The drop off point for our discussion is the war in Kosovo and the central question that no commentators have seen fit to ask. Cohen, Albright (Korbel), Berger, Clark (Nemerovski) and the rest of the inner party crew embarked upon this war to impose multiculturalism on Serbia. From press reports it appears that all of the principals believed that Milosevic and the Serbs were cowards and that they would surrender within 3 days.

The question is, how could they entertain such an idea?

Suppose Israel lacked nuclear weapons and we were to bomb them from 15,000 feet over some policy disagreement. Would the geniuses of the inner party assume that the Israelis would give up in three days?

Are we to assume then that in the minds of the inner party Serbs and Israelis have fundamentally different human natures?

In truth, the Inner Party doesn’t know a thing about the Serbians. They think they do because Milosevic seemed “biddable” when dealing with the fate of irredent Serb populations in Croatia and Bosnia earlier in this decade. However, the notion that he would be equally biddable once the bombs began falling on Serbia proper was inexplicably naive.

But it was more than Naive.

The visceral inner party hatreds against Serbia are driven by the perception that Serbia is a nationalist state that defines itself as existing for the benefit of a distinct people. Thus, the very quality that provokes hatred from the inner party should logically compel the conclusion that Serbia and its leaders would resist fiercely, as would the Israelis under similar circumstances. After all, both are racial states (albeit in thinly costumed drag, for the benefit of the media and pubic opinion).

On the surface the critic might be tempted to conclude that this expectation of easy victory is one more evidence of irrationality by the inner party – and on one level it is. But this fundamental misjudgment tells us something much more important about the inner party.

In fact, the assumption that Serbia would quickly surrender tells us more about the inner party’s opinion of us – the Euro-American sheeple with which they are familiar – than of a Serbian nation of which they are obviously ignorant.

After all, it is certainly true that Connecticut would have surrendered in three days!

The inner party believes that Euro-American racists are cowards, so why wouldn’t Serbs be cowards as well? As professor Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, the evolutionary psychology of the inner party causes them to believe their own propaganda. Belief prevents Freudian slips and has survival value for minorities living in diaspora. Unlike the claptrap we were fed as undergraduates, Professor MacDonald’s theories have predictive and explanatory value in the real world of current events.

The living members of the inner party simply never encounter racially aware members of the Euro-American majority in their daily lives. They cannot imagine a European elite that would suffer along with their own kind to ensure their ethnic independence and integrity, because they never meet such people in The U.S.

To the inner party, Euro Elites throughout the world protect their own power and economic status as individuals or as members of a class. Thus, the fundamental message of the Kosovo war is that, in the eyes of the inner party, any interest the Euro peoples of the world may have in cultural or racial survival is unrepresented. Thus, in the minds of the inner party, the natural state of Western Cultures and Western societies is decapitation. They are leaderless and defenseless.

The very thought of a renegade European state – Serbia – that has not been decapitated – that is not leaderless or defenseless – is an affront to the inner party. It is a threat to their hegemony over the European peoples of the World.

Having described a modern instance, it is time to move to the very core problem.

But by way of introduction, I must discuss the three basic strategies of the inner party for coping with exposure.

If the facts underlying the exposure are wrong, the media will quickly carry stories from the university professor contingent of the inner party and demonstrate that the facts are false.

If the facts underlying the exposure are true, then the inner party will use its anti-defamation forces to demonize the one doing the exposing. The argumentum ad hominem is the most important visible tool in the inner party’s defensive arsenal.

However, the most damaging forms of exposure typically are those that would threaten the cooperation of the elites of the outer party and thus endanger inner party’ control over these elites. The inner party has a strategy for handling such exposures. They are ignored. I call it the “blackout” strategy.

Thus, the most interesting and important facts about the inner party are those which are unmentioned and ignored. Truly dangerous critics of the inner party are routinely subjected to the blackout. Gore Vidal slipped down the memory hole a long time ago.

And indeed, the most important intellectual quality that we can develop – the most important for the long run survival of our people – is to detect a “blackout ” and pursue its mysteries until the underlying riddle is understood.

And the “holy grail” – the mother or all inner party blackouts – is the utter void of information or meaningful commentary about the process by which the members of the inner party were maneuvered out of the top ranks of the Soviet Hierarchy from 1928 through about 1940.

How could the inner party, who’s members occupied 90% of the top positions in the Soviet Union in 1924, including virtually all the top positions in the secret police, concentration camp system and intelligence agencies ever be displaced by Stalin and his badly outnumbered allies?

Inquiring minds want to know.

It is the central puzzle of the Twentieth Century. Solve that puzzle and we will – for reasons I shall explain later in this essay – gain significant insight into the odds of our survival.

Put bluntly, the central question is whether it is possible for the inner party to sustain, over any considerable period of time, a cohesive multi-cultural elite which will allow them to rule over us behind a universalist mask.

The truly fascinating thing, from an anthropological perspective, about the 1930′s changes within the Communist party was that these changes involved the composition of a relatively small group of people – sixty or so – who knew and interacted with one another. All of them shared a powerful universalist and anti-nationalist ideology that demanded a multi-cultural elite.

But once these people from different backgrounds began struggling for power within that elite, a wondrous thing happened. The dominant nationality – the inner party – was exiled or killed in a series of purges that eliminated them from the upper reaches of power.

So then the question arises whether this result was a random event – one that would not necessarily be replicated under similar circumstances – or whether it was an inevitable result of the friction generated by the differing evolutionary psychologies of the participants. Did those different methods of thinking and communicating inject a modicum of mistrust into a tense environment in which small amounts of mistrust were fatal? Powerful support for this thesis can be found in “Stalin’s Letters to Molotov” Lih, Naumov, and Khlevniuk (Yale University Press, 1995). See especially pp. 18 – 26.

To the particularist within the inner party, the question is best framed by asking if these purges were one more proof that Theodor Hertzl was right? Or more universally, does professor Kevin MacDonald’s thesis have overarching predictive power in the real world of political affairs?

Or in the words of the ole Ygg, – Is this idea of a multi-cultural elite just an inner party delusion?

The Jewish Encyclopedia states that the inner party did quite well in the Soviet Union until 1948 – the beginning of the cold war – and that anti-semitism wasn’t a factor in Soviet life until then. And while it is true that the inner party continued to occupy a hugely disproportionate number of desirable occupations and positions within the Communist party until 1953 (The doctors’ plot), their exclusion from the upper-most reaches of power had been completed by 1938 or 1940.

The mystery is why the organs of the inner party fail to attribute this earlier displacement to anti-semitism.

Given the stakes involved, and given that this first displacement enabled the second to begin in 1948, the silence is deafening. It is the quintessential blackout.

In an attempt to get answers I began re-reading Anatoly Sudoplatov’s “Other Tasks.” Sudoplatov was in charge of the assassination of Leon Trotsky, an inner party competitor of Stalin’s who had been exiled to Mexico. Ideally, there should be no better source of insight than an insider who participated in the events of the time.

But like the first time through, Sudoplatov disappointed. He and his co-authors, a son entitled through his mother to Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, and Jerrold Schecter, the inner party Moscow bureau chief for Time Magazine, obviously feel no obligation to provide a convincing explanation of the events which set the stage for the anti-semitic purges of the inner party nomenclatura from 1948 to 1953. He attributes it all to Stalin’s personal ambition and insecurity, giving no special note of the near uniform ethnic identity of those purged prior to 1940.

In frustration, and as if by fateful accident, I picked up Walter Sanning’s revisionist classic “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry,” a book I have owned for some time but never read, to see if it contained any clues.

Sanning’s essential thesis is that, because of the well documented evacuation of Jews from Western Soviet territories prior to  Germany’s attack in 1941, Germany never had more than about 3.5 million Jews under its control from 1938 through 1945. Given the 900,000 to one million Jews alive in the camps at the end of the war, the maximum number that could have been killed appears to be about 2.5 million and not six million. Sanning then goes on to produce a number of very complex estimates and calculations in an attempt to show that the number unaccounted for after the war was far less than 2.5 million.

To my surprise, I found buried within Sannings work the “holy grail” – hard statistical evidence of how communist society actually worked – its very core and essence exposed for all to see! Surprisingly, Sanning himself apparently missed its true significance.

In preparation for war with Germany, Stalin build huge factories in Siberia – half of them empty – to supply his war effort if Germany should thrust into Russian territory and capture it. In addition, he developed plans for the movement of manufacturing equipment and the evacuation of key industrial personnel in the event that the industrial cities in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic republics and Western Russia should be captured. The publicly stated idea was to preserve Soviet industry in the event of successful attack and to deny that industrial capability to the Germans if the Western Russian territories and republics should be overrun.

But, of course, there was a second unspoken purpose to this evacuation program as well. In this evacuation approximately 55% of the urban or city population was evacuated along with the industrial machinery.

The entire rural or agricultural population was left for the Germans to capture along with about 45% of the urban population.

Ok, so who stays and who goes?

Answer that question and you have captured the essence of communist society – its actual deeds and not its words. From page 81:

“Ukrainians were a minority in their own cities; only 47.4% of all city people in the SSR Ukraine were Ukrainians and the remaining 52.6% were largely accounted for by Russians (25%) and Jews (23%). Both of these latter two nationalities occupied most of the important positions in industry, party and administration; in the eyes of the Ukrainians they represented the long and heavy hand of Moscow. The entire grotesque situation is depicted in the professional structure of the Ukraine’s pre-war population:”

Click to Enlarge

When the Germans “liberated” the Ukraine, they found a decapitated society, largely incapable of producing the essentials of civilized life, or indeed, of feeding themselves. In the words of a German officer responsible for performing a quick census [page 62]:

“The Russian and Jewish upper classes withdrew together with the Red Army. The leading Ukrainians have been partially deported and, if they held leading positions in administration and industry, they were also forced to move east of the Dnieper. Numerous tractor and other specialists on the countryside met the same fate. In June, many young men were called up and put in garrison in the interior of the USSR…. Because of this development there is a tremendous scarcity of people capable of assuming responsible positions in administration, industry and agriculture in the Ukraine…”

Similar patterns of packing minorities into the upper middle classes of the ethnic republics can be seen in the Baltic Republics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) as well as Belarus.

Indeed, it appears that the very essence of Communism is ethnic manipulation and population transfer. It is a pattern that holds true even at the top of the communist party structure. In the early days following the revolutions of 1917-1918, none of the top officials in Moscow were ethnic Russians. In fact, a large number grew up in New York. Most of the top leaders felt compelled to change their names to conceal their ethnic origins. Among the first politburo, inner party members like Leon Bronshtein (Trotsky), Hirsch Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), and Lev Rosenfeld (Kamenev) felt compelled to change their names. Lenin himself was a mix of German, Swedish, Jewish, Kalmyk (Asian) and Russian ancestry – the very poster boy for a world in which nationality had been abolished – or so it would seem. Nevertheless, the inner party had a compelling need to cover up his ancestry and paint him a pure-bred Russian (instead of the grandson of a well-to-do Jewish Doctor).

At the center in Moscow it was Georgians (Stalin, Beria), Latvians (Berzin) and Ukrainians (Kruschev) supported by a large cast of inner party members who shape party decisions by controlling the information flow. In the ethnic provinces the local administration consisted of ethnic Russians along with the inner party members.

The entire Communist system was based on manipulation of race and national origin for control – and the central mechanism for maintaining that control was decapitation – the extermination or the mass transfer of the leaders of an ethnic group, and the total dependence of the remaining native population upon imported or native minorities who managed the government and the business enterprises and dominated the learned professions.

The important point is that all forms of inner-party communism, the violent Bolshevik variety and the newer “democratic socialist” variety invented by the Frankfurt school, direct their demographic engineering effort at the elites – not the ordinary working people.

The sine-qua-non of inner party power is a multi-cultural elite alienated from its tribal and racial kinsmen.

It is the native elites – the indigenous leaders who might resist the inner party’s drive for power – that are always the target.

To the inner party, the masses of any nation are at all times totally irrelevant to their goal of acquiring and keeping power. The masses of the nations were important in the Soviet Union as labor, a fungible factor of production in an economic system focused on output. The Marxist concept that each hour of their labor was of equal value tells you all you need to know about the inner party’s regard for them.

And in war time, the masses were readily abandoned, as the real nation proved to be a relatively small and mobile alliance of minorities and uprooted majority careerists.

For the reform version of communism developed by the Frankfurt School that now dominates the ‘liberal democracies” and the NWO, the masses of the nations are important as consumers – cogs in the machinery of debt creation and credit card impulse purchases. The masses of the nations are to be manipulated by television and opinion polls – Annie the Analyzer of Radio Project fame and focus groups to pre-test manipulative messages.

What remains relevant to the inner party are the inner party’s potential competitors, the native national elites with community ties to their brethren.
In the Soviet Union, the inner party elites (using Lenin and Stalin as their cover) resorted to murder and forced resettlement to remove the native national elites, a fast, direct and brutal form of decapitation.

In the “liberal democracies” the inner party uses a slower and less visibly brutal method of decapitation. Thus, in the liberal democracies of today we have “affirmative action” – a set of laws that places tremendous pressure on private businesses to displace native elites at the top with minorities who will be less plausible targets of discrimination lawsuits. These laws exist everywhere in the European world, and with the exception of the U.S. were enacted long before any significant minority constituencies (other than the inner party itself) existed to lobby for their passage.

The entire program of displacement and decapitation within the liberal democracies was carefully drawn up and explained in “The Authoritarian Personality” by Theodor Adorno, et. al.(1950). It is a prescription for identifying any person who displays any bond of obligation to his own kind and the will to resist those who threaten the interests of his kind.

Such “authoritarian personalities” are to be denied university admission and consigned to low status occupations, which is precisely what the laws of affirmative action and social rules of political correctness accomplish.

Indeed, as I read the tables from the 1939 Soviet census published in Sanning’s work I recalled my own research showing that the inner party, representing 2.4% of the U.S. population comprises 28% of the student body at Harvard, while the descendants of European Christendom comprising 70% of the population supply only 28% of the students. The American Majority has been effectively displaced at Harvard. Relative to their share of the Population, they have 2.4 times fewer students than do the inner party’s Afro-American coalition partners.

In the top 15 national universities in the 1997 ranking by U.S. News, the results are similar. The inner party has 22% of the students, while the descendants of European Christendom have only 32% – roughly half of their share of the population.

The United States Department of Labor has maintained a tracking study of 12,000 young people who were between the ages of 14 and 22 in 1979 known as the National Longitudinal study of Youth (“NLSY”). The CD Roms with all the data can be purchased from Ohio State University. These data show that at each given level of IQ (all participants were tested) the income and educational attainment of the descendants of European Christendom is much lower than for Blacks, Hispanics and Inner party members of the same IQ.

In what will surely be a surprise to most middle and upper middle income Euro-Americans, the effects are most pronounced at the highest IQ levels. In other words, it is the majority elite that suffers the widest disparity in income and education when compared with Blacks, Hispanics and Inner Party members within the same IQ range. When the effects are broken down by sex, we find that among males the disparity is most pronounced in the highest IQ ranges and disappears entirely by the time you descend to the 50% mark. The widest disparity exists among the top 2% of the population (those with IQs above 130).

Majority males with IQs below 100 earn the same or slightly more than their Black, Hispanic and Inner Party counterparts.

It is among the female descendants of European Christendom, those most likely to support “affirmative action”, “women’s liberation” and the other demographic engineering efforts of the inner party, that we find the widest and most shocking income disparities. Among females, the disparity is not confined to the top half of the IQ spectrum, but persists from top to bottom at consistent levels at each IQ range.

Indeed, if one were to view these data as the result of a purposeful system, then the object of the multi-culturalist enterprise is clearly two fold – first to displace and disadvantage majority males at the top of the IQ spectrum and second, to exploit majority women from top to bottom. At each level of IQ they are paid dramatically less than their Black, Hispanic and inner party counterparts with the same IQ.

Displacement of majority elites might not be as complete in the U.S. in 1999 as it was in The Soviet Union in 1939, but the trend is clear and runs in the same direction.

Indeed the most important data reproduced in Sanning’s little book are tables setting forth the demographic composition of towns and cities in Central and Eastern Poland and statistics on the distribution of occupations from a 1931 Polish census:

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

These tables are important because Poland was not a part of the Soviet empire at that time, and the demographics did not result from Soviet policies of forced removal and forced decapitation as they did in Eastern Ukraine.

The data shows that in eastern Poland (which, along with Moldova, Belarus and Western Ukraine [the "Pale of the Settlement"] formed the very cradle of the inner party) the Polish majority population had existed in a “decapitated” state in 1931, and almost certainly for the preceding 200 years as well. These areas were owned and governed by a thin class of nobles sharing supposed ethnic and religious kinship with peasants consigned to the poverty of agricultural labor. A majority of the middle class and an overwhelming majority of the professional occupations were held by the inner party ethnic minority.

Viewed from the perspective of these statistics, it seems that European Communism (in its orthodox Bolshevik form as well as its reform “liberal democratic” variety) is a thinly disguised effort to force upon the entire European World the ethnic status and occupational relationships existing in Eastern Poland and the Pale of the Settlement at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – relationships in which the inner party had a commanding share of the middle class and professional occupations and a ready supply of shiksas as servant girls – relationships which guaranteed the inner party safety because economic life and the tax base which sustained the nobles would collapse without them.

Indeed, the emancipation of the serfs and the industrial revolution presented a profound threat to their comfortable world of ethnic dominance. The new factories brought hundreds of thousands of very rough and threatening peasants to the towns and cities. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the inner party got warning of peasant revolts because the peasants had to gather in the countryside and march to the towns. Because of the industrial revolution, these dangerous people lived right next door and attended the same schools.

In the words of Irving Howe, in “World of Our Fathers” p. 21:

“The emancipation of the serfs had a damaging effect on those Jews, not large in number but still important in the Jewish economy, who had worked as agents of the nobility or as economic middlemen disposing of the peasants’ produce. Jewish petty officials and traders tended to be squeezed out, and as a result many rural Jews were compelled to seek employment in the cities.”

To make matters worse, out of every million Polish peasants drawn to the cities and educated in the schools, twenty thousand had IQs above 130; and over 160,000, a full 16%, had IQs above 115, matching the distribution of IQ of the top half of the inner party. It was a nightmare. The inner party could easily be displaced. It was no longer indispensable. In fact, some of these peasants actually started factories of their own and became wealthy. Being only one or two generations off the farm, there was always a threat that they might use this newfound wealth to organize their fellow peasants.

The Inner Party developed ideologies of “human equality” as weapons to preserve the status quo ante. According to this ideology, intelligence was a product of the environment, which justifies socialized, middling incomes for the peasants. Socialized incomes mean middling environments, which, in turn, justify the attribution of equal and middling intelligence to their children. This ideology provided the moral cloak that would allow the inner party to exclude the children of these new arrivals from the schools and universities they controlled (including the art academy in Vienna), and confine them to middling occupations. Each hour of their labor was worth the same, thus stripping the talented of any means of upward mobility and depriving them of any opportunity to compete with and displace the inner party. For the unwashed new industrialists there was the progressive income tax and the inheritance tax, all designed to prevent them from converting economic power into political power.

The entire program stood in militant opposition to Horatio Alger’s “Struggling Upward.”

The demonstrably false beliefs of liberalism, which appear so perverse and illogical to loyal opposition conservatives, serve a very rational and logical purpose once you take the trouble to answer the question “how will these principles be applied in practice, and who benefits?”

And it is trouble indeed if you have the temerity to answer that question in public.

For the demonstrably false ideologies of liberalism are all essential to the program of keeping the nations of the world in an impotent and leaderless state.

In the orthodox Communist model, the inner party grabbed power by force. To the extent that the talented children of peasants were needed to administer and manage an increasingly complex society, they were transferred to some alien place where they would not identify with the local peasants and could not stir up rebellion based on ties of kinship or nation.

In the reform model of Communism adopted in all liberal democratic societies, power was seized more slowly, by breaking the chains of the genetic and religious isolation imposed upon the inner party by Orthodoxy, and by mixing aggressively with the potential leaders of the nations and aggressively influencing their social and cultural perceptions. By this means, the inner party placed itself in a blocking position within the culture and the arts so as to prevent expressions of racial and national awareness among the native elites. In addition, the inner party recognized that accepting lower returns on their investments in the press and the media was the least costly and most effective means of converting economic power into political power. This strategy guaranteed the inner party a blocking position sufficient to prevent these organs of public opinion from being used to organize the new arrivals from the countryside to challenge the inner party.

Once the industrial revolution rendered the closed and ethnically stratified society within the Pale of the Settlement untenable, there arose a passionate commitment to the “open” society, an ideological construct in which individual upward mobility would be extolled in words, but would be prevented in fact by central economic planning and high marginal tax rates, and where “freedom of thought and expression” would be extolled in words, but where massive social and economic pressure would be brought to bear on any thought or expression that identified the speaker as an “authoritarian personality.”

It was essential to identify the talented newcomers and then alienate them from their roots just as the Polish nobles had been alienated. Like the nobles, majority elites could be taught contempt for their less prosperous brethren, and liberated from any sense of ethnic or racial obligation by attacking the traditional religious faith they shared and replacing the moral restrictions and obligations of those traditional religions (that had preserved them over the centuries) with the vices of the cosmopolitan city packaged in ideologies of “freedom” and “choice”. Again, those who resist the blandishments of vice and degraded culture are called bigots, homophobes, fundamentalists, racists, etc. and are banished to occupations in which they have no power or influence.

The central reality of Communist action is racial and ethnic engineering. It is all slaughters and mass transfers of various Christian nationalities behind a universalist mask which denies even the slightest consciousness of these nationalities’ existence.

The program continues to this day. Cuban exiles in Miami tell me that the population of Cuba was 70% white in 1956. After 40 years of Castro’s Communism, it has fallen to 30% (in their estimate). Like Lenin, Castro is, according to his daughter Alina, an inner party half-breed.

By now you should be asking, what does all this have to do with undergraduate admissions at Princeton?

As it happens, the answer is, a great deal.

At the beginning of this post, I asked whether the idea of a multi-cultural elite was just an inner party delusion. I suggested that the ease with which Stalin maneuvered the inner party from power might be a warning that this idea of a multi-cultural elite may be a chimera.

Indeed this is the central thesis of Benjamin Ginzberg’s masterpiece “The Fatal Embrace,” in which he argues that the philo-semitic posture of the native elites in the U.S. is conditional and will last only so long as these elites continue to benefit from their philo-semitism and liberalism.

Implicit in the act of writing and publishing that work is the idea that these native elites no longer benefit. Ginzberg gives us a stunningly detailed and frank portrait of the process by which the inner party seized political power in the U.S. and he marvels at the ease with which it was done. So easy in fact that Ginzberg suspects a trick, namely, that governmental power may no longer be as relevant or significant as it once was, and that controlling government, if not a waste of time, might be dangerous because of the potential for mistakes and blame.

In any event, aside from the followers of Theodor Hertzl, who have forthrightly volunteered to plow the fields and sweep the streets of their own nation, the rest of the inner party desperately wishes to continue its charmed life free of such chores and has adopted (perhaps in response to the experience with Stalin) a decentralized strategy of acquiring and keeping power through private activity.

As I mentioned in the previous essay “what it would take to cleanse Serbia”, a necessary consequence of this strategy is a multiplicity of unplanned and conflicting initiatives driven by visceral emotion – a fertile field for the very visible blunders and mistakes which Ginzberg fears.

A second drawback of that strategy is that the laws of demographics and large numbers apply in spades to the exercise of power through private activity. The fact that the number of inner party kids enrolling at Princeton has fallen from 18% in 1973 to 9% in 1995 is very significant news. In 1973 the inner party filled about 45% of the seats at Harvard. In 1997 they filled only 28%.

Even more stunning is the statistic that “Jewish students represented only 6.3 per cent of the freshmen at private colleges in 1996, down from 16.8 per cent in 1973, according to a survey of freshmen conducted annually by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles.”

The inner party faculty members at Princeton suspect invidious discrimination – and this despite the fact the the President of Princeton is an inner party member. So once again we hear the primal scream of the inner party with its hands on the reins of power: – If only we were really in charge!

But the reason for the decline is much simpler and more obvious.

I checked the NLSY-1979 sample (a group that has mostly completed their child bearing years), and it appears that the fertility rate for inner party females is a dismal 1.2 per woman (it is a very small sample so the possible error is in the 15 to 20% range). For the descendants of European Christendom, the number is 1.6 – a troublesome number but much better than that of the inner party.

The reason that there are so few inner party kids at Princeton is that the kids are not being born in the first place.

Professor MacDonald argues that the evolutionary psychology unique to the inner party is so strong that no amount of out-marriage and no degree of infertility will threaten their group survival nor change the essential characteristics of the group. However, the issue here is not group survival (an outcome I concede as readily to the inner party as to every other race or nation on earth – there is room for all of us!). The issue here is power – and more specifically the inner party’s ability to hold political and social power based on a strategy of displacing native elites.

It is a collective and cumulative political power that is ultimately dependent on numbers.

The consequence is clear. A complex society requires a large number of intelligent people to manage its functions. To exercise power effectively with a decentralized displacement strategy you need large numbers – numbers sufficient to place representatives in every office to spot and censor every instance of politically incorrect thought and behavior.

The smaller the numbers, the more difficult control becomes.

While Professor MacDonald may be right that a small and intense core of the inner party can reproduce itself; nevertheless, it is equally clear that the strategy of fanning out into and controlling an “open” society by corrupting the culture has poisoned the inner party at the same time.

Sir Arthur Keith was the first to recognize that the extension of the ideals of compassion, equality and brotherly love beyond one’s own tribe or racial nation (where they are necessary for collective survival) and the universalization and application of those ideals to all of mankind inevitably means that such ideals are being used as aggressive tools of retribalizing elites engaging in hostile, race forming behaviors intended to set themselves apart as a separate class from their kinship group, while rendering members of their kinship group unsuspecting deracinated targets. Modern liberalism always has a subconscious malevolent driver.

And indeed this central insight of Keith’s makes him more dangerous to the inner party than any other social critic of this ending millennium. It justifies his academy award level blackout treatment as well as the heavy posthumous doses of slander and calumny which he will wear as badges of honor forever. For Keith’s analysis tears the Marxist mask from “class conflict,” thereby conferring automatic moral legitimacy on any future “peasant revolts” while making clear what programs must be followed to restore nature’s order and prevent an immediate recurrence of the multi-cultural disease.

And indeed, portions of the small, native Polish middle class (along with native elites throughout Europe) were indeed attracted to the Marxist ideology as a means of “managing” the mass migration of peasants to cities.

Thus, the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism – environmental determinism of ability, equality of reward for work, and central planning and allocation of opportunities and rewards, were perfectly rational as weapons to forestall the threat of upward mobility and displacement inherent in the migration of peasants to cities in the industrial revolution. Further, it was perfectly rational for the inner party to spread these doctrines among native elites as a means of preserving their dominant position.

If you are a tiny minority elite living scattered among your host, prosperity is only assured by acquiring the power to retain your own rent seeking position within the economy and not by producing generalized economic growth and prosperity for all.

Thus, orthodox Marxism was remade into its reform variety, wherein ethnic and racial identity is used to motivate minorities to join political coalitions with the inner party as a means of controlling political outcomes in the “liberal democracies.” Reform Marxism also requires immigration of additional minorities as a means of augmenting inner party political power. This basic strategy of ethnic and racial engineering for political advantage is reinforced by a system of punishment for any form of explicit racial defense among the majority European group. These punishments consist of social and economic sanctions that now exist throughout the European world, as well as laws criminalizing all such expressions in all European countries except for the U.S. and Russia.

This mirror image of the orthodox Communist program, adapted to democracy, is completely rational from the perspective of the inner party.

But that part of the reform Communist program which seeks to estrange the outer party European elites from their racial kinsmen by corrupting them is fraught with danger – dangers that are quite obvious in retrospect. And it is this part of the program that has split off a small group of inner party dissenters known as neo-conservatives.

Before the inner party decided to undertake a public campaign to seduce the outer party elites though prosperity and vice, it should have checked to make sure its own members had taken the vaccine!

This is especially critical when power depends on numbers. Before it began its attack on Christianity and its promotion of “women’s liberation” and “alternative life styles” such as unmarried motherhood, lesbian and gay lifestyles, and self-absorbed childless yuppie consumerism, it should have carefully shored up its own cultural defenses.

And as the falling numbers of inner party college students attest, the inner party has no vaccine. Truth be told, they never even thought through the consequences before the onslaught began. It is another one of those inner party delusions driven by visceral emotion.

There is one central and overwhelming aspect of this attack in particular that should have caused the inner party to reconsider. For seducing the outer party elite to vice could only be accomplished with the image of the Aryan, blonde female flooding through an endless stream of advertisements and movies over 50 years. As sir Arthur Keith noted, ethics are a tribe’s rules of survival. If you can destroy those ethics you can destroy the tribe or race.

But Keith also noted that aesthetic preferences and images of beauty and sexual attraction are equally important to group survival. And when the inner party sought to destroy our ethics and morals by drowning us in exceptionally rare and beautiful images of the blond Aryan female, they made a classic mistake.

While recoiling viscerally at the implications of Darwin’s idea of natural selection, the inner party neglected to consider carefully the mechanisms of that selection. Within human groups, sexual selection is by far the most important mechanism, more important than mortality from disease, starvation or combat. Ironically, by dramatically decreasing mortality from disease and combat, modern life has made sexual selection paramount. Prior to the inner party attack, Christian ethics restrained the effects of sexual selection. The attack opened the floodgates.

Call it the survival of the prettiest.

Unwittingly, the inner party has dramatically accelerated the pace of natural selection.

When my teenage daughters compare themselves to the ideals thrust upon us by the inner party media and advertising moguls, models such as Claudia Schiffer and Heidi Klum, they realize that they do not quite measure up. But at the same time they instantly recognize that they are visibly of the same tribe as those stars – tall, slender and light hair. They are second round draft picks, which is about as good as it gets in the real world away from the Hollywood images.

But once the typical inner party teenage girl from Brooklyn discovers how totally enthralled the inner party boys are by these Aryan images, she knows she is doomed. The ones who look like young versions of Madeline Albright or Dr. Ruth Westheimer must lower their sights, or, like Monica Lewinski, accept the most demeaning of competitive poses.

Most fly like moths to the flame of women’s liberation, thereby politicizing the personal, blaming failure on impersonal societal forces (which is indeed true, relative to the reproductive success that they would have enjoyed back in the Pale of the Settlement before World War I), and finding comfort in the company of others similarly situated.

The average consequence shows clearly in the fertility numbers.

The inner party attack is a disaster for us and a worse disaster for them. Who knows; perhaps they really believed those idiotic studies conducted by Franz Boaz in 1911 which argued that immigrants heads changed shape shortly after arrival on these fair shores.

Indeed, the Aryan ideal of female beauty is overpowering. Ben Stein writes a “life and style” type column in the neo-conservative American Spectator. In one column he recalls a stroll on the Venice Beach boardwalk and a chance encounter with a shockingly beautiful blond Slovak or Romanian girl on roller skates. Stein comments that he wanted to take over the INS and admit only girls who looked like her. A darker treatment of the power of this same image can be found in Eldridge Cleaver’s “Soul on Ice.”

But there is a second aspect of this aesthetic conditioning that is never discussed – except perhaps in my own writings, and that is its effect on majority males.

In a tribal or pre-industrial society, the ideas of aesthetic attraction we are born with are influenced and refined exclusively by the real women we actually see in our neighborhoods. The slave boy in the dialog The Meno, was shown a puzzle by Socrates and taken through two erroneous proofs. He recognizes their falsehood after hearing explanations by Socrates. But the slave boy instantly recognizes that the third proof is correct and defends it against later sophistical arguments against its validity. So too, the presentation of rare Aryan images of female beauty are “true” to young majority males. The endless repetition of that image gives it supercharged power.

The exact dimensions of this phenomenon first struck me when I saw a brochure produced by some National Alliance boys at the local University. They had selected for the cover of their brochure an incredibly beautiful, slender blond woman playing with her two preschool children. There were no words or argument. None were needed. It was simply understood that this image was under attack. It was this image that they and their organization were fighting to defend. In hoc Signo Vincet.

It was a very effective brochure.

Ironically, they lifted the image from an ad published by the local phone or electric utility. The commercial advertiser knew that this image would cause customers with a particular evolutionary psychology to identify positively with the company and buy its products.

What I had not clearly recognized before was the obvious; – that this aesthetic image of beauty propounded by Hollywood has created for millions of young white males an image of our race that has never before existed.

If you stop and think about it, a race is a very difficult thing to conceptualize. It is quite doubtful that any humans carried around an image of their race in their heads prior to the twentieth century. After all, there is a great deal of individual variation within the extended tribe, and humans cannot conveniently synthesize mental images of thousands of their varied kinsmen into a unified whole.

In the past, they carried images of different looking strangers, but not a single unified image of themselves as a race. Indeed, you can search European literature and find scant mention of the idea of race until the 19th Century. And even then, race was defined only in reference to the different look of the stranger. The stranger is a specific type. Be WE are not a race. Rather, WE are the one true universal man, and those alien others are “races”.

In this sense, race is a uniquely modern idea. In the past, all humans (with the exception of the inner party) whether organized by tribe or nation defended a territory. Patriotism demanded sacrifice for the defense of a strip of land from which the tribe or race obtained sustenance. In the past, we did not carry around in our heads a uniform aesthetic ideal of beauty we were defending. Our own death and defeat did not deprive life on earth of a living aesthetic symbol of overarching and transcendent value.

Inadvertently, the inner party bosses of Hollywood and the advertising industry, with explicit theoretical blessing from the Frankfurt School, have given us something unique. It is an image of our future, the map of our evolutionary destiny. It is the image of what we can collectively become.

It is an image that has replaced territory in its power. It is an image that millions of young males would fight and die for.

And that, folks, is not particularly good news for the inner party.

I should also note a second process of de-territorialization that has potential consequences.

The vast majority of successful business executives I met during my working career were, like myself, essentially two generations off the farm. We all thought of ourselves as sophisticates when it came to identifying the interests of the business and defending those interests in the political process. But in the pit of our stomachs, we all viewed the political system as alien, mysterious, irrational and dangerous. In truth, none of us had a clue how it really worked or even the right questions to ask.

Like me, many of these executives were plucked from the wrong side of the tracks by the standardized test, moved about the American Empire hither and yon, landing in corner offices in our own de-territorialized diaspora of the glass towers.

Like all Europeans of Christian heritage, our own evolutionary psychology is bound up in the defense of land. For thousands of years, large hosts have periodically gathered and invaded. We needed to develop and encourage the skills of violence and war to defend against such hosts. But we also needed habits of courtesy and civility so that we could maintain good relations with hundreds of neighboring tribes over a large enough area to encompass an army sufficient to defeat the largest alien host.

And we needed a sense of obligation, duty and loyalty to those neighboring tribes so that we could respond to an attack on their land as if it were an attack on our own.

But as a byproduct of success in the modern world, we have become de-territorialized. The proof is in white flight to the suburbs. When our surroundings become unpleasant we vote with our feet and flee. It is the South African “chicken run” in which flight defines us and territory is repeatedly abandoned.

But when we flee, we are fleeing to a gathering of people very similar to ourselves. The statistics say that only about 12% of American women can afford to stay home and raise the kids. And as a guilty participant now in a number of “chicken runs” I must tell you that the women who manage to land a job as “stay-at-home mom” are a shockingly uniform bunch. They can be seen walking with their young children during the day in expensive new suburban developments, and I must stay that they are uniformly slender, tall, and very attractive. Their husbands, on the other hand, are good deal less uniform in appearance but probably just as uniform in their earning power.

When life gets unpleasant we flee not to a place, but to that image. And yet we are torn by our own evolutionary psychology and the deep betrayal that the chicken run implies for the less fortunate left behind.

In the process of de-territorializing us, filling our heads with alien multi-culturalist philosophies, and destroying our traditional culture, the inner party has inadvertently created an even more powerful replacement as the object of our desires and defensive impulses.

Without realizing it, the inner party has implanted deep within our psyches an easily visualized and universally embraced image of our future and our potential.

The reaction will be swift and cataclysmic once cultural decay directly and visibly threatens the de-territorialized chicken run enclaves in which the image is now become deeply enshrined.

In the twentieth century, we Europeans of Christian heritage nearly destroyed ourselves in two immensely destructive wars to expand or defend our land based empires. One can argue whether the encouragement we received in this madness from the inner party was conscious of the destructive consequence. But one thing seems clear. We have been de-territorialized to the point that we are most unlikely to participate in any similar disaster in the future.

But the combative instinct still exists. Its object is in the process of being transferred from the defense of land to the defense of a people. Thanks to the inner party, we all know clearly what it is we will defend. What we lack in our de-territorialized diaspora, is a uniform vision of the triggering threat.

In the old days, the sight of an armed host on the horizon would provoke an immediate and unanimous response. But in our new diaspora, we all have individual thresholds for action.

As reluctant as I am to hand to the snooping agencies in Washington another flag to wave at Congress come budget renewal time, I am nevertheless constrained to remark that an inevitable consequence of our slow process of de-territorialization is our growing awareness and understanding of the borderless war.

Without going into excessive detail, imagine a time 20 years from now when working age populations are falling throughout the entire G-8 plus China, worldwide demand is falling (in 1999 it is merely stagnating), and in the U.S. the baby boom generation has already begun selling their stocks to support themselves in retirement and has driven prices to 40 year lows in the process. The boomers are becoming desperate about support from Social Security. Tax revenues are falling and La Raza has started a guerrilla war of secession in the southwestern U.S. Our institutions no longer have the resources to buy them off. Similar low intensity conflicts bubble from time to time in our cities. Imagine also that a solid 10 to 20% of the majority population now has a clear picture of the threat and is committed to jury nullification on behalf of their defenders.

And suddenly there are two thousand Eric Rudolphs running around loose with lists of meaningful targets. The original Eric Rudolph severely taxed the system. Several hundred at once would overwhelm it.

It is becoming increasingly clear that politicians and political institutions are constrained by the forces around them. There is no need to attack or threaten those political institutions. They are as irrelevant in this particular borderless war as the military and the police. Only very tiny minorities lurking in the shadows support bombing defenseless countries into submission to impose a multi-cultural ideology. Only tiny minorities in the shadows work towards displacement of majority elites and racial and ethnic engineering. These people cannot even describe these activities in public without crippling their program. Given the issues involved and the utter lack of public support for them, the programs of ethnic displacement and culture destruction are “personnel dependent” and will simply go away as soon as the personnel working them go away.

Reshape the forces in the shadows (either by competition or by conflict) and suddenly a different kind of politician wins office and different messages flow from our media.

The process could be largely invisible to the great mass of sheeple, and need not inconvenience them in any significant way.

A fundamental frailty of government by wire-puller is that it functions flawlessly as long as the stakes are financial favors to special interests. As long as the stakes are limited to money, the wire-pullers can remain safely in the shadows.

However, ethic displacement and culture destruction are just too heavy a load to place upon the system. The stakes are too high. In the information age, the participants who are using the system for such a purpose can be identified and located with relative ease by the victims, and the government cannot protect them at public expense without exposing them and the reasons for their protection to a much wider base of the population. Any attempt to guard them would make clear in the most graphic, physical and intrusive way the distinction between the controllers of government and the facade of government.

Further, it is unlikely that the government can figure out who to protect. A quick perusal of some of the data tells me that a large fraction of the relevant players cannot be identified by ethnic origin (despite my use of the term “inner party” in an exclusive ethnic sense heretofore in this essay).

Further, self-identification is impossible because there are millions of paranoid and ideologically overdosed people who would want expensive armed escorts. Many of the most important players would not self-identify, because, as any good evolutionary psychologist would predict, they are in denial about what they are doing.

And so we wait and watch.

In between now and that hypothetical scene 20 years from now, the U.S. will need to educate a far larger number of intelligent young people to run our complex society than the upper middle class, with its disastrously low birth rates, has produced. Our society is going to have to do a much better job of finding and motivating the 50% of our kids in the U.S. with IQs above 130 who do not attend college.

Inevitably it will involve combing the hills of West Virginia and East Tennessee, as well as Iowa, Nebraska and Utah. Our society will have to search these haunts for high IQ just as diligently as it now does for fashion models and actresses.

We shall see how the inner party adjusts.

Arthur Jensen, b. 1923

Earlier this decade, Skeptic magazine editor Frank Miele published a book entitled Intelligence, Race, And Genetics: Conversations With Arthur R. Jensen based on a series of exchanges he had with the famous Berkley psychologist.  As Jensen is best known for his belief that the root of the black/white gap in intelligence is largely genetic, one of the most interesting topics discussed was what, if anything, powerful people have thought about his work.  Jensen’s fame began with his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?”

Apparently, it was New York Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who coined the term “Jensenisn,” now an official English word.  Jensen tells about a time he was in Washington for an American Educational Research Association meeting during the Nixon administration and learned that people at the highest levels of government were taking his ideas seriously

. . . I received a message from Moynihan’s secretary asking if I could come to his office while I was in town.  So I met him in the White House at about 4:00 that afternoon.  He was a very open and cordial fellow, quite jolly and immediately likable.  He offered me a drink from the bar in his office and asked if I minded if he invited his “assistant of Jensenism” to come over from the Old Executive Office Building across the street . . . [one of the assistant's jobs] was to read my stuff and keep him [Moynihan] informed about it.  Moynihan in turn forwarded this information to President Nixon, who was keenly interested in Jensenism.

The president believed that genetics put limitations on how much could be done for blacks but that helping them was “the right thing to do.”  Nixon’s unconventional views on race recently made the news when one of his tapes revealed that he thought abortion was necessary when the potential offspring is of mixed black/white descent.  This revelation came seven years after a previous tape revealed him saying politically incorrect things about Jews in the media.

Contrast Nixon’s reaction to information diverging from the liberal line with that of George H. W. Bush.  Jensen recalls

Once after testifying in Congress I met former president George H. W. Bush — at that time a congressman from Texas — and chatted with him for a few minutes.  He knew something about my 1969 HER article but seemed more interested in my personal background — where I was born, where I grew up, where I went to college, things like that.  He acted rather amazed by my answers, especially the fact that up to that time I had never set foot in the Deep South.  When he said, “Isn’t that interesting, you’ve never been in the South?” I assumed he was testing my credentials for my discussing the nature of the Black-White difference in IQ.

The attitudes of Bush and Nixon tell us a lot about human nature.

Richard Nixon (1913 - 1994)

Nixon had a rare quality: he wondered whether a proposition was true or false regardless of its acceptance or lack thereof amongst others.

Like most people, Bush doesn’t have that quality. When he heard someone taking a view outside of the mainstream, he became most interested in the said person’s background and experiences.

Jensen’s talk with Bush reminds me of many conversations I’ve had with people who knew my opinions on race.  They would ask where I grew up or what my parents thought.  No one has ever probed for a sociological reason behind my views on economics or foreign policy.

Humans learn from a very young age on what topics a society does or doesn’t allow variation of opinion.  When they come across someone who breaches a taboo, they need a reason why. Saying because something is true isn’t good enough for the masses, because they can’t imagine themselves going against the grain, even in their own heads, for an abstract concept.  Perhaps the Berkeley psychologist grew up in Alabama, where being a “racist” is OK?  Or maybe he once got robbed by a group of blacks?

It’s no wonder that Nixon was the president that the elites found most difficult to understand.  He was the one least like them, and the rest of humanity for that matter.

I don’t doubt for a second that when mainstream politicians talk about the struggles of blacks or homosexuals they’re anything but sincere.  To think that they’re faking it is a misunderstanding of how human psychology works and how deep the roots of religion (even a secular one like political correctness) go.  Man is a herd animal more than he’s cynical, conniving, principled or concerned with truth.  It’s arguable whether this bodes well or not for changing the minds of our rulers.  At least we may convince ourselves to not hold their platitudinousness against them personally.

Richard Lynn

When it comes to population, quality matters more than quantity.  While educated Westerners never tire of sprinkling their conversations with the word “overpopulation,” voicing concern about population worth is taboo.  Put it this way: you have to spend the rest of your life in a city filled with Nigerians or Japanese.  You can either pick the ethnic makeup or the amount of people in the city.  Which would you choose?  As it’s settled that genes influence character and intelligence, could these traits be declining in some or all populations?  Has it to some extent?  Anecdotes exist about single educated women and fertile welfare queens, but hard data is needed.

While support for eugenics has been around since the time of Plato, the first person to worry about genetic deterioration was French physician Benedict August Morel.  He’s an obscure figure today and much better known is the more important Sir Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics in 1883.  He thought that more genes for lower intelligence and poor character were concentrated in the lower classes, whose higher fertility would lead to a decline in genetic quality.  Galton spent his life working to reverse the trend.  He eventually convinced Darwin himself of the danger.  Biologist Alfred Russell Wallace wrote:

In one of my last conversations with Darwin he expressed himself very gloomily on the future of humanity, on the ground that in our modern civilisation natural selection had no play and the fittest did not survive.

It wasn’t until 1974 that Nobel prize winning physicist William Shockley called the process dysgenics.  Darwin went on to despair over the excessive breeding of “the scum.”  Data has always been needed on whether his fears had been justified.  Richard Lynn brings together studies and data from the last 200 years dealing with the connection between fertility and intelligence/socioeconomic status from all over the world.  How afraid should we be?

Selection throughout Time

The conditions that hunter-gatherers lived in insured an upkeep of genetic quality.  Usually there was a chief who had to have a certain amount of intelligence to acquire and maintain his position.  He had the most access to females, there would be relatively high ranking men who had one wife and many of the unfit never bred.  Mutations that popped up which adversely affected health would be weeded out.  Early nation-states continued with polygamy.

With Western man’s transition to civilization selection was weakened but not eliminated.  The higher social classes enjoyed better nutrition so had better health and children more likely to survive into adulthood.  Christianity struck a blow against the Western gene pool by enforcing celibacy among the priesthood but probably more than made up for it by prohibitions against adultery.  Most who have children out of wed-lock then and now have/had lower intelligence and less self-control.  Overall, the years 1500-1800 were good for Europe’s gene pool.  In England from 1620-1624 the middle classes reported 4.4 children per woman compared to 2.1 for the working class.  Part of the reason why is life expectancy.  In Berlin from 1710-1799 the average life expectancy for the upper class was 29.8 years compared to 20.3 for the lower class.  The numbers for Geneva, Rouen and Neuruppin in the 18th century are similarly tilted towards the former.  This didn’t mean that everybody died when they were 20-30 years old but that more of the lower classes were dying in childhood before they could mate.

Lynn understands that for these numbers to mean anything it would have to be shown that there was social mobility.  If everybody was stuck in their own class with no opportunity to rise or fall then we would expect different social classes to be similar and not worry about differences in fertility.  Pitrim Sorokin looked at a wide range of societies and found that there has never been one with no social mobility at all.  The closest thing has been the caste system in India, but even these classes weren’t absolutely closed.  Economist historian S.J. Payling concluded that there was significant social mobility in Europe from at least the 14th century on.

Natural Selection Breaks Down: Health and Intelligence

Mutations occasionally pop up in any population.  Since the vast majority are adverse, stable fertility for an entire population still means deterioration.  The maintenance of the quality of the population requires not just a stable population at all levels but the active weeding out of the unfit.  The results of the slacking of selection in our modern world is apparent in disease.  Today, almost 1% of children born have a mutation for a common genetic disorder.  Due to carriers of bad genes surviving and new mutations, it’s estimated that the rates of hemophilia, cystic fibrosis and phenylketonuria are increasing every generation by 26%, 120%, and 300% respectively.  Humanity requires that we save children that can be saved but breeding for those with diseased genes needs to be restricted.  Lynn hints that better genetic screening and selective abortion can offset some of the consequences of modern medicine.

American psychologist Theodore Lentz was the first to devise a method for finding the relationship between intelligence and fertility.  He tested the IQs of children and found out how many siblings they had.  Assuming that children have the same IQ as their parents, if those with lower IQs had more brothers and sisters than children with high IQs then it could be determined that dysgenics is happening.  In 1927 Lentz calculated an IQ drop of 4 points per generation.  Calculations in Britain found a drop of about 2 points per generation. These surveys didn’t include the childless but since they are disproportionately those with higher IQs the studies actually underestimate the extent of dysgenic fertility.  Reviewing various studies and using findings from twin and adoption cases showing that IQ is 82% heritable, Lynn calculates a genotypic IQ decline of 5 points in Britain from 1890-1980.  In the US he calculates a drop of 2.5 IQ points for whites and 6.2 for blacks over three generations.  Interestingly, women are shown to universally have more dysgenic fertility than men.  This is partly because low IQ men probably have a harder time finding mates than low IQ women.

The Fall of Greece

Greece is a particularly interesting example.  Papavassiliou (1954) looked at IQ, socioeconomic status and fertitlity for men and came up with the following results.

Intelligence and Fertility in Greece, 1950s

Socioeconomic status      N         Mean IQ               N of Children

Professional 41              117.2                1.78

Skilled Workers 80              100.9                2.66

Semiskilled 27                91.0                4.00

Unskilled 67                 82.2                5.56

My calculations give an IQ of 96.9 for the parent generation and an IQ drop of 4.9.  Using a heritability of .82 for IQ puts the IQ of the children’s generation at 92.9 (IQ of parent generation – .82 x 4.9) .  Lynn has found elsewhere that the IQ of Greece is 95. This low (for Europe) figure is surprising considering the country’s historical accomplishments.  Papavassiliou’s data may solve the puzzle.

Does the Flynn Effect Disprove Eugenics?

While science has shown that traits for IQ and socioeconomic status are heritable and those with poor genes are outbreeding those with good genes, actual performance on IQ tests in the industrialized world has risen over the last century.  How can this be?  This seeming paradox is called the Flynn effect, after the scientist who estimated IQ gains of about 3-4 points per decade over the 20th century.

We can rule out the effect of increased familiarity with written tests or better education because these gains are present in children as young as two years old.  It is doubtful that it is due to increased stimulation because adoption studies show that the effect of shared environment is negligible; two biologically unrelated people raised in the same house are no more alike than any two random strangers.  Lynn’s explanation is that the Flynn effect is due to better nutrition.  This seems like the best explanation, as over the same time period height and brain size have increased by one standard deviation: the same as the increase in IQ.

So while genotypic intelligence, which can be seen as underlying genetic quality, has decreased, actual performance, phenotypic intelligence, has seen an increase.  This increase can’t last forever and the evidence shows that in the developed world, with even the poorest suffering from obesity, the Flynn effect has hit its ceiling.  We can now expect a decrease in observed intelligence in the developed even discounting low IQ third world immigration.

The Case of Character

Francis Galton and the early eugenicists weren’t only concerned with the decline in intelligence and health but what they called character: a moral sense, ability to delay gratification and work towards long term goals and sense of duty.  Modern psychologists call this conscientiousness and Lynn gives a working estimate for it being 66% heritable.  The news here is even worse than the data on intelligence.

Looking at criminals and psychopaths and their number of siblings yields a decline in consciousness that is twice the rate of the decline in intelligence.  This has had real life consequences

The straightforward prediction is that the high fertility of criminals has led to an increase in the number of genes in the population responsible for crime and this will show up in increasing crime rates.  These increasing crime rates have certainly occurred in most of the economically developed nations during the second half of the twentieth century.  In the United States, crime rates approximately tripled between 1960 and 1990; in Britain they quadrupled, and similar increases have occurred in many other countries.

Rates of out-of-wedlock births tell a similar story.  Western populations are morally worse than ever and we can expect the modern welfare state to continue to accelerate the decline.  Unfortunately, most social scientists and policy makers are too steeped in the environmentalist dogma to deal with these problems.

Does the Universality of the Problem Mean It’s Hopeless?

While there are no direct studies for IQ and fertility in the third world we can check to see how socioeconomic status and education, both correlated with IQ, relate to number of children.  Lynn calls the birth rate of the lowest class over the birth rate of the highest class the dysgenic ratio.  For example, if those in the lowest class have 3 children per woman and the higher class have 2, the dysgenic ratio is 3/2 = 1.5.  Anything over 1 indicates dysgenic fertility and anything under 1 indicates eugenic fertility.  While a number over 2 is high for modern Western nations, ratios have been calculated at 3.1 for Columbia, 2.6 for Guatemala, 2.7 for Mexico and 3.1 for Brazil.  Muslim and African countries have lower ratios, but only because even the highest classes have  large numbers of children.  In a worldwide survey the only exceptions are Bangladesh, Fiji and Indonesia who have ratios of 1.01, 0.93, and 0.86 respectively.  The developing world can be expected to remain “developing” indefinitely.

So dysgenic fertility is found everywhere: among rich and poor and every race.  Does that mean it’s hopeless?  We won’t know until we at least acknowledge and try to deal with the problem.  Communism once controlled half the planet and today its equivalent is globalization and the supposed triumph of liberal democracy.  While communists can say that true communism “has never been tried” and continue to be liberals, the legacy of Nazism poisons the eugenics movement.  Of course, blaming the ideas behind eugenics for the crimes of the Nazis is as silly as blaming the ideology of the welfare state for Soviet labor camps.  So there is no rational reason why eugenics can’t capture the hearts and minds of policy makers the way it did 100 years ago.  While the facts of differential fertility may discomfort our feminized elites we must never stop repeating that the cost of doing nothing is the end of civilization.  There’s no virtue in ignoring that.

Richard Hoste runs the website HBD Books.

Kevin MacDonald

Sharon Begley is at it again, flailing away at evolutionary psychology because it doesn’t fit well with her feminist, liberal agenda. This is ironic because evolutionary psychology owes its very existence to political correctness.

I remember the excitement when, as a graduate student, E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology came on the scene. People talked about nothing else. Because of my background in philosophy and in leftist politics, I was a skeptical of sociobiology. But I was converted finally by Robert Trivers‘ evolutionary theory of sex. The basic idea is that reproduction is very costly for women because of the huge amount of time and energy involved in pregnancy, lactation, and child care. On the other hand, the basic act of reproduction for males is quite inexpensive, requiring only a small amount of time and energy. This means that in the same time period that a female could raise one child, a male could sire a huge number of offspring. Males benefit from having multiple mates because that raises the probability of their leaving many offspring, i.e., of having reproductive success.

It follows, theoretically, that a principal male motive for seeking wealth and power is gaining access to multiple sexual partners. And this has indeed been the pattern throughout the world. From Chinese emperors to African chieftains, males at the top of the social hierarchy were able to mate with many females. Most famously, Sultan Moulay Ismail (the Bloodthirsty) of Morocco sired 888 children with his many wives and concubines. This is an enormously powerful theory, and it continues to be the workhorse in the field of evolutionary psychology.

Once one starts to see the world as shaped by our evolutionary history, it’s impossible to go back. And it was impossible not to notice that sociobiology was being viciously attacked by academics like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, both of whom were Harvard professors associated with the far left and both of whom, as I later thought significant, were Jewish. . . . Read the rest of the article