The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Why I Was Dumped by Conservativism, Inc.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last August for the first time in my life, I was kicked out of an organization. Intercollegiate Studies Institute is the organization that did this, as I learned from its Senior Vice President. Although I had been affiliated with his outfit as an author for more than thirty years, my caller told me that ISI wished to be rid of me. His institute would not publish an article they had unexpectedly commissioned me to write and would not even offer me a kill fee. Those in charge, however, would not throw away the remaining copies of my autobiography Encounters, which they had published four years ago. But they were not going to exert themselves in trying to market my work. In fact they would be happy if I bought what remained of the run. That way they wouldn’t have to list my name in their catalogue.

My offense, as I learned from my informant, who was repeating what he reportedly heard from his bosses, was that some of my friends “believe there are IQ disparities” among individuals and between ethnic groups. The Senior Vice President claims to have come to my defense by pointing out that my friends may believe something akin to what Charles Murray had addressed in The Bell Curve. But neoconservative organizations like AEI had not expelled Murray for having argued his point. Why did ISI feel impelled to sever relations with me because I bestowed my friendship on someone who entertained thoughts that overlapped Murray’s?(Note this conversation was not about what I had asserted but what my friends may or may not accept as scientifically true.) During the phone conversation, I learned that my interlocutor thought “as a Christian” that it’s immoral to believe some groups are not as intelligent as other ones because of an inborn difference. I’ve no idea why this person’s religious affiliation requires him to deny a defensible scientific proposition, and which as late as the 1990s half of the (already leftward drifting) American Psychological Association still affirmed as a heavily substantiated fact.

There were undoubtedly financial considerations that led to my eventual expulsion. ISI overspent on its diggings (which are near the palatial residence of Vice President Joe Biden in Centerville, Delaware) and by hiring a swarming staff, they had become subject to neoconservative overlords with deep pockets. ISI publications, like the student-oriented Campus, paid tribute to Martin Luther King and the ideals of global democracy and diversity. The organization’s flagship journal Modern Age, which had been set up by Russell Kirk in 1956, included more and more essays that seemed intended to please its new patrons. Modern Age had once been simply tendentious, in a Catholic or Anglo-Catholic preachy sort of way. The late Sam Francis once observed that a Modern Age feature essay came from the pen of a self-consciously Catholic writer praising the pious values of Flannery O’Connor apropos of random meditations on the footnotes of a generally unintelligible German émigré scholar. A core theme that one typically encountered while perusing back issues were “remembrances” of conservative founding fathers, such as early movement conservative icon Russell Kirk, the German-American philosopher of history Eric Voegelin, and other luminaries identified with “cultural conservatism.” The magazine’s “celebratory essays” blended into each other in such a manner that it was sometimes hard to tell one “celebration” from another. And a diligent editor should have gone through every issue and excise the use of “permanent things,” a piece of rhetorical filler that the magazine would have done well to ban from its pages.

But to their credit, the editors of MA did not care about neoconservative disapproval. Over the years it published such heretics of the Right as Francis, the Southern literary scholar M.E. Bradford, Clyde Wilson, and Thomas Molnar. Under two longtime editors, David Collier and George Panichas, the quarterly mingled its usual fare with daring critical work. Up until a few issues ago the now deceased constitutional scholar George Carey was allowed to contend furiously in Modern Age against the Bush-McCain project of bringing democracy (in its current American incarnation) to the entire globe. Since George conveniently died a few months ago, ISI didn’t have to expel him. In all probability the ISI-thought police would now feel driven to deep-freeze Modern Age’s founder Russell Kirk, if he were still alive and kicking. From what I can recall, Russell never flinched from discussing ethnic peculiarities.

Several months ago ISI decided to drop from the magazine’s masthead anyone who might offend their new donors. I thereupon became unmentionable, together with other longtime Modern Age associates. The most plausible reason that some of us purge victims could find for this indignity is that we had criticized “neoconservative” scholarship” or voiced reservations about the neoconservative political dominance of Conservatism, Inc. For me, however, the prelude to the purge had come earlier. My work was neither cited nor reviewed in ISI publications for quite some time; and although I had published in Modern Age for several decades, none of my essays was included in anthologies of “important” ISI contributions that the institute periodically brought out. (To give the devil his due, MA, to mysurprise, just reviewed my latest book, on Leo Strauss, two years after the work was published.) On a related note: it has come to my attention that Jonah Goldberg has been feted as a speaker by ISI for advancing the institute’s moral and intellectual mission. Jonah is presumably accomplishing this by standing up for gay marriage. Apparently advocating gay marriage is now more compatible with those Christian family values that ISI claims to be defending than rubbing shoulders with people who believe in human cognitive differences.


The guilt by association charge that was raised to justify my excommunication was also turned against a close friend. Although this friend has never written about cognitive disparities, he shares with me the honor of being an officer of the H.L. Mencken Club, an organization for independent conservative thinkers that I created six years ago. Last year’s outrage was to have asked one of our members, Byron Roth, to speak about dysgenics at our annual gathering. Byron gave no indication that the human race is degenerating genetically but he did address the controversial subject of dysgenics, within the framework of our conference discussion of decadence. Because my friend and fellow club member was planning to attend his lecture, he was told that his commissioned article been dropped from an ISI symposium dealing with “what is conservatism?” Whatever conservatism may be, it has nothing to do with those easily intimidated opportunists who pick up their pay checks at ISI.

This brings me to two questions that occurred to me during my conversation with the Senior Vice President. One, why did ISI bother to kick me out formally, given the fact that they had already in effect cut off relations with me? Two years ago ISI ceased publishing its longtime publication on political theory, Political Science Reviewer, when the next scheduled issue was to feature an extended symposium on my work on the conservative movement. One would have to be an idiot to believe this was mere coincidence. None of the participants bought the official story, namely that ISI had no funds for the project. In view of the studious care that ISI showed at keeping me at arm’s length, what occurred last year was overkill. Two, how much longer can the subordinates of Conservatism, Inc. throw their vulnerable comrades to leftist bullies before they look like fools? Excommunicating X for associating with Y, who believes there is a hereditary basis for cognitive differences, is inconsistent with ISI’s claim to be defending academic freedom.

Moreover, engaging in this behavior because one believes it will keep the Left off one’s back is terminally idiotic. The leftist bullies will be back next week with new demands, such as dumping those who write critically about gay marriage. In view of the demonstrated pusillanimity of ISI, and what seems its present parent organization, Heritage, I strongly doubt that the advocates of “the permanent things” would resist new orders to dump more associates for thought crimes. (ISI may have been following the precedent set at Heritage last year when it fired a researcher Jason Richwine when it was discovered that Richwine included IQ data in a dissertation at Harvard about the low IQ tests of recent Latino immigrants.)

Well into the 1990s, it was almost universally accepted by the scientific community, except for Stalinoid propagandist Leon Kamin and the perpetually PC Stephen Jay Gould, that human IQ varied significantly, that IQ tests could measure these differences, and that up to 85 percent of intelligence may be hereditary. In an enlightening work The IQ Controversy( 1988) Stanley Rothman and Jay Snydermann document the premises that the overwhelming majority of scientists, biologists, and psychologists fully accept the axioms that a significant part (indeed well over one half) of intelligence is hereditary, and that general intelligence is testable.

Needless to say, Mencken Club members would not reject out of hand contravening evidence on the subject of human intelligence. For example, we have discussed with due respect the heavily researched essays of Ron Unz examining the effects of urbanization on the IQ performance of Latinos. Although Unz does not deny the effect of heredity on intelligence and although he recommends the writings of scholars who argue for this connection, he himself is a weak hereditarian. But this would hardly keep us from considering his research conclusions, if we again address the subject of his work. What we would insist on is that the hereditary basis of intelligence is worth discussing and that before we accept some variation of the Left’s environmental explanation for behavioral and cognitive differences, we would like to look at all relevant arguments.

What follows is my exchange with ISI’s president subsequent to my excommunication. I have appended some final comments that were occasioned by Christopher Long’s defense of his organization’s handling of unwelcome dissent.

Dear President Long,

Would you be kind enough to respond to these questions, which I may incorporate into a book on changing conservative foundations I’ve been commissioned to prepare?

  1. Is it the position of ISI that there are no significant IQ differences among human beings? On what scientific evidence do you base this assumption, if this is indeed your institutional stance?
  2. Why do you find it necessary to dissociate your institute explicitly from those who believe in hereditarianism as the key to understanding human intelligence?
  3. I’ve recently been told by one of your officers that believing in critical cognitive differences among individuals and groups is incompatible with Christian values? Why is this so?
  4. Why is it less incompatible with religious values to give awards to advocates of gay marriage than to allow those who believe in the importance of IQ differences to be associated with your institute?

Please note these questions are not motivated by my recent unhappy experiences with ISI. I am an elderly research scholar engaged in a research project. Incidentally, I don’t consider your taboos (if that is what they are) to be conspicuously different from those that prevail in other “conservative” foundations.

Respectfully yours,

Paul Gottfried



Thank you for writing to me personally and privately. I appreciate and understand your desire for clarification.

Questions of statistical analysis and scientific research are removed from the Institute’s mission and purpose, which is to educate college students on the free enterprise system, America’s founding principles and the Western tradition. Therefore, as an institution we take no positions on such controversies.

We remain advocates of academic freedom, and our highest duty as stewards of a sixty-years old institution is to ensure its ability to operate effectively on American college campuses. If individuals choose to endorse publicly and academically controversial positions, we are under no obligation to jeopardize ISI’s reputation and viability by highlighting current or past associations with such individuals. The only benefit of such a stance would seem to accrue solely to the enemies of ordered liberty.

If there is courage in taking a position on a controversial topic, that virtue is foregone if one insists on dragging unwilling participants into the debate. I am certain that any decision by my colleagues regarding the matters of which you write was based on what they perceived to be the most properly prudential action in light of the circumstances.

Thank you for your understanding that our duty is to protect as we see best fit the institution that we are temporarily charged with stewarding. Whether or not you and others agree with our decisions, I hope you will understand that they are based purely on prudence with an eye toward protecting and furthering ISI’s mission.



To whatever extent President Long’s thoughts can be inferred from his cluster of run-on sentences, he is clearly and perhaps quite deliberately avoiding the main issues. Neither of us has written about the First Law of Thermodynamics, but I doubt that President Long would be running away from someone who produced an article or book explaining that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Why then is ISI excommunicating those who believe in a defensible thesis about disparities in measurable human intelligence? Does President Long wish to have me deny that there are hereditary cognitive differences among people? Then he should come out and say that as a prerequisite for continued association with his group, one should not question environmentalist explanations for differences in intelligence. Certainly he has taken this stand against dissenters and has done so in a threatening fashion. Under his “stewardship” ISI is banning those who address the scientific questions President Long has opted to avoid? Finally it is unclear to me what the “mission” of ISI that President Long seeks to “protect” really is. As best I can tell, it’s about keeping himself and his staff employed in comfortable surroundings.

[A somewhat different version of this piece appeared earlier this month at]

Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Hepp says:

    Paul, organizations often decide who to associate with, and sometimes they must make political calculations. This organization in particular, is interested in free markets and Christian values. You may think that an acknowledgment of HBD is necessary to preserve western civilization, but there is no indication that most conservatives agree with you.

    Here’s my advice. You are a respected scholar who is retired. Take the opportunity to continue speaking truth about racial issues. You can have a larger audience here and at VDare, then you would in some obscure conservative academic journal.

  2. The main stream anything, left, center AND right, is never going to have anything to do with IQ differences. Period full stop. You should have figured that one out a long time ago. The Ministry of Truth has an iron grip on things now.

  3. Oldeguy says:

    This is an example of the Evils of Oligarchy. Americans are probably the least envious people on the planet; very few of us begrudge the Super Rich their Gazillions even if suspecting the Rocky Mountains of lucre are more the result of a rigged game than genuine productive contribution. No- it’s much more this creeping Neo-Feudalism Thing:the evident ability to make both major Political Parties wholly owned subsidiaries and turn all media outlets into shills. Thank God for the Internet.

  4. Hang out with these whack jobs and then you’re surprised when they stab you in the back on orders from a funder?

  5. I think there’s a really minor factual error in the article. Actually, by the 1990s Steven Jay Gould had acknowledged that IQ was significantly heritable. I think that Leon Kamin was the only one who kept denying that even into the 1990s.

    Also, I think that the comparison of discussing racial differences in IQ to discussing physical laws is pretty silly. Obviously, the point isn’t that the cause of IQ differences is an empirical question; the point is that it’s highly controversial and, arguably, distracts from conservative activism. This is an eternal debate in strategy: Which battles are relatively unimportant enough to concede, in order to win the more important ones? The ISI is not arguing against the hereditarian position, it’s just refusing to take any position on that controversial topic at all. I think that’s a wise approach – for them.

    Political movements need both kinds of organization. They need hard-core groups like the HL Mencken club, and they need soft-core organizations like the ISI. And the two kinds of organization have to be kept separate.

    • Replies: @The Grate Deign
  6. rod1963 says:

    Follow the funding trail. Usually those who control the funding have the biggest say so in setting policies and taboos. Presidents do their bidding. One can see that the content free reply by president Long to Paul Gottfried demonstrates that Long is just a mere functionary or another widget. He doesn’t make policy, the money men above him do.

    Consider it a hostile takeover of sorts, with a nasty dose of terror to keep the worker bees in line. Nothing like unwritten taboos to keep one in line.

    That said, the Conservative movement has IMO been hijacked by various corporate and Neoconservative interests. It’s no longer about defending Western civilization, our European heritage, Judeo-Christian values or even the integrity of this country. In fact bringing these up, especially the last one will bring a lot of opprobrium from establishment Conservatives or silence. They are more about doing away with the border and letting the 3rd world in, destroying public education and collapsing the three branches of government than anything else.

    • Replies: @Voltaire
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Paul, if you’re taking flak you are over the target. I am sorry that you are elderly because what you say is interesting and necessary. So few are saying it. Now that I too am old I am grateful that you have given some slow learners like myself thinking material and those that come behind you.

  8. TomB says:

    Wait a minute here: Not only as per President Long’s (quite concise) statement of ISI’s “mission and purpose” but as per Professor Gottfried’s own description of what it publishes it appears that the issue of the genetic heritability of intelligence (HBD) is rather far afield from same.

    So, for the purpose of sharpening the issue let’s assume you are the President of ISI and it appears that one of ISI’s members is, voluntarily, becoming increasingly identified with a movement to … legalize the torture of puppies. Or pedophilia.

    Now, what is your duty?

    Is it to even *make* decisions concerning the rightness or wrongness of torturing puppies or of pedophilia, much less to try reform the public’s perception of same is you found that perception wanting?

    Or is it to separate itself from the association with such an individual so as to avoid bringing ISI into disrepute and thus hurt its mission and purpose?

    Or, to put it another way, must all organizations somehow (taking into consideration their resources too) have as their mission and purpose to judge and set right every public perception and misperception?

    I guess I don’t think so.

    The “problem” here is not of ISI’s making; to the extent it exists it lies with the public, period.

    And moreover there is also just simply the issue of freedom of association here:

    You might well in 1935 have wanted to have an organization celebrating the glories of German opera, say.

    But are you then somehow intellectually obliged to entertain “A. Hitler” and “J. Goebbels” as your faithful members?

    I don’t think so.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    , @Bill
  9. @TomB

    Most of us have encountered your preferred form of rationalization before. It is typical of apologists for oligarchy to denigrate, downplay, or simply ignore elemental principles.

    Here’s an excerpt from Long: “the Institute’s mission and purpose, which is to educate college students on the free enterprise system, America’s founding principles and the Western tradition.”

    So, do we assume he means to say that “founding principles and Western traditions” exclude honesty and integrity? That they exclude scientific method and recognition of the advancements in human capability and achievement as a product of scientific method, of critical analysis, of comparative function, efficiency, and particularly … the predictive value of scientific fact, theory, and analysis?

    Your rationale holds no philosophical water. It leaks streams of neo-feudalism, oligarchy, the worship of money, power, influence and the “eminent worthiness” of those who have the money.

    As Farmer would say, Mr. TomB, your ethics stinks.

    • Replies: @TomB
  10. Professor Paul Gottfried is a good person. At some stage I have bought couple of his books, and read about 40% of the material. In my very uneducated opinion, the material is good and serious.
    The present post by Dr. Gottfried reminded me old joke of the time of USSR.
    Odessa. Rabinovich was just expelled from Party (sure, the communist party.)
    This night in his sleep he has this dream.
    “Anti-communist revolution just happened in Odessa. Citizens of the city gathered to the first meeting at a big square. The person on the podium speaks to the microphone:
    ‘So, citizens of free Odessa, what is our first action?’
    And the crowd, as one person, shouts:
    ‘We require that Rabinovich is re-installed as Party member!!!!’.
    End of dream and of joke.
    Cheer up, Dr. Gottfried!

  11. @Hepp

    Certainly organizations may choose their associates, and certainly they may do this on the basis of craven and/or greedy considerations. But just as certainly they may be publicly called to account for their actions. This is particularly necessary when these actions seem to be part of a carefully coordinated effort to destroy the livelihoods of those holding certain views; views which are opposed by a small but powerful, well-funded, well-positioned and controlling elite whose ultimate purposes seem at odds with purported organizational goals and the sentiments of the majority of such organizations’ supporters.

  12. TomB says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    John Jereiah Smith wrote:

    Here’s an excerpt from Long: “the Institute’s mission and purpose, which is to educate college students on the free enterprise system, America’s founding principles and the Western tradition.”

    So, do we assume he means to say that “founding principles and Western traditions” exclude honesty and integrity?

    No, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s reasonable to take from that statement that it’s ISI’s duty to investigate and then come to some conclusion about the honesty and integrity of *every* conceivable point of view either.

    If, resource-wise, that was even possible.

    In short I think your argument just proves too much in a big way, not to mention eliding entirely my point about the simple freedom to associate with whomever we want, for whatever reason we want.

    Which, I would point out, might well also be called a “founding Western principle and tradition” so granting ISI even more integrity in doing what it did.

    Again it isn’t that Gottfried is at “fault” here. It’s that neither he nor ISI is and it is instead a matter of public perception to the degree there is fault here.

    But as to the rest of your hiding of me …

    Your rationale holds no philosophical water. It leaks streams of neo-feudalism, oligarchy, the worship of money, power, influence and the “eminent worthiness” of those who have the money.

    … gotta say I’m flattered at being suspected of harboring so many streams at least.

    Never even realized my own true depths, huh?

  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s amazing that one of their officers thinks that INDIVIDUAL differences in intelligence is incompatible with Christian values. Forget, race or population differences. INDIVIDUAL differences!! Does he think that mentally retarded people don’t exist?

  14. ISI President Long does not see that the universalist assumption that all men are exactly the same in all times and places does not comport easily with our founding principles. This is typical; there is widespread contemporary misunderstanding of what was meant by “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. The founders would have laughed at the idea that all men were equal in natural endowments – they only thought that men should be equal before the law. The phrase quoted was used to reject the idea that the monarch had a divine right to dictate to his subjects, not to assert a hallucinatory notion of absolute uniformity of human genetic inheritance.

    ISI can not advance the founding principles based on a faulty understanding of them and of the thinking of the founders, let alone support academic freedom by disassociating itself from views that however unpopular among the general radical academic left are accepted by the relevant experts, the psychometricians.

    Paul has done a good job here of exposing the pusillanimity of the ISI people.

  15. Rapparee says:

    If individuals choose to endorse publicly and academically controversial positions, we are under no obligation to jeopardize ISI’s reputation and viability by highlighting current or past associations with such individuals.

    Translation: We don’t actually give a rat’s backside about IQ. Rather, we’re terrified of falling victim to a witch-hunt, thereby losing our prestige and many of our donors, so we’re preemptively throwing you under the bus.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  16. roo_ster says:

    So, who is ISI’s new sugar daddy?

  17. Voltaire says:

    Isn’t the term Judeo-Christian a recent bit of recent terminology whose introduction seems to coincide with the introduction and the increasing use of the date terminology of CE (common era) rather than the now much less politically correct designation AD (after death).

    I hate to be picky about this but when you use the term Judeo-Christian rather than Christian it seems to introduce a note of pure surrender to PC.

    • Replies: @Eric
    , @Robt
  18. Art Deco says: • Website

    Two years ago ISI ceased publishing its longtime publication on political theory, Political Science Reviewer, when the next scheduled issue was to feature an extended symposium on my work on the conservative movement. One would have to be an idiot to believe this was mere coincidence.

    No, one would merely have to be cursorily familiar with the business of periodical publishing, commercial and philanthropic. For an academic or quasi-academic publication to fold or discontinue it’s print edition has been a quotidienne story for the last half-dozen years or so. (The American Enterprise Institute shut down it’s bimonthly magazine in 2009, to take one example, as did the Hoover Institution in 2011). Political Science Reviewer was an annual produced by a philanthropic publisher with a thin portfolio of periodicals and given to issuing perhaps three or four new monographs per year. Most of the titles vended in the ISI catalogue were published decades ago.

    You wrote your biography? You’re a rank and file academic. That anyone would publish such a volume is strange.

  19. Art M says:

    David Unz, is this the best you could get? Wow, pickings must be getting slim in the op ed dept. Or is this guy a friend of yours?

    Personally Paul, I couldn’t care less about your tiff with Intercollegiate Studies Institute. I’ve never heard of ISI (nor you, for that matter), but somehow I’ve managed to live this long. Will miracles never cease? Okay Paul, I hope you get your position back or make the ISI squeal “Uncle” or whatever it is that you are after. Actually, you should try the Groucho attitude. Paul, you must have led a very easy, first world life, what do they call that, oh yeah, a life in Academia. Just from the phraseology you use, the depth to which your angst has driven you to NEED absolution, the persistence without requirement of your arguments, and the totality of your arguments (both source and execution thereof) being centered on nits. I realize that you get, er, got money for writing for the ISI, and now that revenue stream is no longer. Is that what you are upset about? Well, I can see that, but look on the bright side, your falling out with ISI just scored a spot on The Unz Review. Sounds like you traded up.

    But still, it sounds like you’ve lost the velvety soft embrace of Academia. Which means that now you’ll have to start working for a living, and that is a stinker. In the meantime, get a grip. Chill, buddy. Pete Best had more class.

  20. Art Deco says: • Website

    More accurate translation:

    1. We do not have a dog in this controversy.

    2. You’re a liability inasmuch as your dragging us into controversies outside our institutional mission.

    3. We do not go about alienating donors just to be cute. Pushing Arthur Jensen’s oeuvre (or a thrift shop mark down version of it peddled by alt-right journalists) is not our business and not our concern.

  21. Art Deco says: • Website

    While we are at it:

    1. The editor of Modern Age is not some Washington opinion journalist with a salary from AEI, but a retired English professor from North Carolina State and quondam editor of the John Donne Journal – i.e. devoted to just the sort of academic humanis that Stephen Tonsor was complaining a generation ago had been neglected by vulgar courtesan intellectuals.

    2. He’s been in that post for seven years.

    3. The Institute also discontinued issue of Studies of Burke and His Time, conveying it to another agency.

  22. roulade says:

    You falsely accuse Long of using run-on sentences. Instead you might critique him for a style akin to “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.”

  23. Bill says:

    So, for the purpose of sharpening the issue let’s assume you are the President of ISI and it appears that one of ISI’s members is, voluntarily, becoming increasingly identified with a movement to … legalize the torture of puppies. Or pedophilia.

    Let’s take for granted that pedophilia is a lot like belief in HBD. Can you think of some left wing organizations which have these sorts of two-degrees-of-separation rules for, say, Roman Polanski? Or for members of NAMBLA? Or Harvey Milk? Like, if you have a friend who says nice things about Harvey Milk, you can’t be a member of our organization.

    There aren’t any, of course. That’s because the left is fundamentally serious, and the “right” is fundamentally a bad joke. In fact, they are a joke in such poor taste that they go around bragging and preening over how enthusiastically they purge anyone who is guilty of actually being right wing.

    Gottfried is not arguing that ISI has made some kind of mistake in pursuing its goals. He is arguing that ISI, whatever it is, is not on the side of the angels. That it does not see real conservatives of any stripe as its allies. That could be relevant to Gottfried’s readers if, say, they are considering reading something put out by ISI or making a contribution . . .

    • Replies: @TomB
    , @vinteuil
  24. Read what Gottfried has to say about Modern Age and then tell me you still don’t understand why Gottfried never gets the breaks. Perpetual malcontent always convinced of his own superiority from his office at a third tier regional college. If Gottfried is truly convinced they had it out for him than nothing would be worse than this cloying monument to self pity.

  25. TomB says:

    Hi Bill:

    Great comment: You knocked me off my position at first in fact.

    That is, that was a great point about (modern) left-wing organizations seeming to have lots more guts than conservative ones when it comes to stuff like this because, in general, it sure seems to have a whole lotta validity and again in general we are totally of the same mind concerning the phenomenon.

    However, upon thinking on it a bit more we *are* talking a specific instance here, with ISI seeming to me at least to not be just a general-interest (conservative) organization but instead one with a far tighter and more focused mission and purpose.

    So and again, since you accept the rough equivalence between HBD and pedophilia, I’d ask again: What if you were the President of ISI and one of your members seemed to voluntarily becoming identified with the pro-pedophilia movement?

    Seems to me if you were the President you’d cut that person loose, but only because your organization is *not* devoted to just furthering the cause of conservatism generally.

    In other words, ISI seems to me to be in a completely different boat than, say, a Heritage, or some general-interest conservative publication.

    Making distinctions is what thinking is all about and most thinking accepts that the general ought give way to the specific and I think that’s what ought to govern here.

    And in this regard let make yet a further stab at persuading you by noting a pragmatic point in addition to the ones more of principle that I’ve tried to make:

    I.e., again, specifically, ISI appears to be an organization that not only seems to be focused pretty tightly on promoting some pretty non-general conservative beliefs—beliefs that are however very foundational and thus not only well removed from the HBD issue but are also oh-so-important—but is also trying to do that important job right smack dab in the middle of the *very* difficult environment for conservatism that is the modern university.

    So … doesn’t it makes sense to cut it a bit of slack due to this too? What seems a good (and narrow) organization doing its good work on a very tough and yet supremely important playing field?

    Or must we be purer than Caesar’s wife and demand—very possibly to their demise—that every conservative organization stand associated with all the views of every generally conservative name that wants to sign up with same, even if we recognize the pickle they are in has *nothing* to do with their own making which is the well-known one of the public’s understanding of an issue just not keeping up with what modern science seems to be telling us?

    If the ISI had chunked the Professor for almost any other conservative orthodoxy he is associated with I’d be on his side here in a heartbeat whacking ISI. But in the first place I don’t think (and certainly hope) that HBD has *not* become an article of conservative orthodoxy yet (it still being way too early for that scientifically I think), and in the second even if it were it’s an especially inflammatory one too perhaps putting it in its own special category.

    Gottfried’s got nothing whatsoever to feel dishonored at: By definition feeling he’s right so far as he has gone on the HBD business, it’s the public that’s behind the curve of the science that has persuaded him as far as it has, that’s all. Nothing wrong with accepting that, and acknowledging that others might not yet find same their cup of tea right now.

  26. TomB says:


    And, spurred by your comment, I went and looked up the WIKI on NAMBLA, and so as to be fair it should be noted that many many “Lefty”-type organizations and etc. concerned with sexual issues (GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign and other biggies) have repudiated it really resoundingly, have kicked it off from some previous associations with it that NAMBLA had initially managed, and etc., etc.


    Gotta give credit where credit is due (damnit!), even if I still think your point still holds in general about liberal org.s having far more guts than conservative ones.

    • Replies: @Bill
  27. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Dear Sam Haysom,

    Did you reach sexual climax when finished your post #24?

  28. Eric says:

    Yes “Judeo-Christian” is a quite recent popular phrase.
    I’m not sure how synchronized it is with the popularization of CE instead of AD, but AD did not mean after death.
    It means Anno Domini (in the year of our lord).
    Otherwise how would you deal with the 30ish-year gap in the calendar that Jesus supposedly lived?

  29. @Hepp

    Paul is not saying, and has never said, that any “conservative,” whether genuine or otherwise, MUST speak to biological accounts, or any accounts, of IQ differences between individuals and groups. PAUL very rarely speaks to this issue. His point is that no one, and least of all someone, like himself, who has spent decades associated with ISI, should be dumped just by virtue of HAVING FRIENDS who endorse hereditarianism.

  30. Galtonian says:

    The key difference between the political Right and Left is belief in EQUALITY. This is the subject of a recent essay by Jim Goad in Taki Mag on 08/11/2014.

    There is only one real political question: Are people equal or not?

    All political distinctions—whether left or right, individualistic or collectivist, libertarian or totalitarian—depend on how you answer that question. It strikes right at the root. Everything else is a distraction.

    If you start with the premise that people are equal, then disparities in income and intelligence between groups will be blamed on the phantom demon known as “injustice,” and all your political energies will be spent trying to, as the tiresome saying goes, “level the playing field.”

    There are two major categories of social inequality that leftists are troubled by:

    1) Socioeconomic class inequality; the leftist Marxist socialism movement is devoted to eliminating socioeconomic class inequality.

    2) Ethnoracial group inequality; the leftist Boasian anti-racism movement is devoted to eliminating ethnoracial group inequality.

    Now along comes a resurgence of Darwinism and Behavioral Genetics/Sociobiology which is saying that children of more affluent people tend to be innately smarter than children of welfare mothers and that Jewish, Asian, and White children tend to be innately smarter than Black, Hispanic, and Native American children. This of course is a horrifying affront to most modern Western intellectuals.

    Modern Western social moral viewpoints stem from Christianity which tends to be very Left-wing in its underlying messages. Now that most rational intelligent educated Western people no longer believe in the conventional religious doctrines of supernatural hocus pocus involving a magical God and the virgin birth of Christ etc. they have now replaced their theistic religion with a belief in EQUALITY. This new secular religion views RACISM as the most evil sin of all (far worse than CLASSISM which is only slightly sinful).

    As historians on both the Left (e.g. see David Hollinger’s book After Cloven Tongues of Fire: Protestant Liberalism in Modern American History) and the Right (e.g. see Paul Gottfried’s book Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy ) have noted, modern Western intellectuals have replaced their prior beliefs in the theistic doctrines of liberal Judaism and Protestantism with a quasi-religious belief in the doctrine of human EQUALITY–especially in terms of denying the existence of any important innate differences between ethnoracial groups (this is often couched in terms of believing in “Equality” or “Multiculturalism” or “Diversity”). According to this widely held new secular religion, the very worst possible sin is to be identified as a RACIST. Therefore if someone is found to have expressed blasphemous racist viewpoints, then these evil heretics are to be denounced and expelled from the upstanding righteous society of egalitarian believers.

    Many race realists like Nicholas Wade, Charles Murray, and the late Arthur Jensen take great umbrage at being labeled as “RACIST”. However, although I agree with the truth claims that the race realists espouse (i.e. that the different racial and ethnic groups show reasonably compelling evidence for innate group differences in intelligence and various other mental and physical traits and abilities), I disagree that they can espouse these views and still claim to remain nonracist persons.

    Please consider carefully these very similar definitions for “RACISM” cited from three major dictionaries:

    Webster’s College Dictionary-

    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.

    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based on such a doctrine.

    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

    American Heritage Dictionary-

    1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

    Collins English Dictionary-

    1. (Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

    2. (Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

    Notice that the first definitions cited in all three major dictionaries state that one is a racist if one merely believes that observed racial differences in abilities or cultural characteristics are mainly due to inherent or hereditary causes.

    Some race realists may quibble that even though they believe that some ethnoracial groups are innately more intelligent and therefore more economically prosperous, that nevertheless that should not be misconstrued as saying that they believe that some groups are superior–BUT PLEASE this is so disingenuous, who really thinks that being smarter and richer is not superior to being dumber and poorer??

    I and other race realists believe that the empirical evidence quite strongly indicates that the above dictionary definitions listed under “1.” are true. Therefore in that regard race realists including myself, Nicholas Wade, John Derbyshire, Charles Murray, Henry Harpending, Gregory Cochran, Jason Richwine, and Arthur Jensen should all be considered to be “RACISTS” as defined by these three major dictionaries.

    So in summary, in order for us to be a true right wing conservatives who believe in HBD, we are indeed somewhat RACIST, and perhaps we need to acknowledge that fact.

    • Replies: @Bill
  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Dear Galt#31,

    Is it a wise move to accept the “FRAME” of the ANTI – R E A L I T Y party?

    Visit the Cheateau where pretty lies die for futher hints.

  32. viking says:

    It took 20 years for The Bell Curves implication to really sink in for me. I was a sort of neo con libertarian constitutionalist. I was big on how the nanny state destroyed peoples character particularly minorities, just think how it would all be solved if we just stopped coddling bad behavior. Sure I got that Murrays argument was genetic and growing up a NYC ghetto kid, but in a gifted family genetic IQ was a no brainier, in fact all sorts of genetic behaviors are second nature to any new yorker.But some how I think I just couldn’t let myself face the implications.
    It was the Trayvon Martin case that got me wondering exactly what the word racist had come to mean since the 60s it was morphing and at that point it went past a point I could no longer ignore.I realized it used to mean hatred based on racial difference, we used to gloss over difference and point out stereotypes dont apply to individuals.But now we seem to say stereotypes are not at all true. I went back to the IQ research and realized that it had progressed quite a bit since bell curve and even though i had followed its critics i saw none had laid a glove on murray and herstein in fact gould had destroyed his career fabricating lies. As I pondered the implications of Black and Hispanic IQs averaging 85 and the massive American population replacement with Mexican African and Caribbean immigration I got really mentally ill for months I kept thinking this is madness what can they be thinking they must know the truth even if they dont want to talk about it in fact their policies scream that they indeed know the truth but then why why why and what what what can be done. I pulled through I dont have answers but Im no longer a conservative or rather I see now there is very little difference between the democrats and republicans between national review and salon that National is just a few news cycles behind. It may be true that real conservatism isnt palatable to today’s citizens but truth is truth and we are committing national and racial suicide and if we go under the third world will not be better off they will die in a murderous …. but I digress.
    What I am trying to say in a round about way. is If you really think about it racial IQ difference for instance and sadly we are now learning its only the tip of the iceberg things like aggression, future time orientation, trust of non kin, child rearing promiscuity and thousands of other traits not just physical and mental but what we thought of as culture is in reality genetic. its now scientific fact that its not a question of nature vs nurture rather ones culture itself is a gene expression and at the same time an environment in an never ending feedback loop. which means you can not transplant democracy to the most inbred of tribal societies the Muslim because they are bred to mistrust strangers and assume strangers will not do right by them. you can not train hunter gatherers to be less aggressive or have Puritan sexual mores. and a 85 IQ is really really low and pure bred Africans which we are also encouraging to immigrate are below 70!
    So how can an organization founded to promote Christian and American values have someone who believes All Men are not Created Equal- they are evolved differently associated with them. How can we ever have a country thats free and egalitarian when its members need constraining and supporting at vastly different energies. the equality can only come from taking by force and to justify this both sides are told this absurdly irrational mostly fabricated and completely non contextual tale of oppression. We are fast approaching a point where whites will be a minority in all the white homelands and will be engulfed by an incited simplistic aggressive people. we are also fast approaching a time when very little labor of any kind will be needed unskilled labor will be nonexistent and of course theres 800 trillion in credit default swaps and 200 trillion in debt so I dont know what they can be thinking but crtainly the implications of HBD mean democracy and Christianity are inherently leftist propositions.

    • Replies: @TomB
  33. Handle says: • Website

    Prof. Gottfried,

    I have added your expulsion from ISI to my, alas, growing list of purged thought-criminals.

  34. TomB says:

    With all due respect, viking, it seems to me your comment here encapsulates so much of what I find so worrisome and indeed dubious about what I see as the HBD enthusiasm and why, contrary to you (again with all due respect) I hope that it is not anywhere near to becoming part of conservative orthodoxy. And thus while I realize this really belongs more in an HBD thread, I can’t help but responding to it anyway.

    For one, I can’t help but see the parallels in your description of the effect the HBD issue has had upon you with so many other intellectual enthusiasms throughout history, including especially those that perceive themselves to have been based on the authority of science.

    That is, the story has just been so much the same time and again: Some Big Idea comes along whose intricacies if not convolutions lends it so much intrigue, and its very vagueness lends itself utterly unreasonably not to doubt but instead to promises of universal, complete Big Answers, and wham, it’s got it’s ever fiercer acolytes. Seeing what seems the promise of great, quick single strides forward in human affairs—nevermind the extreme paucity if not utter lack of same in human history—as being ignored or frustrated not so much by the reasonable modesty of others but by corruption and stupidity and etc., etc.

    And then there’s the trajectory of this HBD business in so following that pattern: There’s the early work announcing the intriguing possibilities of The Idea, the smarter the person the earlier they become intrigued if not entranced, and then the further work only seems to lend all that promise ever more validity, and then, quite contrary to science especially in terms of what it requires in the way of real proof-enough of something, comes the fixed belief and even certainty of it being The Answer to The Problem.

    And then comes the slow wait and procession of history eventually showing that while The Idea certainly may have some validity and certainly may play a part in The Problem that ails humanity, it’s clearly only a part, and in retrospect and as more is learned about other things, with even that part getting smaller and smaller.

    Moreover, there is also then what seems the characteristic seizure of The Idea’s partisans on some indubitable part of it—which itself forms so much of its attractiveness—but which tends to distract from asking whether The Problem doesn’t have more components than that small indubitable bit.

    Accordingly, to me at least what I see is that this HBD enthusiasm is just about in the early-middle stage of all this. We’ve had the intriguing early work. It’s scientific. And we’ve now had quite a bit more such work—ever more exciting and certainly already producing some fairly indubitable bits—and despite the whole thing *being* science the excitement and promise over it overcomes the grim reality of true science that … “proof-enough” of what can seem the most obvious thing just simply takes a long long time.

    So we now are pretty certain we know certain things concerning HBD, and I don’t gainsay many even if they are just statistical in nature. But then there’s our natural impatience, coupled with our short life-spans and thus our short time-frames, for seeing Big, Immediate Answers to Big Problems, and the urge to extrapolate, to use what we know to explain, and boy is it ever satisfying even if we have to admit its really just speculation.

    Yes, that is, it seems indubitable that there’s a large genetic component to intelligence. And yes there’s lots of statistical correlations between intelligence and all kinds of outcomes. So far. In our past contexts and circumstances with all their ever-changing features and characteristics. But this is not nearly consideration enough of all the other non-indubitouble parts of The Problem, many of which seem impossible to ever link up.

    Thus, for instance, one severely doubts that there will ever be shown a gene for what strikes me at least as perhaps the biggest component of The Problem which is just simply “responsibility.”

    Nor a gene for “law-abidingness.” Or “modesty.” Or “self-sacrifice.” Or a dozen others.

    Indeed, it seems to me, how come it seems to me the HBD enthusiasts never seem to devote much attention to what strikes me as a just simply a huge, glaring problem with any ideas they have about the promise of “HBD thinking” in solving Big Social Problems which is the incredible and indeed breath-taking *irresponsibility* and law-breaking and greed and the most naked self-serving of our elites? Many of whom are indeed our intellectual elites?

    My Goodness, that is, here we see people talking HBD in the context of this Missouri business, when all *it* involved was some shoplifting at first and then apparently some lack of impulse control.

    Compare those sorts of problems—as non-trivial as they may be in the aggregate—with what strikes me at least as an almost totally out-of-control elite we now have, both financial and political. Where the grossest irresponsibility and law-breaking and self-servingness can be seen on an almost daily basis, concerning matters of even the gravest import. Politicians having the power of life and death over the men and women of our armed forces … making decisions about same totally and blatantly out of mere concern for their reelection monies? Throwing trillions upon *trillions* of taxpayer dollars at bankers who practiced the most reckless behavior imaginable, to the point perhaps of endangering the fundamental economic health of the country for decades to come? Utterly complicit in utterly destroying our once fantastic manufacturing base and sending it off to our competitors all for the sake of some campaign contributions?

    Or, for further examples, our *specifically* intellectual elites in our universities, inflicting speech codes, dumbing down standards, creating degrees in pathetic subject matters… In short, seemingly willing if not eager to see the destruction of age-old Western intellectual values and beliefs…

    These then *are* our intellectual elites. Your HBD elites.

    And thus, as simple-minded as it sounds, it also sounds only natural and valid to ask those HBD believers who seem to believe that “fixing” things involves favoring intelligence … is what society is already getting from our intellectual elites *really* what you want more of?

    Because—using the same kind of “already observable evidence” as other HBD propositions use—it sure as hell can seem that the evidence we see now about what kind of society intellectual elites would impose upon us has got it’s serious, serious, fundamental problems. Easily arguable as way worse than … chronic joblessness and drug use and personal irresponsibility in terms of familial and parental matters and low-and-even-violent-level crime and etc. *Fundamental* problems involving issues implicating society-wide embraces of lawlessness and nihilism and anarchism even.

    Just my .o2 cents, but like I say, I think it’s a big big mistake to start trying to make even the most basic HBD belief into conservative orthodoxy at this point. The issues are just so complex, and, in scientific terms indeed the field is just so new, that nobody can know the utterly unforeseen discoveries that almost certainly are going to turn up and then so significantly turn what we think we know to such ash that the true intellectual approach at this time seems to me to be nothing less than what it always should be, which is intellectual *modesty.*

    • Replies: @Bill
    , @viking
  35. Dain says: • Website

    “I think it’s a big big mistake to start trying to make even the most basic HBD belief into conservative orthodoxy at this point.”

    I think basic HBD beliefs are about the best going for conservatives who hope to have any intellectual credibility. I’ve found them to be based on far more solid evidence than e.g. Austrian economics, natural rights, and all this other mystical business that used to distract me.

    Viking’s problem was letting it occupy his mind to the point of mental illness. Good grief! If that’s the case yes, lay off reading about social science.

    • Replies: @TomB
  36. The Grate Deign [AKA "Bro. Steve"] says:
    @Aaron Gross


    I believe you’re correct that avoiding this debate is tactically shrewd for ISI. For now. The point I’m taking from the article is that the need for such tactics shows how much of conservatism has already been co-opted by the presuppositions of the institutional left. If you don’t embrace their speech codes and share their taboos, then you have no “respect” or “credibility” or whatever.

    The teachable moment for conservatives and libertarians (and any other labels applied to people who can think for themselves) should be that once you grant the left its presuppositions, you’ve lost already lost every future debate worth having. All they have to do is extend the logical consequences of their presuppositions to the next issue, and the next, and the next. They enforce each move by the same artifice of threatening to withdraw the sheen of academic respectability if you don’t comply.

    And this is why, year after year for all of my 56 years, the culture drifts inexorably to the left with all its lawlessness and immorality dripping along behind like trash juice from an overloaded garbage scow.

  37. TomB says:


    I think basic HBD beliefs are about the best going for conservatives who hope to have any intellectual credibility.

    I understand where you are coming from, Dain (all the “solid evidence” you note), but would ask … to what *political* end? To what *political* purpose?

    Or, even more pointedly, ask to what political end or purpose that’s *worth* it?

    Seems to me at the present state of knowledge (which I don’t think will change significantly for some time) it’s something best left in the realm of beliefs like those having to do with … the Laws of Thermodynamics, or the Big Bang, or the reality of quantum phenomena.

    I.e., beliefs about which one may well hinge judgments of others broadness or sophistication or even intelligence, but nothing about which defines one *politically.*

    The more minor problem of doing otherwise is perhaps seeing the rise of a movement to require all “true conservatives” to sign onto HBD.

    And the bigger problem is the branding of all conservatives with that belief.

    A proposition which, in a democracy that has an audience of everyone, might seem almost a political suicide wish given its nature.

  38. Bill says:

    Thanks. But it’s not disassociating from NAMBLA, the parallel is disassociating with people who have friends in NAMBLA. Witch hunts like that just don’t happen.

    If I were president of ISI (haha), I would have done just what they did. And I would disassociate myself from each and every kind of modern leper. And out to whatever degree of separation the mutants signing my paycheck demanded. And I would do this in the sure knowledge that no organization on the left would ever even be asked to do the same.

    But that’s kind of my point. The equilibrium right now requires all organizations on the “right” to do this kind of thing. There is no prospect of that equilibrium going away unless all real rightists cease supporting organizations (including the GOP) on the “right.”

    The legitimate anger on the right at their organizations’ endless betrayals is ridiculously misdirected at present, into insane stuff like the Tea Party. The consequence of letting our evil elite set the agenda is that even when a popular protest movement arises, its demands are “MORE, MORE, MORE OF THE SAME!!!! WHY WON”T YOU GIVE US MORE OF THE SAME!”

    So, my point is that ISI should go the way of the Reason Foundation. Just let it be the memberless astroturf it so clearly wants to be.

    • Replies: @TomB
  39. Bill says:

    Just my .o2 cents, but like I say, I think it’s a big big mistake to start trying to make even the most basic HBD belief into conservative orthodoxy at this point. The issues are just so complex, and, in scientific terms indeed the field is just so new, that nobody can know the utterly unforeseen discoveries that almost certainly are going to turn up and then so significantly turn what we think we know to such ash that the true intellectual approach at this time seems to me to be nothing less than what it always should be, which is intellectual *modesty.*

    The intellectually modest position is that ethnic groups differ intrinsically and that segregation is usually good. That’s what everyone has always believed. Your whole discussion would be fine as a critique of the standard social science method (which entails assuming human biological uniformity). That really is a new, bizarre, and totalizing ideology which has bred an army of cretinous, table-pounding, aspiring secret policemen.

    And thus, as simple-minded as it sounds, it also sounds only natural and valid to ask those HBD believers who seem to believe that “fixing” things involves favoring intelligence … is what society is already getting from our intellectual elites *really* what you want more of?

    That is an excellent, excellent point. Everything would be fine if only we go from the most meritocratic society ever to the most meritocratic society imaginable. Insane. Intellectual elites have turned out to be terrible political elites. The Communists were pretty damn smart, too.

  40. Bill says:

    The key difference between the political Right and Left is belief in EQUALITY.

    Sure. But this distinction places libertarians where they belong, on the far left. Libertarians demand perfectly equal freedoms and perfect equality before the law. In fact, these are fetish objects for them. The whole equality before the law vs equality of outcomes debate is a debate within the left. Proto-socialists and proto-libertarians sat together on the left side of the Estates General, facing off against those mean guardians of hierarchy, authority, and privilege.

    The idea that it is a social good to grant some IQ 70 guy with poor impulse control the same freedoms and standing before the law as someone at the other end of those distributions is loony. It’s the kind of thing that only the most the most ideologically purblind fool could countenance. Not only is it a bad idea, it isn’t even possible, except in a narrow, autistic sense.

  41. Priss Factor [AKA "Andrea Ostrov Letania"] says:

    “The key difference between the political Right and Left is belief in EQUALITY.”

    Well, that used to be the case, but it’s no longer the case.

    With Clinton and Blair, the Liberals totally embraced hierarchy. I mean does anyone really think all those affluent, successful, and privileged ‘progressives’ in NY, San Fran, Los Angeles, Harvard, Yale, London, and etc. really want to be equal with the rest of us?

    ‘Equality’ is a cult used by the rich and powerful to guard their wealth, power, and privilege, just like European elites used Christianity to justify their own hierarchical powers… and just like how the elites in Cuba and North Korea yammer the same old commie egalitarian crap to justify their own power and privilege.

    Boomer radicals in the 60s and 70s may have been more idealistic, but they grew up. And as some of them became the new elites and began to rake in millions and even billions, they gave up on the whole equality thing. But the best way to ‘hide’ your wealth and power is to yammer endlessly about ‘equality’. I mean if some rich Liberal is making so much noise about the need for ‘equality’, maybe he or she’s on the side of the People! Maybe he or she will use his or her wealth for the Good of the people. Yeah, whatever. Warren Buffet and George Soros seem to getting richer to me. Carlos Slim too, despite his stake in ‘leftist’ New York Times.

    So, I disagree that the left won. Sure, former leftists won, but they are no longer true leftists.
    And stuff like the homo agenda is NOT leftist. It is the favored cause of the 1% on Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and etc. And why? It replaces class warfare with ass worship. When the masses are made to worship the asses of homos who are allied with the rich classes of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, what does it do for equality?
    Or even for diversity? If the elites hire white homos and then claim to have fulfilled their ‘diversity’ obligations, then what does it do for blacks and browns? Indeed, isn’t this the shtick of Silicon Valley? “Hey, we got all these homos(who are mostly white, Jewish, or Asian), so we are DIVERSE!”

  42. vinteuil says: • Website

    @ TomB

    “I hope that [HBD enthusiasm] is not anywhere near to becoming part of conservative orthodoxy.”

    Rest easy, TomB, rest easy. The whole point of Paul Gottfried’s post is that what passes for conservative orthodoxy today (i.e., the orthodoxy of “movement conservatism,” aka “conservatism inc.”) cannot even *tolerate* HBD *tolerance* – let alone HBD *enthusiasm*.

    I’m very far from having read everything Paul Gottfried has written, but, so far as I can tell, he shows no signs of “HBD enthusiasm.” Biology & anthropology just aren’t his bailiwick. But he *is* willing to *associate* with HBD enthusiasts, to the extent of posting here and at TakiMag – and that’s all it took to get him shunned by people who, at first glance, anyway, owed him at a least a little bit of loyalty.

    I pass over in embarrassed-for-you silence the rest of your…thoughts.

    • Replies: @TomB
  43. vinteuil says: • Website

    @Aaron Gross

    “The ISI is not arguing against the hereditarian position, it’s just refusing to take any position on that controversial topic at all.”

    No, Aaron. They’re doing way more than that. They’re shunning a distinguished scholar with whom they’ve had a long standing friendly relationship because he’s willing to keep cyberspace company with the likes of Steve Sailer & John Derbyshire.

    “I think that’s a wise approach – for them.”

    Well, possibly – if wisdom consists in maximizing one’s income stream.

    “Political movements need both kinds of organization. They need hard-core groups like the HL Mencken club, and they need soft-core organizations like the ISI. And the two kinds of organization have to be kept separate.”

    Really? Seriously? You think there is a single “political movement” with the HL Mencken club as the hard-core & ISI as the soft-core?

    So what is the nature, and what are the goals, of this “political movement” of which you speak?

  44. TomB says:

    , apropos of what I wrote concerning HBD, commented:

    I pass over in embarrassed-for-you silence the rest of your…thoughts.

    And … there it is. Word for word *precisely* as I above described the situation you see when you have these Big New Ideas come along with their over-enthusiastic believers: Unable to understand “the reasonable modesty of others” by their belief in their own obvious soaring superiority, all they can see in others who don’t share their enthusiasm is “corruption and stupidity…”

    You couldn’t have given better evidence of my concern that just as it has been through history with all its other Big Ideas, HBD has become no different, with its most passionate and supposedly oh-so sophisticated believers ignorantly not even realizing the age-old hubris they are reenacting.

    Sophisticated my ass.

    (And this is the sort of fellow HBD believers want associating with? Good luck with that.)

  45. viking says:

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply however I think perhaps you are giving short shrift to HBD you realize its evolution we are talking about not some decade old fad. it seems theres a lot of people that have no trouble deriding a christian as an idiot and in the next breath declare all men are created equal. men are subject to the same evolutionary laws as the rest of the lifeforms. that includes their brains their temperaments their habits of mating socializing etc. hardcore is if you count the actual genes sequences etc and judged them the same as you would an endangered species we humans are really separate species we are very very very very different in so many ways yes on average yes the margins blur yes yes yes but no no non no to Lewontins Fallacy and the Flynn effect they are irrelevant red herrings. So you concede the IQ gap no doubt you know whites are in the middle but I say its truly disturbing news and the end of the multicultural experiment because you really have to look at the shape of the curves play with the numbers to see how utterly awful it is. I wont get into those figures they terrify people.
    But you dont seem to concede as you say

    Thus, for instance, one severely doubts that there will ever be shown a gene for what strikes me at least as perhaps the biggest component of The Problem which is just simply “responsibility.”
    Nor a gene for “law-abidingness.” Or “modesty.” Or “self-sacrifice.” Or a dozen others.

    actually there has been a lot of work on this type of thing first you must understand we have identified the heritability of these and hundreds of other such behaviors in animals we even breed animals for such things. but since EO Wilsons seminal work on ants and the follow up “on human Nature” the fields of evolutionary biology and a dozen related fields have been hammering away producing a body of work under the radar of the thought police and sure they will not challenge the ministry of truth head on but scientist to scientist they know the score the examples you mention are really easy low hanging fruit you would be astounded at whats being worked out and it is only a matter of a decade before the actual sequences will be identified.
    I disagree that HBD enthusiasts are big on intelligence it may be the most talked about subject because its been the most lied about by the Cathedral, and because it undermines the very foundation of progressivism . The two bloggers who are most accessible to a non scientist are HBD chick and Jmans blogs they will link you to all the peer reviewed work you can handle hes black shes a chick both are liberal. Your point about the elites is actually something the Dark Enlightenment talks about a lot why are they self destructive of their own people, the HBD answer in a word is status which is a huge deal for primates. think of BoBos as Bonobos.

    My Goodness, that is, here we see people talking HBD in the context of this Missouri business, when all *it* involved was some shoplifting at first and then apparently some lack of impulse control.
    HMMM maybe youre actually trolling me huh?
    The Missouri thing is an attempt by some self hating white elites to find that mythical beast the white racist criminal as Tom Wolfe put it in the Bonfire of the Vanities -the great white defendent, but as in his book all the ambitious prosecutors could ever find was ” another piece of shit case” where minorities act like they do.
    Trayvon Martin and this Idiot are both typical minority thugs low level criminals with violent tempers low future time orientation, no impulse control low IQ high self esteem – yeah so I agree with you and thats why they both died they tried that shit on people willing to defend themselves. now I dont doubt you would have let them kick the crap out of you then found a away to blame yourself and your fellow whites, but I would have shot them both dead with my licensed pistol because I understand it needs to be done or evil will reign and so I take the responsibility
    not sure where youre going with this my HBD elites- they are the enemies of my race so ivy legue degree aside they are not mine and as I said I dont nor do other HBD ers generally want an intellectual elite state intelligence reverts to the racial mean so joe and jane sixpack are liklier to produce the next bill gates than bill and melinda are oh sure they will have brighter than average kids and less bright grandkids but the sheer numbers of proles will statistically throw many more Im for a state that allows for whites to have the security and dignity they require for familly formation. massive third world immigration not only undermines their wages raise the cost of ther homes but the monstrous debt of this nation is entirely the result of the costs of diversity trillions a year are lost in productivity lawsuits fraud welfare law enforcement etc that money and the efficiency of a state ethnically the same as 50 years ago and we would light years ahead of where we are now, so no Im not into the clintons obamas zuckerbergs etc i hope when it all collapses the are duly hung. however if you are hinting the fault is capitalism we have nothing t say on that matter free markets are like evolution they reveal hard truths. The banks were forced to make loans to minorities with bad credit and the govt lowered its loan buying standards to facilitate the shakedown the crash was the result more diversity debt. lending is not predatory if you are given a contract to read and sign if you are saying they were too stupid and bad credit to have gotten loan i agree tell your little plan to obama see if you dont end up water boarded.
    Oh by the way its not conservative orthodoxy which was the point of my post to Gottfried if you grok HBD you understand democracy is a leftist proposition so is Christianity so is all men are created equal so We of The Dark Enlightenment are not conservatives we detest republicans and libertarians because they lend legitimacy and support to progressivism. Reactionary perhaps monarchists some Fascists others Patriarchs to a man may are techno futurists many are trying to hammer out a new way entirely, personally I dont think multiculturalism can work I think everyone would be better off in their own countries – no im not giving the fucking indians America back but i will give mexico back its citizens born here or not. I realize its too horrible to contemplate but heres the thing what were YOU thinking when you voted to bring in 150 million hunter gatherers into a 21st century techno state on the eve of the abolition of unskilled labor? we have 800 trillion in credit default swaps a legacy of the money printing to cover up the minority shakedown of the mortgage market.and another 200 trillion in real sovereign debt and liabilities. This country and the rest of the world is going to crash into utter anarchy really soon that’s why our governments buying so much ammo. when things get tough primates get tribal it will be really truly ugly and it will be squarely on the shoulders of as you put it intellectual hubris – what were they thinking what were you thinking you progs dont seem stupid but I have no other explanation HBD says its because the catholic church forbid cousin marrige even to the 7th degree and so we became very out bred and trusting of strangers as a result which led to complex societies and economies but also to suicidal altruism. I sure dfeep down when it gets tribal you BoBo can grow a pair and stand your ground.

    • Replies: @TomB
  46. TomB says:


    my point is that ISI should go the way of the Reason Foundation. Just let it be the memberless astroturf it so clearly wants to be.

    I just don’t understand how you don’t see a difference not only in principle but then especially pragmatically between the two what with ISI doing its work exclusively in that very difficult academic enivronment, but then that’s what makes for respectful differences of opinion, doesn’t it?


  47. Priss Factor [AKA "Andrea Ostrov Letania"] says:

    The homo agenda is the appropriation of leftism by the elites.

  48. Bruce says:

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think of Gottfried as an “HDB’r.” I think he once referred to Sailer-ism as “bio-centric yuppie-ism”

  49. TomB says:

    Absolutely not trolling you in the least, viking, and appreciated hearing your further perspective here too.

  50. *sigh*
    i’m afraid i’m too intellectually disadvantaged to understand the animus (and it is) behind those who beat the drums concerning the IQ of ‘races’ (no such thing, we’re all the same dog, only the pure-bred (mostly white) poodles want you to know they are NOT mutts, and their shit don’t stink like yours does)…
    arguendo (oh, screw you spel czech), there is some valid ‘ranking’ of the IQ of the ‘races’…
    (nevermind that the differences can be minimal if not statistically insignificant…)
    so what ? ? ?
    are we electing a master race based on IQ ? did i miss that announcement ?
    it seems no more or less interesting than predominant eye or hair color; again, so what ?
    as per usual, there is FAR MORE variation among individuals than among ‘races’, um, what does that tell you ?
    what it tells me, is that closet eugenicists might want to be careful where they tread, as they may find themselves on the wrong side of the IQ cutoff where you will be euthanized (and screw you again, spel czech)…
    finally, AS IF this world were one where IQ/intelligence (similar, but NOT the same) were some unalloyed benefit in a world gone crazy… no, the ‘correct’ trait to select for in this upside-down world is psychopathy, THAT will get you ahead in THIS world, mein gut freund…
    and guess what, that is EXACTLY what has/is happening: the psychopaths become the rulers, and the sheeple are led to slaughter…
    IQ ain’t got poo poo to do with that…

  51. vinteuil says: • Website

    @art guerilla:

    Not since Paris in ’68 have I encountered insights as brilliant as yours!

    “…there is FAR MORE variation among individuals than among ‘races’, um, what does that tell you ?”

    It tells me that you don’t know that Lewontin’s fallacy is a fallacy.

  52. vinteuil says: • Website

    @TomB : Since you only object (at remarkable length) to the last line of my earlier post to you, I take it that you accept the truth of everything else I wrote? I can live with that.

  53. vinteuil says: • Website

    “Gottfried is not arguing that ISI has made some kind of mistake in pursuing its goals. He is arguing that ISI, whatever it is, is not on the side of the angels. That it does not see real conservatives of any stripe as its allies. That could be relevant to Gottfried’s readers if, say, they are considering reading something put out by ISI or making a contribution . . .”

    Precisely so. That is his point. And he’s absolutely right.

  54. Dain says: • Website

    @viking, @TomB

    Relevant to this discussion:

    HBD can just as easily lead to progressive policies as conservative ones. (How this is all mediated by the journalist class, however, could determine much.)

    The above means conservatives incorporating HBD may not be as politically poisonous as Viking suggests. Ron Unz for example came out for the minimum wage, but not exactly for progressive reasons. This wasn’t revealed for the most part by the media, who thought he was pretty cool for bucking the mainstream right on the issue.

  55. Dain says: • Website

    …correction, RAISING the minimum wage.

  56. Oh, good grief: why is anyone here paying the least bit of attention to “TomB” or his moronic rantings? Don’t you folks realize when you’re being Concerned Trolled?

  57. Conservative organizations have done similar things to HBD scholars but it is not necessarily because of mere discussion of IQ disparities between ethnic groups. Everyone knows there are IQ disparities. Who doesn’t know that Asians have greater IQ scores than whites for example or blacks lower? This fact has been booted about popular culture for decades. It is no secret. Everyone knows. There is no need to “muzzle” anyone. The central issues relate not to the fact of disparities but the relative weights of environment versus genetic causes, along with various other technical issues. The issue is complex. What conservative organizations are wary about is the simplistic claims emanating from many HBDers, announced so often with evangelical certainty as if only they have discovered “the truth.”

    Is it really “the truth” that “evolution” circa 40,000BC “selected” for “Caucasoids” that would in say 1982 yield a particular IQ score? How come scholars see some Cro-magnon “Caucasoids” in that ancient era (Holliday 2010, Trinkhaus 2005et al) as more like today’s Africans, based on their tropical limb indices or cranial data rather than today’s white Europeans? What happened to the alleged ‘Caucasoid” “evolution?” Or others that dismiss the “truth” using hard data as “anthropological folklore”? (Brace 2005). Is it really “the truth” that testosterone is responsible for the alleged “tendency” for blacks to be violence, but somehow, conveniently mysteriously exempts lower testosterone whites and Asians like Adolf Hitler, or Ghenghis Khan, whose body counts number in the tens of millions? Conservative organizations have been blindsided time and time again by dubious HBD claims that undermine their credibility. Even worse is when these claims are advanced with such fervor and turn out to be not all they were advertised to be, and gave liberals a enjoyable field day of mockery and criticism.

    Conservative organizations are also wary of the racist wing of HBD, which is not far away from more polite venues, formats and spokesmen. Time and time again they have been embarrassed by people they have supported and committed to, and racist wing-nuts come out of the closet either directly or by clear association. Again, over and above the specific personality, the embarrassment was a joy to liberals who exploited it to the hilt. On top of all this is the personal conduct of HBD sympathizers and supporters. Pundit Dinesh Dsouza while hailed as a defender of Christian morality, self-destructed as president of conservative Kings College by what appeared to be an adulterous relationship for example.

    Claims of “political correctness” or “persecution” wear thin and appear increasingly self-serving when conservative entities keep taking multiple hits and embarassments on these counts.

    • Replies: @TomB
    , @Galtonian
  58. The problem with the IQ issue is that it is overtly political; that is, there’s an ulterior motive, especially evident when promoted in political venues. Because after all, politics is about the struggle for power. As Muggeridge pithily observed, human history can be boiled down to two words: “Who, whom.” Being that man can’t escape an innate recognition or suspicion of morality, this domination of others always needs to have justification sought for it. It’s pretty easy to see that assertions of IQ inferiority or superiority inherent to a group can easily lend themselves to serving status quo power arrangements that favor the superior positions of some against others – a kind of secular, economic Calvinistic predeterminism, serving just the same purpose. There’s nothing wrong that the rich should exploit the poor – this is in the natural order of things, much like the religious argument that the poor are the cause of their own misfortune, except in this case they can’t ever reform themselves or pull themselves up by their bootstraps, because of the scientific determinism of their inferiority. Obviously, this serves political ends, whatever the science touted, ironically because so few supporters are capable of genuinely evaluating it. Thus they plump for it not out of scientific detachment, but for the personally salutary inferences for competing power relations. So the excluded can’t be blamed for distrusting those who wield science as a cudgel like this, as they seem to suffer from all the same human character deficits that afflict everyone, regardless of intelligence. Past performance is no guarantee of future results – but it’s all we have to go on, and scientism’s record has been often as dismal in its consequences as those of godlike banksters.

    You’ve got to realize, too, that no self-respecting person or persons not in the blessed “high IQ gene pool” is going to let themselves be gamed into submission by this venal practical application to power politics. By its very nature, on either side, the argument becomes political, for one’s fate in society is at stake – precisely the subject of political bickering among human beings. If you’re not willing to share, there is no common ground possible between exploiter and exploited, and no amount of invoking the modern equivalent of the divine right of aristocracy is going to ever be accepted by those given the short end of the stick. Such a future is rife with the police as occupying homeland security army to protect the perks of the privileged.

    Mr. Gottfried has my sympathy, as far as suffering guilt by association – there’s no crime in entertaining either fools or scholars, after all. And I’m no more advocate for Conservatism, Inc. than Murder, Inc. But his own use of ridicule rather than logic to pillory those with whom he has differences of political opinion, undercuts his appeal that his own position is unassailably and detachedly scientific. Instead I detect whiffs of the assertion that racism isn’t, because it’s true.

    There are other ways to organize society, than under Who, whom.

    • Replies: @Galtonian
  59. TomB says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    “Concern Troll, Concern Troll”!

  60. Galtonian says:
    @Fran Macadam

    You wrote:

    Instead I detect whiffs of the assertion that racism isn’t, because it’s true.

    Perhaps you meant to write:

    Instead I detect whiffs of the assertion that racism isn’t wrong, because it’s true.

  61. Galtonian says:
    @Enrique Cardova

    You wrote:

    Conservative organizations are also wary of the racist wing of HBD, which is not far away from more polite venues, formats and spokesmen. Time and time again they have been embarrassed by people they have supported and committed to, and racist wing-nuts come out of the closet either directly or by clear association.

    There really is no such thing as a non-racist believer in HBD. See my post above discussing the how the actual dictionary definitions of RACISM prove that all believers in HBD (AKA “race realists” or “Hereditarians” including myself, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, Will Saletan, Marty Nemko, Neven Sesardic, Steve Sailer, and John Derbyshire) are by definition RACIST in their viewpoint.

    If HBD represents the truth, then to a large extent RACISM = TRUTH.

    • Replies: @Stan D Mute
  62. “Perhaps you meant to write”

    No, Gottfried wasn’t willing to go as far as extolling racism per se, which is why even that is merely a “whiff.”

    And I’m sure not traveling that far, even though racism isn’t the underlying problem, but the outward symptom of a deeper illness of the soul.

    If racism isn’t available, there are always found other vehicles for the same animus to travel on.

    • Replies: @Galtonian
  63. Well into the 1990s, it was almost universally accepted by the scientific community, except for Stalinoid propagandist Leon Kamin and the perpetually PC Stephen Jay Gould, that human IQ varied significantly, that IQ tests could measure these differences, and that up to 85 percent of intelligence may be hereditary.

    I think it can be safely said that intelligence is 100% environmental and 100% hereditary. What’s at stake is their respective roles in explaining variation in intelligence scores. I suspect Paul, as a long-time student of this topic, is aware of the distinction, but I fear this misconception is fostered by such careless phraseology.

  64. For what it’s worth, I don’t think of Gottfried as an “HDB’r.” I think he once referred to Sailer-ism as “bio-centric yuppie-ism”

    Yes, but like Larry Auster, he couldn’t deny its potential explanatory power.

  65. Galtonian says:
    @Fran Macadam

    For your sentence “Instead I detect whiffs of the assertion that racism isn’t, because it’s true.” to make sense it needs to have some word placed between “isn’t” and the comma (i.e. racism isn’t WHAT???). Now please tell what word did you mean to place there? …or did you just wish to write an obtuse sentence that does not convey any message.

  66. “Now please tell what word did you mean to place there? ”

    I think you know I didn’t mean what you wanted – that racism is something to be proud of.

    There’s nothing wrong with the sentence except you don’t agree.

  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Poor old Frank Chodorov, founder of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, must be spinning in his grave at what has become of his baby, ISI. He established ISI as a fifty year project to reverse America’s decent into collectivism and chaos by educating intellectual leaders at campuses across the nation.

    After Frank died the militant militaristic Buckleyite “conservatives” at the helm of ISI quickly changed its name to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. No individualism for them; conformist collectivism in the guise of “conservatism” became the stentorian order of the day.

    The Old Right anti-war, anti-statist Chodorov, author of such classics as Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist, The Income Tax: Root of All Evil, and One is a Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist, once proclaimed “As for me, I will punch anyone who calls me a conservative in the nose. I am a radical.”

    Later when absorbed by the cancerous former Trotskyist neocons metastasizing their way through the institutional nexus of “conservative” foundations, public policy institutes, publishing concerns, ISI became even more stridently opposed to the original foundational bedrock upon which it was conceived.

    Obstructionists and wreckers such as Gottfried must be purged in the name of doctrinal “political correctness,” a disingenuous concept first conceived by the Marxist left according to Wikipedia:

    “Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist ‘party line’, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humor to condemn sexist or racist conduct as ‘not politically correct’. By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage ostensibly attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo.”

  68. Robt says:

    To defeat the enemies of the long-traditional BC and AD who propose the silly BCE and CE for obvious reasons, BCE shall designate Before Christian Era and CE shall be known as Christian Era.

  69. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Poor Paul Gottfried. He is like the Ebola doctor who became afflicted with the disease he spent so much of his time trying to cure.

    He is damned by his own words, from days long gone, when he was still sane:

    “The bearers of . . . elevated consciousness will seek others in the community of grace and express their spiritual state through suitable verbal gestures. An act of rejection by a non-victim group directed against their civilization, gender, race, or ancestors indicates sanctified living in a world or society held to be reprobate.”

    What is left of him is merely able to ridicule those whom do not show him the respect he believes that he deserves, and his fate is to pal around with dunces and racists in his twilight years.

    There is now guilt here, Paul. Only pity.


  70. These questions never seem to die, apparently because there is a class of white person who feels deeply insecure about his own “IQ” and must console himself with fevered ideation about the dirty darkies he is clearly superior to.

    My question is this: let’s assume its correct that 85% of “intelligence” (however narrowly or broadly we define it) is hereditary, and assume as a group latino immigrants, african-americans, etc. have lower IQs than whites of European ancestry and Asians, or whatever. Or that Jews are the only group that consistently tests higher than other groups on IQ tests. What do we do with this deep insight? Do we stop educating the dumbs? Do we track them vocationally? And do we do this purely on the basis of race or do we give IQ tests and track people from early youth into either intellectual or vocational educational tracks. The Germans have vocational and higher ed tracks from quite young ages in their education system. It seems to work out pretty well for the Germans. Pity the poor little kid of 8 who is actually very talented but for some reason developed late and is stuck working a fabricating machine his entire life, but hey, that’s the price of progress. The German culture has done nothing but good for the world so why shouldn’t we model more of our systems on theirs?

    And isn’t it ironic that those who hate the heavy hand of the state on certain subjects would clearly see it as progress for the dumb darkies to all be state-directed into field-hand and unskilled labor from an early age. We now have an apartheid American system where the vast majority of blacks can only live in redlined neighborhoods, can only attend garbage schools, obtain garbage jobs and die young and miserable. The desire for an underclass that can be used and discarded at will is understandable. But for those who believe any time the state intervenes on behalf of average people we are on the brink of communism to then propose exponentially increasing state power over the life paths of hundreds of millions of Americans all on the basis of qualities that we can’t even effectively define, such as intelligence and “IQ”, is truly sad.

    And yes, I’m Jewish, so where’s my free track to the good life because my IQ is higher than yours? I mean, we’re being “scientific” here, right?

    • Replies: @Jason Calley
    , @Stan D Mute
  71. @YankeeFrank

    Suppose that there is, in fact, a genetic component to IQ that is related to race. If that is true, then open acknowledgement of it works to weaken state influence. Here is an example how: Even minor differences in median IQ will greatly affect distribution out on the end of the bell curve. When you look at skills, jobs and awards in the most abstract fields of math or in the theoretical sciences, almost all of the higher positions are filled by Jews, Asians and some Caucasians. With even small differences in average IQ, this is to be expected. It is not because is systemic racism. On the other hand, if one assumes that all races score equally, then the state has a perfect excuse to impose any sort of race based quota system on those jobs or awards.

    Do you really believe that the overwhelming success of African-Americans in football and basketball is because of systemic racism against whites, jews and asians? Do you believe that east Africans have some secret organization to help them win long distance races and marathons? If different races have apparent differences in physique and metabolism, why is it shameful to think that IQ may vary as well?

  72. Does anyone seriously challenge the fact that intelligence is largely determined by genes today? I thought that was considered settled science even to the point where certain genes have already been identified as associated with cognitive capacity. My understanding is that the debate today is whether racial differences in intelligence exist (or even that race itself exists). It’s also my understanding that those who deny racial differences are “soft” scientists with the “hard” scientists quietly agreeing they do (very quietly).

    Given that, this is akin to purging someone who associates with someone who believes in Gravity. And only then because we are afraid of being attacked on the subject of gravity by fruitcakes who deny its existence. Or because the guy who pays our bills is thus afraid.

    How is it remotely conservative to cower in fear that the insane reality deniers of the left will attack you? Indeed, whether the topic is settled or not? Today, Gravity is settled and PC, but tomorrow? Today racial differences in intelligence are well known and acknowledged by any serious scientist, but definitely NOT PC. So these cowering puling “conservatives” are here to advocate “conservatism” that consists of running away from reality so they can preach the virtues of the “free market”? The “free market” of what? Certainly not ideas.

    And this is how Conservatism has lost the nation. They NEVER stand and fight. They are terrified their opponent may be “offended” so they simply give in on issue after issue until “Conservative” is synonymous with “Socialist” and the debate is between Socialism and Communism.

  73. @YankeeFrank

    And yes, I’m Jewish, so where’s my free track to the good life because my IQ is higher than yours? I mean, we’re being “scientific” here, right?

    No, you’re taking one fact, that individuals and races differ in distribution of intelligence, and from that building up a big old Straw Man that you can attack. Even worse really, because you’re saying “As a Jew, I hate everything German. And since Germans think IQ has real world applicability, I hate IQ.”

    Stuff and nonsense. Should I play too? Let’s ignore evidence of intelligence and just give out MD’s and JD’s and PE’s to anyone who wants to be a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Those nasty Germans give tests that exclude poor blacks from these occupations! Tests test knowledge and problem solving abilities which are determined by intelligence so we must ban them. Now when our bridges and building collapse and our doctors give motor oil transfusions, our lawyers can sue the neighborhood barber because obviously his bad haircuts were responsible for it all. Gee, this sounds a LOT like modern day Africa..

    You are wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to begin. There is nothing wrong with being a plumber. We need plumbers and it’s an honorable trade. We need plumbers at least as much as we need lawyers (I might say we need them far far more). What’s wrong with a kid who hasn’t the aptitude for becoming a doctor or engineer learning the plumbing trade? Why wouldn’t we want to identify our smartest kids and encourage them to enter occupations like engineering or medicine?

    I don’t know what the Germans are or aren’t doing in this area today. But despite being destroyed twice in the last century, despite a brutal occupation after the second destruction, today Germany builds the best automobiles, the best appliances, and has the strongest economy in Europe. It might just be in our interest to see what they’re doing and learn from it.

  74. @Galtonian

    If HBD represents the truth, then to a large extent RACISM = TRUTH.

    It all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

    Or rather the definition of “racism.” That’s the crux of the matter. Most HBD writers (ie Sailer, Derbyshire, etc) are men I would call “race realists” but not “racists.” And there IS a difference. A race realist is simply one who goes where the facts lead him without animus. He acknowledges that black africans, Australian aborigines, Andamanese and others have substantial cognitive deficiencies relative to white Europeans, East Asians, and Jews. This acknowledgement doesn’t make him hate anyone or even necessarily discriminate against them on the sole basis of their ancestry. It is a statistical fact that may instruct his interactions with groups, but not necessarily with individual members of those groups.

    A racist, on the other hand, will dislike or hate individual black africans, Australian aborigines, Andamanese or others simply because they belong to those groups. A racist may or may not even care about facts such as group differences in intelligence. A racist may hate blacks simply because they smell different from whites or because they store body fat differently from whites.

    A race realist may well have nothing but love in his heart for a population he knows is cognitively deficient. Does acknowledgement of the impairment caused by Down’s Syndrome prove you hate Down’s afflicted people? A race realist knows that there are smart, even brilliant, individuals within cognitively deficient races. He neither assumes all blacks are illiterate nor that all Jews are particle physicists. A race realist is first to point out where a cognitively deficient race may excel (ie west africans and fast twitch muscle). In short, a race realist is simply one who accepts the facts as they exist and who refuses to bury Truth simply to protect the feelings of those who refuse to accept Truth.

    Where we (ie Conservatives and realists generally) have utterly failed is in allowing the Marxists/leftists/progressives to bully us into suppressing Truth. We have allowed those who scream and wail the loudest to dictate our discourse. Those of us who work for a living have permitted the professional “activist” with no other job to control the very language of public conversation and conflate “racist” with “race realist.” And sadly, I’m not convinced we can ever recover from this failure.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS