as well as for other species.” From an evolutionary point of view, “propagating one’s genes is life’s raison d’être.”

Perhaps the most important conceptual breakthrough in On Genetic Interests is to recognize that loyalty to one’s ethny — Dr. Salter prefers this term to race, nation, or ethnic group — is just as valid biologically as loyalty to one’s children. This is because each ethny is a storehouse of its members’ distinctive genes, just as children are carriers of their parents’ genes. A person’s children are very concentrated stores of his genes, but his ethny is a vastly larger, though more dilute, pool of the same genes. Given the size of most ethnies, they are repositories of far more copies of a member’s distinctive genes than even his own children, and therefore have a theoretical genetic claim to loyalty even greater than that of his children.

An ethny is an extended family. The larger one’s ethny, the larger a store it becomes of distinctive genes, so its members have an interest in seeing their numbers rise or at least remain constant. A shrinking ethny is like a family whose members are dying off — either condition represents a loss of genetic interests.

According to the universalist, everyone’s-equal model of human relations that is supposed to govern how we think about race, there is no good reason any of us should care more about our children than we do about the children of strangers. We do, of course, and not because they are objectively superior to other children but because they are ours, that is to say, they carry our distinctive genes. From a genetic point of view, our ethnies deserve similar loyalties for the same reason.

Dr. Salter points out that different ethnies can be so genetically distant that random members of the same ethny are close kin in comparison to members of the other ethny. Ethnic loyalty thus becomes a continuation of family loyalty. Australian Aborigines and Mbuti pygmies, for example, are about as genetically distant as two ethnies can be. Two random members of either group are — in comparison to members of the other group — so genetically similar to each other they are almost the equivalent of identical twins. Compared to Australian Aborigines, all Mbuti pygmies are, in fact, so similar to each other that actual Mbuti identical twins are, relatively speaking, not much more closely related to each other than any two random Mbuti.

When parents from distant ethnies have children together it can lead to surprising results. Rules of genetics hold that children always carry half the genes of each parent. However, when parents are from the same ethny, they have many distinctive genes in common, so their children actually carry more than half of each parent’s distinctive genes. In this sense, parents who descend from the same lineage and who share many of the same genes are more closely related to their children — in terms of the number of genes they share — than are parents who have children with someone of a distant stock.

Surprising as this may seem, if an Australian and a Mbuti were to have a child together, each parent would be more closely related genetically to everyone in his original ethny than he would be to the child. Complete strangers would be closer kin than the child, and from a strictly genetic standpoint would have a greater claim on family loyalty.

Most ethnies are not as distant as aborigines and Mbuti. However, the same principles apply. Outmarriage with a member of a distant ethny produces children who are relative genetic strangers to their parents.

How do these findings square with the fact that there is more genetic variation within racial groups than between them? Richard Lewontin famously pointed out that if the total genetic variation of humans is given a figure of 100, 85 to 90 percent of that variation is found withinpopulation groups, and only 10 to 15 percent are distinct variations not shared by all groups.

Propagandists have used these figures mistakenly to suggest that someone could be more closely related to a person of a different race than to someone of his own race, but their real significance is to highlight the importance of the 10 to 15 percent. We share 90 percent of our genes with mice, but there is more genetic variation within a single human ethny than the variations that separate us from mice. Yet all humans are obviously more closely related to each other than to mice — they are identical twins by comparison. The small genetic variations are where the important differences lie, and it is in the area of these small differences that all Mbuti are practically identical twins by comparison with Aborigines.

Loyalty to an ethny is the genetic equivalent of family loyalty. Therefore, if immigration replaces parts of a native ethny with aliens, for the natives who remain, this genetic shift means replacement of kinfolk with strangers. Just how drastic the effect can be depends on how genetically distant the newcomers are.

Dr. Salter here makes a striking comparison that he developed in a November 2002 article for Population and Environment that was summarized in the February 2003 issue of AR. He notes that Danes and Englishmen are kindred populations but still genetically distinct. If 10,000 Danes were to take the place of 10,000 Englishmen it would represent a loss of genetic interests to the English who remained, because the distinctive genes of Englishmen would be replaced by those of a different ethny. Dr. Salter calculates how great the loss would be: So many English genes would disappear that it would be the equivalent of removing from the population 167 children or siblings of the native population that remained. (The figure is the same for either children or siblings because a person shares the same number of genes — 50 percent — with a child or a sibling. The loss in genetic interests could be calculated differently, as the equivalent of 167 × 2 = 334 cousins, nephews or aunts.) Because the English gene pool is a storehouse for all Englishmen of the genes common to them and that make them unique, this loss of 167 sibling-equivalents would be a loss of genetic interests for all members of the English ethny.

The loss is far greater if the English are replaced by more distant ethnies. If, instead of Danes, 10,000 Bantus replaced 10,000 Englishmen, it would be the genetic equivalent of the loss of 10,854 children or siblings. As Dr. Salter explains, “Some ethnies are so different genetically that they amount to negative stores of those distinctive genes.” The effect works both ways: If 10,000 English replaced 10,000 Bantus, the loss of Bantu genetic interests would be just as great.

Dr. Salter draws the inevitable conclusion:

[A]n act of charity or heroism by an Englishman that prevented 10,000 Danes from replacing 10,000 English would be adaptive even if the act cost the altruist his or her life and with it all prospects of raising a family (at least a family of less than 167 children), since this would save the equivalent of 167 of the altruist’s children. Preventing replacement by 10,000 Bantu would warrant a much larger sacrifice because the genetic benefit is about 65 times larger; random Englishmen are almost as related as parent and child compared to the relationship between Englishmen and Bantu. (There is intuitive wisdom in the fact that blacks who live in white societies — but not those living in Africa — refer to each other as “brother” and “sister.” In comparison to genetically distant whites, they are essentially brothers.)

Dr. Salter goes further:

The genetic distance between English and Bantus is so great that, on the face of it, competition between them would make within-group altruism among random English (or among random Bantu) almost as adaptive as parent-child altruism . . . Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning . . .

Extreme as this conclusion may sound, it is justified from a genetic point of view.

Dr. Salter explains that immigration does not appear to be replacement, because natives are not directly eliminated to make room for newcomers. However, the long-term effect is direct replacement, because each part of the world will eventually reach the limits of its capacity to support humans. At that point, the presence of 10,000 Bantus (and their descendents) would mean England could not sustain an equal number of additional Englishmen. The immigration of Bantus would then appear in its true guise — displacement of Englishmen.

The effects of immigration are even more severe if the newcomers are of low productivity and drag down the carrying capacity of a territory. The larger the number of Bantus, the more quickly England would reach the limits of its capacity to support a population, and the number of Englishmen their presence forestalled would be even greater.

On the other hand, highly productive immigrants can be a genetic gain to natives. The white farmers of Zimbabwe were aliens, and their presence was a genetic loss for native blacks. However, they raised Zimbabwe’s productivity so much that many more blacks were able to live and reproduce. Expelling whites is in the short-term genetic interests of Zimbabwe’s blacks, but without them the country can support far fewer blacks — a clear genetic loss. It is in the genetic interests of unproductive people to welcome a certain number of very productive aliens.

Of course, today, most immigrants leave failing societies for successful societies, and are less productive than the host people. As Dr. Salter writes, “When the society is attractive due to wealth or stability, the ethny rapidly declines in relative fitness as the rest of the world floods in.” Natives are both replaced genetically and see the quality of their society decline.

This is why, until the triumph of ideologies that ignore biology, ethnies always guarded their homelands jealously. A population may decline in numbers but later recover if it has a territory to which it has exclusive title. A decline in numbers accompanied by loss of territory — or merely the effective loss of territory due to immigration by aliens — can lead to irreparable damage. Dr. Salter writes that “for all of past human experience and still today control of territory is a precious resource for maintaining ethnic genetic interests in the long run.” This is why “immigration policy for most societies in most ages has consisted of a blanket ban.” From a genetic standpoint, immigrants are no different from armed invaders.

Virtually all people recognize the legitimacy of family loyalty but many condemn group loyalty — at least for whites. Some of these people would argue that culture rather than biological continuity is the ultimate value. However, as Dr. Salter points out, this is a false distinction:

We can conceptualize copies of our genes in phenotypic terms: as shared blood, as family, and as familiar appearance and behavior. Valuing such characteristics is to value the genes that contribute to them.

Intelligence, personality, and appearance are closely tied to genes, and certain traits will disappear if distinctive genes disappear. For that reason, as Dr. Salter writes, “Group genetic interests track cultural values,” so preserving an ethny’s genes preserves its culture.

It is both in the cultural and broad genetic sense that a person’s ethny can be said to deserve even greater loyalty than his family, whenever the ethny is threatened. If a man’s family is wiped out it is a great personal tragedy. However, if his whole tribe disappears, it takes with it far more copies of his genes than he could ever produce as children. It also takes with it the culture and folkways that make his ethny what it is. In this sense, cultural and ethnic extinction is infinitely more terrible than one’s own death or the death of one’s family.

Homogeneous Societies

Despite much talk about the desirability of “diverse” societies, most people like living among people like themselves. If they must live in a multi-ethnic society, they want to be the majority population that puts its stamp on the national culture and way of life.

Dr. Salter points out the advantages of homogeneity. First, it is probably necessary for the development of sound institutions. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” This is because when a society is composed of “a people without fellow-feeling . . . the united public opinion necessary to the working of representative government cannot exist.”

Liberty reposes upon institutions like the rule of law, freedom of speech, and republican government that require trust among a people, and are not likely to arise in mixed, mutually suspicious populations. Dr. Salter notes that sound institutions established by homogeneous populations can continue to function even after immigration by diverse groups, but suspects that as elections degenerate into racial head counts and free speech is sacrificed in the name of “sensitivity,” multiculturalism eventually undermines even the best institutions.

Dr. Salter also points out that welfare policies are most generous in homogeneous societies, and that even liberal scholars agree that this is probably because taxpayers are more willing to vote benefits to strangers who are at least like themselves. In Moscow, for example, beggars reportedly get the most handouts from people of their own ethny. People generally resist welfare that subsidizes reckless procreation by racial or ethnic aliens. It is natural that they should; in genetic terms, this is collective cuckoldry.

Even aside from outright welfare, since so much modern government activity involves taking money from one group and giving it to another, people are more likely to support a government if they think benefits are going to ethnic kinfolk. At the private level, citizens are also more likely to give blood, support schools, endow parks, and volunteer for community work if they know members of their own group will benefit. Less productive minorities, on the other hand, profit greatly from wealthy societies that offer benefits to all, regardless of ethnic origin.

Dr. Salter also points out that “raising children within national communities would increase the likelihood of them marrying fellow ethnics.” This is good for several reasons. Children from same-ethny marriages are more closely related to their parents. To continue with the previous example, Dr. Salter argues that if an Englishman marries an Englishwoman, his children will carry 92 percent more of his distinctive genes than if he marries a Bantu. In terms of making copies of his own genes, each child with an Englishwoman is almost like having two with a Bantu.

It may also be that parents of the same ethny treat their children better than do parents in mixed marriages, with the biological similarity of parent and child leading to more intimate bonding. The children in such marriages also share more genes with each other, and may develop deeper ties. Identical twins have the closest sibling bonds of all, and the more genes siblings share, the more they become like identical twins.

Another benefit of same-ethny marriages is that children will have no conflicting loyalties if tensions arise between the ethnies in a multi-ethnic society. Mixed children are sometimes unsure of their identities, and may be rejected by both groups.

Dr. Salter notes that it is obviously a genetic loss to adopt a child of a different ethny because the efforts of child-rearing are devoted to alien genes. Such adoptions can even be seen as disloyalty to a homogeneous society, because they mean government benefits to the children force other members of the group to support genetic free riders.

The multicultural societies that result from immigration give rise to many problems for the host population. “From an evolutionary perspective,” writes Dr. Salter, “many collective goods in modern [mixed] societies represent an opportunity for enlightened free riding.” Immigrants benefit from schools, hospitals, parks, museums, and national infrastructure to which they did not contribute and which their own ethnies may not be able to produce or maintain. Natives resent this, but Dr. Salter observes that “multicultural regimes deploy modern forms of ritual indoctrination to defeat inborn discriminatory responses to ethnic diversity, at least by majority ethnies.” As a result, “in mainstream Western societies majority ethnic group strategies have all but vanished and free riding is largely uncontrolled.”

Many multicultural societies even encourage minorities to mobilize for the express purpose of extracting benefits from the majority. Majority members may end up distrusting a government that acts against their genetic interests, and Dr. Salter finds evidence that as a society becomes more varied, there is a decrease in public altruism; people prefer to do good works for their ethnic kin rather than for distant ethnies.

In Europe, white majorities are beginning to understand the high price they pay for multiculturalism. In Dr. Salter’s view, every example of ethnic tension or non-assimilation is a valuable warning sign that the majority population has made a serious mistake: “For a people losing its country, the only thing more disastrous than multiculturalism that does not ‘work’ would be multi-culturalism that did work.”

How should an ethny go about preserving its genetic interests? “It stands to reason,” writes Dr. Salter, “that it would be prudent for a population to defend its most precious collective interest — distinctive genes carried by the ethny — with the most powerful means at its disposal.” The most powerful means, of course, is government. And yet, almost every government has failed in this respect because “no state yet developed has reliably kept its promise as an adaptive ethnic group strategy.”

At one time, nation-states were made up essentially of ethnies, and defended genetic interests — even if not in so many words. Nation states acted naturally in what they took to be the benefit of their citizens, defending national territory against invasion, armed or unarmed. Dr. Salter notes that “the nation state is a psychological substitute for the primordial band and tribe,” and that “the political rhetoric of national identity and mobilization is rich in kinship metaphors such as the founding fathers, the motherland, brothers-in-arms, and fraternity.” No other appeal can elicit the same level of devotion or sacrifice.

Dr. Salter adds that by today’s standards nation-states were frankly xenophobic and benefited from it: “In the past, ethnocentric culture has usually been adaptive. Indoctrination is a powerful strategy for encouraging ethnocentric thinking, one that allows leaders to mobilize the community for defense.” Mobilization can go too far, and lead to aggressive war that wastes lives even if it adds territory, but some level of nationalism is necessary for any people to maintain itself.

The problem with the state, as Dr. Salter sees it, is that “in modern societies, especially Western ones, there is no mechanism for ensuring the loyalty of cultural elites.” Mass immigration, which the government of virtually every white nation has imposed on its people, is the most egregious act of disloyalty. As Dr. Salter explains:

This reverses the state’s role as defender of the people’s ultimate interest to that of an enemy of that interest. The people lose their historical investment in the nation state, which is effectively hijacked for private purposes. Globalism can thus strip ethnies of their most powerful instrument for pursuing ethnic interests.

The state, which should protect genetic interests, now actively dissipates it, and ceases to deserve loyalty: “It would hardly be adaptive to risk one’s life, or that of one’s son, to defend a state apparatus that presided over the replacement or subordination of one’s people.” Indeed, as Dr. Salter explains, “citizens would be justified, based on adaptive utilitarian ethics, to reform or tear down their states and build new ones whose ethnic composition and constitution better serve their genetic survival.”

In this context, Dr. Salter draws attention to the irony of white populations sacrificing themselves in two world wars only to see their governments adopt immigration policies that represent far greater genetic losses than all the deaths on the battlefield. These populations have every reason to replace governments that have betrayed them.

Although many nations in the past were established with at least the implicit goal of protecting and benefiting a particular people, almost none has been explicit about it. Israel is exceptional in that it is an avowed homeland for Jews, but even it has failed to prevent non-Jewish immigration. Dr. Salter writes that a biologically informed ethny should build a government around an explicitly ethnic constitution:

“An ethnic constitution would correct some of the weaknesses in the traditional nation state. Existing constitutions are limited to defending proximate interests. But the ultimate interest is not happiness, nor liberty, nor individual life itself but genetic survival. A scientifically informed constitution that takes the people’s interests seriously cannot omit reference to their genetic interests.” Such an ethnic state would be, essentially, a contract entered into by a people in the name of its posterity.

Dr. Salter argues that the right to live in an ethnic state is as important a human right as any other: “Like the freedom to raise a family, it is in everyone’s interest to have his ethnic interests protected by the power of the state and to be free to invest in his ethny by contributing to collective goods that are proofed against free riders.” A world composed of ethnic states need not be hostile. On the contrary, each state would recognize the validity of every other group’s genetic interests, and could cooperate for mutual benefit. Immigration and the replacement of genes would end.

As Dr. Salter notes, for any territory, immigration policy is the equivalent of controlling evolution, in that it favors the propagation of certain genes at the expense of others. Each territory would, in this sense, guide its own evolution.

Ethnic separation is obviously desirable for states that decide to turn their backs on multiculturalism, but Dr. Salter proposes federalism if ethnies cannot be unscrambled. A weak national government could take responsibility for defense and foreign relations, leaving all other matters, including immigration policy, to local authorities.

Jumping the Tracks

Why has ethnic loyalty been discredited in recent decades while family loyalty — which is based on the same genetic interests — is recognized as legitimate? Dr. Salter is not sure, but notes that “families represent such a high and reliable concentration of their members’ distinctive genes that innate psychological mechanisms have evolved to monitor and protect that ultimate interest . . . This has not occurred in the case of the tribe.” Why not? We have been evolving in families since before we were human, and once we became human, tribal bonds were so tight there were no real opportunities short of outright treason to work for the genetic interests of other ethnies. Tribal loyalties are therefore weaker and more easily subverted.

As Dr. Salter explains, “The novelty of industrial society has tended to decouple social patterns from ethnic interests.” At the same time, “modern indoctrination techniques, most notably universal education and the mass media, tend to break down ethnic solidarity, causing altruism to be directed towards genetically distant individuals.” The result is that, “despite being outfitted with the potential for both family and ethnic feelings, humans are not as instinctively equipped to identify and defend ethnic genetic interests in the evolutionarily novel world of mass anonymous societies.” The loyalty of most whites therefore does not extend past their close kin. As Dr. Salter puts it, “They are, in effect, leaving their ethnic genetic capital to chance — the vagueries of nature and the good-will of competing groups.”

The Left, in particular, insists that people should act as atomized individuals with no ethnic loyalty. Dr. Salter compares this kind of detachment from ethnicity with the way a Martian might view humans. He notes also that the Left no longer even accepts democratic results if people vote to preserve their own ethnies. The destruction of the Vlaams Blok in Belgium because of its “racist” commitment to keeping Flanders Flemish is a recent example. Likewise, the Left constantly calls the Freedom Party in Austria, the Peoples Party in Denmark, the National Front in France, and the British National Party “anti-democratic.” Of course, there is nothing in their platforms against representative government. Apparently, the desire of a white ethny to preserve itself is so outrageous it cannot be accommodated by democratic means.

One of the most damaging current ideological tactics is to try to persuade a people that it is a “credal” or “universal” nation that needs no biological continuity. As Dr. Salter explains, “It is in practice a formula for reconciling, or blinding ethnic majorities to their own decline while serving the sectional interests of minorities and free riding elites.” He continues:

A concept nation is incapable of principled defense against ethnic replacement. The doctrine is as pathological as a conception of the family that did not allow parents to show preference for their children.

This point is worth underlining: Telling people to give up racial loyalty is the moral equivalent of telling parents to be indifferent to their children.

As a practical matter, this kind of propaganda is directed only at whites, and it is only whites who are susceptible to it.

Dr. Salter quotes a person he describes as Australia’s senior demographer:

Some people think that a steady replacement of Anglo-Celts by other ethnic groups is highly desirable . . . Personally, [replacement of Anglo-Celts] does not worry me so long as ‘Australian values’ remain: free speech; freedom of religious worship; equality of the sexes; reasonable equality between social classes (i.e. no aristocracy); and so on.

Probably no Chinese or Nigerian has ever expressed official indifference to the prospect of extinction for his own people.

Dr. Salter hopes that a broader understanding of genetic interests will lead to more sensible public policies. He argues that aside from the strong desire to protect one’s immediate family, humans do not have very strong instincts to protect their genetic interests and that “the set of mechanisms for recognizing and investing in ethnies has become inadequate and often downright maladaptive.” He points out that people have genetic interests, whether they are conscious of them or not, and that they may have to be educated about them. He concedes, however, that “incorporating genetic interests into social theory will be a large undertaking . . .”

The White Dilemma

Much of this large undertaking will involve persuading white “anti-racists” that ethnic loyalty is as legitimate — perhaps even more legitimate — than family loyalty. Dr. Salter writes that “if it is adaptive for a parent to make sacrifices for a family containing a total genetic interest of a few children, it is easy to conclude that efforts to preserve a population carrying the equivalent of thousands or millions of children must be at least as adaptive.” Yet, he concedes, “[T]his commonsense proposition is controversial . . .”

It is controversial, however, only in certain circles; not all groups have abandoned ethnic loyalty to the same degree. Non-whites in their own nations, and non-white minorities within white nations show considerable racial solidarity. It is only whites who must be convinced that they lose something precious if their ethny is displaced. As Dr. Salter concedes, “One either feels protective about genetic interests or not,” and most whites have been trained not to feel protective.

That they could even be trained to lose interest in something vital probably reflects something distinctive about whites, and if whites do not regain their solidarity they will be replaced by groups that never lost it. Dr. Salter puts it this way: “Indiscriminate altruism such as foregoing reproduction to aid nonkin to reproduce, will weed out the genes that code for such behaviour, if maintained over many generations.”

Indiscriminate altruism is not universal. It is probably correct to say that it is only whites who set up racial preferences for minorities, who adopt children of other races, or face dispossession through immigration. When whites took possession of North America, Australia, and New Zealand, they set aside territory for the exclusive use of the natives they displaced, giving them at least a minimal base for ethnic preservation. Non-whites who displace whites will not establish homelands for them.

Dr. Salter also points out that throughout human history, ethnic loyalty has been the norm, and that it is unlikely that true wisdom was discovered only recently by a few whites. “It is more rational,” he argues, “to assume that the absence of ethnic duty is a bold experiment, and possibly an immoral one.”

“A nation can take centuries to form,” writes Dr. Salter. “But as several Western societies have experienced, it takes a lapse of only one or two decades in immigration control for an economically successful society to find its unity broken and heading for genetic replacement.”

On Genetic Interests is a powerful argument in defense of all ethnies. Let us hope it will be most widely read by the ones that need it the most.

[Editor’s note: This book is available through American Renaissance.]

The post What We Owe Our People appeared first on American Renaissance.

Into the Digital Gulag

The post Into the Digital Gulag appeared first on American Renaissance.

The Ways of Our People

A frequent criticism of American Renaissance is that it seldom has much to say about us — about the white majority in whose name it claims to speak. Many articles and much of the “O Tempora” section are about the other racial groups now living in the United States. As a friendly critic once put it, AR takes an absorbing interest in non-whites — describing their behavior and propensities in great detail — while ignoring the character and accomplishments of our own group.

This is true. AR writes at length about non-whites in order to clarify and underscore something that many whites feel but seldom put into words: That multi-racialism is failing because of fundamental group incompatibilities; that the present multi-racial experiment poses a grave threat to our people and culture. But what about our people and culture? Why do they matter?

When readers complain that AR says too much about “them” and not enough about “us,” they are asking for answers to a series of questions that AR has never raised: How are the white man and his civilization unique? Why do they deserve our loyalty? Why have so many whites lost all racial consciousness?

There is a reason why AR has never raised these questions: They should never have to be raised. No healthy people ever doubts its own legitimacy — or even its superiority. According to the French proverb, every nation thinks itself better than its neighbors, and every nation is right. Not even the most primitive tribe of New Guinea is likely ever to take an inventory of its characteristics to determine whether or not it should step aside so other people can take its place. No matter how squalid or degenerate they may appear to others they are, in their own minds, the finest people on earth.

All non-whites act this way. Neither the Japanese nor the Mexicans nor the Malays nor the Israelis tolerate alien incursion, displacement, or “multiculturalism.” They fight them instinctively, without having to explain to each other why they must fight them and why they should survive as a people. Only whites pretend that pluralism and displacement are good things and that the measures necessary to ensure group survival may be immoral.

This article is a reluctant investigation of some of these questions. It is a survey of some of those characteristics — some good, some bad — that distinguish whites from other races, but it is also an attempt to understand why whites, all around the world, seem to have lost their racial consciousness and will to survive as a group. This matter of the reasons for capitulation is the most troubling of all, but its explanation may lie in a better understanding of the distinctive traits of whites. In describing the ways of our people we may find that the very things that set us apart from others are the very things that paralyze us. What we ordinarily think of as our virtues have become, through degeneration, our greatest weaknesses.

After all, our enemies are not Africans or Latin Americans or Asians. Other races are happy to take whatever we are foolish enough to give them, but how could we expect them to refuse? It is we who have brought dispossession upon ourselves, so we must look to our own natures if we are to understand why we have done so.

Who Are We?

There is a common thread to the modern characteristics of European man, and he carries these characteristics wherever he migrates. This common thread is an abiding sense of reciprocity, a conviction that others have rights that must be respected. This conviction, which can be described as a kind of public morality, is at the heart of the institutions that are common to most white societies and absent from virtually every non-white one: democracy, free speech, and the rule of law. These appeared over time and took root more firmly in some white nations than in others.

In like manner, European societies have given rise to a broad range of non-political traditions also based on concern for others. These have established the unique texture of life among whites, but now virtually all of these traditions have changed in ways that make them threats to our survival.

Given the self-centered nature of man, democracy is an unlikely development. It is based on the assumption that, within the body of electors, all opinions are equal. This is remarkable, even excessive respect for others. History records few examples of people with power who willingly gave it up just because a majority of voters asked them to. This requires the powerful to subordinate their ambition to the opinions of strangers and, for the most part, only whites can manage this. A few Asian nations have developed a tenuous tradition of democracy, but only among whites is it taken for granted.

The same can be said for the rule of law. The idea that power is not self-justifying requires an understanding that others have legitimate rights. In virtually every non-white society, the power-holding clique enforces laws in a corrupt way that serves its own interests. Everyone accepts this. Although whites sometimes try to evade the law and some succeed, white societies are built on the assumption that justice is blind and that everyone is equal before the law.

One of our peculiar government rituals requires that American politicians disclose their incomes and net worths. Africans and other third-worlders are astonished at how small they are. Many non-whites take it for granted that political power is a license to steal.

Another almost uniquely European characteristic founded on recognition of the rights of others is legal protection against censorship. The temptation to suppress the speech of others is always strong; most non-white regimes give in to it without a second thought. Though we will return to this question, the rise of anti-“hate” laws in Europe and Canada that prohibit speech thought to damage protected minorities, is a significant step backwards in the evolution of European principles. It is a good example of the disease that now afflicts us: the perversion of good qualities into their opposites. Guarantees of free speech, enacted out of respect for human rights, are being abridged — but in the name of even greater respect for human rights.

Another white expression of concern for others is the elimination of hereditary class distinctions and the provision of public education. Westerners take for granted the ideal that citizens should rise or fall according to their abilities rather than according to status at birth. This is still an infant concept in many non-white societies.

Respect for others suffuses the other qualities we think of as typifying Western man. Ideals of sportsmanship, for example, are meant to curb expressions of triumphalism and protect the loser from humiliation. They are also meant to instill in competitors a respect for fair play that is more powerful than the desire to win. In its most extreme form, fair play requires that a player refuse to believe he was cheated.

In his younger days Teddy Roosevelt pursued “the strenuous life.” Historians write of the time he was in a boxing match when the gong sounded the end of the round. Just as Roosevelt dropped his guard his opponent let fly and hit him square in the face.

Blood gushed from Roosevelt’s nose. A growl of disapproval rose from the crowd. Roosevelt went to the edge of the ring and shouted: “He didn’t hear the bell. He didn’t hear the bell.”

The history of the penalty kick in British soccer reflects the same tradition. The kick was granted on the assumption that a player who was fouled within scoring distance must have been deliberately fouled. When soccer became a professional sport, many former British amateurs would not take the penalty kick. They refused to believe that anyone in their sport could commit a deliberate foul.

Rooting for the underdog is another European sporting tradition. This, too, shows Western man’s concern for the other person’s point of view. Some competitors may be no-hopers, but we cheer their efforts and hope for the unexpected upset.

The swaggering, “trash talk,” corner cutting, and absence of gentlemanly play that characterize sports today are largely the importation of non-white behavior into a previously white arena. Sadly, many whites have been infected and act just as loutishly.

One of the most dramatic ways, though, in which whites differ from all other peoples is in their treatment of women. For American Indians and Africans, women were beasts of burden. Muslims kept women out of sight, and Confucianists reserved for them a distinctly servile role. A recent Prime Minister of Japan, Kakuei Tanaka, urged a new son-in-law to slap the prime minister’s daughter around occasionally. It was the best way to keep her in line, he explained, giving some substance to the view that in Japan the status of a woman is somewhere between that of a man and a bird.

Only in the West was the objectively weaker sex elevated and protected through an elaborate code of chivalry. Only white men traditionally stand in the presence of a woman, hold doors for her, carry her burdens. Nearly 2,000 years ago, the Roman historian Tacitus was struck by the high regard in which Germanic tribesmen held women. He thought it remarkable that even the most powerful men were content with only one wife and that women should be admitted to councils of war. Like all members of white societies, women have rights and sensibilities that must be respected.

The idea of love and romance is likewise almost exclusively European. Nowhere but in the West has it ever been supposed that men and women could share a romantic love that lasted until death. Many couples fall short of this standard, but the standard itself is virtually without parallel. What passes for “love” in such famous non-white literary works as The Tale of Genji or Tales From the Arabian Nights is brutish womanizing by the standards of Western romance.

Does the concept of noblesse oblige have non-white parallels? Or is it only Europeans who believe that the wealthy and high born have particular, unwritten obligations? It is no accident that the welfare state is an almost exclusively white enterprise. It is a logical if misguided extension of the tradition of private charity and philanthropy. Muslim societies have the zakah, or obligatory alms for the poor, but among the people of no other race are found the habits and institutions of charity common to Western man. Nowhere else is there so much volunteer work or even an understanding of what it is.

Another exclusively European expression of concern for others is the missionary calling. Although it is fashionable to mock Christian missionaries, they made tremendous sacrifices to bring what they believed were truth and salvation to people who would otherwise burn in hell. Other people — even foreigners — not only had rights, they had immortal souls that it was the white man’s duty to save.

International organizations like the European Union and the North American Free Trade Association are implemented exclusively by whites. The theory is that some national sovereignty may be given up in the name of “fairness” and the common good. Latin Americans and Asians have tried similar economic groupings, such as the Association of South East Asian Nations or any number of abortive South American trade zones, but they invariably go nowhere.

Whites also show their characteristic concern for others in attempts to protect wildlife and the environment. People preserve the environment because of future generations; those not yet born have rights, too. Third world nations are notoriously unconcerned about the environment, partly because they may be too poor to afford to care, but also because they do not share Western concerns. The environmentalist movement was inspired by whites and continues to be the work, almost exclusively, of whites.

One need go no further than the closest multi-racial metropolis to see who cares about the immediate environment. For example, the annual celebration of Puerto Rico Day in New York City leaves the streets clogged with trash. The rather different clientele that picnics on the Great Lawn in Central Park before a free symphony concert leaves scarcely a scrap of paper behind. We are invariably told that differences in income explain differences in behavior, but the poor can pick up trash as well as the rich.

Efforts to protect wildlife are a lopsidedly white concern. The Japanese, who are as rich as Westerners, would rather eat whales than save them. Hong Kong Chinese, many of whom are millionaires, continue to pep themselves up with doses of rhino horn without regard to what this may cost the rhinoceros. Nor do they seem to care that every serving of bear paws means another dead bear.

Campaigns to protect the wild life of Africa are likewise mainly a white concern. African leaders who, themselves, take little interest in lions or elephants, use the threat of extinction to extract aid from whites. Similarly, South Americans play on European worries about shrinking rain forests.

The black sociologist, Elijah Anderson, in his 1990 book, Street Wise, describes how differently blacks and whites feel about dogs. Inner city blacks do not think of dogs as companions but as useful creatures that can be trained to terrify and attack people. Prof. Anderson reports that they are disgusted to see whites, on their knees, hugging dogs and burying their faces in fur.

A strictly utilitarian, even exploitative attitude toward animals is taken for granted in the third world. It is rare to see a sign of affection or kindness for the donkeys, camels, and draft animals that still power much of the non-white world. A Tunisian would be amazed at the homes for retired donkeys that are found in Britain. Laws against cruelty to animals are an almost uniquely white phenomenon — not even the Japanese have them.

Like all European virtues, this one can get out of hand. Animal “rights” activists don’t mind putting lumberjacks out of work in order to save the spotted owl, and have disrupted scientific experiments that use animals. Some would make it illegal to eat meat. Extreme or not, this concern about the rights of others, even the rights of other species, is a white preoccupation.

Champions at ‘saving’

Whites are the world’s unsurpassed champions at “saving” and improving things. They have fought wars to end all wars, make the world safe for democracy, and — some say — to end slavery. They launch “wars” on inanimate enemies like poverty and drugs. They are off to feed the world, save the ozone layer, prevent global warming, spread democracy, liberate women, stop acid rain, promote human rights, end child labor, and persuade every man on earth to wear a condom. Much as liberals may think they disdain the missionary impulse, they far exceed their ancestors in righteous zeal. There is nothing on the planet that escapes the white obsession with doing good. For non-whites it must be an astonishing spectacle.

Where does all this moral energy come from? There is increasing evidence that personality traits — including such things as introversion/extroversion, respect for authority, strength of religious convictions, and impulsiveness — are under considerable genetic control. Fifty percent seems to be about the average figure for heritability of such traits. This means it is entirely possible that there are biological bases for racial differences in what one could call “average personality,” just as there are for differences in average intelligence. [See AR of Aug. 1993]

In a provocative article in the April 1995 issue of AR, Prof. Michael Levin speculates about the origins of racial differences in altruism, or the capacity to respect the wishes of others. He cites evidence for inherent differences in morality, and suggests that just as local environmental pressures directed group evolution towards different levels of intelligence, they probably produced different levels of moral perception.

The way whites organize their societies may therefore reflect inherent racial traits. Respect for others, formal restraints on political power, support for the weak, the desire to keep the planet habitable — these typically white traits are all altruistic and find only incomplete parallels among non-whites.

Ways of War

Aside from these general principles for the organization of society, there are many specific historical examples of white behavior that are difficult to imagine in other races. Some of the most striking come from the conduct of war.

In the spring of 1863, the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia were camped on opposite sides of the Rappahannock river. Here is a passage from Bruce Catton’s Mr. Lincoln’s Army about one evening when massed Union bands gathered by the river in earshot the Confederates:

Northerners and Southerners, the soldiers sang those songs [‘Tramp, Tramp, Tramp,’ ‘Drink to Me Only with Thine Eyes,’ ‘John Brown’s Body,’ etc.] or sat and listened to them in their thousands on the hillsides . . . Finally the Southerners called across, ‘Now play some of ours,’ so without pause the Yankee bands swung into ‘Dixie,’ and ‘The Bonnie Blue Flag’ and ‘Maryland, My Maryland.’ And then at last the massed bands played ‘Home, Sweet Home,’ and 150,000 fighting men tried to sing it and choked up and just sat there, silent, staring off into the darkness; and at last the music died away and the bandsmen put up their instruments and both armies went to bed. A few weeks later they were tearing each other apart in the lonely thickets around Chancellorsville.

Here were men whose patriotic duty was to kill each other and who, indeed, did so with great ferocity. This did not prevent the Union bandsmen from playing the tunes they knew would most please and inspire the Confederates.

Here is Mr. Catton again, in A Stillness at Appomattox, describing an incident that took place during the battle of Petersburg:

The 39th Massachusetts won an advanced position, losing three color-bearers, and at last was forced back, leaving its colors on the ground. Its colonel asked for volunteers to go out and get the flags. A corporal and a private responded and ran out to get them, and suddenly — and quite unexpectedly — the Confederates stopped firing, allowed the men to pick up the flags, and as they went back to the regiment the Rebels waved their hats and raised a cheer.

This was four years into the bloodiest war Americans ever fought. If these soldiers were ever going to despise their enemy, give him no quarter, and kill him at every opportunity, that point would have been reached long ago. Can we conceive of common soldiers in an African or Arab or Asian army showing as much consideration and magnanimity as these hard-pressed Confederates?

The Battle of Saratoga in 1777 produced another memorable incident that illustrates both the gallantry of warfare among whites and the unusual status of women. Major Ackland, on Gen. Burgoyn’s staff, was shot through both legs and left on the field as the redcoats retreated. His wife was with the British forces and was deeply worried about her husband. She had had a very rough retreat along with the soldiers — 12 hours without food in a driving rain — but she asked Gen. Burgoyn to petition the American commander, Gen. Gates, to let her through the lines to tend her husband. Burgoyn was impressed that she would undertake to go several miles in the dark, cross a river, and go over to the enemy, and was moved to write this letter to General Gates:

Sir — Lacy Harriet Ackland, a lady of the first distinction of family, rank, and personal virtues, is under such concern on account of Major Ackland, her husband, wounded and a prisoner in your hands, that I cannot refuse her request to commit her to your protection. Whatever general impropriety there may be in persons in my situation and yours to solicit favors, I cannot see the uncommon perseverance in every female grace and the exaltation of character of this lady, and her very hard fortune, without testifying that your attentions to her will lay me under obligations. I am, sir, your obedient servant, J. Burgoyne. (Quoted in Edward Creasy, Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World)

She was accepted through the lines and cared for her husband. Within a week Burgoyn’s army had surrendered.

This letter, and especially the complimentary close, may strike modern ears as fantastically mannered, but it reflects a conception of the antagonist and a respect for women not likely to be found in non-white histories.

Admittedly, white armies do not always behave chivalrously, and during the Second World War, both the Axis and the Allies launched civilian terror bombings without much compunction. To some degree, a gallant attitude towards the enemy may require war on a more intimate, technologically primitive scale. Moreover, modern wars — especially those fought by democracies — are mass wars that must mobilize an entire nation. The best way to do this is by demonizing the enemy and it is much easier to kill civilians if we are convinced they are demons.

Even so, armies of whites rarely commit the barbarities that have sometimes been common among their enemies. American Indians seldom took prisoners unless it was to torture them for sport. They liked to strip the bodies of enemy dead and mutilate them, as the U.S. Cavalry found when it arrived, too late, at what was left of Custer’s last stand. The Viet Cong frequently killed wounded Americans they found on the battlefield, and the cruelty of Japanese troops in China and the Pacific is well recorded. A few unfortunate exceptions in the Balkans notwithstanding, what soldier today, given a choice, would surrender to a non-white rather than a white army?

Curiously, it is the fashion today to describe whites, whether civilians or soldiers, as uniquely evil. Detractors point to the great butcheries of the Second World War as proof. Of course, the scale of the killing only reflected European and American technological genius.

Far more remarkable than the violence done by whites is the violence they have not done. In the history of that near-universal institution, slavery, only whites ever thought up philosophical justifications for it because only they had bad consciences about it. Other peoples simply took slaves when they had the power to do so. When whites persuaded themselves that slavery was wrong, they not only abolished it within their own realms but forced abolition upon reluctant non-whites. It is pure, anti-white nonsense to pretend that American slavery was somehow uniquely shameful.

Whites in this century have treated non-white nations with remarkable forbearance. The European powers had established vast empires that included most of the rest of the world. Non-whites did not win independence; they were given freedom by whites who decided this was the moral thing to do. Now, when former colonies stumble under the weight of independence, European countries prop them up. In the colonial era, there was a name for this kind of care-taking: the white man’s burden. Much as it is mocked today, it was in many cases a sincerely-felt desire to raise up less fortunate races.

After the Second World War, whites had the power to organize the planet into a system of exploitation entirely for their own benefit. They could have kept all of Asia as client states rather than permit Japan, Korea, and — soon — China to become real competitors. Even today, whites could completely dominate other races — even exterminate them — but this is simply not part of their moral repertoire.

What would the world be like if some other race had the tremendously disproportionate power that whites have had and continue to have? Would Africans or Asians act with the restraint whites have shown? Would they voluntarily sheath their weapons and instead give aid to help races less successful than themselves?

Only in the last century has the history of the world been anything but the chronicle of aggressive war for the purpose of tribal or national aggrandizement. If, in the 1880s, the United States had decided to colonize Mexico or Central America would there have been much outcry? Today’s international morality of self-restraint is not universal, but it was established entirely by whites. It is this self-restraint, first practiced upon themselves by whites and then forced upon aggressive non-white powers by whites, that has changed the entire character of international relations. Since 1945, it has curbed large-scale war. Yet whites, ironically, are supposed to be the villains of world history.

What does any of this have to do with the defeated state of mind now common among whites? Every one of the institutions and characteristics set out above reflects the particular morality of whites. In recent decades, every one has been perverted into something dangerous and self-destructive. Institutions that once balanced respect for the rights of others with an understanding of inegalitarian reality have been plunged into blind egalitarianism. The history of this century is the history of an almost hysterical assault on distinctions of all kinds.

Distinctions require judgment, and judgment can be painful for those who are judged. Some people are found wanting when a society distinguishes between criminal and non-criminal, competent and incompetent, worthy and unworthy, healthy and perverse, our people and those who are not. White societies have pushed their characteristic consideration for others to impossible limits; they have lost the capacity to judge. Distinctions that are vital for survival are blurred and smoothed over in the name of “sensitivity” and “tolerance.” Recognition of inequality is now a violation of the liberal vision of man (now known, of course, as humankind).

For example, it was in the name of equality that the work of the Founding Fathers was dismantled so as to reduce representative government to something like mob democracy. Most of the restrictions on the franchise have been stripped away. Some kind of qualification is necessary to drive a car or become a barber, but any fool who turns eighteen can vote. Presidents and U.S. Senators are now chosen directly by mass ballot. The Founders were careful to distinguish their republic from a democracy, which they feared; we now have a democracy. Why has their work been undone? Because it recognized that some men are wiser than others — a subversive sentiment in this egalitarian era.

In like manner, because we can no longer judge, law has been perverted to serve the so-called rights of criminals and convicts — now sometimes thought to deserve more consideration than the law-abiding. Campus speech codes violate ancient principles of free speech in the name of equality by fiat. High regard for women has collapsed into preposterous notions of physical and psychological equivalence of the sexes. Concern for the common good that underlay public education has now degenerated into a preoccupation with incompetents, defectives, and other beneficiaries of “special” education. Private, voluntary charity has been overshadowed by ruthless government programs that attempt to erase distinctions by taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive.

What is happening in the armed forces is just as extraordinary. Since distinctions are no longer permitted, blacks, whites, Hispanics, women, and homosexuals are all thought to be interchangeable and therefore equally good soldiers. If veterans disagree, social engineering takes precedence over effective killing. Annual efficiency reports for soldiers include an item, “Supports EO/EEO” [Equal Opportunity/Equal Employment Opportunity]. An X in the “No” block can bring an otherwise honorable military career to an end.

The official view is that a “diverse” army is a better army. This is a demonstrated prescription for battlefield disaster. In the 19th century, under Camillo Cavour, the Italian army was made into a tool for nation-building rather than fighting. Italians from different regions were assigned to mixed units in the hope that they would develop feelings of national unity. The result was discord, desertion, and a miserable combat record. The German army, with its cohesive, homogeneous units recruited from small areas within single provinces had high morale and fought brilliantly.

An army’s job is to kill the enemy. Today, most white armies are test beds for egalitarian foolishness, and soldiers are well on their way to becoming social workers with rifles. As the Italians learned but we have not, ignoring distinctions can be fatal.

One of the strangest losses of an ancient distinction has been the crumbling of adult authority. In the 1960s, all across the white world, college administrators put on fantastic displays of spinelessness as young degenerates took over buildings and issued “non-negotiable” demands. Even today, a “demonstration” or the threat of one can bring a university to its knees. The natural hierarchy of generations is cast aside in the name of equality.

All these changes have been part of an assault on virtually every difference, hierarchy, distinction, and discrimination that men have always taken for granted. What we see in the United States and in other white nations is an attack on distinctions that is almost as far-reaching as the Communist attempt to destroy private enterprise.

The typical white concern for others has run amok. In public discourse and political life, not much is left of the old distinctions between man and woman, hetero- and homosexual, gifted and incompetent, citizen and alien, producer and parasite, gentleman and barbarian. This campaign has succeeded only because of the altruistic inclinations that are probably inherent in whites. Down this path lies the collapse of all values.

Of course, the mandatory equality — even equivalence — of races is one of the most desperately defended illusions of this desperately egalitarian century. The illusion began to shape society first in the United States and then spread its effects to all other white nations. Racial doctrine is now at the very heart of the egalitarian juggernaut that is crushing the white man. The vital ability to make racial distinctions has been swept away, along with the ability to make countless other distinctions.

Anyone who can see through the central lie of racial equivalence is likely to see through the other associated egalitarian lies. That is why whites who still make racial distinctions still make so many others.


What has brought about the destruction of distinctions? Several explanations have been proposed but none seems adequate. Some people think that Christianity, with its emphasis on equality before God and turning the other cheek, has fatally weakened the white man. Today, mainstream Christianity is certainly an important force for capitulation, but this is probably a symptom rather than a cause of the white man’s disease. As Fr. James Thornton pointed out in the August issue, traditional Christianity by no means requires the destruction of distinctions. Furthermore, Europeans have been Christian for more than a thousand years, and Christianity certainly did not undermine Stonewall Jackson’s capacity to draw distinctions — nor that of the Conquistadors and Crusaders.

The faith has been pruned to suit the times. The Bible requires that homosexuals be executed, but many contemporary Christians want to both ordain homosexuals and abolish the death penalty. Christianity has not changed; Christians have changed.

Some people likewise insist that Jews are to blame for the poisoned state of mind common among whites. It is true that disproportionate numbers of Jews have promoted the forces of dispossession: non-white immigration, affirmative action, denial of racial differences, forced integration, and the dismantling of ancient distinctions of all kinds.

However, they have found more than willing accomplices among non-Jews, and to blame Jews for white capitulation is a little like blaming whites for all the failures of blacks. A group that is only three percent of the U.S. population cannot denature a people all by itself. Many of those who have encouraged whites in their suicidal proclivities have been Jews, but those proclivities had to exist before they could be encouraged.

Moreover, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway, have only tiny populations of Jews, but are among the most relentlessly egalitarian nations on earth. They have pushed the welfare state the farthest, and as a percentage of GNP, their foreign aid budgets are much larger than that of the United States. They were also early and generous supporters of the black movements in South Africa that fought against the white government. Jews had essentially no influence on these policies.

What was it, though, that precipitated the white man’s sudden cancer of egalitarianism? Representative government, rule of law, and other forms of public morality evolved slowly. Why have racial and other distinctions been struck down only in the last few decades?

The Second World War was certainly a factor. The victors, the Soviet Union and the United States, were the most ideologically egalitarian nations on earth. Whatever else it stood for, the Axis fought for distinctions — national, racial, cultural, biological. Its defeat discredited eugenics and racial consciousness. It even discredited nationalism, and the victorious allies founded the United Nations with the express intent of eliminating nationalism and national conflicts.

Material progress has also played a role in the destruction of distinctions. “Luxury is more ruthless than war,” said the Roman satirist, Juvenal. The affluence of the post-war years made it easier to cover up the disastrous results of social policy. Great wealth, forcibly redistributed to the non-productive, created the illusion of social as well as material progress. Higher standards of living were an excuse to ignore unspeakable degeneracy. Increasing wealth made it possible to believe that the rules of human nature had changed, and that society could be perfected.

What Whites Have Lost

Of all the categories that the last few decades have blurred, the loss of racial distinctions has the direst long-term consequences. A group cannot survive without a sense of identity. It cannot continue unless its members are aware that they are part of a group and are willing to put its interests before those of other groups.

When that group is the white race, group consciousness is treated as an unalloyed evil, but in all other areas of life we take it for granted. A family exists in a meaningful sense only if its members put family interests before the interests of strangers.

A political party would dissolve if its members were not willing to assert the party’s interests against all others. A corporation’s employees must be willing to compete against competitors. Unless the citizens of a nation have a national consciousness a nation dissolves. No group can survive without group consciousness. So long as there are people of other races who are racially conscious, and are willing to assert explicitly racial interests — and clearly there are — whites must rekindle racial consciousness or be pushed aside.

It is obvious that whites have not lost the instinct to identify with groups. They are loyal to colleges, clubs, home towns, employers and families. Not even the forces of liberal one-worldism can prevent great shows of devotion to nation. Whites can even be fanatically loyal to professional sports teams, despite the fact that they have only the most tenuous connections to the players.

Of all the traditional group loyalties, racial consciousness has been most vigorously suppressed, and that only recently. Commodore Josiah Tattnall of the ante-bellum United States navy provides an instructive example of what was once commonplace.

The Treaties of Tientsin were signed with China in June, 1858. All parties agreed that they would be ratified in Peking the next year. The English, French, and American envoys, escorted by gunboats, sailed up the Pehio River on their way to Peking, but found their passage blocked by barricades supported by gun emplacements on the banks. The British and French decided to force passage, but the Americans were neutral and did not take part in the engagement.

The Chinese gunners turned out to be first rate, and the Europeans, especially the British, took a terrible pounding. At length, Josiah Tattnall, commander of the American fleet, could stand it no longer. Uttering the famous words, “Blood is thicker than water. I’ll be damned if I will stand by and see white men butchered before my eyes,” he went into action against the Chinese. Subsequent reaction in both the United States and England was wide-spread approval.

World War II veteran, Paul Fussel, writes about how American soldiers reacted to German and Japanese prisoners when they encountered them behind the lines. The Germans seemed surprisingly like Americans, and soldiers who spent time with them began to wonder why they had to fight such agreeable people. Americans who encountered Japanese prisoners found them deeply alien — fit candidates for extermination.

Up through the 1950s, every President of the United States had a strong racial consciousness. Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and Abraham Lincoln are well known for wanting to separate the races, preferably by resettling blacks outside the United States. Harry Truman confided to his diary: “I am strongly of the opinion that Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.” Dwight Eisenhower conceded that blacks might have to be given legal equality but argued that this certainly did not imply social equality.

Even today, whites travelling in Africa or Asia quickly discover a bond with other whites that they may have never before acknowledged. The more primitive the country, the more readily whites fall in with each other, even with complete strangers who do not speak their language.

Suppressed Instincts

Back home, where they are the majority, whites have been taught to suppress these instincts. They go even further and affirm the racial solidarity of others while denying their own. Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone who cannot take his own side in an argument. As a race, whites have lost the capacity to take their own side in any explicitly racial argument. When a non-white makes racial demands whites almost always give in.

The prevailing view is that all non-whites have legitimate racial interests — to be asserted, if need be, at the expense of whites — while whites are simply individuals without racial interests. If anything, whites are supposed to sacrifice their own racial interests voluntarily and promote those of others.

One reason why whites do this so readily is that, as a people, they require a moral basis for what they do. The system of governance built up within white societies is based on the assumption that the interests of others sometimes require that we sacrifice our own. All principles of Western (and any other) morality require this. If it is good and generous to sacrifice individual interests, then why not group interests?

It is this confusion about goodness and sacrifice that gives the fight against “racism” so much moral fervor. Liberal whites speak as whites only to denounce their own race and to praise non-whites — thereby assuming the aura of moral superiority that comes with sacrifice. Other whites, they imply, wallow in racial self-interest but they have risen so far above it they can bellow indignantly against it.

Denunciations of “racism” are therefore ten a penny, but they have the same moral sheen as giving to the poor. Preachers, politicians, soldiers, teachers, judges, and Rotarians all deliver sermons blasting “bigotry.” Great merit can be accumulated this way and — this is why it is so attractive — at no cost. Many of those who whoop the loudest about integration send their own children to private schools. The champions of affirmative action never offer their own jobs to less qualified non-whites, and would probably fight like demons to keep housing projects out of their neighborhoods.

Even the giddiest white liberals normally live, socialize, and marry among themselves. Daily intercourse with Mexicans and Haitians is exhilarating, to be sure, but liberals prefer to leave it to the lower orders. The implied self-sacrifice of anti-white activism is therefore almost always pure hypocrisy. It is perfectly acceptable to thunder mightily against “racism” and not have a single non-white friend, relative, or neighbor.

Public moral preening at no cost is too great a temptation to resist. Columnist Maggie Gallagher no doubt felt exquisitely virtuous when she wrote:

I hate the idea of being white . . . I never think of myself as belonging to the ‘white race.’ Those who do, in my experience, are invariably second-raters, seeking solace for their own failures. I can think of few things more degrading than being proud to be white.

Barbara Ehrenreich repudiates her race more subtly but just as emphatically: “I had hoped that by marrying a man of Eastern European Jewish ancestry I would acquire for my descendants the ethnic genes that my own [British] forebears so sadly lacked.” However, her husband did not practice Judaism, and her children grew up without any kind of racial or ethnic consciousness. She goes on:

A few weeks ago I cleared my throat and asked the children, now mostly grown and fearsomely smart, whether they felt any stirrings of ethnic or religious identity, which might have been, ahem, insufficiently nourished at home.

‘None,’ they said, adding firmly, ‘and the world would be a better place if nobody else did, either.’ My chest swelled with pride, as would my mother’s, to know that the race of ‘none’ marches on.

In the 30 years from 1960 to 1990, the white population of Miami went from 90 percent to 10 percent. David Lawrence, Jr., Publisher of the Miami Herald, seems to think this is wonderful: “This country’s future, previewed in South Florida, is a future of many colors, many faiths, a variety of tongues . . . We can serve as example to America.” He goes on to write, “I’d love to hear our National Anthem sung in either language [Spanish or Haitian Creole].”

The same sentiments no doubt prompted 4,000 people in Helena, Montana to come out and hear Desmond Tutu raise money for the African National Council. This was in 1990, before South Africans had voted to hand their country over to blacks, and the event raised $85,000. Fewer than one quarter of one percent of Montana’s population is black. Today, whenever Nelson Mandela visits a white nation he is treated like a visiting deity.

The virtue of promoting other races is now part of the school curriculum. More American 17-year-olds know who Harriet Tubman was than can identify Joseph Stalin or Winston Churchill.

In 1991, Dubuque, Iowa put on a touching display of virtue. The town is 98 percent white, and people still leave their doors unlocked. The city council thought the place could be greatly improved, so it voted to recruit several hundred black families by offering to subsidize their housing. A few young fellows gained instant notoriety by protesting the plan. The better folk of Dubuque then took to wearing black and white ribbons in their lapels to show support for recruiting blacks.

In 1987, former President, Jimmy Carter, exhibited his elevated moral stature by confessing to a great moral failing. In a speech at Rice Institute he said that when he saw television footage of starving Ethiopian children he could not manage to care as much about them as he did about his own daughter, Amy. He said he was “embarrassed” by this “racist” lack of sufficient sentiment.

There is a prominent place in the annals of virtue for Reginald Denny, the white truck driver who was beaten by blacks and left for dead at the beginning of the Los Angeles riots of 1992. When his assailants went on trial, Mr. Denny made excuses for them, argued for leniency, and hugged the mother of one of the men who had nearly killed him.

Columnist Jon Carroll is prepared to see whites go completely by the boards. Noting that nothing we try seems to put an end to racial friction, he writes: “I think intermarriage may be the only way out . . . Of course, we’d lose a lot of interesting specific cultures that way, but that battle is pretty much over already.”

Morton Kondracke appears to feel the same way: “It would be a lot easier if each of us were related to someone of another color and if, eventually, we were all one color. In America, this can happen.” The whole white race might as well be done away with if multi-racialism doesn’t work out after all.

All these acts and expressions of racial virtue have two things in common: First, they represent a repudiation of white racial consciousness and white group interests. Second, it is impossible to imagine people of any other race doing or saying these things.

This weird self-repudiation grows out of the false assumption that anti-racism is moral and white racial consciousness is immoral. This state of mind is the single greatest threat to our survival. Unless whites understand that survival is moral, they will never take steps to ensure it.

Most whites do not want to mix with other races. They want their children to marry whites. They loathe the thought of becoming a minority. Yet, they have been taught to be ashamed to think these things, and they do nothing to protect their group. They are paralyzed by their own perverted morality.

Ultimately, we must ask the most unpleasant question of all: Is the white race fit to survive? Entirely aside from explicitly racial forms of capitulation, is a people that puts women in “combat” serious about survival? Is a people for which homosexuality is a valid alternative to family life serious about survival? Is a people that forces the competent to subsidize and reward the whelping of incompetents serious about survival? Is a people whose adults are unable to face down their adolescent children serious about survival? Such people — and only whites do these things — have begun to write their own death warrant, even without the threat from growing populations of non-whites.

What makes the current crisis even worse is that whites have never articulated any moral justifications for their own racial interests and survival. Like every other people, they never had to. Josiah Tattnall did not have to explain why he stepped into a fight between Europeans and Chinese. President Lincoln did not have to explain why he thought blacks should be persuaded to leave. Generations of whites never had to explain why they did not want non-whites in their schools or neighborhoods. These things come instinctively to a people with a racial identity.

Now, when arguments are formulated against what everyone always took for granted, there is no stock of tested ideas and refutations on which people can draw to defend their way of life. In their bones they feel that what is happening is wrong, but they do not have the words with which to express those feelings. Without words, without convincing moral foundations, whites cannot act.

It should be no more necessary to explain why whites, as a group, have the right to a future than to explain why it is better to live than to die. In our suicidal era, racially conscious whites are forced to explain themselves, but when instinct and tacit understanding have been battered by decades of argument and pseudo-moral assault, most people have no means of intellectual defense.

Still, there is reason for hope. In time, even egalitarians discover that if racial hypocrisy has no immediate penalty, it has a terrible long-term price. The great multi-racial experiment has failed — failed so obviously that no one is any longer deceived. In private, on talk radio, and even occasionally in the generic media things are being said that were never heard 20 or 30 years ago. The terrible consequences of lost racial consciousness are slowly becoming clear to ever larger numbers of people. Consciousness of race is returning. Affirmative action, busing, inter-racial crime, and the transparently anti-white bias of the media are opening more and more eyes every day. There are more groups and publications than ever that clearly assert the interests of whites.

Racial consciousness is on the march. Its power will only grow, and its fundamental moral legitimacy will ensure that it eventually prevails. The survival of our people and culture hangs in the balance.

Editor’s Note: This essay is featured in Jared Taylor’s book, If We Do Nothing, available for purchase here.

The post The Ways of Our People appeared first on American Renaissance.



RSS Feed

The post Hoax! appeared first on American Renaissance.

America at the Crossroads

The post America at the Crossroads appeared first on American Renaissance.

Will We Live on an African Planet?

Jared Taylor talks about the overseas lecture tour that kept him off Radio Renaissance for several weeks. He and Paul Kersey then discuss the AmRen series of six articles on whether Europe can survive the coming tsunami of African immigration. They also talk about the brilliant “It’s OK to be white” campaign that has sewn terror throughout the Western world, and the absurd kink in our immigration system that brought us Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov.


RSS Feed

The post Will We Live on an African Planet? appeared first on American Renaissance.

Global Demographics and White Survival: What Is to Be Done? Part III

This essay is part of our symposium on “the world’s most important graph.” Global Demographic Projections

We asked our contributors to answer the following questions: “What should the white West do about this prediction, and what will we do about it?”

The numbers are stark: In 1950, there were only about half as many Africans as Europeans. By 2025, the proportions will be reversed, and by 2100, there could be well over four times as many Africans as Europeans—4 billion compared to fewer than 1 billion. And by then, who knows how many non-whites will be counted as “Europeans”? After 2025, virtually all the world population growth is projected to take place in Africa, as the population in the entire rest of the world levels off. By 2100, there could be more Africans than Asians.

Nigeria is a good example of this explosive growth. In 1950, it had only about 32 million people, or about one-fifth the population of the United States. By 2050—just 33 years from now—its projected population of 398 million is expected to equal that of the United States, which has more than 10 times the land area and a vastly superior infrastructure.

Many Africans will not want to stay in Africa. There are already some 6 million black Africans and 5 million North Africans living in Europe. An estimated 2.1 million African immigrants live in the United States, that is to say about 3.5 times as many as the total number of Africans brought during the entire period of the slave trade.

Africa is a miserable place, and its people are desperate to get out. The population explosion will put pressure on croplands, which will increase tribal competition and drive people into the cities. The cities are already bursting with people, traffic, crime, garbage, poverty, noise, and squalor. Millions will risk death to get out.

Maiduguri, Nigeria poverty

Maiduguri, Nigeria – A girl pumps water from a borehole provided by UNICEF. (Credit Image: © Gilbertson/UNICEF via ZUMA Wire)

Last year, more than 5,000 Africans died trying to cross the Mediterranean and enter Europe illegally. We can be certain that millions upon millions of the Africans who will be born in the decades to come will try to come to the West, and there are already networks of people smugglers that crisscross the continent. As Tuesday Reitano, a human trafficking expert at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime explains, “Now, in Sub-Saharan Africa, you’re never more than two conversations away from someone who can get you to Europe.” Europeans better start thinking about this now.

There are signs that at least a few have given this problem a little thought. At a press conference in Hamburg, Germany, on July 8, an African journalist asked French President Emmanuel Macron why there was no Marshall Plan for Africa. Mr. Macron’s reply:

The challenge of Africa is completely different, it is much deeper. It is civilizational today. Failing states, complex democratic transitions, the demographic transition. . . . One of the essential challenges of Africa . . . is that in some countries today seven or eight children [are] born to each woman.

In other words, Africa is not Europe, so a “Marshall Plan” would be a huge waste.

There is no telling how many European politicians understand this; Mr. Macron was called the usual names because of his candor. Nor does a realistic view of foreign aid imply a realist immigration policy.

The most valuable foreign aid—both for Europe and for Africa—would be birth control. If they are wise, Europeans will brave accusations of “racism,” and explain how much Africans themselves will benefit from much lower birthrates.

Family Planning in Ethiopia

A family planning billboard near Lalibela, Ethiopia showing some negative effects of having too many children. (Credit Image: Maurice Chédel / Wikimedia)

Whatever we do, the flood of Africans is inevitable. I see three possible European responses. (1) Continue with the bumbling pattern of rescuing anyone who manages to sail a few miles off the North African coast. (2) Keep all Africans out. (3) Try to set up an orderly flow of “refugees” according to certain criteria.

My guess is that the first response is most likely—at least for the next 10 or 15 years. Europeans are fatally sensitive to photos of drowned three-year-old “refugees.” Europe will therefore lurch from “refugee crisis” to “refugee crisis,” with the flow of seafarers varying with the weather, the number of African wars and famines, and the price of a trip to Lampedusa. Just as they do today, Africans will register for asylum claims and then disappear into a largely borderless Europe. When the country with the most generous welfare finally cracks down on freeloaders, they will find the second-most generous welfare.

Furious citizens will burn down “refugee” centers and block busloads of migrants—only to be scolded by politicians and media figures for violating “European values.” The worst long-term outcome could be the near-total Africanization of Europe, with the flow north stopping only when Europe becomes just as miserable and chaotic as Africa.

Some Western European countries will belatedly realize that the Polish-Hungarian-Slovak-Czech model of zero immigration is the only prophylactic against collapse. They will then try to preserve some scraps of Europe by closing borders. These countries will bolt from the European Union, which will promote mass migration until its remaining member states are essentially run by Africans. Eastern Europe will remain largely free from Africanization, but most of Western Europe could descend into chaos.

Visegrád Group

The Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group (from left to right): Slovakia’s Robert Fico, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Poland’s Beata Szydlo and Czech’s Republic’s Bohuslav Sobotka. (Credit Image: © Jan A. Nicolas/DPA via ZUMA Press)

Ironically, the second solution—keep them all out—is obviously the best and the easiest to implement. And the least likely in the short term. One foolproof way to keep Africans from crossing the Mediterranean would be to declare immigration to be the equivalent of armed invasion and to treat it as such. A few over-laden boats holed below the waterline would cause world-wide outrage, but it would stop the flow—and save lives. Which would the “humanitarians” prefer: The current system that kills thousands every year, or a one-time demonstration that permanently stopped the crossings?

Europe does not now have the stomach for decisive action, but one British commentator, Katie Hopkins, did recommend that Mediterranean “refugees” be met by gunboats. Of course, she was pilloried.

Another stunningly obvious solution would be to catch the boats and tow them back to North Africa. If “refugees” knew they would end up where they started, they wouldn’t set sail. This would be more expensive and tedious than sinking a couple of ships, but it worked for Australia. As early as 2015, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott explained to Europeans that the only way to stop people drowning “is, in fact, to stop the boats.” Europeans say they can’t do this because there might be a genuine refugee or two on board, so they must let everyone in first and then process them.

If Europeans are really compelled to screen for refugees, they should do so outside of Europe. Then they could set a conscience-salving but non-suicidal quota, and let in a few. This will not happen. For such a system to work, there must be no backdoor to Europe, and the backdoor can be shut only by deliberately sinking a few ships or turning them all back. Unless Europe has the backbone for this, local screening for refugees would be pointless because millions would simply come illegally.

Europe’s survival is a question of will; nothing else. Non-whites are pouring into the continent because of collective mental paralysis, not because Europeans can’t stop them. Europe is further paralyzed by the European Union’s supranational authority. The EU is, itself, as committed to open borders as its most globalist members, and its continent-wide authority makes it difficult for nationalist members to protect themselves.

Poland and Hungary are proving that individual EU members can keep “refugees” out—and they risk expulsion from the EU for doing so. For Europe to survive, the union must therefore break apart; the change of heart that alone can save Europe from the coming waves of Africans is unimaginable for the time being at the EU level.

The great Frenchman Guillaume Faye once wrote that unless the generation of Europeans now in their 20s takes action, Europe is doomed. Mr. Faye was writing only about immigration from the Middle East. Africa is a much greater threat.

The defense of Europe is urgent and vital. It is our job to convince our wavering brothers and sisters that it is also supremely moral.

The post Global Demographics and White Survival: What Is to Be Done? Part III appeared first on American Renaissance.

Sowing the Seeds of Destruction: Gunnar Myrdal’s Assault on America

An American Dilemma, written by the Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal, is unquestionably the most influential book ever written about race relations in America. Published in 1944, this 1,400-page treatment of “the Negro problem” went through 25 printings — an astonishing record for a heavily academic work — before it went into a second, “twentieth anniversary” edition in 1962. It influenced presidential commissions and Supreme Court decisions, and established rules for public discussion about race that endure to this day. More than any other book, it laid the groundwork for integration, affirmative action, and multi-racialism, and destroyed the legitimacy of white racial consciousness.

Although the title is as famous as ever, virtually no one now reads An American Dilemma. Partly this is because its exhaustive statistics are out of date, and the legal segregation it set out to eradicate has been gone for 30 years. Another reason is that by today’s standards the book is grossly “insensitive,” not only to Southern whites whom Myrdal obviously despised, but even to blacks whose cause he championed.

An American Dilemma by Gunnar Myrdal

Yet another reason no one reads this book may be that it is a gold mine for anyone interested in the ideas that have paved the way for an increasingly Third-World America. Every anti-white cliché is here, as is every excuse for black failure. What is more, Myrdal pronounces them in the starkest, most unsubtle terms. Liberal race policies had not yet been tried. Myrdal had not witnessed their failure and therefore did not temper his language as liberals do today. The result is the clearest possible statement of the calamitous ideas that have shaped the last 40 years.

For Myrdal, “the Negro problem” has only one cause. Today he would have called it “racism” or “bigotry” but those words were not yet part of the liberal vocabulary. He writes instead of “prejudice” and “discrimination,” and this is perhaps his key passage:

White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners, and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice. White prejudice and Negro standards thus mutually ‘cause’ each other.

In other words, whites degrade blacks and then point to their degradation as justification for degrading them. Myrdal saw several ways out of this vicious cycle. If whites could be cured of prejudice, they would not oppress blacks so much, blacks would improve themselves, and their example would further cure whites of prejudice. Alternatively, the government could take measures to improve the circumstances of blacks, which would reduce white prejudice, which would permit blacks to improve themselves still further. Myrdal devotes an entire appendix to this “principle of cumulation,” whereby even the smallest improvement will constantly magnify itself.

For this to work, though, blacks must be, aside from their oppression, no different from whites. Although anthropologists had been promoting this egalitarian view since the 1930s, Myrdal was the first prominent economist to write that discrimination rather than low intelligence caused black poverty. Myrdal knew this claim was central to his argument and repeated it throughout the book.

“Social research,” he says, is “constantly disproving inherent differences and explaining apparent ones in cultural and social terms.” He cites the assertions of Franz Boas and his disciples (but offers no data) to discredit conventional views about racial differences in intelligence and temperament: “[T]he popular race dogma is being victoriously pursued into every corner and effectively exposed as fallacious or at least unsubstantiated.” As a result, “the undermining of the basis of certitude for popular beliefs has been accomplished.” Myrdal was sure that science was on his side, and voices a complaint that is, ironically, echoed in the pages of AR — that there is a “wide gap between scientific thought and popular belief.”

The difficulty, he says, is that unlike biological differences, the cultural explanation is just too much for rubes: “It requires difficult and complicated thinking about a multitude of mutually dependent variables, thinking which does not easily break into the lazy formalism of unintellectual people.” We can be optimistic, though, because “white prejudice can change . . . as a result of an increased general knowledge about biology, eradicating some of the false beliefs among whites concerning Negro racial inferiority.”

Already in 1944, Myrdal sensed the demise of theories about racial differences: “Most of them never reach the printing press or the microphone any more, as they are no longer intellectually respectable. The educated classes of whites are gradually coming to regard those who believe in the Negro’s biological inferiority as narrow-minded and backward.”

The better class of whites now understood that “the Negro problem in America represents a moral lag in the development of the nation,” and this was, in fact, the American dilemma. Blacks were in every respect the equals of whites, yet were treated as inferiors. This injustice was particularly jarring in the United States because it violated what Myrdal calls “the American creed” of equality.

Why did Americans persist in violating the creed? In the South, Myrdal discovered elaborate mechanisms of racial separation that he called the “caste system.” He notes that although caste rules govern virtually all contact between blacks and whites they serve one central function: to keep blacks from marrying or having sex with whites. In both the North and the South Myrdal found a universal revulsion among whites for miscegenation and the “amalgamation of the races” that this would bring. In virtually all the states, this revulsion was reflected in laws that forbade interracial marriage.

Myrdal scoffs at this. He even “jestingly argues” that amalgamation “might create a race of unsurpassed excellence: A people with just a little sunburn without extra trouble and even through the winter; with some curl in the hair without the cost of a permanent wave; with, perhaps, a little more emotional warmth in their souls; and a little more religion, music, laughter, and carefreeness in their lives.”

Myrdal never even accepted white opposition to amalgamation as genuine. With no data to support his view, he insisted that opposition was nothing more than a pretext for keeping blacks out of economic competition. He went on to call it “an irrational escape on the part of the whites from voicing an open demand for difference in social status between the two groups for its own sake.” Whites, he said, have a purely tyrannical desire for supremacy, but claim that they are trying to prevent miscegenation.

What, then, underlies the desire for supremacy? Myrdal claimed to understand white Americans better than they understood themselves: “Without any doubt there is also in the white man’s concept of the Negro ‘race’ an irrational element which cannot be grasped in terms of either biological or cultural differences . . . In this magical sphere of the white man’s mind, the Negro is inferior, totally independent of rational proofs or disproofs. And he is inferior in a deep and mystical sense.”

The Vicious South

This form of mysticism was particularly prevalent in the South; some of Myrdal’s comments about Southerners beggar the imagination:

[It would be correct to say that] the white South is virtually obsessed by the Negro problem, that the South has allowed the Negro problem to rule its politics and its business, fetter its intelligence and human liberties, and hamper its progress in all directions . . .

The issue of ‘white supremacy vs. Negro domination,’ as it is called in the South, has for more than a hundred years stifled freedom of thought and speech and affected all other civic rights and liberties of both Negroes and whites in the South. It has retarded its economic, social and cultural advance. On this point there is virtual agreement among all competent observers.

White Southerners are prepared to abstain from many liberties and to sacrifice many advantages for the purpose of withholding them from the Negroes.

These charges — that Southerners are obsessed with blacks, that obsession retards progress, that whites deny themselves liberties in order to withhold them from blacks — are tossed off without elaboration or substantiation.

Although Myrdal conceded that by the time he studied race relations lynchings were unusual and widely condemned, he finds great significance in them:

The South has an obsession with sex which helps to make this region quite irrational in dealing with Negroes generally . . . The sadistic elements in most lynchings also point to a close relation between lynching and thwarted sexual urges.

Oddly, he thought that Southern Christianity was partly to blame for lynching:

[Another factor is] the prevalence of a narrow-minded and intolerant, ‘fundamentalist’ type of Protestant evangelical religion. Occasional violently emotional revival services, and regular appeals in ordinary preaching to fear and passion rather than to calm reasoning, on the one hand, and denunciations of modern thought, scientific progress, and all kinds of nonconformism, on the other hand, help to create a state of mind which makes a lynching less extraordinary.

Of course, lynching was part of the “amazing disrespect for law and order which even today characterizes the Southern states in America and constitutes such a large part of the Negro problem.” Thanks to this lawlessness, “a white man can steal from or maltreat a Negro in almost any way without fear of reprisal . . .” This is part of a long tradition: “[A] main way to get and remain rich in the South has been to exploit the Negroes and other weaker people, rather than to work diligently, make oneself indispensable and have brilliant ideas.” Exploiting blacks is apparently known as “mattressing the niggers.”

Myrdal writes that although Southerners claim to understand blacks, this is “one of the most pathetic stereotypes in the South.” On the contrary, the Southern white is willfully ignorant: “The ignorance about the Negro is not, it must be stressed, just a random lack of interest and knowledge. It is a tense and highstrung restriction and distortion of knowledge, and it indicates much deeper dislocations within the minds of Southern whites.”

Mental dislocations characterize Southern politics: “[F]ear of the Negro shadows every political discussion and prevents the whites from doing anything to improve themselves.” This, says Myrdal, results in “an amazing avoidance of issues in Southern politics.” Debate is one-sided: “Even at present the South does not have a full spectrum of political opinions . . . There are relatively few liberals in the South and practically no radicals.” He describes Southerners as the only true reactionaries in the developed world; their goal is “to accept the static state as ideal and to denounce progress.”

What little hope there may be is found in Southern liberalism, which he finds “beautiful and dignified.” As for its proponents, “they are the intellectuals of the region and are responsible for a large part of the entire high-grade literary, journalistic and scientific output of the region . . . They are, indeed, the cultural facade of the South.” This “gives to liberalism in the South a flavor of intellectual superiority . . .”

Victims of Discrimination

As these passages suggest, when An American Dilemma turns to analysis, its subject is whites rather than blacks. This is consistent with Myrdal’s view that “the Negro problem” begins and ends in the minds of whites. Without discrimination, blacks would be perfectly ordinary Americans, so it is only whites who must be dissected and denounced.

The descriptive passages, on the other hand, are largely of the circumstances of blacks, with detailed accounts of agriculture, education, the professions, social life, criminal justice, government employment, black churches, protest movements, and much more. Myrdal finds a great deal among blacks that is unpleasant, even “pathological,” but he always has explanations: slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination.

If blacks riot it is because their just resentments have boiled over. Blacks have been given a place in popular music but “have been greatly hampered in more serious music.” Violent crime is a reaction to Southern lawlessness. Slavery broke up the black family. Discrimination causes poverty — and prostitution, drug addiction, even bad manners and anti-white crime.

What is striking about these arguments is not that Myrdal made them — in the pre-civil rights 1940s they were powerful and persuasive — but that people make them today. This habit of trotting out white wickedness to explain every form of black failure is one of the most persistent and destructive elements of liberal thinking. Myrdal was its most influential progenitor.

On the other hand, it may have been Myrdal’s confidence in his explanations for black deviance that allowed him to write about it with candor that would today be called “racist.”

“[M]any Negroes, particularly in the South, are poor, uneducated, and deficient in health, morals, and manners; and thus not very agreeable as social companions,” he writes. Any given black is “more indolent, less punctual, less careful, and generally less efficient as a functioning member of society.” He notes that blacks are more likely to be repeat criminals, and that “Negro criminals have become more addicted to crime and less corrigible.”

Myrdal finds black thought narrow and sloppy: “Negro thinking in social and political terms is thus exclusively a thinking about the Negro problem . . . Particularly in the lower classes, and in the Southern rural districts, the ideological structure of Negro thinking — even in its own narrow, caste-restricted realm — is loose, chaotic and rambling.”

He also notes the hypocrisy of middle-class blacks who denounce segregation but profit from the monopoly business of serving black customers. He also writes that much as blacks may claim to be proud of their race, they often describe themselves as lighter-skinned — and never darker — than they actually are. He observes that successful black men invariably marry light-skinned women.

Although many authors praise the black church, Myrdal was repelled by black worship services and writes disapprovingly of “rolling in a sawdust pit in [a] state of ecstasy, tambourine playing, reading of the future, healing of the sick, use of images of saints, footwashing, use of drums and jazz music, etc.” “These ‘rousements,’” he goes on to say, “bring most of the congregation into some degree of ‘possession.’” “There is a tendency to emotionalize the collection so as to elicit more money.”

Preachers are worse than congregations: “The chief prerequisite for becoming a minister in most of the denominations to which Negroes belong is traditionally not education, but a ‘call’ which is more often the manifestation of temporary hysteria or opportunistic self-inspiration than of a deep soul-searching.”

Myrdal doesn’t see much use for church at all: “The small upper class of Negroes tends to belong to the Episcopalian, Congregational, and Presbyterian churches, since for them a main function of church membership is to give prestige.” Furthermore, “Negro preachers condemn extra-marital sex relations, but they seldom take any specific steps to stop them because usually so many of their congregation engage in the condemned behavior.”

Even when he is complimenting blacks, Myrdal can adopt a contemptuous tone:

Negroes have acquired the art of enjoying life more than have whites. Because they have no direct background in puritanism, they have taken sex more as it comes, without all the encumbrances and inhibitions . . . The habit of spending a good deal of leisure time out-of-doors, due in part to the over-crowdedness of the Negro home, has contributed to the social pleasantness of Negro life, since being outside involves meeting friends and having no worries about destroying furniture.

Destroying furniture?

Myrdal professes to admire the “wholesome” way blacks entertain themselves while working: “Singing, for example, accompanies all work, even on the chain gang; gambling while working is another example.” Gambling while working?

Myrdal can’t seem to decide whether black illegitimacy is good or bad. He notes that the black rate is eight times higher than the white rate but adds that “the Negro community also has the healthy social custom of attaching no stigma to the illegitimate child . . .” This means that “the Negro lower classes, especially in the rural South, have built up a type of family organization conducive to social health, even though the practices are outside the American tradition.”

On the other hand: “The over-crowdedness of the homes and the consequent lack of privacy prevent the growth of ideals of chastity and are one element in encouraging girls to become prostitutes.” Myrdal sometimes seems as sex-obsessed as he claims Southerners to be. Indeed, he spends several pages in fascinated speculation about the illicit couplings that gave blacks so many white genes.

Social Engineering

Today, one of the most striking aspects of An American Dilemma is its touching faith in social science. Myrdal writes with much satisfaction about his “scientific” methods and solutions. Rather more ominous is his infatuation with “social engineering.” The following passage is one of the clearest statements imaginable of the goals and tactics of liberalism:

Many things that for a long period have been predominantly a matter of individual adjustment will become more and more determined by political decision and public regulation . . . [T]he social engineering of the coming epoch will be nothing but the drawing of practical conclusions from the teaching of social science that ‘human nature’ is changeable and that human deficiencies and unhappiness are, in large degree, preventable.

This passage, which could have been written by Karl Marx, is worth rereading for its breathless arrogance. Society will make all sorts of decisions for people that they used to make for themselves. Social engineering will then prevent unhappiness by changing human nature. It was, of course, enlightened liberals like Myrdal who would boss us around for our own good. The first project for Americans was to stamp out their pathological attitudes towards blacks and their false opposition to racial amalgamation.

Myrdal’s arrogance leads to contempt for American institutions, especially if they stand in the way of “social engineering.” He writes of the “nearly fetishistic cult of the Constitution” and goes on to complain that “the 150-year-old Constitution is in many respects impractical and ill-suited for modern conditions and . . . drafters of the document made it technically difficult to change . . .” Once again he sounds like Marx when he writes, “the Constitutional Convention was nearly a plot against the common people.”

Given that he seems to make no attempt to conceal his politics — he even refers to Eleanor Roosevelt as the President’s “gallant lady” — it is baffling to find an appendix in An American Dilemma on how to avoid bias in social science. Mere description, Myrdal writes, is actually bias because it implies that society cannot or should not be changed. His approach — vastly superior — is to analyze rather than describe, and to do so with the clear intent of transforming society. Unlike many who followed him, he was at least honest about his goals, yet he makes the astonishing claim that his analysis was unbiased:

In a particular problem where public opinion in the dominant white group is traditionally as heavily prejudiced in the conservative direction as in the Negro problem, even a radical tendency might fail to reach an unprejudiced judgment . . .

Just as remarkable is another appendix called “A Parallel to the Negro Problem.” He argues that men oppress women just as whites oppress blacks, and predicts massive social transformation. Myrdal concludes that the Soviet Union is perhaps the only country in the world to get sex roles right.

Without Opposition

Why, though, was the Myrdal vision of race able not only to sweep everything before it but prepare the ground for all the other “liberation” movements? One reason, undoubtedly, was selective reporting, combined with repeated assertions of moral superiority. But there is another reason that Myrdal himself unwittingly suggests. He notes that even the most conservative whites rarely defend segregation personally, but say that “community feeling” or “tradition” requires it. He says this about the reasons for white solidarity and the evidence for racial differences:

They live a surreptitious life in thoughts and private remarks. There we have had to hunt them . . . When they were thus drawn out into the open they looked shabby and ashamed of themselves. Everybody who has acquired a higher education knows that they are wrong.

He then adds the very interesting observation that the white man “does not have the moral stamina” to codify and defend a system based on explicit racial differences.

Those who would promote white consciousness today face the same obstacles. The Myrdal vision triumphed because there was no thoughtful, moral argument to oppose it. Many conservatives were ashamed of their views and afraid to voice them. Compared to maintaining segregation, the goal of preserving a people and a way of life should, by anyone’s terms, be morally irreproachable. And yet hesitancy, shame, and fear of opprobrium are still the greatest obstacles to the pursuit of legitimate white interests.

It is for this reason that the expression of group interests, which for others is simply a matter of stamina is, for whites, a matter of moral stamina. The Myrdal vision succeeded because it harnessed, in a dangerously deluded way, the moral energy of whites. Only by directing that energy toward their own survival will whites break the shackles that Myrdal and his followers forged for them.

[Editor’s Note: This essay appears in A Rage Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, a collection of some of the finest essays and reviews published by American Renaissance. It is available for purchase here.]

The post Sowing the Seeds of Destruction: Gunnar Myrdal’s Assault on America appeared first on American Renaissance.

Breakthroughs in Intelligence

Richard J. Haier, The Neuroscience of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, 2017, 251 pp., $36.00 (softcover).

This is a first-rate introduction to the biological basis for intelligence. It is so good it is astonishing that Cambridge University Press had the courage to publish it. For half a century, serious investigation of the genetics of intelligence has been virtually taboo, and a few scientists quietly wrote heretical articles for obscure journals.

The Neuroscience of Intelligence brings the latest findings out of obscurity, and bluntly lays out the facts: The human mind is not a blank slate; intelligence is biological; it varies in people for reasons that are overwhelmingly genetic; there is no known environmental intervention—including breast feeding and enriched home environment—that raises IQ; we are beginning to understand the biological mechanisms of intelligence, and before long we should be able to change genes and the brain itself in order to raise intelligence.

The author, Richard J. Haier of UC Irvine, has more than 40 years of research experience in intelligence, and is frustrated by the unwillingness of academics and policy makers to understand or talk about intelligence. He points out that intelligence is a central to every social problem—crime, poverty, bad schools, drug addiction—and that the usual liberal panaceas are rubbish. In what amounts to a revolutionary proposal, he argues that until policy makers recognize that low intelligence is impervious to every one of their pet schemes, progress is impossible.

What is intelligence?

Prof. Haier begins with an excellent discussion of the nature of intelligence. There are questions about it that do not fit easily into our intuitive sense of how a smart person differs from a stupid one. For example, when IBM’s Watson supercomputer crushed the best human players in a game of Jeopardy, was the computer intelligent? What should we make of savants (the people we used to call idiot savants)? Prof. Haier writes about a man who is so dim he cannot look after himself, but after a brief helicopter ride over a city, he can draw a perfect picture of its skyline, accurate down to the number of windows in each building. Other savants cannot manage day-to-day tasks but are musical or artistic prodigies.

Normal people can have extraordinary abilities. Prof. Haier writes about a non-savant who used memory techniques to memorize 67,890 digits of π! He also notes that chess grandmasters have an average IQ of 100; they seem to have a highly specialized ability that is different from normal intelligence. Prof. Haier asks whether we will eventually understand the brain well enough to endow anyone with special abilities of that kind.

The Neuroscience of Intelligence also includes a good introduction to the history of intelligence research, beginning with the development of the first IQ tests. Prof. Haier notes that a significant turning point was Arthur Jensen’s famous 1969 article in Harvard Educational Review. Jensen wrote that genetic limits on intelligence meant that there were limits to what could be achieved through early education, and that there was a significant genetic contribution to the black/white gap in IQ. This so horrified liberals that for the 1970s, ’80s, and part of the ’90s, it was impossible to get grant money to study IQ. Even today, most research on the brain ignores intelligence, and instead concentrates on such things as schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, and other mental disorders. The Jensen article set in motion what Prof. Haier calls “a decades-old concerted effort to undercut, deny, and impugn any and all genetic studies of intelligence.”

This campaign was a success. Despite the enormous body of evidence to the contrary, many people still think that no person has any inherent limitations, and that with the right role models, cultural sensitivity, and other mumbo jumbo, anyone can become a lawyer or scientist. Prof. Haier writes that one reason for this is that people who make policy are usually fairly smart and don’t know anyone who isn’t. They have no idea what life is like for stupid people. Prof. Haier adds that the other reason is that denying genetics is an attempt to explain away race differences in IQ.

Understanding the brain

Today, great progress is being made thanks to new ways to examine what is going on inside the brain. Prof. Haier describes the science behind such brain-imaging techniques as PET, MRI, MEG, and DTI, and notes that with every new technology we get finer detail, but the amount of data recorded becomes enormous, and analysis requires increasingly powerful equipment and techniques. He also sets out three excellent guidelines for interpreting research results in any field:

(1) No story about the brain is simple.
(2) No one study is definitive.
(3) It takes many years to sort out conflicting and inconsistent findings and establish a compelling weight of evidence.

It is only after a weight of evidence has been established that we should have any degree of confidence in a finding, and Prof. Haier issues another warning: “If the weight of evidence changes for any of the topics covered, I will change my mind, and so should you.” It is refreshing when scientists do science rather than sociology.

Map of neural connections produced from a diffusion MRI (DTI) scan.

Once it became possible to take static and then real-time pictures of what is going on in the brain, a number of findings emerged. One is that intelligence appears to be related to both brain efficiency and structure. Early findings suggested that smart people’s brains require less glucose—the main fuel for brain activity—than those of dullards. Likewise, once a mentally challenging task has been practiced it appears to take less brain energy to do it. Some studies have suggested that even in a resting state with no mental effort, brain activity differs between groups. Smart people may be observing and processing at a superior level even when they are not actively “thinking.”

A somewhat clearer finding is that male and female brains work differently. When the sexes are paired for math ability, and their brains are scanned while they are solving math problems, men and women show different patterns of activity. It is well established that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and brain size—the figure is 0.33. Interestingly, the correlation is higher for women: 0.40. Likewise, the areas of the brain for which size appears to be most closely associated with IQ differ by sex. For men, the size of the parts involved with spatial processing seem most closely associated with IQ, while for women, it is the size of the parts related to language.

From the University of Cambridge: “Overview of average regional sex differences in grey matter volume. Areas of larger volumes in women are in red and areas of larger volume in men are in blue.”

Prof. Haier notes that sex differences are so well established that studies of brain function should always treat the data for men and women separately, just as they should for children and adults. He adds that likewise, the patters of activity for high- and low-IQ brains are so consistently different that results should be analyzed from that perspective as well.

It now appears that grey matter is where “thinking” takes place, and white matter provides connections between different areas of grey matter. Some brains seem to be organized with shorter white-matter connections, which appear to allow more efficient communication, and there seem to be sex differences in the ways the part of the brain are connected. One of the effects of aging is deterioration of the white-matter connections, which reduces intelligence.

When the brain is “thinking,” data from the senses are collected at the back of the brain, from which they are passed to parietal and temporal areas, where information is integrated. That information then goes to the frontal lobes for hypothesis testing and decision making. There appear to be individual differences in which exact parts of the brains these actions take place, what happens in these areas, and how efficiently the information is passed around inside the brain. It appears that smart people find the correct answer to a problem after relatively few processing sequences, while dim people require more tries.

The thickness and surface area of the cerebral cortex seem to be correlated with IQ. This, along with other parameters, suggests that once the brain is well enough understood, IQ could be defined by brain structure and function rather than by the results of pencil-and-paper tests. When that day comes, it will be possible to test for intelligence by direct assessment of the brain.

People have already received patents on neuroscience measures of IQ, beginning as early as 1974, and also in 2004, 2006, and 2012, but Prof. Haier is not impressed. “No commercial potential for these patents is apparent to me at this time,” he writes. For a test to be valuable it would have to give results that were very close to those of actual IQ tests, and none does. Prof. Haier notes that part of the problem is that a general IQ score is composed of a composite of several sub-tests, and people with the same overall IQ may have different sub-test scores, which could show up as different patterns of brain activity. Also, it is possible that not all peoples’ brains work in identical ways to get the same score even on a particular sub-test.

Recent studies have found that people have brain activity patterns that are so distinct, they can be used to distinguish between people just like fingerprints. Some of these patterns have also been correlated with intelligence.

Some studies throw light on creativity. Brain damage never makes people smarter, but it can make them more creative. Frontotemporal dementia is a degenerative disease like Alzheimer’s that deactivates certain brain circuits. Some patients suddenly find themselves with artistic abilities they never had before.

Studies of creative musicians find that compared to when they are playing memorized passages, they shut down certain brain circuits when they improvise. When people dream, their frontal cortex deactivates, and dreams are often creative. Inhibiting certain parts of the brain seems to stimulate creativity, and it should be possible selectively and temporarily to shut those parts down.

New horizons

A rapidly developing field is the study of epigenetics, or how environment can change gene expression. Methylation, or the addition of methyl groups to a DNA molecule, can change the molecule’s structure and influence how it is expressed. Methylation can be influenced by environmental factors, such as diet, illness, and stress. A study of Romanian orphans found that extreme deprivation in early life resulted in specific genetic alterations, with the alterations varying with the severity of deprivation. Animal research has found that changes in gene expression due to environmental factors may actually be heritable. This kind of “Lysenkoism” flies in the face of conventional understanding, but the evidence for it is mounting.

We don’t know how many epigenetic factors contribute to individual differences in intelligence, and the blank-slaters would love to argue that there are many such factors. However, even when the environment has an effect on intelligence, it appears to work through the genes.

Epigenetics helps explain how the human genome can code for more than 100,000 different proteins even though we have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes. Genes appear to turn off and on and to do different things at different stages of life. No one knows how the environment influences this or what makes the same gene behave differently. It is known that the heritability of IQ increases with age—that is to say, twins’ IQs converge as they grow older, and the IQs of children grow closer to those of their parents. This may be because different IQ-related genes turn on as a child matures.

Prof. Haier believes that “the ultimate purpose of all intelligence research is to enhance intelligence,” and he is convinced that this will soon be possible. He continues:

The genetic basis for intelligence is not a retreat to determinism and immutability. Rather the opposite: the genetic basis, once understood, can lead to the remarkable ability to treat or prevent brain disorders that result in low IQ and to the Holy Grail of increasing intelligence across the whole range . . . .

Prof. Haier thinks the country should treat low IQ as if it were a disease, and launch a moon-shot type of national effort to treat it. As early as 1999 it was possible to splice a single gene into mouse DNA and produce high-IQ mice that learned mazes quickly. We have the same NMDA receptor that this gene acts on in mice, but no one has tried the same experiment on humans. As Prof. Haier notes, there are 51 million people in the United States with IQs of 85 or lower. Their poverty and social failure are not their fault. After 50 years of “programs” that do nothing, we should recognize that a huge part of the problem is stupidity and try to cure it.

So far, there are no cures for stupidity, but Prof. Haier thinks solutions are coming soon. He notes that there is a lot of research on Alzheimer’s, and that if we can figure out how to stop degeneration, the same techniques will be tried to make people smarter.

Prof. Haier wants a concerted effort: “What if a country ignored space exploration and announced its major scientific goal was to achieve the capability to increase every citizen’s g-factor [general intelligence] by a standard deviation?”

Like so many who write about raising IQ, Prof. Haier warns that the Chinese are already committed to doing it. The Beijing Genomics Institute was founded in 1999 and employs 4,000 scientists and technicians, all for the purpose of improving China’s genome. On the walls there are reportedly signs that say, “Genes build the future.”

Of course, Chinese research was never inhibited by embarrassment over race differences in IQ. Unlike Americans, who must constantly pretend that the races are equally intelligent—even in the face strong evidence to the contrary—the Chinese would have no qualms about implementing widespread eugenic techniques. If the West ever catches up psychologically, it will be due to the efforts of far-sighted men like Prof. Richard J. Haier.

The post Breakthroughs in Intelligence appeared first on American Renaissance.

In Praise of Arthur Jensen

Helmuth Nyborg, Editor, The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen, Pergamon, 2003, 642 pp., $125.00.

Arthur Jensen, professor emeritus of educational psychology at U.C. Berkeley, is one of the great scientists of our time. No one has played a larger role in rescuing the study of intelligence from radical environmentalism. No one has so patiently and carefully studied the most unpopular and maligned subjects in psychology: the biological bases of intelligence and the question of racial differences. And no one else has advanced the field as he has, nor suffered as much for doing so. If Prof. Jensen had made equal contributions to any less controversial field, he would long ago have been honored as one America’s most prominent thinkers.


Arthur Jensen

However, even if the wider society continues to ignore or revile him, Prof. Jensen’s professional colleagues have begun to recognize his remarkable contributions. A special issue of the journal Intelligence, dated November 3, 1998, collected a number of articles under the title “A King Among Men: Arthur Jensen.” Fellow scientists like Philippe Rushton, Linda Gottfredson, Sandra Scarr, and Thomas J. Bouchard wrote sometimes moving tributes to a man who is sure to take his place with men like Francis Galton and Charles Spearmen as a giant in his field.

Some of the same authors have returned for a new volume in honor of Prof. Jensen edited by Helmuth Nyborg of the University of Aarhus in Denmark. This is a massive work of more than 600 pages, which amounts to both a tribute to a great man and a summary of our current knowledge about intelligence.

Many of the 31 contributors start by noting the qualities that make Prof. Jensen such an outstanding scientist. They admire his ability to spot the slightest flaw in research methods, and his overwhelming commitment to data. Preconceptions, preferences, even his own positions mean nothing to him if the data do not support them. As Sandra Scarr has said, “For him, impressions and feelings are not data and have no place in psychology.”

Prof. Nyborg writes that Prof. Jensen will eagerly analyze good data with a completely open mind even if it contradicts his own theories. Integrity of this kind is rare in any field, and has undoubtedly been crucial to his ability to maintain the respect of his profession while he undermined the fundamental convictions of most of its members.

The common scientific point of departure for the authors in this book is g, or the general factor for intelligence. Prof. Jensen’s work on  is probably the most significant of the many areas in which he has made important contributions.

It is now widely recognized in the field of mental testing that there is a human mental capacity known as g that is the basis for essentially everything we describe as intelligence. There are many specialized mental skills but can be thought of as the common power source that drives them. can not now be measured directly, but it can be calculated statistically from results of a battery of tests. All valid intelligence tests therefore test some aspect of g, and some come closer to measuring it directly than others. The extent to which a test’s results are close to those calculated from an entire battery of tests is called a test’s loading.

People have different combinations of mental abilities, but because all of them are powered by g, people who are good at solving one kind of mental problem are usually good at others. With some exceptions and much variation, people who are good at working out word analogies are likely to be good at math, reading comprehension, geometry, spatial relations, and even such things as business or car mechanics. We are only just beginning to understand the brain functions that constitute g and to find the genes needed for them. Prof. Jensen himself describes molecular genetics and brain physiology as the new frontier for intelligence research.

A vast, wide-ranging volume

It would not be practical to critique or even mention all the articles in this vast and wide-ranging volume. They are organized by subject, such as “The Biology of g” or “The Demography of g,” and this review will only touch on a few highlights.

The search for the underlying biology of g has begun, but persistent public ignorance about the nature of intelligence means there is practically no funding for it. Richard Haier of U.C. Irvine points out that research on schizophrenia finally established that the disorder has a strong genetic component. Government and drug company funding promptly shifted to a search for the underlying physiology of schizophrenia in the hope of finding a cure. People who had theorized that “the cold mother” could cause the disease were out of a job.

Prof. Haier notes there has been no such shift in intelligence research. There are still plenty of well-funded proponents of “institutional racism” as the cause of low black IQ, despite the fact that a biological understanding of g has vastly more potential applications than an understanding of schizophrenia. It may some day be possible to cure mental retardation and stop the decline of intelligence in old age, but society will first have to get over the idea that the main influence on IQ is household income.

At this point our knowledge is very crude. We know, for example, that brain size has something to do with intelligence, but a size/IQ correlation of only 0.35 means there are other physiological functions that also explain differences in intelligence. Matching blacks and whites for intelligence produces matching brain sizes, but matching blacks and whites for brain size alone does not produce a match in IQ — the whites are still somewhat smarter. A certain level of brain size is necessary for high intelligence but it is not sufficient.

Since the appearance of this book, Prof. Haier has reported elsewhere that variations in the amount of gray matter — as opposed to white matter — in particular locations of the brain appear to be related to intelligence, but that these locations vary as a person matures. For young adults, a greater accumulation of gray matter in the temporal areas is associated with high intelligence; for middle-aged people, the frontal and parietal regions are more important. Dr. Haier is now looking into sex differences in these patterns.

In any case, size is clearly not all that matters. By age six, a child already has a brain that is 92 percent of its final adult size. The increase in mental ability after age six is therefore not greatly dependent on adding brain mass, but no one understands the changes that are taking place in the brain that make a person smarter as he matures.

Efficiency in the brain’s use of its primary fuel, glucose, appears to be one factor. Smart people’s brains use less glucose than dim people’s brains. Also, people use more glucose when they first try something mentally challenging than after they have had a lot of practice — and the reduction in glucose requirements after practice is greater for smart people. People with mental retardation or Down’s Syndrome seem to consume about 30 percent more glucose than normal people.

What is called “inspection time” is also a direct indicator of intelligence. People cannot make out an image flashed on a screen for just a millisecond or two, but as flashes get longer they begin to see the image. Scientists learned as early as 1976 that bright people see the images sooner than dim people — they need less “inspection time.” The correlation with intelligence is -0.5, and seems to reflect basic efficiency of neural processing that is related to intelligence.

The genes for intelligence have been very hard to find. The causes of single gene disorders are usually easy to find; if someone has (or doesn’t have) a particular expression of a gene, he has the disease. Intelligence seems to depend on accumulations and combination of many genes, each of which contributes only a little. This makes it hard to find stark genetic differences between smart and not-so-smart people.

Some day, the genes will be found and the biology of intelligence will be understood, and that day will bring far more benefits than “social programs” ever did. As Prof. Haier explains:

“[A] prevalent assumption underlying the (artificial) nature versus nurture debate was that something caused mostly by environment could be changed relatively easily, whereas something caused mostly by genes was essentially immutable. As we enter the 21st Century, just the opposite may be true. We are becoming quite expert at changing biology and genes; we still don’t improve environments with much precision of positive outcome. To the extent that low intelligence is genetic/biological, the prospects are increasing that neuroscience-based manipulations over the next decades may promise improvement where environmental-based manipulations have so far proved mostly unsuccessful.”

Although students of intelligence tend to be interested in high IQs, there is much to be learned at the low end, too. For example, there is a normal distribution of intelligence that takes the shape of the standard bell curve. However, at the very lowest levels are people who suffer from genetic diseases or who have had physical brain damage. Their plight is not the result of normal distribution, and this group forms a small hillock at the left-most end of the declining curve. Whites with IQs in the 60 and 70 range tend to suffer from conditions of this kind because the standard distribution of intelligence among whites does not often result in IQs this low. They tend to be obviously abnormal in appearance and behavior. Blacks, on the other hand, are much more likely to have IQs in this range simply because of standard distribution, and therefore do not appear or act obviously defective.

Another interesting finding is that people with low IQs tend to perform consistently on intelligence tests, whereas intelligent people get scores that vary — up and down — over time. This is probably related to the fact that people with high levels of g also tend to have greater variety in specialized mental skills. Low g people do not have this variety — except for the notable exception of savants, who may have striking musical or mathematical abilities despite low general intelligence.

The Demographics of g

Liberals seem better able to accept genetic causes for individual rather than group differences in g. If g were distributed equally across different groups — in particular, if blacks were as smart as whites — genetic explanations would triumph easily. Because of the intense hostility to racial differences, there is reluctance even to admit they exist, much less discuss their origins.

That there are differences, however, cannot be doubted. As Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster explains, different nations have different average levels of IQ that reflect their ethnic makeup. The lowest average IQs are found among the Australian Aborigines, with scores of about 71, and among sub-Saharan Africans, with scores of about 69. The highest average IQs — in the 103 to 106 range — are in northern Europe and especially Asia. Probably because of the effects of Communism, average IQs in Russia and East Europe appear to be in the mid-90s, though the data are bad because the Communists banned intelligence research. In some of the most primitive countries, notably in Africa, IQ studies of school children may be unreliable because many children do not know their ages. Because IQ rises during childhood, correct results require accurate age data.

Prof. Lynn notes that the association between race and IQ is so strong, it is possible to make accurate predictions of average national IQ on the basis of ethnic mix alone. He points out there is no environmental explanation that accounts for such consistent results.

Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario goes further into the evidence for the biological basis of race differences. Prof. Jensen, he points out, was among the first to write about the significance of life history differences between races — that blacks mature more rapidly than whites, and that they have higher rates of non-identical twinning. It was these and other observations about racial differences that gave rise to Prof. Rushton’s own ground-breaking work on r-K theory.

Prof. Rushton also emphasizes the importance of the link between inbreeding depression and black/white differences in test scores. The children of marriages between close relatives tend to have lower-than-normal intelligence; this is a recognized genetic phenomenon known as inbreeding depression. Performance is not, however, depressed equally on all intelligence tests, and as it happens it declines most on those tests for which the black/white gap is greatest. This is hardly to be expected if the black/white gap is caused by environmental effects, but entirely consistent with the view that there is a substantial genetic contribution to racial differences in intelligence. As Prof. Rushton observes, inbreeding depression data from as far away as Japan can be used to predict the tests on which whites outperform blacks by the largest margin — a connection disbelievers in genetics are unable to explain.

Regression towards the mean provides further evidence. The general tendency in sexual reproduction is for parents with extreme characteristics to have children who are beyond the average in those characteristics but not as extreme as the parents. Very tall people are likely to have children who are tall but not as tall as themselves. There is a tendency to regress to the mean or average height.

The same is true with intelligence, except that black children regress to a mean of 85 while whites regress to a mean of 100. This explains why children of successful, high-income blacks do not do nearly as well as their parents. The SAT scores of black children who come from households with incomes of $70,000 or more are lower than the scores of white (and Asian) children from households with incomes of $20,000 or less. The black parents may have high IQs but their children tend to be pulled down by the low racial mean to which they regress.

Matching black and white children with unusually high IQs produces evidence for the same phenomenon. In general, if researchers find a child with a very high IQ, his brothers and sisters will turn out to have lower IQs. Genetic combinations that produce very high IQs are uncommon, and the IQs of other members of the family tend to decline toward the mean. The siblings of very high-IQ blacks, however, have lower average IQs that those of very smart whites. When blacks and whites are matched at IQs of 120, the black siblings have an average score of 100 whereas the white siblings have an average of 110. In both cases, the siblings are above average for their race, but the blacks are pulled back towards a lower average. There is the same tendency at quite low IQ levels. When white and black children are matched for IQs of 75, the whites’ siblings have higher IQs than the blacks’ siblings.

Another argument for a genetic component to the black/white difference is the effect of miscegenation. For people of mixed race, more white genes correlate with larger brains and higher IQs.

In one of the most interesting chapters in the book, Helmuth Nyborg respectfully dissents from one of Prof. Jensen’s important findings in The Factor: that men and women have the same IQ distributions. Prof. Jensen conceded that the question of sex differences in IQ is “technically the most difficult to answer . . . the least investigated, the least written about, and indeed, even the least often asked,” but concluded there are no sex differences in either average or standard deviation.

Prof. Nyborg points out some of the difficulties in studying the question. First, IQ tests, in particular the popular Wechsler test, are designed deliberately to give sex-neutral results. It is well known that men do better at mathematical/spatial problems and women at verbal problems, so the mix is carefully balanced to give equal results. Also, because girls develop more rapidly in intelligence than boys, data from child testing gives artificially high results for girls and are not valid for the population at large. Prof. Nyborg concludes that there is a male advantage in average IQ of perhaps four to six points, but that it does not appear until puberty. He speculates that the brain may change in important ways at that time, just as the body changes.

Prof. Nyborg also finds that the standard distributions of intelligence differ by sex, with women clustered nearer the average and men spread out towards both high and low IQs (see graph to the right). This means there are proportionately more male retardates. However, since the male average is four to six points greater than for women — the entire curve for men is pushed to the right — the real disparity in numbers is among the very intelligent, with men outnumbering women 120 to one at IQs of three standard distributions above the average (IQs of 145).

Proportions of this kind would explain male dominance in almost all fields, especially in mathematics, chess and physics. Likewise, female verbal ability would explain the large number of female writers. Prof. Nyborg is well aware of the resistance to his findings but argues that “the study of sex differences in general ability has long been hampered by ideology run amok.”

Prof. Nyborg also finds that high levels of testosterone boost IQ in women but depress it in men. He suggests that as far as intelligence is concerned, it would be useful to have at least four sex categories, not just two. He concludes that mannish, high-testosterone women and effeminate, low-testosterone men tend have the highest IQs, whereas macho men and effeminate women tend to be less intelligent.

Life as an IQ test

Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware is well known for her work on the relationship between IQ and how we live our lives. As she points out, a low IQ is associated with many things we want to avoid: crime, welfare, illegitimacy, and poverty. She writes that even the likelihood of dying in an automobile accident steadily increases three-fold as IQ declines from 115 to 80. Likewise, a certain level of intelligence is required to understand how disease affects the body or to figure out what dose of medicine to take. As Prof. Gottfredson explains, small mistakes add up: “g exerts its major effects on life outcomes largely by consistently tilting the odds of success and failure in the smaller events that eventuate in the more consequential outcomes.”

g is also the best single predictor by far of job performance. The more complicated and demanding the job, the more important it is to be smart; specialized knowledge or experience can be a leg up at first, but long-term success takes brains. The most respected, best-paid jobs are the ones that require the most intelligence, but high g is valuable even for menial jobs. A smart dishwasher works more consistently and responsibly than a stupid one. Conscientiousness is another measurable trait that predicts job performance but not nearly as well as general intelligence.

Specialized job tests — if they have any validity at all — show different pass rates for different groups. Prof. Rushton cites a Dutch “safety aptitude” test used to hire such people as locomotive engineers and bus drivers. Different ethnic groups scored in the same rank order on this test of motor coordination and concentration as they would have on an IQ test. Many people put great faith in specialized evaluations, but experts know that general intelligence is easier to test and usually gives more reliable results.

Lee Ellis of Minot State University in Minot, North Dakota, and Anthony Walsh of Boise State University in Idaho have contributed a very interesting chapter on the connection between IQ and crime. They refine the well-known association of criminality and low IQ by pointing out that criminals have a marked disadvantage in verbal rather than spatial/mathematical IQ, in which they may even be above average. Verbal IQ is what it usually takes to succeed in life by ordinary means — outside of specialized, math-oriented professions — so it is not surprising that the smash-and-grab mentality arises in its absence.

The two authors also refute the view that jails are filled with dummies only because the smart criminals don’t get caught. First, low IQ scores are very often found in aggressive, problem children, and they are the ones most likely to become criminals. Criminals are usually the least intelligent members of their families. Also, when researchers ask people to describe their own law-breaking, the ones with the most to tell fit the jail bird mental profile. Finally, if a researcher gives IQ tests to criminals about to be released, the scores are not a good predictor of recidivism. The smarter ones are just as likely to end up back in jail as the dim ones.

One theory about crime is that it is a battle between brain hemispheres. If someone’s left hemisphere, which handles language and moral reasoning, is unable to control the impulses of his more gratification-oriented right hemisphere he commits crime. An inability to control the right hemisphere seems to be linked to testosterone, which would help explain why men are more likely than women to be criminals. Blacks have higher testosterone levels than whites, and are vastly overrepresented among criminals.

It is now well established that money does not raise IQ. Children reared with all the social advantages show some gains in IQ compared to children without them, but these differences fade by early adulthood, when people choose their own environments, and the genetics of intelligence predominates. This is a well-established truth that liberals refuse to accept. They are happy to agree that people who don’t have “basic skills” will not get ahead, but they deny that illiteracy, for example, is a reflection of low g. For them, it must be caused by “oppression” or “racism.”

The volume ends with testimonials from Prof. Jensen’s former students, who praise his patience and his ability to explain complicated ideas. Helmuth Nyborg also offers a concluding chapter on what he calls the “collective fraud” of an academic establishment that will not face the evidence on intelligence. This is not merely an academic matter for, as he points out, “Policies for a make-believe world are doomed to failure.” Our social programs are like trying to go to the moon without understanding gravity or inertia.

Prof. Nyborg writes that Prof. Jensen’s brushes with mob violence remind him of Voltaire’s observation that “it is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” Prof. Nyborg is confident that good sense will eventually prevail but quotes Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Unfortunately, the generation now in school seems no better informed about intelligence than the generation of the 1960s.

This is an excellent and timely tribute to Arthur Jensen. Unfortunately, its staggering price — $125.00 — means practically no one buys it. Pergamon Press, like Praeger, which has published Richard Lynn, Michael Levin, and Prof. Jensen himself, seems to specialize in publishing important books and ensuring they go nowhere. A lower price and better marketing would have been as much a tribute to Prof. Jensen as the book itself.

The post In Praise of Arthur Jensen appeared first on American Renaissance.

Europe on the March

I have just returned from two conferences in Europe, and am greatly encouraged by the efforts of our European comrades.

The first meeting was in Dublin, Ireland, and was organized by Mártan o’Héal under the banner of Comhrá Dublin (comhrá means “conversation” in Gaelic). Mr. o’Héal described the meeting as the first Alt-Right gathering ever to take place in Ireland. Comhrá Dublin is allied with the newly formed Irish National Party, which is dedicated to preserving Irish identity. The approach of the National Party is entirely different from the much better-known Sinn Fein, which many see as a “nationalist” party because of its opposition to England, but which pushes an inexplicable refugees welcome/open borders policy.

As is often the case in Europe, attendance at the meeting was open only to screened participants, and the location was secret up to the last minute to prevent disruption.

Millennial Woes was the principal speaker, and gave two well received talks, which are both available on his YouTube channel. His first was a careful analysis of the nature of hate crime laws—Ireland is now debating new ones—and his second was a more general commentary on the suicidal myths of diversity and equality. I spoke about the need for a world-wide brotherhood of Europeans, and why all whites everywhere face the same threats and are locked in the same struggle for survival.

The third speaker was Damhnait Mc Kenna, who is starting the Irish branch of Generation Identity. She spoke of her hopes for attention-getting action of the kind for which GI is well known, and noted that the Irish branch is unusual in that it was founded by three women.

The meeting was a modest beginning with only several dozen people, but Comhrá Dublin expects to hold more conferences, and will establish close ties with activist groups.

This was my first trip to Ireland, and I was struck—just as I was during a 2014 trip to Hungary—by the strength of lingering intra-European rivalries. It is hard to know just how seriously the Irish nurse their grievances, but many still seem to think of the English as hereditary oppressors. When I asked a taxi driver about the English, he spoke unhappily about the “Black and Tans,” an auxiliary force that fought the Irish Republican Army during the Irish War of Independence of 1919 to 1920, and was known for attacking civilians.

There are several prominent exhibitions in Dublin on what is called the Easter Rising, which was a failed attempt to establish an independent Irish republic in 1916 while Britain was fighting in the First World War. There is still bitterness about the 260 Irish civilians who died when the British put down the rebellion, and about the execution of 16 Irish leaders.

Racially conscious Irish nationalists of course understand that their country now has far more important things to worry about. Still, compared to virtually any other major city in Western Europe, Dublin is pleasantly white, and the countryside is practically untouched by immigration.

White advocacy is much farther along in the Netherlands, which has seen high Third-World immigration from former colonies Surinam and Indonesia, as well as from North Africa. In the 2017 general elections, Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom finished second with 21.3 percent of the vote, and a brand-new nationalist party, Forum for Democracy, won two seats.

Erkenbrand, the organization that organized a conference on October 14th, is correspondingly farther along than Comhrá Dublin. This was its second big meeting, and it attracted an audience of 180. Speakers were again Millennial Woes and myself, with the addition of Guillaume Durocher and the Belgian New Right thinker Robert Steuckers.

Like the Dublin meeting, all participants were screened and the location was kept secret, so there were no disruptions. The event really was a world-wide brotherhood of Europeans, with participants from virtually every European country, Canada, the United States, and even Australia. The audience was like that of an American Renaissance conference: young, well educated, and committed.

English was the official language, but the room buzzed with everything from Greek to Finnish. When I ate lunch with two Italians, a German, and a Finn, we found that our best language in common was French.

Erkenbrand is the name of a heroic figure in The Lord of the Rings, but that is a coincidence. The organizers chose a Dutch word that means “purified by fire,” and Erkenbrand is doing first-rate work. Its meetings—growing rapidly—are a unique opportunity for nationalists to meet, exchange ideas, and establish cross-border connections.

I suspect that if Erkenbrand had opened the conference to the public rather than screening everyone, it could easily have doubled its audience. However, in Europe there is no equivalent to American government-owned facilities that must guarantee freedom of speech and assembly, and private venues are subject to tremendous pressure from “anti-racists.”

It is too soon to expect a nationalist party to throw its weight behind a meeting on white racial consciousness, but European “far-right” parties are making impressive gains. Let us hope that the time will come soon when groups like Erkenbrand will get logistic and moral support from established parties. In the meantime, the conference was an inspiring sign of Europeans on the march.

The post Europe on the March appeared first on American Renaissance.

Europe on the March

I have just returned from two conferences in Europe, and am greatly encouraged by the efforts of our European comrades.

The first meeting was in Dublin, Ireland, and was organized by Mártan o’Héal under the banner of Comhrá Dublin (comhrá means “conversation” in Gaelic). Mr. o’Héal described the meeting as the first Alt-Right gathering ever to take place in Ireland. Comhrá Dublin is allied with the newly formed Irish National Party, which is dedicated to preserving Irish identity. The approach of the National Party is entirely different from the much better-known Sinn Fein, which many see as a “nationalist” party because of its opposition to England, but which pushes an inexplicable refugees welcome/open borders policy.

As is often the case in Europe, attendance at the meeting was open only to screened participants, and the location was secret up to the last minute to prevent disruption.

Millennial Woes was the principal speaker, and gave two well received talks, which are both available on his YouTube channel. His first was a careful analysis of the nature of hate crime laws—Ireland is now debating new ones—and his second was a more general commentary on the suicidal myths of diversity and equality. I spoke about the need for a world-wide brotherhood of Europeans, and why all whites everywhere face the same threats and are locked in the same struggle for survival.

The third speaker was Damhnait Mc Kenna, who is starting the Irish branch of Generation Identity. She spoke of her hopes for attention-getting action of the kind for which GI is well known, and noted that the Irish branch is unusual in that it was founded by three women.

The meeting was a modest beginning with only several dozen people, but Comhrá Dublin expects to hold more conferences, and will establish close ties with activist groups.

This was my first trip to Ireland, and I was struck—just as I was during a 2014 trip to Hungary—by the strength of lingering intra-European rivalries. It is hard to know just how seriously the Irish nurse their grievances, but many still seem to think of the English as hereditary oppressors. When I asked a taxi driver about the English, he spoke unhappily about the “Black and Tans,” an auxiliary force that fought the Irish Republican Army during the Irish War of Independence of 1919 to 1920, and was known for attacking civilians.

There are several prominent exhibitions in Dublin on what is called the Easter Rising, which was a failed attempt to establish an independent Irish republic in 1916 while Britain was fighting in the First World War. There is still bitterness about the 260 Irish civilians who died when the British put down the rebellion, and about the execution of 16 Irish leaders.

Racially conscious Irish nationalists of course understand that their country now has far more important things to worry about. Still, compared to virtually any other major city in Western Europe, Dublin is pleasantly white, and the countryside is practically untouched by immigration.

White advocacy is much farther along in the Netherlands, which has seen high Third-World immigration from former colonies Surinam and Indonesia, as well as from North Africa. In the 2017 general elections, Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom finished second with 21.3 percent of the vote, and a brand-new nationalist party, Forum for Democracy, won two seats.

Erkenbrand, the organization that organized a conference on October 14th, is correspondingly farther along than Comhrá Dublin. This was its second big meeting, and it attracted an audience of 180. Speakers were again Millennial Woes and myself, with the addition of Guillaume Durocher and the Belgian New Right thinker Robert Steuckers.

Like the Dublin meeting, all participants were screened and the location was kept secret, so there were no disruptions. The event really was a world-wide brotherhood of Europeans, with participants from virtually every European country, Canada, the United States, and even Australia. The audience was like that of an American Renaissance conference: young, well educated, and committed.

English was the official language, but the room buzzed with everything from Greek to Finnish. When I ate lunch with two Italians, a German, and a Finn, we found that our best language in common was French.

Erkenbrand is the name of a heroic figure in The Lord of the Rings, but that is a coincidence. The organizers chose a Dutch word that means “purified by fire,” and Erkenbrand is doing first-rate work. Its meetings—growing rapidly—are a unique opportunity for nationalists to meet, exchange ideas, and establish cross-border connections.

I suspect that if Erkenbrand had opened the conference to the public rather than screening everyone, it could easily have doubled its audience. However, in Europe there is no equivalent to American government-owned facilities that must guarantee freedom of speech and assembly, and private venues are subject to tremendous pressure from “anti-racists.”

It is too soon to expect a nationalist party to throw its weight behind a meeting on white racial consciousness, but European “far-right” parties are making impressive gains. Let us hope that the time will come soon when groups like Erkenbrand will get logistic and moral support from established parties. In the meantime, the conference was an inspiring sign of Europeans on the march.

The post Europe on the March appeared first on American Renaissance.

Let’s Break a Taboo, Part 2

The post Let’s Break a Taboo, Part 2 appeared first on American Renaissance.

Let’s Break a Taboo, Part 2

The post Let’s Break a Taboo, Part 2 appeared first on American Renaissance.

Let’s Break a Taboo

The post Let’s Break a Taboo appeared first on American Renaissance.

Las Vegas: Let’s Blame White Men

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey discuss the outpouring of hostility against white men after the Las Vegas shooting, with some critics claiming that gun violence is a “white man problem.” Could the shooter himself have been motivated by hysteria against white men? Mr. Kersey and Mr. Taylor also talk about the ACLU lecture on free speech at William & Mary that was shut down by BLM, the latest Pew Research data on racial attitudes, and Michele Obama’s complaints about white men.


RSS Feed

The post Las Vegas: Let’s Blame White Men appeared first on American Renaissance.

How to Achieve Racial Separation

The post How to Achieve Racial Separation appeared first on American Renaissance.

The Race-IQ Non-Controversy

J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, June 2005.

In 1969, Arthur Jensen resurrected the scientific study of racial differences in IQ, which had fallen into disrepute after the Second World War. His 120-page article in Harvard Educational Review created a controversy that shook the country. It was the beginning of Prof. Jensen’s career as perhaps the most feared and hated — but deeply respected — scientist of our time. Since then, there has been tremendous progress in the study of race and intelligence, and Prof. Jensen has been joined by a score of other scholars willing to endure persecution for studying a subject their colleagues have declared beyond the pale.


Arthur Jensen

The latest issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law is devoted to a review of the last 30 years’ findings in this field. The main article, written by Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton, is a 60-page survey concluding unambiguously that environment alone cannot account for persistent black-white differences in intelligence. Genes, they argue, must contribute at least 50 percent of the one-standard-deviation gap in IQ test scores that has remained largely unchanged since the early 20th century.

This main article is followed by three critiques, one supporting article, and a final summation by Profs. Rushton and Jensen. These are not papers that present new findings, but in combination they are the most concise, up-to-date summary of the state of the debate now available. As is so often the case in the scientific treatment of politically sensitive subjects, the weight of the evidence is not what most Americans would expect. With only a few exceptions, the arguments of those who support the conventional view are almost laughably weak.

J. Philippe Rushton

J. Philippe Rushton

The Data

Profs. Rushton and Jensen review a great deal of research in a concise way that makes few concessions to non-scientists. They begin by pointing out that barring something extraordinary, the same combination of genetic and environmental factors that explain individual differences in IQ should explain racial differences too. There would have to be some race-specific and very powerful environmental force at work in order for the well-understood genetic contribution to individual differences in IQ to play no role at all in racial differences.

Needless to say, that force is alleged to be “racism,” past, present, blatant, and subtle. Genes therefore contribute to individual IQ differences among blacks, but “racism” is so powerful it shoves the entire bell curve of black IQ distribution 15 points to the left. For those who promote the “culture-only” theory — that genes play no role in race differences in intelligence — blacks and whites are, essentially, groups of identical twins separated at birth, but blacks are subject to unique and debilitating environmental forces that hold them down.

There is little argument that genes contribute a great deal to individual IQ differences within races. Family environment can push a child’s IQ up or down, but adolescents increasingly seek out environments that match their own inclinations, with the result that in adults, the genetic contribution to IQ is overwhelming.

When full siblings are reared together, their IQs are most similar when they are children, while they are still within a family environment over which they have no control. This similarity drops to a correlation of .49 in adulthood, almost exactly the figure one would expect for people who have half their genes in common. For full siblings reared apart, the correlation in IQ is only .24 in childhood — the family environments are different — but the similarity increases as they choose their own environments, to the point that the correlation likewise becomes.49 as adults.

When unrelated children are adopted into the same home, their shared home environment gives them a correlation in IQ of .25, but this correlation drops to .01 in adulthood — the figure of essentially zero one would expect for two people picked at random from a population. The lesson is clear: By the time we are adults, whatever boost or handicap we may have had as children from our families has washed away, and our intelligence reflects our genes far more than it does our environments.

Of course, even children reared in the same family do not have exactly the same environment. Accidents, disease, chance friendships, as well as genetic predispositions that push a child one way rather than another can make the same household seem a very different place even for twins. By statistically separating out the effects of shared environment (common family characteristics like social class, geographic location, type of housing) from unshared environment (experiences unique to each child), social scientists get the results shown on the graph on this page. The shared, household environment has a strong effect on children while they are still at home, but not after they leave. By the time they are adults, genes and only unique childhood experiences contribute to differences in IQ. These results hold for people of all races.

This pattern is difficult to explain if environment alone explains racial differences in IQ. If environment, at least as it relates to race, is so powerful, one would expect its effect on individuals to increase over time, not decrease as it actually does. Furthermore, as Profs. Rushton and Jensen point out, the one-standard-deviation difference in black-white IQs appears as early as age three, on the Sanford Binet IV test for children, even for black and white children whose mothers have the same level of education. If blacks suffer from some pernicious environmental effect, it must enter their homes soon after they are born, and do its work before most black children could have had any meaningful contact with “racism.”

At the same time, culture-only theorists usually point to white advantages in the shared family environment (parents’ income, good neighborhoods) as important reasons for high white IQs. Within races, however, these advantages essentially count for nothing in the long run; why should they produce enduring differences between the races?

The culture-only theory fails to predict virtually all of the research results of the last several decades. Ability, aptitude, and IQ tests differ greatly in whether their content is “cultural” and can be learned, or consists of unusual challenges virtually no one has practiced or could anticipate. Profs. Rushton and Jensen note that the forward and backward digit tests are a good example of this difference. In the first, a tester recites longer and longer strings of numbers, and the subject repeats them back as best he can. It is essentially a memory test. In the reverse digit test, the subject listens to strings of numbers but must repeat them back in reverse order — a much harder task. There is a small white advantage on the forward digit test but a large white advantage on the reverse digit test. Repeating numbers in order is part of our “culture” but reversing them mentally is not. If whites have a “cultural” advantage over blacks, why is the ability gap so much greater in the reverse test, for which nothing in the environment of whites specially prepares them?

Moreover, scientists have shown that ability on the more demanding test is more heritable than on the easier test, which is to say that environment has little effect on how well someone does. Performance on the reverse digit test is largely a matter of native ability and is not improved by fancy environments. This is consistent with findings in intelligence testing across the board: The most heritable abilities, as well as those that most directly test for intelligence (or g — the general factor for intelligence) are the ones for which the black-white gap is greatest. This is exactly the reverse of what we would expect if white performance were due to better environments rather than genes.

Something else for which the culture-only theory has no explanation is the fact that the children of high-income blacks have lower IQ scores than the children of low-income whites. Surely, if IQ improves with good surroundings, rich blacks should be able to give their children better, more IQ-boosting conditions than poor whites give theirs.

In families of all races, rich people tend to have smarter children than poor people, but the environments they provide account for only a small part of this. By and large, the wealthy are wealthy because they are smart and know how to make money, and their children are smart because they got their genes from smart parents, not because they live in big houses and take harp lessons.

In general, when blacks and whites are matched for social and economic status, the IQ gap decreases, but only by about a third. The black-white gap for children of the wealthiest parents is considerably greater than the gap for the children of poorer parents.

Regression towards the mean — a strictly genetic phenomenon — best explains what is happening. Nature has a tendency to temper extremes. Very tall people tend to have tall children but not as tall as themselves. Very short people are likely to have children not quite so short as themselves, and this tendency to retreat from extremes is called regression towards the mean. It applies to intelligence too, and means that the children of very smart or very stupid parents tend to drift back towards the average for the population. Study after study has shown that black and white children seem to be regressing towards different means: averages of 100 for whites and 85 for blacks.

This tendency is apparent among siblings, and is actually a better test of regression than parent-child comparisons, because parents and children may have had very different environments. A very smart or very stupid child is something of a genetic freak in any race, but very smart children are less freakish among whites and very stupid children are less freakish among blacks. Prof. Jensen demonstrated this with a sample of black and white children, all with high IQs of 120. The siblings of the smart white children had IQs that averaged about 110 while the siblings of the smart black children averaged about 100. An IQ of 120 is abnormal in either race, but is a more dramatic departure from the norm for blacks than it is for whites — as the IQs of the siblings demonstrated.

The effect was the same with very low IQs. For whites and blacks matched for IQs of 70, black siblings had average IQs around 78 while white siblings had average IQs around 85. From both extremes, whites are regressing to a higher average IQ than blacks, a finding the culture-only theory cannot explain.

Intelligence is correlated with a number of clearly biological factors, the most obvious of which is brain size. On average, East Asians have 17 cm3 more brain than whites, who have 97 cm3more brain than blacks. Brain size has about a .4 correlation with intelligence, so these differences alone would explain five points of the 15-point average IQ gap between blacks and whites. Interestingly, when blacks and whites are matched for intelligence, they have the same sized brains, but simply matching for brain size does not produce a match in IQ. Brain size seems to be only one part of the biological puzzle.

Another purely physical indicator of intelligence is the amount of glucose someone’s brain metabolizes when he is trying to solve a problem. Glucose, or sugar, is the main fuel for the brain, and intelligent people require less of it than dim people; their brains use fuel more efficiently. Tests of impulses along individual nerves also show that smart people have faster-acting nerves than less smart people. Intelligence is also associated with levels of acidity in the brain as well as an electrical characteristic known as average evoked potential. Some of these biological factors have been studied only in whites — and correlate with individual differences in intelligence — but the studies that considered race have found the group differences one would expect.

Arthur Jensen has been a pioneer in what are called reaction-time tests. These require a subject to perform very simple tasks that everyone can usually get right 100 percent of the time: push a certain button when a particular light goes on, for example. Intelligence is correlated with speed and consistency of reaction time, and there are racial differences in results. It would be hard to argue that the “culture” of whites somehow better prepares them than blacks for doing this.

Tests have generally shown that American mulattos, who have a significant percentage of white genes, have higher IQs than blacks with little or no white ancestry. The same is true in South Africa, where mixed-race “coloreds” consistently score at an intermediate level between whites and pure-bred blacks. The best evidence suggests that for African blacks with no white ancestry, the average IQ is about 70. This extremely low figure is consistent with the low level of development that characterizes black-run countries.

IQs in this range are found even in the United States, in those parts of the rural South where blacks have very little white admixture. Profs. Rushton and Jensen cite the remarkable case of a school district in Georgia, in which the average black IQ was 70. The whites in the district had an average of 101, so there was not something odd about the district itself that pulled down IQ scores.

The same kinds of evidence that show a genetic component in the black-white IQ gap show a genetic component in the smaller white-North Asian gap. Asian children adopted by whites are often more intelligent than the white average. One study designed to evaluate the effects of early malnutrition tested a large number of Asian adopted children who had suffered various degrees of deprivation. As expected, IQ scores were higher among the Asians who had suffered the least, but even the worst-nourished Asians were above the white average, and the best-nourished Asians were far above average. In this connection, Profs. Rushton and Jensen ask why alleged white “racism” holds down black IQs whereas Asians (and Jews), who have had histories of mistreatment, have higher IQs than gentile whites.

Prof. Rushton has done important work in tabulating the many and varied ways in which the major races differ from each other. The table on the following page summarizes differences that all point to a particular pattern: At one extreme, Asians give birth to larger-brained, slower-maturing children who receive a great deal of care from their parents. Blacks are more careless about producing their smaller-brained, rapidly maturing children, and whites are intermediate between the two. Differences in average intelligence are just one part of what can be seen as different approaches the races have followed for successful reproduction.

A more casual approach to child-rearing may explain why blacks seldom do the one thing generally known to raise a child’s intelligence: breast feed him. Black mothers are three times more likely than white mothers to give their children formula. This would be a classic example of an environmental disadvantage for black children, but one that reflects the genetic predispositions of their parents rather than white malevolence.

Profs. Rushton and Jensen conclude that it is a great disservice to society to promote the view that whites are responsible for the failures of blacks if, in fact, the causes are genetic. Moreover, it is futile to expect equal results from populations that are not themselves equal: “Ultimately, the public must accept the pragmatic reality that some groups will be overrepresented and other groups underrepresented in various socially valued outcomes.” Race relations cannot be improved if the fundamental assumptions about them are false.

Robert Sternberg, a prominent Yale psychologist who has spent much of his career combating race-related research, wrote the first critical response to Profs. Rushton and Jensen. It is an embarrassment. First, he blames the authors for even choosing to study “so-called races,” and seems to be saying that such research can only reflect prejudice and self-delusion.

He notes that the authors say low IQ is associated with unhappy results like going on welfare and divorce. Not so, says Prof. Sternberg. In Mexico there is no welfare, so IQ cannot be associated with that, and in some countries divorce is forbidden, so IQ has nothing to do with that either. In like manner, if racial discrimination were eliminated in America, everything we know about race and IQ would turn out to be wrong. In yet another off-the-mark argument, he says high IQ isn’t such a great thing after all, because only smart people can build chemical weapons or get away with terrorist acts. These are some of Prof. Sternberg’s central arguments, not uncharacteristic lapses from otherwise rigorous thinking.

Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan does considerably better. He points to evidence that the black-white IQ gap is decreasing (with data no more recent that 1998) and predicts that at this rate black children will read as well as whites in 25 years and equal them in science in 75 years. He also points to a 1994 study that claimed significant improvement in black IQ that lasted through age 12, but concedes that it involved no less than eight hours a day of intensive pre-school instruction. He argues that enrichment programs can boost intelligence (and presumably make up for bad black environments) even up to the college level.

Prof. Nisbett also cites several studies of mulattos that did not show that white ancestry increased IQ. Also, according to a 1974 study, children of white mothers and black fathers had IQs nine points higher than the children of black mothers and white fathers. Presumably the mulattos lived with their mothers, and there was a benefit to living with a white woman. He also cites a 1984 study that suggests black orphans end up smarter if they are adopted by whites than if they are adopted by blacks. Among other things, white adoptive mothers reportedly encouraged intellectual development and were more forgiving of mistakes. Prof. Nisbett writes that this sort of evidence is so powerful that all of Profs. Rushton’s and Jensen’s other arguments can be ignored.

In the article that follows, Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware points out some of the flaws in the rather old adoption and miscegenation studies on which Prof. Nisbett relies, but agrees with him that this line of investigation is a potentially valuable source of convincing data on the genetic contribution to the black-white gap. The trouble, she points out, is that no one is likely ever to do the large-scale, methodologically sound studies needed to lay the question to rest, because the subject frightens people. She also brings Prof. Nisbett up to date by citing more recent findings on the black-white intelligence gap that suggest it did appear to narrow for some time, but has started widening again.

Prof. Gottfredson also notes that culture-only theorists have repeatedly taken up one position, only to abandon it for a different but weaker one when their original claims were shown to be wrong. Several decades ago, it was fashionable to claim tests were biased against blacks. Now that testing advocates have thoroughly discredited that view, opponents now almost universally assert the much vaguer view that blacks suffer from ill-defined but powerful IQ-depressing conditions of some kind.

Ultimately, she writes, intellectuals seem to agree with Nathan Glazer, who wrote in 1994 about the controversy over The Bell Curve: “I ask myself whether the untruth is not better for American society than the truth.”

The final commentary on the main article is by Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University. They make the very lightweight argument that genes and culture are so interwoven it is impossible to distinguish their effects. They even argue that brain size, glucose requirements, and nerve conduction speed are partially or even completely determined by environment. One wonders just what it is about the environment of less intelligent people that slows down their nerves and shrinks their brains.

Profs. Suzuki and Aronson are also big fans of “stereotype threat” theory. This is the argument that blacks don’t do well on tests because they know they have a reputation for being dim, and the pressure to disprove this “stereotype” so unnerves them they muff the tests. This theory has a very spotty replication record, and is fatally undermined by the fact that black children do badly on tests long before they are old enough to know anything about “stereotypes.” Likewise, blacks do no better on tests for which there are no consequences and no pressure than they do on tests they know could make a big difference in their lives. Also, if “stereotype threat” keeps test scores down, what is it that depresses to an equal degree the school and job performance the tests are supposed to predict? Yet more stereotype threat? Finally, as Profs. Rushton and Jensen ask, how is stereotype threat supposed to work in black countries where everyone with power or prestige is black? This is the kind of quackery people flock to when they are desperate.

This issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (PPPL) is, in short, a crushing defeat for the conventional — perhaps we should say obligatory — view of why blacks do not do as well as whites. And that, no doubt, is why it has been met with almost complete media silence. The official publication of the American Psychological Association has now put before the public a peer-reviewed compilation of arguments that blow to bits one of the country’s most cherished illusions. The articles that are supposed to defend orthodoxy are so weak, and ignore so much of what Profs. Rushton and Jensen wrote, that only the most frothing believers in culture-only theory could think the result was anything but a humiliation.

This issue of PPPL should have touched off a frenzy of press coverage. Imagine what would happen if a sober, top-tier, peer-reviewed journal published overwhelmingly compelling evidence that exercise causes cancer, say, or that nuclear waste makes good lawn fertilizer. When a prestigious journal presents scientific findings that overturn the conventional view on important questions, the press is supposed to pay attention. And, indeed, Profs. Rushton and Jensen issued press releases and distributed hundreds of copies of the journal in the expectation that the press would pay attention. But this is, after all, the 21st century, and the subject is race differences. What would be top news were it about any other subject goes unremarked.

Some day, genetic researchers will isolate the genes that contribute to human intelligence. If they are brave enough to look, they will find that these genes are not distributed equally among all population groups. Maybe a top-rank journal will even publish these findings. Will anyone pay attention?

The post The Race-IQ Non-Controversy appeared first on American Renaissance.

Hate on the March

Wayne Lutton, Editor, “Profiteers of Hate,” The Social Contract Press, Spring 2010, 235 pp., $7.50 (soft cover)

The Social Contract is a quarterly publication about immigration, assimilation, and demographics. It was founded by John Tanton, the Michigan ophthalmologist who has, more than any other person, established and directed the modern immigration control movement. Among the influential organizations he has founded are the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Numbers USA, the Center for Immigration Studies, and U.S. English. The Social Contract is published by the Social Contract Press, whose best-known title is a reprint of Jean Raspail’s haunting 1973 novel, The Camp of the Saints.

Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both make more than three times the median household income in America.

Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both make more than three times the median household income in America.

The Social Contract (TSC) always offers an excellent mix of news and commentary on immigration-related matters, but the Spring 2010 special issue, “Profiteers of Hate,” is especially notable for its collection of articles on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Many of the issue’s contributors are seasoned veterans of the fight to bring sanity to immigration policy — John Vinson, Jerry Woodruff, Brenda Walker, Kevin Lamb, Peter Gemma — and together they have written what may be the best profile of the SPLC available.

The SPLC, incorporated in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1971, is devoted to smearing and silencing groups with which it disagrees. Its main method is to call people with dissident views on race or immigration “haters,” with the intention of discrediting and marginalizing them. The center’s most notable successes, however, have been financial. Starting with a mailing list of contributors to George McGovern’s presidential campaign against Richard Nixon in 1972, it has been hugely successful at parlaying wild, direct-mail threats of “racism” and “xenophobia” into hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. It is now based in a sparkling, six-story, bomb-proof headquarters its critics call “the poverty palace.” As TSC notes, the Direct Marketing Association had good reason in 1998 to induct the center’s founder, Morris Dees, into its Hall of Fame.

Mr. Dees, himself, was never shy about his goals. When he first started in business, his partner at the time, Millard Fuller, has reported, that “Morris and I . . . shared the overriding purpose of making a lot of money. We were not particular about how we did it . . .” “Anti-racism” has therefore not always been Mr. Dees’ stock in trade. TSC notes that in 1958 he was the campaign manager for Alabama’s segregationist attorney general, McDonald Gallion, and that in 1961 he did legal work for the Ku Klux Klan. He says he later had a conversion experience and changed his views on race.

He did not change his views on money. In 1978, the center promised that if it ever managed to accumulate a nest egg of $50 million, it would stop the expensive and distracting business of fund raising and live off its capital. When it had $55 million, however, it announced that it would take $100 million for it to feel comfortable. According to its latest tax filings it is now sitting on over $120 million — much of it in complex instruments like limited partnerships — and spent $5.76 million on ways to scare yet more money out of the gullible. That was twice as much as it spent on what was supposed to be its main purpose: legal services for alleged victims of civil rights abuses.

Many of the center’s own employees have been dismayed by its obsession with fear-mongering and money-grubbing. TSC reports that once the center’s entire legal staff resigned because Mr. Dees kept evoking alarmist threats of “racism” and would not concentrate on issues the lawyers thought were important for blacks: homelessness, voter registration, and preference programs. Another staffer who quit later said that the center was just cashing in on “black pain and white guilt.” The libertarian magazine Reason has written that “the Southern Poverty Law Center would paint a box of Wheaties as an extremist threat if it thought that would help it raise funds.”

In 1994, the SPLC’s hometown paper, the Montgomery Advertiser, was a finalist for a Pulitzer award for a series of investigative articles about the center’s deceptive fund raising. The paper also learned that 12 of 13 current and former black employees complained of “racism” at the SPCL. That same year, when Mr. Dees was asked if he needed an affirmative action program to get a little more diversity in management, he had a surprising reply: “Probably the most discriminated people in America today are white men when it comes to jobs.”

Hate everywhere

The SPLC spooks people into giving it money by claiming that racism is everywhere, constantly on the march, probably right in your neighborhood. For years, its favorite bogey has been the Ku Klux Klan, despite the fact that the Klan has, at most, 2,000 members, of whom 10 percent are thought to be FBI informants. Some localities in which the SPLC has detected the presence of “the Klan” have challenged its findings, pointing out that residents haven’t seen any sheets or hoods. TSC reports that Mark Potok, a frequent spokesman for the SPLC, has a ready answer: “Just because the Klan, which refers to itself as the ‘invisible army,’ can’t be seen, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.”

One of the SPLC’s favorite scare tactics is to count the number of “hate groups” around the country — always growing, of course — and warn that only a stiff check made out to itself can quell the menace. Every mailing address, every chapter of every suspect organization ranks as “a group,” so in 2000, when the center baptized all 90 chapters of the League of the South as bigots, the list of “hate groups” surged by a terrifying 24 percent. In 1998, when the Council of Conservative Citizens and its 33 chapters were inducted into the ranks, they accounted for half the rise in the number of “hate groups.”

For years there have been complaints that there was no criterion for calling something a “hate group,” but the center now says it has to do with improper opinions about “immutable characteristics,” such as race. The center has decided that homosexuality is inborn and immutable, so improper opinions about that are hate, too. Muslim jihadis and Communist bully boys are not haters, however, because their unfortunate opinions are about religion and class, which are mutable. The center would no doubt tell us Jews are a religion and not race, so Jewishness is presumably mutable, but improper opinions about Jews are nevertheless hate. Perhaps the most flagrant departure from the center’s own alleged criterion is to have called an immigration-control organization like FAIR a “hate group.” Nationality and legal status are, alas, all too mutable.

The real criterion for designation as a “hater” is to take “right wing” positions the SPLC doesn’t like. The center’s publication Hate Watch says it is “keeping an eye on the radical right;” no mention of the radical left. Spokesman Mark Potok has admitted he was in high dudgeon over anti-abortion activists who threatened abortionists, but he ignored the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, which use the same tactics but “are not right-wing groups in any sense.”

MEChA, the Mexican student organization that wants to kick whites out of the American Southwest and establish a country called Aztlan, is also innocent of “hate.” As Mr. Potok explains, “We have found no evidence to support charges that the organization is racist or anti-Semitic.” At the same time, the center’s publication, Teaching Tolerance, ran a glowing profile of William Ayers, who was a bomb-thrower with the Weather Underground, and more recently a fast friend of Barack Obama. Teaching Tolerance failed to quote Mr. Ayers’ well-known reflections on his colorful past: “I don’t regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Of course, he was never a “hater.”

One of the most interesting pieces in TSC’s special issue is an interview with Laird Wilcox, founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements, a vast repository of political books, pamphlets, and magazines that is housed at the University of Kansas. Mr. Wilcox has long been an observer of the political fringes, both right and left. He once tried to keep count of political groups he considered extreme, but gave up because it was impossible to tell what was real and what was just a PO box. He points out that the Internet now makes it possible for a single energetic blogger to look like an army, and he has nothing but scorn for the SPLC’s claims to know how many “hate groups” stalk the land. He points out that if the SPLC really cared about racial violence, it would concentrate on criminal gangs. Hispanic gangs, in particular, are notorious for driving blacks out of their territory, sometimes killing them at random, but the SPLC is far more worried about white people who study racial differences in IQ.

Mr. Wilcox has come to despise the left’s self-righteousness, noting that the anti-racist movement “has developed many of the destructive traits that characterize moral crusades, including the demonization of critics and dissenters.” As for the SPLC itself, “It has specialized a highly developed and ritualized form of defamation, a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated. They accuse others of this but utilize their enormous resources to practice it on a mass scale themselves.”

He calls the center’s brown baiting tactics “ritual defamation,” and adds that one of its rules is “to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only condemn it.” He concludes that “the primary goal of ritual defamation is censorship and repression.”

These are, of course, the SPLC’s real goals. For a group that claims to “teach tolerance,” it has no tolerance for dissent from today’s race dogmas. By splashing out the “hate group” label it hopes to drive dissenters out of respectable society and silence them. As Mr. Wilcox points out, it never refutes its opponents; they are “haters,” so whatever they say can be dismissed without examination. The pity is that so many lazy journalists go along, and accept the SPLC’s caricatures rather than find out for themselves what dissidents really think.

Start to finish, the center is an expression of profound contempt for Americans. Its mission is to protect the gullible masses — always just a step away from genocidal mayhem — from the slightest skepticism about 1960s clichés about “diversity” and racial equality. It does not debate, it defames. It does not refute, it reviles. As TSC points out, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become the most grotesque example of the very thing it purports to combat: hatred.

The post Hate on the March appeared first on American Renaissance.

‘Take a Knee:’ Race Trumps Patriotism

Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey talk about the NFL “taking a knee” scandal, the furor over Russian political ads that dared to mention race and immigration, the Antioch church shooting, the fiscal burden of illegal immigrants, and the AfD’s breakthrough in the German elections.


RSS Feed

The post ‘Take a Knee:’ Race Trumps Patriotism appeared first on American Renaissance.

How Can We Solve the Race Problem?

The post How Can We Solve the Race Problem? appeared first on American Renaissance.

Will the Ephialtes of Germany Get Her Due?

JT and PK discuss the fallout from an article in Third World Quarterly called “The Case for Colonialism,” the denial of asylum in Canada to a white South African couple, and what to watch for in this Sunday’s German federal elections. Will the German people punish Angela Merkel for her treachery? And, finally, why does NFL viewership continue to slump—could it be rising racial awareness among whites?

This episode is available for download here.

The post Will the Ephialtes of Germany Get Her Due? appeared first on American Renaissance.

Will the Ephialtes of Germany Get Her Due?

JT and PK discuss the fallout from an article in Third World Quarterly called “The Case for Colonialism,” the denial of asylum in Canada to a white South African couple, and what to watch for in this Sunday’s German federal elections. Will the German people punish Angela Merkel for her treachery? And, finally, why does NFL viewership continue to slump—could it be rising racial awareness among whites?

This episode is available for download here.

The post Will the Ephialtes of Germany Get Her Due? appeared first on American Renaissance.

Will the Ephialtes of Germany Get Her Due?

JT and PK discuss the fallout from an article in Third World Quarterly called “The Case for Colonialism,” the denial of asylum in Canada to a white South African couple, and what to watch for in this Sunday’s German federal elections. Will the German people punish Angela Merkel for her treachery? And, finally, why does NFL viewership continue to slump—could it be rising racial awareness among whites?

This episode is available for download here.

The post Will the Ephialtes of Germany Get Her Due? appeared first on American Renaissance.

%d bloggers like this: