Majorityrights News > Category: Eugenics

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.

Funeral director in Milton Keynes speaking to the The Crowhouse, and speaking from knowledge and from a noble heart:

Released on 22nd December 2020, this is an interview of an investment banker and one-time Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, and it is worth your time to listen to her view of the globalist elite’s power-play:

UPDATE, 6th January, 2021

Sorry, the globalist site YouTube has busied itself removing every posting of the interview, one of which had 2.6 million views since it was posted on 22nd December.  Fortunately, it’s on Bitchute:

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/insider-expose-google-and-youtube

Here is the video that was taken down from Youtube, on Bitchute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hoQhXh_Q0AU/

Let the record show - 1:38:19 - (((Luke Ford))) favors eugenics to the point of sterilization of people with I.Q.s under 100.

Given that all European countries have I.Q.‘s around 100, a few barely over 100, if at all, and most a little below 100, he is talking about sterilizing at least half the native European population. Apparently, your daughter with an I.Q. of 99 should have her tubes tied….

Keep talking Luke, lets have more light to the goyim from your shining hill.

James Watson won the Nobel Prize in 1962 along with Francis Crick for discovering the double helix structure of DNA.

New York Times, 1 Jan 2019:

      “James Watson Won’t Stop Talking About Race”

The Nobel-winning biologist has drawn global criticism with unfounded pronouncements on genetics, race and intelligence. He still thinks he’s right, a new documentary finds.

“Decoding Watson,” a new film about Dr. James D. Watson explores the gulf between his scientific brilliance and his views on race.

It has been more than a decade since James D. Watson, a founder of modern genetics, landed in a kind of professional exile by suggesting that black people are intrinsically less intelligent than whites.

In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.”

Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Dr. Watson’s comments reverberated around the world, and he was forced to retire from his job as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, although he retains an office there.

He apologized publicly and “unreservedly,’’ and in later interviews he sometimes suggested that he had been playing the provocateur — his trademark role — or had not understood that his comments would be made public.

Ever since, Dr. Watson, 90, has been largely absent from the public eye. His speaking invitations evaporated. In 2014, he became the first living Nobelist to sell his medal, citing a depleted income from having been designated a “nonperson.’’

But his remarks have lingered. They have been invoked to support white supremacist views, and scientists routinely excoriate Dr. Watson when his name surfaces on social media.

Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, elicited an outcry last spring with a toast he made to Dr. Watson’s involvement in the early days of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Lander quickly apologized.

“I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander wrote to Broad scientists. “They have no place in science, which must welcome everyone. I was wrong to toast, and I’m sorry.’’

And yet, offered the chance recently to recast a tarnished legacy, Dr. Watson has chosen to reaffirm it, this time on camera. In a new documentary, “American Masters: Decoding Watson,’’ to be broadcast on P.B.S. on Wednesday night, he is asked whether his views about the relationship between race and intelligence have changed.

“No,’’ Dr. Watson said. “Not at all. I would like for them to have changed, that there be new knowledge that says that your nurture is much more important than nature. But I haven’t seen any knowledge. And there’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites on I.Q. tests. I would say the difference is, it’s genetic.’’

Dr. Watson adds that he takes no pleasure in “the difference between blacks and whites’’ and wishes it didn’t exist. “It’s awful, just like it’s awful for schizophrenics,’’ he says. (His son Rufus was diagnosed in his teens with schizophrenia.) Dr. Watson continues: “If the difference exists, we have to ask ourselves, how can we try and make it better?”

[...]

“There are powerful methods for studying the genetic and environmental origins of individual differences, but not for studying the causes of average differences between groups,” Dr. Plomin he writes in an afterword to be published this spring in the paperback edition of his book, “Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are.”

Whether Dr. Watson was aware of any of this science is unclear. In the film, he appears to have grown increasingly isolated. He mentions missing Francis Crick, his collaborator in the race to decipher the structure of DNA.

“We liked each other,’’ Dr. Watson says of Dr. Crick. “I couldn’t get enough of him.’’

As history now knows, the duo was able to solve the puzzle in 1953, with their hallmark models of cardboard and metal only with the help of another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule was shown to Dr. Watson without her permission.

The tools of molecular biology unlocked by their discovery have since been used to trace humanity’s prehistory, devise lifesaving therapies, and develop Crispr, a gene-editing technology that was used recently, and unethically, to alter the DNA of twin human embryos.

And Dr. Watson became perhaps the most influential biologist of the second half of the 20th century. His textbook, “Molecular Biology of the Gene,’’ helped define the new field. First in a laboratory at Harvard and then at Cold Spring Harbor, he trained a new generation of molecular biologists and used his star power to champion such projects as the first sequencing of the human genome.

“You knew when you heard him that you were at the start of a revolution in understanding,’’ Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studied with Dr. Watson in the 1960s, says in “Decoding Watson.’’

“You felt as if you were part of this tiny group of people who had seen the light.’’

Complete story at New York Times

Related at Majorityrights: James Watson Doesn’t Exist.

More indication that Jews are favoring objectivist arguments against “the left” and using the Alt-Right and Lite to that end.

Stefan Molijew, er eaux (19:25): Again, I’m sort of paraphrasing from my perspective, which is that if you have a free market then the most intelligent will generally gather the most resources, become the wealthiest and therefore have the most children. And this is exactly how Jewish intelligence, particularly in language skills, verbal intelligence, has advanced so significantly; the most intelligent Jews had the most children and then you get a whole bunch of Ashkenazi Jews, you get a bunch of very intelligent Jews, I mean this is just how it works, this is evolution.

(49:00) I have a question for the media, how many Jewish experts does it take to overturn the hearsay of one non-Jew. Is it five Jewish experts versus one non-Jew, is it ten…I’m just curious what the ratio is because that seems pretty anti-Semitic to me. ..how many Jews do you have to stack up to overturn the hearsay of one non-Jew? if it’s more than one, you might be an anti-Semite.