Majorityrights News > Category: IQ and Heredity

Scientists who will not resile from their truths irrespective of the punishments imposed upon them by their professional Establishments or the heinous blackening of their life’s work and their reputation by the media are, perhaps unsurprisingly, a rarity these days.  But such was Richard Lynn, who has died at the age of 93.  His achievement is immense, his humanity is unbesmirched by the all too predictable dog-whistle reportage from the mainstream media.  The Telegraph, for example, reported that his work on comparative group IQ had been “debunked”, and quoted Flynn and Singapore (neither functioning rebuttals).  Lynn’s magazine Mankind Quarterly is considered by its critics to be “a cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment”.  Well, there’s a surprise.  I wonder what the ethnicity of these critics is.

Lynn’s real legacy will not be the bitter badmouthing of the anti-white factions who now command the centre.  It will be in the diffusion of his ideas among the great mass of thinking dissidents, some of whom turned up in the comment section of the DT obit (paywalled).  Here are a few excerpts:

A short walk from my front door and I witness human devolution in full swing.

Depending on the study, intelligence is 50-80% heritable, higher than many other personality traits. That is to say, the difference in intelligence between people is 50-80% due to genetic differences, passed on from parents to children. This is hard science and has nothing to do with racism, but the implications are studiously ignored because to study or discuss them is to commit career suicide.

People who refute his ideas are similar to religious zealots who refute that evolution exists at all.
“Yes there is evolution, but it does not affect intelligence”.
In which case how did the intelligence of humans evolve and increase?

His ideas have not been debunked by scholarly research, they have been deliberately suppressed by people who will not allow anyone to consider that certain ethnic groups are not as intelligent as others.
The Dutch may be the tallest people on earth but pygmies would be exactly the same with a better diet is the usual false theoretical structure.

I am vehemently against the idea of eugenics. I believe society as a whole would be better if eugenicists were suffocated at birth…

A recent area of scientific advance is in the field of paleo-genetics, for which Svante Paabo won the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine in 2022. It is now accepted that all contemporary non-Africans have 1% to 2% Neanderthal Man DNA. Recent advances have shown that the newly discovered archaic hominid species Denisovan Man contributed .1% to .2% of the DNA of current East and South Asian populations, with a striking 6% of the genome of highland New Guinea populations and 5% of the genome of Australian Aboriginals being Denisovan!
Then in 2020 scientists at U. Cal. Berkeley examined the contemporary African genome using Paabo’s groundbreaking techniques, and discovered that fully 11% (on average) of the contemporary sub-Saharan African genome is derived from an as-yet-undiscovered archaic hominid species (1) that separated from the lineage that eventually led to Homo sapiens 635,000 years ago, (2) with which species Africans interbreeded 45,000 years ago (long after Eurasian Homo sapiens left Africa).
Check out Dr. Paabo’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech on YouTube! Upshot: the sub-Saharan African genome is 11% that of a primitive archaic hominid species. All of the above is undisputed, albeit it has been given the “Hunter’s laptop” treatment by the media, surprise surprise. Sorry, folks, but genetics is real.

All that is needed to refute his data are a few properly conducted studies which Do Not show the same pattern as thousands of previous studies which show racial differences in mean IQ. No one objects when these studies show that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are, on average, more intelligent than other groups. The histrionics are over the dramatic differences between one race and all the others. If one allows oneself to think the unthinkable, that this difference is real, the underachievement and all the dysfunctions of that group become readily understandable, without need to invoke discrimination as the only possible explanation.

Certainly, but brain size does not seem to differ. Maybe it’s how the brain is used, or how the different structures interact, or… well we could be here with that debate for a long time!
Don’t let it pass you by that we are examining ourselves, an enquiry which is fraught with conceit, prejudice, wilful misinterpretation etc.
The fundamentals are always helpful. Does the physiology and behaviour promote survival?
The differences may be infinitesimally small and difficult to spot but hey, DNA has all the time in the world (I use that phrase with purpose) to help itself survive and the hosts, in many ways, may not be important at all.
Who is in charge here, DNA or the human species?
I know where I’d place my bet.

Thank you for your dedication to truth, Richard Lynn.  One fears that rarities such as you would never be granted a career today.

Apropos the natural evolution issues raised in the piece I posted two days ago on the main page, the DT reports:

Britons are evolving to be poorer and less well-educated
Natural selection favours people with lower earnings and levels of attainment, because smart rich people have fewer children, study claims

Britons are evolving to be less well-educated and poorer because smart rich people are having fewer children, a new study has suggested.

Researchers have found that natural selection is favouring people with lower earnings and poorer education, with the next generation likely to be one or two percentage points lower in educational attainment than today.

Evolution also appears to be favouring people with a high risk of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorders and coronary artery disease, as well as younger parents and people with more sexual partners.

Prof David Hugh-Jones, lead researcher from University of East Anglia’s School of Economics, said: “Darwin’s theory of evolution stated that all species develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive and reproduce.

“We wanted to find out more about which characteristics are selected for and against in contemporary humans, living in the UK.”

...

The team looked at data from more than 300,000 people in the UK, taken from the UK Biobank - a long-term project investigating the contributions of genetic predisposition and environmental exposure to the development of disease.

What Do Hugh-Jones’s team finds, not to put too fine a point on it, is that welfaring the feckless and poor to breed increases the size of the underclass relative to the rest of society, which reduces national IQ and leads eventually to Idiocracy (as per the 2006 film of that name).

The study appears not to mention race and immigration - no doubt, he wouldn’t get funding if it did!  That aside, one wonders that scientists find it necessary to confirm the obvious.  But, then, there are rigid political positions ... the blank slate, in particular, but also racial sameness and the unpopularity among the liberal classes of social conservatism and judgmentalism ... which require to be regularly falsified.  Not that the holders of these religious beliefs will make the slightest adjustment because of their negative consequences, of course.

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions process in violation of U.S. civil rights law.

Yale University /VCG:

NewsCGTN 14 Aug 2020:

The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University of illegally discriminating against Asian American and white applicants. /AP

The findings are the result of a two-year investigation in response to a complaint by Asian-American groups concerning Yale’s conduct, the department said in a statement.

The department said it was prepared to file a lawsuit against Yale if the school, in New Haven, Connecticut, did not take “remedial measures.”

A Yale spokeswoman said the university “categorically denies” the allegations but has cooperated fully with the investigation. The Justice Department made its findings before allowing Yale to provide requested documents, Yale said.

“Had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information, it would have concluded that Yale’s practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent,” the spokeswoman said.

The Justice Department said that although race can lawfully be considered in college admissions in limited circumstances, “Yale’s use of race is anything but limited.” The elite school “uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission,” the Justice Department said.

The Justice Department has previously filed legal briefs in support of a lawsuit, brought by affirmative action opponents, accusing Harvard University of discriminating against Asian Americans.

A federal judge in Boston ruled in favor of Harvard last year, saying the school’s affirmative action program advanced a legitimate interest in having a diverse student body. An appeal of that ruling is pending. The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Affirmative action programs in higher education were meant to address racial discrimination. The Supreme Court has ruled universities may use affirmative action with the aim of helping minority applicants get into college.

U.S. conservatives have said that in helping Black and Latino applicants, affirmative action can hurt white people and Asian Americans.

Source(s): Reuters

Related at Majorityrights: Hyperbolic over-representation of YKW (under-rep. of Whites) in Ivy League not remotely merit based

Aleš Ernecl 4 July 2020, conducts a Big Interview

Dr Kevin MacDonald Evolutionary Psychology, Jews, Europeans and Christianity

Bari Weiss resigns from NY Times for their witch trial justice.

mancinblack says:

In an ordinary crime, how does one defend the accused ? One calls up witnesses to prove his innocence. And witchcraft is ipso facto, on its face and by its nature an invisible crime. Now we cannot hope the witch will accuse herself ; granted? Therefor, we must rely upon her victims - and they do testify, the children certainly do testify.

( Deputy Governor Danforth, ‘The Crucible’ Act 3 )

It’s to be hoped that the FBI and state prosecutors do have some actual evidence for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, rather than relying on the numerous allegations made against her by ‘survivors’ - a wondrously American way of describing victims (cue Gloria Gaynor) for some of the allegations might make the casual observer feel a little sceptical.

According to Annie Farmer, in order to satisfy Epstein’s lust, Maxwell had to “recruit three girls a day”. That’s twenty one a week and at least ninety in a calendar month. Goody Maxwell would have needed to spend from dawn of day to blink of night at her grooming wheel, without so much time as to even phone her accountant, just to keep up with demand.

Sarah Ransome, who was a 22 year old when she claims she was trafficked by Epstein said

When Jeffrey wanted me, you know, Sara Kellen [Maxwell’s neophyte] or Ghislaine would call me into his bedroom, and I had no choice but to go

What witchery is this? Ransome had no choice. She had to obey the commands of the monster Maxwell and her dark sister.

Did I say ‘monster’? well, a ‘Jane Doe’ survivor described Maxwell as “a predator and a monster”. Annie Farmer called her “a sexual predator” while Farmer’s sister Maria said “Maxwell would turn on a dime into a very malicious, brutal human being”. Some menopausal women can appear that way sometimes. It’s not that unusual.

“William Steel”, not his real name, who is an ex-jewel thief turned writer , claims Epstein and Maxwell “made him watch videos to prove they ‘owned’ people”. They seemed to be remarkably open and cavalier about their operations and only “William Steel” could explain why they felt it necessary to impress him.

A couple of days ago, lawyers representing Maxwell were moved to file a letter of complaint to US District Judge Allison Nathan saying

The Government, its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial to a fair trial

In reply, Lisa Bloom, who represents five ‘survivors’ said that Maxwell’s accusers “will never be silent. Once empowered, women never go back to being victims”. Maxwell would be the exception to that rule, then.

For her part, Maxwell remains defiant in maintaining her innocence, which suggests that she knows there is no hard evidence against her either because it has been destroyed or because none existed to begin with. If this is so, then the FBI must be hoping that the pressure of twelve months in jail awaiting trial will make Maxwell crack and give up some names. Not that those names would be made public. It’s more likely they would be retained by the US intel services for use in their own blackmail schemes. However, Maxwell may simply ask for “more weight”.

If Maxwell ends up with a witch trial, she will still fair better than the police officers who have been charged in the Floyd case. They have already been found guilty by the same government and its agents, the MSM and a global public who appear to have added ergot to their lockdown diet. All the officers will get is a show trial. Another opportunity for the descendants of Tituba to flex their huge sense of entitlement and foreshadow another global orgy of virtue signaling and sado-masochistic self flagellation of white liberals.

As nationalists, for obvious reasons, we should want sound jurisprudence to be maintained in our countries . That a fair trial cannot be taken for granted in the country that prides itself on being the leader of the free world is beyond disgusting. Everyone, regardless of their alleged crimes, deserves the right to a fair trial, free from political interference and Woke culture. Although, as we know, a court case is not the only way a life can be destroyed and a reputation shredded.

Woke Matthew Hopkins Rides Out

Social media infractions aside, there is a growing trend for people making accusations against work colleagues, with the same relish and enthusiasm their seventeenth century ancestors displayed when accusing their neighbours of practicing the Dark Arts. The adoption of the African American #MeToo and #BLM movements by white liberals has made and will continue to make, this phenomenon worse. It seems no one is immune. Recent victims include the Jewish centrist writer at the NYT, Bari Weiss, for not being Red enough. Author JK Rowling, who was devoured by the creatures she created for having the temerity to say that womanhood has a biological basis ; and the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, who was investigated by US officials following accusations that he had made “generalised comments about black men”.

The only salvation for the accused is to confess their sins, prostrate themselves and apologize profusely and if at all possible, implicate another person. If it is a black life that has taken offence, only taking the knee before kissing the anus of a black male will suffice. At midnight after walking thrice widdershins around an old oak tree.

There will be a pointy reckoning one day but until then, although you cannot see the yellow bird in the rafters, you must believe it is there. Or Else.

After all that darkness, here’s a piece of music to lighten things up. A little. Be True.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbdHFeuDmn8

READ MORE...

I believe the Greeks and Romans (for example) were more inventive than he is giving them credit for, but Ryan Faulk is offering specificatory structures (an Alternative Hypothesis) which can work against bad will arguments proffered from the international liberalism of Marxists and Cultural Marxists.

However, that is one of the limitations to the I.Q. and genetics sort of rebuts - the main utility that they have is against bad will and rather stupid arguments.

We are defending our race (genus European) and its species (ethnicities), not I.Q. or even the accomplishments of I.Q. per se. True, the products of our genius are not only an added benefit, but crucial to our survival. However, ethnonationalism protects these differences.

It is primarily bad will arguments that will need to be defended against when it comes to populating functions among our ethnostates that may require an I.Q. argument to rebut a stupid objection; e.g., if someone were to say that their retarded son should be allowed to engineer a high-rise building.

On the other hand, if a black person, or a Jewish person has a higher I.Q. than your son or your daughter, should you then say that they are a fit replacement, your new child?

This is Luke Ford level absurdity.

It is like a magic trick or a card trick to distract attention from the fact that we are defending species, human ecologies, not a single variable.

Objectivist arguments in lieu of relative racial group interests can disingenuously serve to distract from aspects and doings - other than a blindered, narrow view of merit - that have had Jewish hegemony in niche power and influence as profound ever - a fact they wish to distract from as their qualitative, relative ethnocentric difference is of a different tribe who are largely indifferent where not antagonistic to our group interests.

Naturally we don’t want our positive attributes dragged down, to amplify malfunction, but again, I.Q. rebuts are largely limited to staving-off bad will, typically stupid arguments.

And you can see the danger in Faulk’s argument, that he may be isolating one group or area of Europeans; whereas ethnonationalism would serve to protect those distinctions anyway, while not running the risk of throwing under the bus and perhaps even creating antagonism rather than crucial allies among other parts of Europe which may be more a necessary part of our systemic function and survival than he realizes in addition to being perhaps more talented than he realizes.

Finally, the I.Q. and genetics rebut can indeed be used in bad will itself against social justice and to further supremacism, imperialism, exploitation as opposed to ethnonationalism and its coordination. If these arguments are not made judiciously and with the wisdom of ecological thinking (facilitated by ethnonationalism), they can generate unnecessary antagonism within and from without our genus; thus increasing the difficulty of maintaining our group systemic homeostasis, not reducing it.

Taylor does some good work - bringing this lawsuit against Twitter is commendable - Twitter’s prohibition of free speech is a travesty given that it is functioning as a public utility; its having gotten its corporate start with US government help; its remaining dependent upon the US Government created and sponsored internet network; and public telecommunications lines. Taylor also handles with aplomb stigmatic issues of blacks and their hyper-assertive biopower, as he did in his debate with black nationalist Tariq Nasheed. Nevertheless, he yields to Jewish crypsis, infamously having said, “they look huWhite to me” ...and now that Jewish interests seek fusion with the White right, their media refers to Taylor as a “White Nationalist.”

BBC, “White nationalist Jared Taylor sues Twitter over ban”, 22 Feb 2018:

White nationalist Jared Taylor is suing Twitter after the social network banned his account as part of a crackdown on abusive content.

Mr Taylor’s lawyer says the suspension of his account is a form of censorship, accusing Twitter of discrimination.

Twitter declined to comment on the case but has previously said that its tools are “apolitical.”

Mr Taylor is head of American Renaissance, a website that champions “racial difference”.

He had his account suspended in December, with Twitter explaining that it prohibited accounts affiliated with the promotion of violence, something Mr Taylor denies applied to him.

Mr Taylor has filed his case in California, in the state Superior Court in San Francisco. He argued that Twitter violated Californian law protecting free speech in public spaces - a law that has not previously been applied to the internet.

His lawyer Noah Peters wrote online that everyone should be “terrified” about what he called Twitter censorship. “Our lawsuit is not about whether Taylor is right or wrong. It’s about whether Twitter and other technology companies have the right to ban individuals from using their services based on their perceived viewpoints and affiliations.

“Allowing Twitter to censor content is extremely troublesome given Twitter’s self-proclaimed mission to ‘give everyone the power to create and share ideas instantly, without barriers’.”

In Tanstaafl’s latest theoretical fail:

The White Race and its Discontents:

He proffers:

1) “A civilization and its culture are racial constructs – the bottom up, grass-roots instincts of the masses largely modulated and moderated by the elite.”

This is a desperate and lame attempt to ignore the better understanding of social consructionism that I have had to explain time and again, because right wingers cannot adjust to the fact that they are reacting to a misrepresentation of the term.

They refuse to deploy the exercise of trying the word “mere” before “social construct” and observing that if you need that word, then it is Cartesian and not a concept that you would apply to something substantive like race.

The White race as a social construct - not merely, but substantively - already IS from the ground up and that, as a social construct, is a MUCH better way to look at it than the way that Tanstaafl says is THE way to look at the matter, i.e., that “civilization and culture are racial constructs” - that doesn’t even make logical sense (coming from a man who accused me of having poor logic): If he is emphasizing, as he does, the causal and deterministic aspect of our inheritance then why call it a “racial construct”?  ..call it a byproduct, perhaps..

But he won’t go with a proper understanding of social constructionism because he is beholden to his reactionary audience.

It is better to allow for our individual agency and contributions by talking in terms of social construct - it emphasizes our social responsibility, interdependence, degree of independence and most importantly, our people as central outlook and framework, not our subhuman nature.

Tanstaafl does not do this because he continually tries to suck Hitler to life again, desperately trying to make his subhuman ideology relevant again.

Social constructionism, properly understood, not only begins with the proper outlook, from our people, but does so in such a way that already begins with instinct and unconscious doings - we talk in terms of the agentive capacity to attribute how things count when they are on the more causative side of the spectrum. But they are never, mere constructs.

2) To illustrate how it is that Tanstaafl can’t get over his wish to try to redeem Hitler and make him relevant again: in the context of Trump’s speech in Poland, Tan tries the old, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway.”

No they aren’t - especially not if you apply agency as a social constructionist. It’s easier as a Pole, perhaps, to say I/we had nothing to do with Nazism; but it is not that hard for subsequent generations of Germans to reject the attribution of Nazism either.

3) In another example of how he wants to apply natural causality and tie our hands to passivity in regard to how the Jews say things count, Tan cites the infamous Susan Sontag quote - “White people are the cancer of the earth”  - in its full context; relishing the opportunity to attack one of my most cherished observations on behalf of our European people - i.e. that the Hippies were about midtdasein, Being amidst our people for White males as opposed to say, the endless war mongering of Hitler or the corporations and their draft into Vietnam - by saying that Sontag was endorsing the “freak-out” in order to promote sheer insubordination to older generations.

Well, that is how (((Sontag))) might try to say the hippies counted, that is NOT how we should say they counted. For us the rebellion of midtdasein against sheer war mongering could not have been a more relevant and authentic motive.