November 4, 2014 This Is The Best Site For Jew Talk! Luke Ford No sacred cows.

This Is The Best Site For Jew Talk!

Posted on November 4, 2014 by Luke Ford

Here’s a comment to Steve Sailer’s blog: “”Ford’s site is the Matt Drudge of Jew-talk, referencing and interviewing Sailer, Kaus, Unz, Gottfried, Mcdonald, Mercer, Slezkine, and everyone else. Best site on Jew-talk, bar none.”

I simply do not understand the reasoning of Jews who favor the “Jewish” state of Israel while demanding that the broader white world fully open its borders up to the blessings of diversity. If you believe that stuff about diversity, then you should be demanding a single state solution to the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict or do you believe in diversity for the goyim, because it weakens them, but ethnic solidarity for Jews, because it makes us stronger?

Zionism and multi-culti liberalism simply cannot be reconciled with one another. This is the argument the Arabs should be making, and they should seek to win the hearts and minds of Hollywood Jews or at least expose them as hypocrites.

Chaim: “Just think how many problems would be solved if Israel treated would-be Palestinian immigrants the way England treats Pakistanis or American does Hispanic immigrants.”

Steve Sailer writes: “I say that because it’s a classic Dog That Didn’t Bark situation: if ordinary Jews were being oppressed for being Jewish by the Putin regime, we kind of sort of would have heard a little bit about it by now, wouldn’t we?”

“My wife’s uncle, the Air Force colonel with a Ph.D. in metallurgy, went behind the Berlin Wall a few times as a seeming tourist to spend some hours talking in a parked car on a dark side street in East Berlin with Soviet Jewish defense engineers who were waiting out the five year cooling off period the Soviets imposed before letting them take their valuable secrets to Israel or America.”

Doug writes on Steve Sailer’s site:

Wouldn’t the relevant question be how good are Russians Jews at business compared to Russian gentiles? If Russian Jews are much better at business than gentiles, then 1/5 may be too low a number. Proportionally how many Black American billionaires are there relative to whites? That doesn’t represent discrimination (probably the reverse in actuality), only an unequal distribution of talent. Maybe the discrimination free level in Russia is 1/3 or 1/2. Russian Jews may suffer from discrimination in business, but at the end of the day may be the only sober and competent people around.
A fair metric is to look at Russian Jews and Russian gentiles in the US. The US has virtually no Jewish vs. Slavic discrimination compared to Eastern Europe, so its a good benchmark. As far as I’m aware nearly 80% or more of Russian-American billionaires in the US are Jewish. The fact that the ratio of Russian Jews to gentiles among American billionaires is the inverse of mother Russia, is highly indicative of strong discrimination by the Putin regime.
(Yes proportionally more Russians in America are Jewish, but I’d assume that among the population that can rise to billionaire level, virtually any could get a visa to the US. The great unwashed masses of Siberian (unanimously gentile) farmers are irrelevant to the analysis. None of them have any chance of becoming a billionaire under any regime.)

ANON writes:

Stalin was a paranoid mass-killer, but he was right to be paranoid about Jewish dual loyalty. (Look at US today. Would any honest observer deny that Jews had been working in their tribal interest?) After WWII, the cold war was on. Stalin backed the creation of Israel, but Israel threw its lot with the West. Stalin felt betrayed and felt that Soviet Jews still retained Jewish consciousness and loyalties at odds with Soviet interests. He was right. His mass purges and killings weren’t justified, but he was right to fear disparate nationalisms, especially as the USSR was so diverse.
Given all the dirty tricks pulled by globalist Jews against Russia since the end of the Cold War, I think it’s fair to say it’s not irrational to be suspicious of Jewish agendas.
Of course, Jews don’t have much of a case against Putin for being anti-Jewish. But a lot of Jewish gripe about Putin has to do with Putin’s suppression of Jewish takeover of Russia. For Jews, it’s not enough that Jews are very successful in Russia. They want Jews to rule Russia. When Khodorovsky was sent to jail, many Jewish alarm bells went off. Some Jews did raise the specter of ‘antisemitism’ but others defended Khodorovsky in the name of ‘free markets’ or ‘rule of law’. But would they have really cared if Khodo were a Tatar billionaire?
Also, even though Putin isn’t anti-Jewish, the things he supports—revived national pride, Christian culture, higher birthrates among White Russians—and things he opposes—homo agenda especially—are troubling to Jews because Putin’s policies are opposite to those pushed by Jews in the West.
Jews see Putin as being two-faced. He is pro-Jewish because he knows Jews control the world, and Russia needs to do business with the world. But he also supports the very things that Jews around the world loathe, especially white nationalism, Christian tradition, and anti-homo-agenda. So, he passes himself as a philosemite while supporting the very things that Jews around the world loathe most.
There is blatant Jewishness and shadow-Jewishness. Blatant Jewishness is something like Zionism or Jewish Pride.
Shadow-Jewishness involve matters that are not Jewish per se but perceived by Jews as ‘good for Jews’. The homo agenda that favors elite minority rule is one such shadow-Jewishness.
So, Jews see Putin as a kind of anti-shadow-semite because he has a bad record on shadow-Jewish matters.
If there was a network of communist Jews in the US who sent atomic secrets to Stalin, then there was likely an anti-Stalinist network of Jews in the USSR that was working for the West.
Stalin was paranoid but not entirely.
FDR and Truman would have done better to be a bit more paranoid about the likes of Rosenbergs and Sobell.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off

British Philosopher Anthony Ludovici On The Alexander Technique

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Luke Ford

From Wikipedia:

Anthony Mario Ludovici MBE (8 January 1882 – 3 April 1971) was a British philosopher, sociologist, social critic and polyglot. He is best known as a proponent of aristocracy, and in the early 20th century was a leading British conservative author. He wrote on subjects including art,[1] metaphysics, politics, economics, religion, the differences between the sexes, race and eugenics. Ludovici began his career as an artist, painting and illustrating books. He was private secretary to sculptor Auguste Rodin for several months in 1906, but the two men parted company after Christmas, “to their mutual relief.” Ultimately, he would turn towards writing, with over 40 books as author, and translating over 60 others.
Ludovici was born in London, England on 8 January 1882 to Albert Ludovici, an artist, and Marie Cals. He married Elsie Finnimore Buckley on 20 March 1920. He was educated privately, in England and abroad. He spent several years in Germany where he studied Nietzsche’s writings in the original German. He was fluent in several languages.
He began lecturing on art, politics, religion, and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche,[5] about whom he wrote Who is to be Master of the World?: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1909) and Nietzsche: His Life and His Works (1910). According to Steven Aschheim, his 1911 Nietzsche and Art was “a unique attempt to write a Nietzschean history of art in terms of rising aristocratic and decadent-democratic epochs”.[6] This was the year of the first Parliament Act 1911, cutting back the power of the House of Lords. It also marks a watershed or change in Ludovici’s writing, to a more overt political line, which would only sharpen over the next 25 years.
During World War I he served as an artillery officer at Armentières and the Somme, and then in the Intelligence Staff at the War Office. For his service during the war he was awarded the Order of the British Empire.
After the war, he became a student of Dr. Oscar Levy, editor of The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, the first translation of Nietzsche’s works in English. Ludovici contributed several volumes.[7]
Ludovici came across the Alexander Technique in 1925 and said he had lessons in ‘deportment’ over a period of four years with F.M. Alexander.
Ludovici’s writing was varied, and took traditional conservative stances on social issues. Liberalism, socialism, Marxism, Christianity, feminism,[9][10][11][12] multiculturalism, and the modern culture of consumerism and revolt against tradition constituted Ludovici’s main areas of attack.
He wrote “I have long been an opponent and critic of Christianity, democracy, and anarchy in art and literature. I am particularly opposed to ‘Abstract Art,’ which I trace to Whistler’s heretical doctrines of art and chiefly to his denial that the subject matters, his assimilation of the graphic arts and music, and his insistence on the superior importance of the composition and colour-harmony of a picture, over its representational content.” He was an early critic of Jacob Epstein, attacking him in The New Age,[13][14] to which he contributed as an art critic before the Great War.[15][16][17]
In his A Defence of Aristocracy (1915), Ludovici defends aristocracy against government in popular control. In The False Assumptions of “Democracy” (1921), he attacked the democratic idea and the liberal attitude in general, as having originated in specious philosophy, wholly opposed to nature.[18] A Defence of Conservatism (1927) defends tradition as not only a policy of preservation, but of discernment in change, writing, “Man is instinctively conservative in the sense that probably millions of years of experience have taught him that a stable environment is the best for peace of mind, present and future security, automatism of action… and a ready command of material and artificial circumstances. It is the repeated introduction of new instruments, new weapons, new methods, and needs for fresh adaptations, that makes automatism impossible. And it is the complication of life by novel contributions to life’s interests and duties that makes a ready command of circumstances difficult.”[19]
For Ludovici, egalitarianism in all its forms constituted a denial of the innate biological differences between individuals, the sexes and races. He criticized what he saw as the sentimental coddling of the mediocre and botched. His articles were a regular feature of the New Pioneer, a far-right journal controlled by Viscount Lymington and closely linked to the British People’s Party.
Ludovici’s doctrines were nationalist, traditionalist, and centrally concerned with a form of eugenic reasoning.[21] He argued that heredity can yield strong family lines, group values, and national and racial characteristics. Politicians should not only be individuals of intelligence, and knowledgeable of mankind, but also of the same stock as those they lead.
It is in the interest of the nation to maintain unique characteristics by safeguarding a native and particular potentiality of success and opportunities for self-expression and expansion. This includes a concern for the health of one’s people, that ill-health not only leads to maladaptation, but also to the decay of the strength capacity and character of the nation. “To be a good forester, a man must know how to give trees their proper health conditions, and must also know how to chop and prune them.”
National prestige means power, power is safety, and safety is security. Since the conservative politician is concerned with the security and extension of his own nation’s power, he cannot tolerate anything that jeopardizes its position. In dealing with a vis major, he acts firmly and quickly; using the full might of his nation against any enemy that threatens it.
The conservative is naturally suspicious of change. He must know enough about his nation’s character and potentialities, of mankind in general, and be able to judge whether new tendencies are desirable, in keeping with the eternal nature of men, or fatalistic, when they apply “only to angels, goblins, fairies or other harebrained fictions”.
The conservative is concerned with the happiness of his people. When examining unhappiness amongst his people he differentiates between the type of maladaptation that arises from injustice and oppression, and that which is resultant from degeneracy or morbidity. He can meet the demands of the former easily and accomplish improvement, but in taking on the later he will only penalize the nation.
Ludovici summed up his definition: (esoteric) conservatism “is the preservation of the national identity throughout the process of change by a steady concern for the whole of the nation’s life.” He opposed Jews, foreigners, and ‘odd people’ — eccentrics, cranks and fanatics — having anything to do with government.
He was on the Selection Committee of the Right Book Club,[22] with Norman Thwaites, Trevor Blakemore, Collinson Owen and W. A. Foyle.[23]
After the Second World War, Ludovici fell rapidly into obscurity.[24] In 1936, he had written enthusiastically about Adolf Hitler.[25] He was critical of the effect of Jews on the history of England, writing a work under the pseudonym Cobbett, Jews, and the Jews in England (1938).[26]
From 1955 until 1969 Ludovici wrote a series of essays in the monthly journal The South African Observer.[27] Topics under his analysis included “The Essentials of Good Government”[28] in a series of 20 monthly parts, and “Public Opinion in England”[29] in a similar series.

Anthony Ludovici wrote about the Alexander Technique:

Certain minor troubles, due chiefly to inadequate oxygenation of the blood, thus steadily improved. I distinctly grew. My clothes of a year previously were the garments of a different man. No amount of tailor’s tinkering could any longer adapt them to my frame, and with it all I began to feel a new joie de vivre, a new zest both at work and at play.
Sleep, digestion and general functioning began to grow more normal, more reminiscent of my childhood and adolescence…
Quite apart from the surprising and welcome benefits to health derived from the change, however, there is the new joy, and a great joy it is, of governing and directing one’s use of self, of watching one’s body, like the perfect machine it is, responding accurately to the correct controls, the skilled management, and of looking on while orders which previously one would have declared fantastic and futile are smoothly and punctually carried out by an organism that has at last acquired [conscious control].
And how has all this come about?
Not by tedious exercises! Not by any hitherto hackneyed and disappointing physical regimen. But by learning the proper use of the central control of my postural reflexes in every one of my activities, by learning to inhibit the viciously conditioned and faulty reflexes of old, and by acquiring a vigilance and alertness beside which the vigilance and alertness of a motorist or an airman is elementary and puerile.
If I were asked to summarize the effect of a course of training in the correct use of self on the mental processes, I should be inclined to say that it consists of increasing a man’s sympathies by breaking down the barriers set up by subjective preoccupations. In this sense it produces a more realistic, more objective attitude to environment. A man whose consciousness has been extended is less prone than the average man to delusive obsessions about the world and his neighbors, he is more awake in his wakeful hours, and more inclined to complete inactivity of mind while asleep. He is more balanced because less harassed, more equable because less worked upon by inner pertubations, and perhaps more charitable because less egocentric. The modern world has yet to learn that it is the invalid, in every sense of that word, who, being perpetually reminded of self and of his functions (owing precisely to the latter’s imperfections) is more likely to be unenlightened in his egoism, self-centered and unable to look out peacefully and receptively about him. Like the infant, the invalid is compelled constantly to feel, if not to say, ‘all for myself’, and for the simple reason that subjective preoccupations perpetually demand his attention.
It is not difficult to see, therefore, that, quite apart from the extension of consciousness, the release from the subjective preoccupations of dysfunction alone must exert a very appreciable influence on the mental processes; and were it not for the extreme rarity of perfect functioning in modern mankind, particularly among intellectuals, the distinction between the outlook of the perfectly and the imperfectly functioning type would long ago have been exemplified and recorded in two wholly different philosophies, generally recognized and valued in accordance with the nature of their human source…
In such a man [who has learned conscious control of himself], owing to his long familiarity with the difficult practice of inhibiting primitive impulses, there is developed a power of deliberation and resistance to outside and inside influences which tends to make his mental reactions less precipitate, less headlong and less ill-considered. Judgments and actions become less impulsive. He becomes less easily swayed, less suscecptible to hetero-suggestion, firmer in any position once assumed, but less stubborn than the wholly subjective person because he has a check even upon auto-suggestion. He develops, in fact, what is known as character, which is resistance, and in his mental attitude acquires that strength which is the counterpart to the immunity from disease imparted to him by his improved functioning.
Let no one imagine, however, that the path of the student of the correct use of the self is strewn with roses. Let no one suppose that he can take it up as a pleasant pastime, like golf, bridge or chess. It is in many respects the most exacting and at the same time the most humiliating experience a man can undergo. For, while it holds out vistas of the heights to which a man can attain if only he applies himself and concentrates, it also exposes him to himself as a creature so automatically directed hitherto, so essentially the thrall of his unconscious processes, that it constitutes the severest rebuke that could possibly be administered to his pride. Through it he sees revealed the extremely thin partition that once separated him from the borderline mental case, and as he begins to master it he wonders whether there was anything more than speech alone that formerly distinguished him from the highest anthropoids or even the beasts of the field.

When I read Ludovici’s 1938 book on the Jews, he seems like an adumbration of Kevin MacDonald and Steve Sailer. Here are some excerpts from Ludovici’s chapter on “The Character of the Jews“.

We see a people hardened and sharpened by the merciless life of the desert, recognizing no differences of rank among themselves, intolerant of dominion, disinclined to obey, independent, not given to manual labour, and scorning laws that are not based on their customs and religion. But a people fitted by millenniums of privation, uncertainty and simple living to become formidable in any close struggle for existence with a type less hard and less hardened; and a people accustomed to wait, to endure and to be masters of their own destiny…
We refer to that complex of mental habits, emotions, gifts and tastes which necessarily forms in the nomad state — such, for instance, as the inability to become, or to feel, rooted to any territory, hence the lack of appreciation and capacity for a territorial national’s attachment to a particular soil and environment. Such also is the ready ability to become adapted to new surroundings and to a new soil, provided it offers opportunities for a livelihood which are not too offensive to bedouin or nomad taste. Such, too, is the inability to recognize any obligation to any other man or to any community, in respect of property possessed — in fact, the inability to understand property as a privilege involving responsibilities and duties. The nomad is essentially a particularist who is by nature, as it were, born into the philosophy of the Manchester School, whether this came after or before him. Not only is it difficult for him to recognize mutuality in the institution of property, but he is also quite incapable of building up a society in which the relations of the various classes and of their members are based on mutuality. He knows only personal property, and when he packs up his household goods and his tent, and moves to a fresh pasture, driving his herd before him, he feels an obligation to no man. He moves, moreover, not merely because he is a rover by nature, but also because he tends, by his congenital disinclination towards productive labour, to exhaust the land on which he establishes his temporary settlement, and his constant refrain, like the essential particularist that he is, is après moi le déluge!
…For the Jew is not soft towards himself. His history proves that he is capable of imposing the greatest hardships on himself and capable of the greatest bravery. In his three greatest feats — the conquest of Palestine after the sojourn in Egypt, the Maccabean revolt, and the clash with Rome — there stand revealed his indomitable courage and his exceptional powers of endurance. Besides, after the Great Dispersion, when all Europe began persecuting and martyrizing him, his behaviour was in most cases exemplary. It is said that the way in which many of the Jews, condemned by the Inquisition to be burnt alive, went to their death, so much stirred the onlookers that the Church often dreaded a revulsion of feeling among the populace…
Israel Zangwill, describing the essential character of the Jews, says: “Indeed the Jew is a born intermediary, and every form of artistic and commercial agency falls naturally into his hands.” [27] Lord Melchett acknowledges the same characteristic. He writes of the Jews: ” They have . . . become pedlars, merchants, money-lenders, doctors, lawyers, professional men, following any occupation which does not imply a rooted existence, and which makes rapid removal possible . . . In fact, the Jews have become the middlemen and the town-dwellers of the countries in which they have been dispersed.” [28]
But in the very manner with which Lord Melchett prefaces this admission, he tenders the most eloquent excuse for it. He says: “After an experience of many centuries, the Jews have been driven by law, by religion, by terrorism, to avoid the ownership of immovable goods. Those who are liable to be expelled at a moment’s notice take care to have no property that cannot easily be taken with them.”
…Hardly any writer, from Renan to Dr Ruppin, fails to mention this indomitable ambition as an outstanding feature of the Jews, and added to their other qualities enumerated above it naturally makes them formidable exponents of the will to power, and ruthless competitors in any contest for influence and ascendancy.

Whatever Ludovici’s flaws in analysis, I don’t think you can dismiss him as a hater. He primarily relies upon established Jewish sources. He may commit various sins and be wrong and about this or that, but his analysis is worthy of consideration. He does not seem out of left field. Of course no criticism of Jews is permitted in today’s Western world thanks to our memories of the Holocaust, but I am not at all sure that this is good for either Jews or for the West. I believe Muslims are worthy of critique and Christians and Mexicans and Jews too. No group has only good qualities.

Not all peoples are equally gifted at the same things. I can’t remember the last starting white running back in the NFL nor the last starting white cornerback. Those positions are exclusively black today. By contrast, most winning quarterbacks and coaches in the NFL are white and all NFL owners are white.

I like Reggie White’s approach that different people have different gifts. Goyim have gifts and Jews have gifts.

Not only do different people have gifts, they also have group interests. It may well be that even today and for ever more, the interests of Germans, English, Americans, Christians, Muslims and Jews clash. For instance, I think it would be naive to expect that blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Chinese and other tribesmen would have the same veneration of America as WASPs and ancestors of the Mayflower do.

Steve Sailer wrote in 2008: “American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start more accurately thinking of themselves as belonging to the best-connected inner circle of the contemporary American Establishment.”

Posted in Alexander Technique, Anti-Semitism, Jews, Race | Comments Off

LAT: African migrants in Russia describe ‘hell on Earth’

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Luke Ford

If it is so bad for them, why don’t the blacks abstain from moving there? If Russia is so bad, why don’t they leave? Russia isn’t keeping Africans in its country by force. How come whenever black Africans move to a place in large numbers, crime and social dysfunction follow in their wake? How come Detroit became a loser city when it became majority black?

Asians, WASPs, Jews, blacks, mestizo Mexicans, etc each produce unique communities. Everywhere in the world where they exist in large numbers, Ashkenazi Jews do better academically and economically than any other group, followed in order of performance by Asians, whites, and blacks. Group success follows along the lines of their average IQ.

Blog post: “Every year thousands board rickety boats, hide in the backs of trucks, planes, and container ships, cross miles of barren desert on foot… All to get themselves to a land where they can be ruled by a racial group far distant from their own.”

Why do blacks move to countries and states ruled by whites? Would they not be happier being ruled by their own kind?

LAT: African migrants face widespread hostility and racism that usually go unpunished.

According to the SOVA Center for Information and Analysis, a Moscow-based advocacy group and think tank, 177 acts of violence against blacks have been reported in Russia since 2010.

Posted in Africa | Comments Off

What Makes Thought Catalogue The Worst Website Ever?

Posted on November 3, 2014 by Luke Ford

Because it ran two normal, natural and healthy articles pointing out the obvious.

According to the Washington Post:

“Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural,” and “Ferguson, Missouri Looks Like A Rap Video”: So declared headlines on two consecutive days this past August from early adulthood-angst purveyor Thought Catalog, a Web site for and by millennials.
Both pieces racked up thousands of social media shares while being dissected and denounced by dozens of blogs and news outlets. But Thought Catalog, a powerhouse publisher that ranks among the 50 most visited Web sites in the United States, has disavowed any accountability for the pieces by claiming to be not quite a platform, not quite a publisher, but instead a “platisher” — an online publishing trend that blurs the lines between editorial product and free-for-all blogging site.
The “transphobia” piece, written by Vice co-founder and media provocateur Gavin McInnes, received enough backlash to cost McInnes his job at ad agency Rooster, which he co-founded. The day after that piece ran, the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., was becoming a national story, and Thought Catalog ran a take on the story by occasional contributor Anthony Rogers. When Gawker reported on the post, it used the headline: “Thought Catalog Is Now a White Supremacist Publication.”

So Gawker is the voice of reason?

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off

What’s The Difference Between Right & Left?

Posted on November 2, 2014 by Luke Ford

The leading intellectual of the Right, Paul Gottfried, says: “The Right is not only unconcerned about inequality, but is based upon a principle of inequality. Inequality is the natural human condition. Men and women are different. There’s an order of the family. Class differences are not of concern to the Right so long as they serve the greater social good. The Left believes in equality, political equality, social equality, equality of all cultures.”

“The Right looks for its ideals to the past. It does not look upon the past as a prolonged period of oppression… The Left looks to the future. It always has a reconstructionist project aiming at achieving greater equality.”

Interviewer Keith Preston: “The Left believes that human nature is malleable. The Right believes that human nature is fixed and flawed.”

Paul: “Conservative political theory is based upon original sin, holding back that which is evil in our nature. The Left believes in the basic goodness of people once they have been properly instructed.”

“There is nothing that resembles the genuine Right in the accepted political conversation in the United States. You have both the Right and Left factions believing in quintessential Leftist doctrines such as that the whole world is to be made to conform to some notion of human rights, that democratic equality is the highest good… To the extent that they believe in other things, they have to conform to a notion of human rights and democratic equality. The United States should be committed to actively spreading their democratic ideals through the world. This sounds to me like some variation of Trotskyism. It bears a strong resemblance to the Jacobinism of the French revolution, against which the conservative movement was formed.”

Posted in Paul Gottfried, Politics | Comments Off

Muslim Men Whip Themselves Into A Frenzy

Posted on November 2, 2014 by Luke Ford

I am informed from someone on the Upper East Side that there is some sort of muslim parade she can see from her apartment where the muslim men are whipping themselves into a bloody frenzy. But none of this is reported in the media here. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Yidden have teffilim, Muslims have bloody whips.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

Poverty Lowers IQ

Posted on November 2, 2014 by Luke Ford

The news media love stories about things that lower IQ, such as poverty.

Here’s a report from 2013:

Poverty and all its related concerns require so much mental energy that the poor have less remaining brainpower to devote to other areas of life, according to research based at Princeton University. As a result, people of limited means are more likely to make mistakes and bad decisions that may be amplified by — and perpetuate — their financial woes…
In a series of experiments, the researchers found that pressing financial concerns had an immediate impact on the ability of low-income individuals to perform on common cognitive and logic tests. On average, a person preoccupied with money problems exhibited a drop in cognitive function similar to a 13-point dip in IQ, or the loss of an entire night’s sleep.

Here’s a story about how lead lowers IQ:

New evidence suggests childhood lead exposure may have a persistent and irreversible effect on IQ during the adult years. A 30 year follow-up study in Boston found that even low level exposure to lead during childhood – that is, at or below the U.S. level of concern of 10 µg/dL – may impair adult cognitive function enough to lower IQ scores.
Even small decreases in IQ can increase the number of people in society who need extra help in school or who may have difficulty finding work. Although it is well known that lead exposure during childhood can decrease cognitive function in children, the results of this study suggest there are long-term consequences of environmental lead exposure.

That marijuana use lowers IQ got massive news coverage.

Here’s a list of 17 things that make you dumber and 25 things that make you smarter.

America turning Hispanic is lowering the national IQ but nobody seems to want to write about that except a few eccentrics such as Jason Richwine, who did a PhD at Harvard on the topic.

Richard Lynn wrote in his book Eugenics: “In an analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth data set, Hernstein and Murray found that the average IQ of the children of Hispanic immigrants was 81, of black immigrants 88, and of European immigrants 97.”

Posted in IQ | Comments Off

The Future

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics:

In the developing nations in Latin America, the near and middle East, and North Africa, there was severe dysgenic fertility in the second half of the twentieth century, which I have documented in Dysgenics (Lynn, 1996). Throughout these nations women with secondary education were typically having two or three children, women with primary education were having four or five children, while women with no education were having six or seven children. Only in sub-Saharan Africa was there very little dysgenic fertility because women with all levels of education were having six or seven children. Further surveys published in the journal Studies in Family Planning have shown a continuation of dysgenic fertility in Latin America and the onset of dysgenic fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. Figures illustrating these dysgenic trends are shown in Table 21.1. The first two rows show strong recent dysgenic fertility in Brazil and the Dominican Republic. The third row shows the fertility of women in relation to educational level for 21 sub-Saharan countries, averaged from surveys carried out over the years 1988–92 (Kirk & Pillet, 1998). Women with secondary education were having only about two-thirds of the number of children of those with no education.
This dysgenic fertility is likely to continue in the twenty-first century. In sub-Saharan Africa, present average IQs obtained from a number of countries are around 70 (Lynn, 1997). The onset of dysgenic fertility will drive average IQs lower, with seriously adverse consequences for the economies and the quality of life in these countries.
Throughout Latin America, with the exception of Argentina and Uruguay, dysgenic fertility indexed by women’s educational level is associated with racial differences in fertility. In these countries there is a racial social hierarchy in which Europeans are at the top, blacks and native American Indians are at the bottom, and those of mixed race are in the middle (e.g., Valle Silva, 1988). Women with low fertility are largely well-educated whites, while women with high fertility are largely poorly educated blacks, American Indians, or of mixed race. Hence Europeans will decline as a proportion of the population of these countries, while the proportions of poorly educated blacks, American Indians, and mixed-race mulattos and mestizos will increase. As the European elites of these countries decline as a proportion of the population, the efficiency of the economies will inevitably deteriorate.
The continuation of severe dysgenic fertility combined with the population explosion will produce a serious deterioration of economic and social conditions throughout the developing world. Inevitably, increasing numbers of people will seek to escape by migrating to the affluent Western democracies. These people will mostly enter as refugees, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants. The Western democracies will find it impossible to contain their numbers and will be progressively weakened by this dysgenic immigration and the social strains of multiracial societies.

2.THE UNITED STATES

The United States will experience both dysgenic fertility and dysgenic immigration for a number of decades into the twenty-first century. The most recent evidence shows that dysgenic fertility is still present in the United States (Loehlin, 1997; Lynn, 1998, 1999b). This is likely to persist as significant numbers of well-educated and intelligent women opt to remain childless in order to further their careers and to preserve their affluent lifestyles, while poorly educated and less intelligent women continue to have children either because of of their inefficient use of contraception or deliberately in order to live on welfare as a preferable alternative to working. There are no signs that a spontaneous solution to this problem is likely to emerge, and we should anticipate that this dysgenic fertility will continue for the foreseeable future.
More serious and intractable will be the problem of dysgenic immigration. This began on a significant scale with the 1965 Immigration Act, which led, by the 1980s, to the admission into the United States of about one million immigrants a year, consisting largely of Hispanics and also of Asians and blacks. This immigration will continue and the numbers of Hispanics and blacks will also increase as a result of their greater fertility as compared with whites. In 1992 the American Current Population Survey showed that the number of children of Hispanic women aged 35 to 44 was 2.47 and of black women 2.23, as compared with 1.89 for whites. These fertility differences are likely to continue for the indefinite future.
As Hispanics and blacks become an increasing proportion of the U.S. population, there will be three predictable consequences. First, because Hispanics and blacks have lower intelligence levels than whites at approximately 92 and 85 IQ points, respectively, the intelligence level of the population will fall, causing economic productivity to decline and generating a number of social problems associated with low intelligence.
Second, an Hispanic-led coalition of nonwhites will become the dominant political force. The United States will then detach itself from its alliance with Western Europe. This alliance, formalized in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the second half of the twentieth century, was based on the ethnic affinity and common cultural heritage of the peoples of Western Europe and the dominant group of ethnic Western Europeans in the United States. As whites cease to be the dominant U.S. group and are replaced by a coalition of nonwhites, the ethnic and cultural basis of the U.S.-European alliance will disappear. An increasingly Hispanic United States will ally itself in global politics with Hispanic Latin America.
Third, the increasingly multiracial nature of the U.S. population will generate enormous internal strains on social cohesion. The major racial and ethnic groups will continue to perform at different levels in education and earnings, with whites and Asians performing best, Hispanics performing intermediately, and blacks performing worst. These differences will continue to generate resentment among Hispanics and blacks, who will lobby to obtain compensation for them by affirmative action and set-aside quotas, reserving business contracts for themselves. The different racial groups and their advocates will also strive to secure increased immigration immigration quotas and amnesties for illegal immigrants of their own peoples. Crime rates will escalate because Hispanics and blacks have much higher rates of crime than whites and Asians. For instance, in 1996, incarceration rates calculated by the U.S. Department of Justice per 100,000 population were 193 for whites, 688 for Hispanics, and 1,571 for blacks, while Asian crime rates were somewhat lower than those of whites (Taylor & Whitney, 1999; see also, Rushton, 1995). To escape black and Hispanic crime, there will be increasing white flight and also ‘‘Asian flight” from the black-Hispanic cities to white and Asian communities in suburbs and satellite towns where whites and Asians will increasingly come to live in fortified estates. The legal system will break down as judges and juries increasingly return perverse verdicts favoring their own racial and ethnic groups, as has already occurred in parts of New York in what has become known as a Bronx jury.
Some people have predicted that as the quality of life for whites and Asians deteriorates, interracial conflicts will become so severe that they will lead to civil wars between different racial groups and the eventual breakup of the United States into racially homogenous independent states. For instance, Michael Clough of the Council on Foreign Relations has written, “The state could be set for a series of economic and cultural wars pitting regions of the country against each other” and “America is destined to become a country of distinct, relatively independent regions, each with its own politicocultural economies, metropolitan centers, governing elites, and global interests” (Masters, 1999, p. 4). The models for this scenario are the breakup of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and of Yugoslavia in 1998 into culturally and ethnically independent states. A conceivable outcome of this racial strife is that the largely white northern and midwestern states will secede from the Union, while the Hispanic majorities, which will appear in the southern states, will opt to join Mexico or to form an independent Hispanic nation. A more likely scenario is that the United States will continue as one country, become increasingly Hispanicized, and come to resemble the Hispanic republics of Latin America. As this happens, the United States will experience growing law-lessness, political anarchy, racial conflict, and huge disparities in wealth between rich and poor. Possibly when Europeans lose their political power, they will seek to regain this by overthrowing democratic institutions and replacing them by military rule, as has happened periodically throughout Latin America. However the details of the decline of the United States work out, it will forfeit its position as the leading world economic, scientific, and military power and eventually cease to be a major force in global politics.

3. EUROPE

Europe is likely to continue to experience some dysgenic fertility and dysgenic immigration in the twenty-first century. Europe does not permit primary immigration (immigrants who have no other reason for immigration than the wish to live in more affluent countries than their own), and there are no lobbies for permitting primary immigration. Nevertheless, there is substantial immigration of asylum seekers and illegal entrants—secondary immigration. In Britain there were approximately 0.3 million blacks and South Asians in 1961, as recorded in the census of that year. In the 1991 census the numbers had grown to approximately 3 million. This increase is likely to continue because of the young age structure of these populations and through further immigration. The 1991 British census found that non-European immigrants comprised about 5 percent of the population; but among children from 0 to 9 years of age, they comprised 9.3 percent of the population (Coleman, 1995). The number of non-Europeans is also likely to grow through the continued immigration of asylum seekers and illegal entrants. It is even possible that the 10-fold increase in the numbers of immigrants in Britain over the years 1961 to 1991 will continue at the same rate, producing a nonwhite majority sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century.
Similar increases in the numbers of immigrants have occurred in other Western European countries. A large number of these are from Turkey, North Africa, and the Near East. Many of them are Muslims, whose first loyalty is to their Islamic faith, and these will not be assimilable, at least for many generations. A second major group consists of Africans from sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean who have entered Europe from former colonies or as refugees from the African civil wars. Immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa manifest the same low intelligence, poor educational attainment, high rates of unemployment, welfare dependency, and crime as blacks in the United States. In Britain, blacks have an average IQ of approximately 88 (Mackintosh & Mascie-Taylor, 1984), a rate of unemployment approximately twice as great as that of whites (Blackaby, Drinkwater, Leslie, & Murphy, 1997), and a crime rate approximately six times greater than that of whites (Smith, D.J., 1997). In France, blacks have an unemployment rate approximately 50 percent higher than that of whites (Model, Fisher, & Silberman, 1999) and a crime rate approximately eight times greater than that of whites (Tournier, 1997). In Sweden, blacks have a crime rate approximately two and a half times greater than that of whites (Martens, 1997). In the Netherlands, immigrants from Surinam, Turkey, and North Africa have average IQs of 89, 88, and 84, respectively (Te Nijenhuis, 1997). These immigrants have caused social problems and racial conflicts of the kind experienced in the United States and white flight from black inner-city ghettos. These social problems and costs will increase as their their numbers grow through relatively high fertility and the further immigration of asylum seekers and illegal entrants.
It will be impossible for European nations to make any significant corrections to these dysgenic processes because of the opposition of special interest groups and a predominantly liberal media. Thus, as the twenty-first century unfolds, Europe will be weakened by dysgenic fertility and by dysgenic immigration, but this will take place more slowly than in the United States. In the middle decades of the century, Europe will therefore be left as the principal power base of the European peoples. Europe will be weakened militarily by the loss of the United States as an ally but will be able to develop its own military capability to replace this. Europe is likely to be strengthened by its evolution into some form of federal state and by the incorporation of the nations of eastern and southeastern Europe, and possibly even of Russia. For these reasons, Europe will be a formidable global power for the foreseeable future.
4.EAST ASIA
Dysgenic processes were quite weak in the nations of East Asia in the closing decades of the twentieth century. Dysgenic fertility had ceased in Japan by the 1980s and was minimized in other East Asian countries (Lynn, 1996). There has been virtually no immigration, dysgenic or otherwise, into East Asian nations, except for Japan, where there has been some immigration from other Asian countries; but the amount of this has been too small to have any significant dysgenic impact and is likely to remain so.
The intelligence levels in the East Asian nations are high, with an average IQ of around 105, the evidence for which I have given in Lynn (1997; in press). These high intelligence levels have been a major factor in the rapid economic development of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and China in the second half of the twentieth century, during which they achieved rates of economic growth about three times greater than the Western democracies. These high rates of economic growth can be projected forward into the twenty-first century with the result that these countries will become increasingly powerful. The peoples and political leaders of the nations of East Asia are potentially or actually sympathetic to eugenics. Eugenic programs were introduced in Singapore and China during the last years of the twentieth century. In the twenty-first century, more ambitious and sophisticated eugenic programs are likely to be adopted in these and possibly in other East Asian countries.
There are five reasons for anticipating a development of this kind. First, the political leaders and the peoples of these countries do not share the high priority accorded to individual rights at the expense of social rights that developed during the second half of the twentieth century in Western nations and that has been principally responsible for the rejection of eugenics. Throughout East Asia there is a greater acceptance of the legitimacy of social rights, which provide the political and ethical legitimacy for eugenics. Second, this value system is expressed in the favorable attitudes toward eugenics among geneticists and physicians in China as found in the survey carried out by Wertz (1998), which showed that Chinese geneticists and physicians recommend pregnancy termination on explicitly eugenic grounds to women carrying fetuses with genetic disorders. Third, the political rulers of Singapore and China had already introduced eugenic programs in the last two decades of the twentieth century, suggesting a willingness to implement further eugenic measures. Fourth, the peoples of East Asia have the high levels of intelligence and scientific expertise necessary to develop and implement the potentially eugenic human biotechnologies of embryo selection, cloning, and genetic engineering. Fifth, the political leaders of at least some of these countries are likely to have the political will to implement serious eugenic programs. This is suggested by the draconian one-child policy introduced in China in 1979, which stipulated that couples were only permitted to have one child. This edict was enforced by the compulsory fitting of IUDs, compulsory abortion, and, as a further deterrent, the imposition of heavy fines amounting to approximately half of annual earnings for couples having a second child. At the same time, couples complying with the policy were given rewards in the form of cash payments and better housing, food rations, and child health care (Short & Fengying, 1998).
By the early 1990s these policies had reduced the total fertility rate in China to 1.9. A state that succeeds in imposing population policies of this kind should not have any difficulty in introducing programs of both classical eugenics and the new eugenics of the human biotechnologies. The political leaders of more authoritarian East Asian states are likely to have both the motivation and the means to introduce robust eugenic programs, and we should anticipate that some of them will do so.
Because of its sheer size, China will inevitably emerge as the most powerful of the East Asian nations. There is every reason to expect that the rapid rate of economic growth achieved by China in the closing decades of the twentieth century will continue, with the result that by the middle decades of the twenty-first century China will achieve parity with Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength. As China grows in power during the twenty-first century and the strength of the United States declines declines, China and Europe will evolve as the two foremost world powers. A struggle for global supremacy will develop between them, resembling the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union in the second half of the twentieth century. In this contest Europe will be at a long-term disadvantage because of the difficulties of achieving an agreed military strategy among the 25 or so nations of which the European Union, or federal state, will consist and because of the progressive loss of social cohesion resulting from continued immigration and population growth of non-European peoples. China will have the advantages of a racially homogenous nation state and culture and of the high intelligence level of its population. In addition, Europe will not be able to introduce eugenic programs to enhance its population quality, while China is likely to develop further the implementation of eugenic programs introduced in the closing years of the twentieth century. China’s use of eugenics and particularly the potential use of the human biotechnologies of embryo selection, cloning, and genetic engineering are likely to give her a decisive advantage in this struggle for global supremacy, giving her ultimate victory and emergence as the world superpower.
5.THE EMERGENCE OF CHINESE GLOBALSUPREMACY
As China gains supremacy over Europe in economic, scientific, and military strength sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century, China can be expected to use its power to take control of the world and establish a world state. There are two reasons why this development should be expected. First, the political leaders of dictatorships and oligarchies have normally attempted to increase the size of the territories they control. History records a succession of political leaders who have devoted themselves to this objective, including Alexander the Great; a series of Roman generals and emperors who colonized most of the known world; Genghis Khan; and the British, French, and Dutch oligarchies who, among them, colonized much of the world between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the twentieth century, Hitler aimed to conquer the world, and later in the century the leaders of the Soviet Union had the same aim (Schweller, 1998). It is sometimes argued that the Chinese are an exception to this general principle, as if the Chinese lacked the gene for territorial expansion. This is improbable. In the second half of the twentieth century China annexed Tibet and fought a frontier war with India in 1962. China seeks to take over Taiwan. There is no reason to suppose that the future political leaders of China will be any different in their territorial ambitions from those of other oligarchies.
Second, during the twenty-first century there are likely to be increasing numbers of unstable states that will develop nuclear and biological weapons capable of inflicting considerable damage and with unpredictable consequences for the whole of humanity. At the present time Iraq and North Korea present the greatest threat of this kind, but others are likely to emerge. With technological advances and the spread of information, this threat will grow. The Chinese leaders are likely to form the view that it would be in their best interests for China to take control of the world and use its power to disarm these rogue states. They will see this as the best way of preserving themselves and the rest of humanity from the dangers arising from the use of these weapons.
Once China has developed a superior military capability, it will probably not be necessary to use this to establish world domination. The mere threat of its use should be sufficient to coerce the rest of the world into submission. If, however, some stubborn states refused to be coerced, it would become necessary to use some of these weapons on those countries to demonstrate their effectiveness and to enforce submission, in the same way as the United States dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force the surrender of Japan in 1945. One or two examples of this kind should be sufficient to coerce the world into acceptance of Chinese authority.
6.ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORLD STATE
Once China has secured global supremacy, it would be expected to establish a world state and to administer it in much the same way as previous colonial powers have ruled their empires. It would appoint its own ethnic nationals as governors and senior support staff of its provinces and would recruit middle- and lower-ranking military commanders, police officers, administrators, and the like, from the nationals of the subject populations. This is the way the Romans, British, French, and numerous other former colonial powers have administered their empires, and it would be an obvious model to adopt. Alternatively, China might find sufficient numbers of compliant nationals of its subject peoples to run the provinces under direction from Beijing on the model of the Soviet empire and the German rule of some of occupied Europe during World War II. The political rulers of the Chinese world state would have a number of expert advisers, among whom their historical advisers would alert them to the tendency of empires to break up after several centuries and of the need to ensure that this was not allowed to happen.
The Chinese world state would not permit the manufacture or possession of weapons, except by its own peoples or by others under strict supervision. These weapons would be used to supply the military detachments that it would maintain throughout its colonies to suppress insurrections that would be likely to erupt from time to time. Apart from these minor confrontations, there would be world peace. This will bring to an end the long period of warfare between independent nation states and will be one of the benefits of the world state.
The Chinese oligarchy would be expected to retain its autocratic character. It would realize that it would be impossible to run a world state as a democracy. If a democratic constitution were established, with countries given independence and voting powers along the lines of the United Nations, the oligarchy controlling the world state would find itself outvoted. It would be deprived of its authority, and the independent countries would form coalitions to promote their own self-interests. The oligarchy would see no reason to allow this to happen and to forego the advantages gained from having secured world power. It would view democracy as an experiment that was tried by Europeans for a century or so and failed. It would learn this lesson of history and would not regard the democratic experiment as worth repeating.
Once the world state is established, it will come to be seen as the final step in the progressive aggregation of independent states into larger units, such as occurred with the unification of Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century, with the formation of the European Union in the twentieth century, and with attempts to establish a world authority in the shape of the League of Nations and the United Nations in the first and second halves of the twentieth century. The establishment of the world state will come to be seen as the inevitable culmination of these historical processes. It will come to be seen as equally inevitable that the peoples who finally achieved world domination were those with the highest intelligence levels and that the long struggle for world supremacy between the Oriental and the European peoples would eventually be won by the Orientals.
7.IMPLEMENTATION OF A WORLDEUGENIC PROGRAM
Once China has established the world state, it will be concerned with raising the prosperity of its subject populations, just as other colonial powers have been. One of its first measures to promote this objective will be to introduce worldwide eugenic programs. These will include programs of both positive and negative eugenics. With regard to negative eugenics, one of its first objectives will be to reverse the dysgenic fertility that appeared in Europe, the United States, and the rest of the economically developed world in the middle and later decades of the nineteenth century and persisted into the twentieth century and that developed later in most of the remainder of the world. It can be expected that in its European and North American provinces, the Chinese will introduce the same eugenic measures that had been pioneered in China, consisting of both the classical eugenics of parental licensing and the new eugenics of the mandatory use of embryo selection for conception.

The Chinese may well also introduce the cloning of the elites of the European peoples. The Chinese will be aware that while they and other Oriental peoples have a higher average intelligence, the European peoples have a greater capacity for creative achievement, probably arising from a higher level of psychopathic personality, enabling them more easily to challenge existing ways of thinking and to produce creative innovations. This will be part of human genetic diversity that the Chinese will be keen to preserve and foster. They will regard the European peoples rather in the same way as the Romans regarded the Greeks after they had incorporated them into the Roman empire. Although the Romans had conquered the Greeks by their military superiority, they respected the Greeks for having developed a higher level of civilization than they themselves had been able to achieve. The Chinese will view their European subject peoples in a similar manner.
The economically developing world will present more of a problem because of the large numbers of people and the huge explosion of those segments of the population with the low intelligence and weak moral character caused by several generations of dysgenic fertility. By the time China assumes control of the world, these trends will have had a devastating impact on the economic and social life of these already impoverished nations and also on North America and Europe as large numbers of refugees and economic migrants continue to enter the Western democracies.
The world state would not be able to find sufficient numbers of geneticists and physicians in developing countries required to implement a program of embryo selection to reverse the adverse effect of several generations of dysgenic fertility. It would be expected to deal with this problem by introducing a robust program of classical eugenics. To reduce the population numbers it would probably introduce the one-child policy that was implemented in China in the 1980s and 1990s. This would be supplemented by a rigorous system of licenses for parenthood in which elites were permitted and given financial incentives to have several children in order to reverse the impact of dysgenic fertility. Later, as these problems were brought under control and as living standards improved, it would be expected to introduce the medical facilities to provide embryo selection; and over the course of several decades, these measures would produce significant improvements in the genetic quality of third world populations and would begin to produce improvements in third world economies.

Posted in Asians, China, Eugenics | Comments Off

Does Eugenics Lead To Genocide?

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics:

First, eugenics does not require the extermination of undesirables. It is sufficient for eugenics that the mentally retarded and recidivist criminals should be sterilized. Second, eugenic considerations did not play any significant role in the Nazi program for the extermination of the Jews. Hitler did not regard the Jews as genetically inferior. No one could have reached such a conclusion in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s because it was a matter of common knowledge and observation that the Jews were exceptionally talented. Jews were prominent in business, the professions, and intellectual life. Although they constituted only approximately 1 percent of the population, Jews won 10 out of 32 Nobel Prizes awarded to German citizens between 1905 and 1931 and were thus overrepresented among this highly elite group by a factor of approximately 30 (Gordon, 1984). Anyone who asserted that the Jews were genetically inferior and hence eugenically undesirable would have forfeited all credibility, and Hitler certainly did not do so. Hitler (1943) was indisputably anti-Semitic, and this anti-Semitism was based on his views, set out in Mein Kampf, that the Jews had exceptionally high abilities and were consequently a threat to the German, or as he called them “Aryan” peoples, who included the British and the Scandinavians. Hitler believed that the Jews and the Aryans were the two most talented races and that they were in competition to secure world supremacy. Thus, , he wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews are “the mightiest counterpart to the Aryan” (p. 64). He feared that the outcome of the struggle between these two peoples might easily be “the final victory of this little nation” (p. 300). This was the reason that Hitler was determined to destroy the Jews. He believed that if he could achieve this, the Aryans would remain as the unchallenged master race. The correct understanding of Hitler’s views on the Jews has been summarized by MacDonald (1998): “Hitler believed that races, including the Jews, are in a struggle for world domination, and he had a very great respect for the ability of Jews to carry on their struggle” (p. 146). The frequent assertion that Hitler exterminated the Jews on eugenic grounds is a misunderstanding of his position.

Third, among the numerous opinions expressed about the Jews in Germany in the 1930s, there were some contending that the Jews were parasitical because they worked predominantly in white-collar service occupations,
such as banking, law, the theater, the media, universities, and the like. Views of this kind fueled anti-Semitism but are economically and socially illiterate and cannot justify hostility to any ethnic or racial group.

Fourth, if eugenic views had contributed to the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews, gypsies, and others, this would certainly have been an ethically unacceptable misapplication of eugenics. Nevertheless, the fact that a social philosophy has been unethically applied does not imply that such a misapplication is inevitable or that the social philosophy must be rejected on this account. Numerous social philosophies that are in general commendable have, on occasion, been misapplied. For instance, Christianity consists of a generally acceptable social philosophy, and the application of Christian principles has led to many desirable outcomes, such as the abolition of slavery, the establishment of welfare provision for the destitute, and so forth. Nevertheless, Christianity has sometimes been misapplied. The Christian church has burned at the stake numerous people who disagreed with some of its tenets; and it has waged wars against unbelievers in which abhorrent brutalities have been committed, such as the Crusades in which the Christian crusaders slaughtered large numbers of women and children. These killings must be condemned. However, these deplorable episodes do not justify the total rejection of Christianity or the conclusion that an acceptance of Christianity is the beginning of a slippery slope that inevitably leads to the extermination of those who do not accept its doctrines.

Similarly, the social philosophy of socialism evolved in the Soviet Union into a tyranny with many ethically undesirable features, including the execution of large numbers of dissidents and the extermination of many millions in the gulags. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that socialism inevitably leads to such an outcome and that socialist ideals of equality, fraternity, and the like must be condemned because these principles were applied in ethically unacceptable ways in the Soviet Union. All social philosophies are capable of ethical misuse, but this does not mean that we cannot accept them because this would be to set foot on the slippery slope that could lead eventually to ethically abhorrent outcomes.

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off

Racial Diversity Causes Conflict

Posted on October 31, 2014 by Luke Ford

Richard Lynn writes in his book Eugenics:

Third, costs arose because many immigrants into the Western democracies are from third world countries whose populations differ racially and culturally from the indigenous populations. This inevitably causes racial and ethnic conflict and the development of legislation and a bureaucracy that attempted to contain these conflicts. This causes resentment, which the indigenous populations endeavor to defuse by affirmative action and equal opportunity policies in admission to universities and employment. These in turn generated resentment among the indigenous population, some of whom are refused admission to universities, excluded from employment, and deprived of career advancement on the grounds that they are white. These problems have been examined by Gerald Scully (1995) in a study published by the American National Center for Policy Analysis. He concluded that ‘‘countries with a common culture are more likely than culturally diverse nations to be economically prosperous and to offer their citizens more personal freedom … ; we find that where there are multiple cultures there is almost always conflict” (Lutton, 1999, p. 271). The same verdict is reached by LaPorto, Lopez-de-Silanes, Sohleifer, and Vishny (1999) in a paper published by the American National Bureau of Economic Research. They conclude that multicultural societies are less well governed and have poorer economic performance than ethnically and racially homogenous societies because the competing ethnic and racial groups expend too much of their energy and resources in trying to advance the interests of their own groups.

Fourth, the genetic cost of much of the immigration into the Western democracies in the second half of the twentieth century has arisen from the acceptances of large numbers of immigrants with low intelligence and a high propensity to crime. In the United States these problems have been present among Hispanics and blacks, as shown by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and in many other studies. In Britain also, immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa have manifested the same characteristics as blacks in the United States—low intelligence, poor educational attainment, high unemployment, high welfare dependency, and a crime rate approximately six times greater than that of the indigenous population (Mackintosh & Mascie-Taylor, 1984; Tonry, 1997). These characteristics have some genetic basis, and the acceptance of these immigrants has imposed a genetic cost on the population, both for present and future generations.

Posted in Race | Comments Off