For years, beginning when I was still in high school (I’m now in my 30s), I corresponded with the HBD icon J. Phillipe Rushton, who I consider the Darwin of the 20th century, for his simple, elegant, enormously parsimonious theory on three main races.  I’m not going to be one of those people who tries to jump on the bandwagon after someone dies and say “we were best friends y’all!” because we never friends.  I was merely a gushing fan who he politely tolerated when I would phone his university and ask to speak with him.

But we had a great rapport (at first) because I was probably one of the few people who asked about his theory with genuine and passionate scientific interest, and not some political agenda.

But did Rushton have scientific views so shocking and radical that he never shared them with the public?

Activist Greg Johnson writes:

I asked Rushton if he thought the that the rising tide of non-white immigration into white countries could be explained as the result of businesspeople looking for cheap labor and welfare statists looking for needy constituencies, without any consideration of the common good or long-term demographic consequences. Thus white dispossession is merely a ghastly mistake, the unintended consequence of selfish and short-sighted policies.

Rushton thought this was an inadequate explanation and stated flatly that he believed that mass non-white immigration was also driven by a conscious purpose: the extermination of the white race.

Good old Phil. What I admired most about him was his manner of stating the most radical claims in a calm and unapologetic way. His manner conveyed both moral certitude and openness to reason.

He also suggested that if I wanted to know who was behind non-white immigration, and why, I needed to read chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. (I had already been there, of course, but I wanted to see if that’s where Rushton would go.)

I should stress that there’s no evidence that Rushton held these views, other than Johnson’s recollection.

Nonetheless, shortly after Johnson made these claims, Rushton was accused of anti-Semitism by members of the HBD community.  The very people who so admired Rushton for his stereotypical views of blacks, and rallied against political correctness and anti-racism, suddenly turned on him when he allegedly supported a negative stereotype about Jews.

This is a classic example of ethnic genetic interests.  People are subconsciously driven to support scientific theories that they perceive to be in their ethnic genetic interests, but will suddenly reject the same scientists when their own group is challenged.

High IQ, socially savvy Ashkenazi Americans like Stephen Jay Gould realized early that theories of biological determinism could eventually be used against his people, so he brilliantly advanced his ethnic genetic interests by writing The Mismeasure of Man, which almost single-handedly discredited the entire field in the eyes of the intelligentsia.  Even though I think Gould’s book was largely nonsense, and ethnically motivated, at least he had the integrity to attack all HBD theories; he didn’t hypocritically only attack those sub-theories that insulted his people, while showering praise on those that attack blacks.

However there is a very small subset of Ashkenazi Americans who embrace HBD because it claims Jews are genetically smarter, and use it to advance neoconservatism and demonize  lower IQ ethnic groups that are hostile to Israel, like Arabs. Yet when scholars like Kevin MacDonald create unflattering genetic theories about Jews, these same HBDers suddenly go ballistic.  It is this subset of the HBD community that is so transparently hypocritical and ethnocentric that I’m embarrassed for them.

But not all Jewish HBDers are like this.  Indeed the great Arthur Jensen, who was part Jewish, was perhaps the most objective and productive scientist in the field.  I believe, Jensen, like myself, was one of those extremely rare people who was purely interested in HBD for its scientific merits.  Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t think he had a political bone in his body.

Jensen and Rushton had a deep intellectual bond and would correspond constantly.  I wonder if Kevin MacDonald’s name ever came up.

Commenter Mikey Blayze wants me to post about the dark side of ethnic genetic interests.  I think we saw a recent example of that with the mass shooting that occurred this weekend.  I was thinking about posting about that, but I can’t bring myself to watch the news.  When I heard about the shooting, I couldn’t even get out of bed, thinking about all those dead and wounded people and their families.

I spent Sunday evening trying to watch anything other than the news and I stumbled upon the 70th annual Tony Awards.

Generally speaking, high IQ people tend to be fans of the arts, so it came as no surprise to see arguably the biggest brained and most successful woman on the planet, multi-billionaire Oprah, dominating the event.  At one moment, she maternally put her arm around a smaller brained performer, and the contrast was graphic!

The difference in brain size was so enormous, the younger woman’s brain could fit into Oprah’s cranium several times!

It was so inspiring to see Oprah mentor this younger black performer, who will learn from the wisdom of her big brained elder.  And by sharing this wisdom with a member of her race, Oprah advances her ethnic genetic interests.

Speaking of ethnic genetic interests, when Barbara Streisand walked onto the stage, the crowd went wild, giving her a standing ovation.  The seemingly gay host of the event feigned as asthma attack for comic effect, as if to say, “Barbara is such a big star, I can’t even breath.”.  My housekeeper asked, “why are they giving her a standing ovation?”

“Well, you know they’re Broadway people so they admire Barbara for her singing talent,” I explained.

But the real reason was much deeper.  Many in the crowd were Jewish, and they beamed with pride that one of their own, was such a legendary iconic singer.  The emotion became so overwhelming they had to get out of their seats.

Streisand is loved by all races, but Jewish Americans hold a special place in their heart for her.

The recent controversy where Trump claimed a judge could not be fair to him because Trump wants a wall separating Mexico and the judge is Hispanic, shows Trump has an intuitive grasp of ethnic genetic interests.  He may not understand the biological theory behind it, but as someone with a high social IQ, he has an intuitive grasp of human nature.  Astute politicians through history have always understood ethnic interests, but because there’s a lot of autism in the HBD-o-sphere, the idea is controversial, even among the politically incorrect.

Autistics often reject the idea of ethnic interests for two reasons: 1) they lack Theory of Mind which makes it difficult to understand human behavior, and 2) because the social part of their brain is impaired, they do not have the same tribal instincts that normal people have.  This may help explain why extremely powerful suspected autistic whites are more generous to other races (Bill Gates and Angela Merkel) or more likely to marry outside their race (Zuckerberg).

By contrast leaders and billionaires with well developed social brains are more tribal (Oprah campaigned very early for the first black president, poured millions into educating black Africans and black Americans, and just today gave a million dollars to homeless women, who are largely black).

At the same time, I object to Trump’s bullying of Hispanics, who I love, because not only do they make the best food, but they’re the only demographic that loves horror films as much as I do!

Meanwhile the media is going ballistic over Trump implying that one’s race prevents them from being objective.  Because the U.S. media tends to be of Ashkenazi ancestry, they are perhaps understandably worried that if Trump can accuse a judge of having a pro-Mexico bias just because he’s Hispanic, then anti-Semites might accuse Jewish journalists of having a pro-Israel bias.

Trump’s strategy of bullying Hispanics might be seen as politically and genetically smart (though morally dumb) in the Republican primary, but now that he’s in a general election, can he adapt by broadening his appeal?  Based on the photo below, his cranial capacity seems much smaller than my hero Bernie Sanders’s, and if Trump has packed such big social savvy into a small head, there might not be room for other parts of intelligence such as long-term strategy:

picture taken from MSNBC special

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has recently announced his plans to pour an astonishing $100 million of his own hard earned money into Donald Trump’s campaign and is arranging a trip for Trump to visit Israel before the convention.  From a genetic perspective, this is a very adaptive move by Adelson because this will put even more pressure on Trump to support Israel and Israel contains millions of copies of Adelson’s genes, so what’s good for Israel is good for Adelson’s genetic fitness.

This is also great news for Trump because the U.S. media, which influences elections, is largely Jewish and this increases Trump’s pro-Israel credentials.  Further, because Trump’s benefactor is pro-Israel, the media will not call Trump out on his hypocrisy in taking money after mocking other candidates for doing the same.

However Trump’s white nationalist supporters like David Duke will not be happy about this, but what are they going to do?  Vote for Hillary?  She too is supported by pro-Israel billionaires like Haim Saban, indeed most of the influential pro-Israel Americans prefer Hillary,  Adelson is the exception.  Because Ashkenazi Americans are 13 IQ points smarter than the rest of America, they have brilliantly adapted the situation to their advantage so that no matter who gets elected, Israel will be a huge priority.

Most people think the rich are only motivated by financial interests and they want you to think that, but it’s impossible to make sense of the World without understanding ethnic genetic interests.

There was a time in Western countries, up until about the 19th century, when the rich were more genetically fit because they had more surviving offspring.  That’s no longer noticeably the case, but increasing the rich are more genetically fit because they are able to help their race.  It’s mostly Jews who are smart enough to do this, but in rare cases, even blacks can do the same.  For example our very own Afrosapiens does so on a very small scale by arguing tirelessly in favour of his people on this blog and others, but the freakishly big brained Oprah has the genius to do so on a HUGE scale. She was influential enough to elect America’s first black president, who obtained life saving health care for millions of working blacks and gave the black race unprecedented levels of dignity and respect around the World:

According to two economists, Oprah’s endorsement netted Obama a million votes in the 2008 Democratic primary, thus playing the decisive role

Meanwhile Oprah pours her own hard earned money into sending African American men to college and building schools for the best and brightest black girls in Africa.

The comment section is littered with comments about scholar Thomas Frank who has been on a media tour promoting his new book Listen Liberal.  I was curious what all the discussion was about so I listened to some of his appearances on youtube (see below).

He often begins by asking why President Obama, who was expected to be a heroic true liberal Roosevelt type figure who would take on the big banks, instead became another triangulating Bill Clinton type Democrat, who bailed out Wall Street and failed to prosecute any of the big bankers.

Frank’s explanation is that there are two main hierarchies in America: money and status (this is very similar to what I have been arguing for the last couple years or so, except I argued there are three main hierarchies: money, popular status (fame), and elite status (intelligentsia)).

Now I have argued that liberalism means serving the underdogs while conservatism means serving the powerful,  but Frank argues that since the 1970s, and especially since the Bill Clinton 1990s, Republicans have been the party of the rich and the Democrats have been the party of professional status (i.e. the intelligentsia).

Frank goes into a long convoluted explanation of why big labor was purged from the Democratic party.  It all started in the 1970s when big labor supported the Vietnam war and were a bunch of Archie Bunker bigoted philistines, and the Democrats decided to get rid of them in favor of yuppies (now days sometimes referred to as bobos or SWPLs)

Thus, Frank argues that President Obama refused to prosecute Wall-street white collar criminals because he sees them as part of the same meritocratic Ivy League brilliant elite that he belongs to.  He’s more or less painting Obama as an elitist snob who thinks he and other Ivy Leaguers are above the law.  This is a very damning portrait.

However from an HBD perspective, there’s a much simpler explanation of why Wall Street is untouchable. According to The New York Times, Ashkenazi Americans (who are enormously overrepresented in Wall Street) might have a much higher frequency of high IQ genes than other Americans. This gave them the intelligence to acquire great wealth and media influence and to adapt it to their advantage, thus it’s extremely difficult for an American President to go against any issue that especially serves Askenazi financial interests (i.e. Wall Street) or Ashkenazi genetic interests (neoconservatism, multiculturalism).

No matter what political system you endorse, high IQ people, and especially high IQ ethnic groups, will adapt it to their advantage and get a lion’s share of the resources, because that’s why intelligence evolved in the first place!  It’s been happening for millions of years and it’s Darwinism 101.

Below is an interesting debate between Christopher Hedges and Dinesh D’Souza.  What makes this discussion good is that instead of being the standard clash between a pro-Obama liberal and an anti-Obama conservative, it’s a debate between two political extremes who hate Obama for almost diametrically opposed reasons.

D’Souza attacks Obama for favoring the Third World over America and Israel while Hedges dismisses D’Souza’s attack as racist nonsense, and instead attacks Obama for being a puppet of corporate interests.

The most fascinating part is when Hedges essentially shames D’Souza for betraying his ethnic genetic interests.  In other words, as a man of Third World ancestry, D’Souza should not be siding with colonial powers.  Hedges calls this a pathetic display because no matter how much Third World people try to suck up to the WASP elite, they will always be hated by them (minority HBDers have endured similar criticism).

However Hedges is also betraying his ethnic genetic interests by supporting Third Worlders, however because Third Worlders are the underdogs, Hedges’s racial treason is charitable and morally pristine and thus correlated with high global IQ.

However Hedges, despite his overall brilliance, lacks the social IQ to realize that the WASP aristocrats that he attacks yet brags about growing up among, are no longer America’s ruling class, so one could argue that both Hedges and D’Souza are puppets of the elite, the difference is D’Souza knows it, while Hedges actually believes he’s a liberal because he attacks corporate America.

Hedges strikes me as a disciple of the great Noam Chomsky, but Chomsky is not a true leftist, but a brilliant proponent of his own ethnic genetic interests, cleverly subverting antisemitism on the political left, and replacing it with anti-Americanism and anti-corporatism.  Controlled opposition is probably how Chomsky would describe himself if he were being entirely candid.  The fact that Chomsky’s leftist audience never catches on is both a testament to their naivety and to Chomsky’s manipulative skills.

It’s interesting that D’Souza was prosecuted after making his anti-Obama film and he believes it was selective prosecution, caused by angering the President himself.  But you would think Obama would be secretly happy about D’Souza’s narrative because it portrays him as anti-Uncle Tom, defending his Third World genetic interests against colonial powers.  From a liberal perspective, you can’t ask for a better legacy.

Pumpkin Person rating: 9/10

As my vacation finally comes to an end, I just watched Margaret, a 2011 drama film written and directed by Kenneth Lonergan.  The film is ostensibly about a 17-year-old hybridized Ashekanzi New Yorker (Lisa Cohen played by Anna Helene Paquin)  who struggles to overcome the guilt she feels about helping to cause a woman’s death.

The film paints a fascinating portrait of American Jewry.

In school, Lisa is a skilled debater (especially on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that she feels so passionate about-see ethnic genetic interests) but she is failing geometry, despite having a crush on her Gentile Math teacher (played by Matt Damon who ironically played a huge anti-Semite in 1992’s School Ties).  Once again we see the typical Ashkenazi and typical female pattern of verbal IQ > spatial IQ.  Lisa being both Jewish and female, shows this pattern quite acutely.  Despite sucking at geometry, she still manages to make her math teacher feel inferior by implying that growing up in fly-over country, he’s probably ridden a lot of horses, and is out of place teaching at a private school full of “over-privileged liberal Jews”. “Was this the summit of your life’s ambition?” she asks him condescendingly.

The most endearing character is Lisa’s single mother, who struggles to bond with her temperamental daughter, and is so grateful when Lisa shows up to watch her in the New York plays she stars in.  The mother starts dating an Italian guy, but things end badly when she invites him out to dinner with Lisa and one of their friends.  The three Jewish females are horrified to discover that he sympathizes with the Palestinians, and one of them is so disgusted she throws whine in his face.

“That, is the Jewish response,” he says, wiping the whine from his face.

After dumping the Italian guy for perceived anti-Semitism, Lisa’s mother realizes the only love she needs in her life is her daughter, and in a heart-warming scene, the two females break into tears and start hugging while feeling the emotion of an opera they’re attending.

Despite this being a huge  box-office flop, generating less than $47 thousand despite a production budget of $14 million, I strongly recommend watching this if you’re a movie buff, especially the three hour version, which I assume is even better than the 150 minute version I saw.

CNN has a fascinating article about how tensions are mounting between President Obama and America’s organized Jewish community, over the Iran nuclear deal. HBD predicts the deal will fall through, because as brilliant as President Obama is, HBD says that not even the brightest members of the black elite will be any match for the Jewish elite, who are said to possess rare high IQ genes associated with Gaucher’s disease and Tay-Sachs.

So if intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt: to take whatever situation you’re in, and turn it around to you advantage, the higher IQ side should come out on top. And even though most American Jews, at least most high IQ American Jews, probably support Obama on this issue, their support seems only lukewarm, while the high IQ Jews who oppose the deal, are absolutely passionate, which is exactly what EGI would predict.

CNN specifically cites AIPAC’s “$20 million-plus effort against the agreement, including TV ads, emails and visits to congressional offices”.

President Obama is using his extremely high verbal IQ to fight back, telling an interviewer:

The lobbying that is taking place on the other side is fierce, it is well-financed, it is relentless. And in the absence of your voices, you are going to see the same array of forces that got us into the Iraq War, leading to a situation in which we forgo a historic opportunity and we are back on the path of potential military conflict.

However the organized Jewish community has cleverly taken this argument away from Obama, accusing him of fueling stereotypes about Jews being well-financed warmongers who value Israel over America. However they are smart enough to know that directly attacking a historic president like Obama could backfire, so they emphasize the fact that Obama’s comments are not intentionally harmful, but they are harmful nonetheless.

By attacking the deal from both an offensive and defensive position simultaneously, the organized Jewish community is using their high IQ to adapt the situation to their advantage, and public support for the deal is plummeting, and President Obama can not even fight back without being accused of fueling ethnic stereotypes. Can Obama adapt to this incredibly challenging and nuanced situation? Only time will tell.

Senator Chuck Schumer is one of the smartest politicians in the world with a reported score of 1600 on the older, much harder version of the SAT (equivalent to an IQ of about 170).  And while this score might have been exaggerated, he shows several statistical signs of extremely high IQ (large head, large height, extremely powerful job, Ashkenazi ancestry, Ivy League law degree etc).

Intelligence evolved because genes for intelligence were favored by natural selection, either because smart people had more kids, or because smart people helped the genetic populations they belong to increase in size.

Late this week, in a move that has stunned many Democrats, loyal Democrat Schumer has decided to side against the leader of his own political party (Obama) and join the the Republicans in opposing the Iran nuclear deal.

Many predict Schumer’s decision will profoundly hurt his political ambitions.  The New York Times reports:

Within hours of his announcement, Mr. Schumer came under sharp criticism from liberal groups like MoveOn.org, which threatened a campaign donation boycott. The liberal organization Credo Action said the senator had gone “from Wall Street Chuck to War Monger Chuck.”

The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, on Friday did not rule out the possibility that Mr. Schumer’s stance could cost him some support when he pursues his party’s top Senate post.

So if intelligence is arguably the mental ability to adapt; to take whatever situation your in and turn it around to your advantage, why would someone as smart as Schumer make such a seemingly dumb decision?

Because while the decision might hurt Schumer from the perspective of his career goals,  humans have ultimately evolved to serve our genetic goals, and from a genetic perspective, the decision might be smart.  If Schumer believes the misreported claim that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, then they’re an existential threat to 2.8 million Ashkenazi Jews, each of whom might share an average of 0.2% of Schumer’s identical genes by descent, thus saving Israel might be the genetic equivalent of Schumer fathering 11,200 children.

Even if he sees Iran as only an economic or geopolitical threat to Israel, the larger point is still the same.  Schumer’s genetic fitness is linked to the future of Israel, and all humans have evolved to advance their genetic fitness, but because those with high IQs acquire more wealth and power, they are able to do so with great efficiency.  Thus high IQ groups are selected at the expense of low IQ groups, partly because they produce more brilliant individuals like Schumer, who can advance the group’s interest on an epic evolutionary scale.

When genes for kin recognition misfire

One might wonder why president Obama, unlike other U.S. politicians, is so uniquely willing to give Iran a chance.  My guess is that because Obama and his sidekick Valerie Jarrett grew up around a lot of Muslims in places like Indonesia and Iran, their genes have essentially been tricked into thinking they are Middle eastern, even though both individuals have no known middle eastern ancestry.

As commenter Cale noted, humans have no genetic extra sensory perception, but we likely evolved to favour those who look and act like the people we grew up around because statistically these are likely to be genetic relatives.

In the case of Obama and Jarrett, they grew up around Muslim culture, so their natural impulse might be to treat Muslims like distant kin, especially since as hybridized blacks, the intermediate phenotype of Obama and  Jarrett resembles that of the non-white caucasoids of the Middle East who as the first caucasoids to evolve when humans left Africa, are also genetically intermediate between Africa and Europe..this is just my theory and could be 100% wrong.  It could be that Obama has highly sophisticated reasons for making this deal, and similarly, Schumer might have sophisticated reasons for opposing it, independent of tribal impulses.

I’ve discussed this before: Back when I was just a high school kid (I’m now in my 30s), I started phoning up the late great J.P. Rushton, who I regard as the Darwin of the 20th century, at the University of Western Ontario.   One of his theories was that blacks were the most primitive race, in part because they were the first race to branch off the human evolutionary tree.  Another of his theories was that humans (and other animals) are more altruistic to genetically similar others.

One day I asked Rushton if one of the reasons why the black community was having so many problems is that blacks, being the oldest race, were the most genetically diverse, and thus were the least internally altruistic.

“You’ve stumbled upon an inference that never even crossed my mind,” he said.  “Very astute of you to connect the two concepts like that.”

To me it made perfect sense.  When one looks at the lack of social organization in black populations, you could just say that blacks are more primitive, but an additional explanation is that blacks are just too genetically diverse to get along, and thus you see a lot of black on black violence, a lot of back self-hatred (skin bleaching), a lot of black on black jealousy (crab in the barrel syndrome).

For how can blacks be a unified people when they’ve been evolving in sub-Saharan Africa for 200,000 years, and there’s been all that time for genetic mutations to accumulate, causing different black tribes to be genetically very different?

And yet eventually these extremely different tribes mixed, and so you would have parents raising kids who have genetic variants very alien to their own, and this probably contributed to the breakdown of the black family: it’s harder for kin altruism to get selected when the kids you are altruistic to, don’t resemble you that much genetically because their other parent is so unlike you that they don’t inherit your high degree of kin altruism or inherit it as a recessive unexpressed trait.  And when kin altruism gets only weakly selected for, racial loyalty (which is probably just an outgrowth of kin loyalty) is probably weakly selected for too.

Of course, being an old race can probably be negated if there’s a lot of cousin marriage, which brings us to HBD Chick’s theory: ethnic groups that historically engaged in a lot of cousin marriage are more clannish, which she defines as:

clannishness is (and i reserve the right to alter this definition) a set of behaviors and innate behavioral traits and predispositions which, when found in a population, result in the members of that population strongly favoring, in all areas of life, themselves, their family members — both near and extended, and even closely allied associates (esp. in clannish societies which are not arranged into clans), while at the same time strongly disfavoring those considered to be non-family and all unrelated, non-allied associates.

So is she saying clannish people are more racist?  I can’t tell from her definition.  But I would argue that clannish people are indeed more racist, because it sounds like clannish people are just people who were more efficiently selected to favour kin (since doing so confers more fitness benefits if your kin are inbred and thus more related to you via the cousin marriage HBD Chick describes) and I argue that people who are selected to favour kin are also selected to favour their own race, because the same instinct that gets you to favour your sister over your cousin over your second cousin, would likely also get you to favour your race over another race, even if racial favoritism was not the reason it evolved and even if the fitness benefits are fewer.

So for example, HBD Chick argues that Northwest Europeans are very low in clannishness because they historically had a low rate of cousin marriage.  And doesn’t she use this to argue that Northwest Europeans are especially accepting of outsiders (high rates of non-white immigration)?  Meanwhile Arabs, who are very high in cousin marriage, are also very high on ethnocentrism (i.e. Palestinian suicide bombers).

Thus, it would seem groups that are low on clannishness are low on ethnocentrism and vice verca.

But I would argue that it’s not just the rate of cousin marriage that allows a group to be selected for “clannishness” but also the age of the group.  Ethnic groups that emerged very recently are going to be more genetically homogenous because they have very recent common ancestors, just as ethnic groups that practiced a lot of cousin marriage will be genetically homogenous.  So it seems in both groups, kin favoritism would be especially fitness enhancing.

So ethnic groups that are BOTH extremely young, AND extremely incestuous, are going to be especially clannish, and thus especially ethnocentric.  Does that make sense?