Return to the NeoEugenics' Home Page

The Racists anti-Racists have capitulated to empiricism!

A review of the 1999 book Race and IQ edited by Ashley Montagu, Oxford University Press, New York.

INTRODUCTION
When I first opened this book and started to read it, I expected the typical Marxist book that uses every deception, lie and distortion to try and turn back the massive amounts of evidence that genes do in fact determine the average intelligence in different racial or ethnic groups --- some great, some small.  But differences nonetheless.  But reading the book, I realized some very strange deviations from other similar books.

First, there are 22 chapters with chapters 1 and 3 written by Ashley Montagu being identical with different headings.  The second strange thing was that the dates of the articles and the academic affiliation of the contributors are not listed.  However, the 13 articles that were written before 1974 had references to the original journal articles they came from, while the current articles did not --- you are left to guess where they were first published.

And it gets even stranger.  The 13 articles included in the original publication of the book were all written between 1947 and 1974.  And twelve of those articles apparently resulted as a reply to Arthur Jensen's 1969 article in the Harvard Educational Review entitled "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"  They all dealt with the possibility of increasing the low Black average intelligence by means of intervention programs because they asserted, humans were infinitely malleable and intelligence was equally available to everyone if we just threw enough money at the problem. Today, all these earlier predictions have been shown to be colossal failures, and the current edition does not put forth any new data to show intervention can work, aside to beg for more money because obviously, "we just did not spend enough money on the earlier program," even though one program cost $23,000 per IQ increase per child (which was eventually lost as the child grew up and genetic IQ took over for the more malleable child IQ testing).  And they even admit now that they have no idea how to permanently increase the IQ of Blacks with intervention programs.

The other eight articles, all written apparently after 1994 with the publication of The Bell Curve, take a different approach at attacking scientific empiricism. These die-hard egalitarians are now relying on hate against anyone who is looking at the evidence from a scientific perspective rather than an ideological egalitarian/Marxist ideology.  They rely on trying to destroy or impugn motives, rather than looking at the evidence.  So it appears that this book was thrown together as a last ditch effort to hold back the incredible progress that has been made since 1970 with regards to the pendulum swinging from radical environmentalism back to a more balanced understanding of human nature from an evolutionary perspective.  And their main tool is hate.  They use the same tactics of bigots, but instead of calling Black people "niggers," they call empirical scientists "racists." It is the same vicious malignancy of intolerance against what evolutionists call "the other" or the out-group.  The Marxists (primarily but not universally Jews) are attacking scientists (who are primarily a mixture of White gentiles and more rational or less ethnocentric Jewish scientists).

Most of the IQ debate then is really the same old Marxist hatred for all that is Western, White and empirical because they have not gotten the class warfare they so desperately desire (see MacDonald 1994, 1998a, 1998b for an explanation of the Jewish need to destroy White society to make the world safe for Judaism and its favored position in politics, the media and accumulation of wealth due primarily to a eugenic program leading to a phenomenally high average IQ).  These Marxist Jews have always felt threatened, and their paranoia leads them to adopt the ideology that there is no difference in the average IQ between races, because if Blacks and Whites are separated by 15 IQ points because of genes, it may soon be understood by everyone that Whites and Jews are also separated by an average IQ of 17 because of Jewish superior genes, and they will stand out as an exemplary race amongst those around them --- a fear that has been present since Jewish emancipation for over a hundred years. ( see The Jewish Phenomenon by Silbiger http://www.neoeugenics.net/poj.htm .)

Race and IQ heralds the last defense the Marxists have to stop the genetic juggernaut of the Human Genome Project and the absolute proof they fear that humans belong to genetically different racial groups. But whatever you want to call races, as well as numerous mongrels that have interbred and form new combinations of genes and behaviors, just like any dog owner recognizes, race is a real concept.  Sometimes the breed is obvious, sometimes blurred by mixing, but the breeds are identifiable and have unique as well as overlapping behaviors.  It is no different with humans---but a real danger to the egalitarians' desire for universalism over particularism.

This battle, waged for over 100 years now, is no better illustrated than in the book Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond, by Ullica Segerstrale, 2000.  (Segerstrale is a Professor of Sociology at IIT, Chicago.) This book is an amazing compilation of the battle between Marxists and traditionalists in their debates over primarily sociobiology; but also morals, intelligence, racism, religion and the individual philosophies that the players brought to the debate.  The author was there, interviewing the players for over thirty years, collecting their comments and observing the fireworks. 

She concludes that the debates were good for neo-Darwinists, and that they perfected their scientific methodologies faster because of the attacks from the left -- attacks that if looked at carefully were contradictory and without substance.  But the book concludes that it was not a battle for truth, but rather a battle for status, positioning, morality, etc. Even for those scholars who were eventually made to look rather foolish in their Marxist attempts to discredit neo-Darwinism, and especially determinism, they won big time for their stalwartness in the face of facts. That is, they could not be shaken in their beliefs.  And this is why this book, excellent in every way, stops short of answering the question --- What was it all about?

Actually, the author almost stumbled upon it once in the book, when she noted that the neo-Darwinists seemed to be "rural" in their outlooks, and the Marxists "urban."  She then noted the rural Christians, but fails to mention the urban Jews.  Was this book really about group evolutionary strategies all along?  Of course the players did not fall neatly into ethnic or political categories.  And yet in many ways the battle lines did seem to be drawn between a Jewish and a Gentile viewpoint.

I will suggest that when reading Defenders of the Truth, keep "group evolution" in mind. It seems to be playing itself out in academia and the media in these genetic wars. That is, this book looks only at the proximate causes of the debates --- status, morality, self-deception in serving the tribe, aggression, intolerance of other's belief systems, etc.  What is not seen, because humans have a great deal of difficulty with seeing themselves as loyal tribesmen, is the ultimate cause of the debate --- the cultural warfare between Jewish and White intellectuals who are about equal in numbers in academia, even though Jews only make up about 2.6% of the U.S. population.  This is a battle for power by the elites from two different tribes (with some tribal members crossing over for various reasons).

Then after reading Defenders of the Truth, read Kevin MacDonald's recently published trilogy on Jewish-gentile evolutionary strategies.  The same players are discussed, but with the ultimate causes included in the warfare.  And it portends that these battles are again flaring up, and in reality they only subsided briefly after WWII and are likely to return with a full head of steam. As yet, many scholars are side-stepping the real issue of multiculturalism, diversity, and what it means if humans did in fact evolve with strong tribal ethos in place of any universal moral system.  So Race and IQ is just another book in this genre of the battle between the tribes.

Another indication that the Marxists have been losing the battle in their attempt to preserve the doctrine of radical environmentalism is the recent schism between anthropologists.  Cultural and physical anthropologists, along with sociologists, have been the primary Marxists in academia who have been attacking race studies.  Shulevitz writes in the New York Times on February 11, 2001 that the Marxists and the empiricists can no longer coexist, "That these disparate approaches have managed to cohabit a single discipline for more than a century, the pendulum of fashion swinging judiciously between them, is that rare miracle, a successful marriage of convenience. Lately, though, one senses a growing interest in divorce. Over the past decade, several American anthropology departments have split up, prompted in part by biological anthropologists demanding laboratories for their research, but also by the perception that the two sub-disciplines are becoming mutually incompatible. Stanford University is only the latest to find itself in possession of a department of cultural and social anthropology and a department of anthropological sciences."

So what we see in these scientific debates is not merely a difference of opinion, but a war between primarily Marxist or universalist Jews who dominate cultural anthropology and social science and scientific empiricists who are more and more using genetics, psychometrics, behavior genetics, neo-Darwinism, etc. to find the truth behind human nature and the differences between racial groups.  But of course, the difference in intelligence between the races is still the most heated debate and the one that will continue to elicit the vilest attacks against anyone who does not capitulate to their ideological demands for conformity, not unlike the mind control of Communism that murdered over 100 million people in the name of egalitarian utopianism and intolerance of numerous social classes.

To show just how desperate these Marxists are and their continued use of deception, I will take a look at just the eight recent chapters of Race and IQ.  I might note that three of the chapters, written by Gould, Lewontin and Kamin, were also the leading Marxists against sociobiology and were discussed at length in Defenders of the Truth.  Their tactics of lying and distortion, along with name calling have not changed in the last thirty years.

DECONSTRUCTING THE MARXIST ARGUMENTS

Chapter 3 --- The IQ Mythology by Ashley Montagu.
This chapter covers the same old tricks Montagu has been claiming for decades now. He tries to imply that people equate race with uniquely identifiable racial groups.  That is, he tries to state that people on the street as well as scientists think that any one individual belongs to a "specific" race, when nothing could be more ludicrous.  Races as he and other scientists understand quite well, including the most diehard bigot, are understood as loose racial categories that differ in the frequencies of genetic alleles, and that the races can overlap in physical and behavioral traits to a great degree.

So why do these Marxists keep making these absurd statements?  Montagu declares that, "Hence, all that is necessary in order to arrive at a proper estimate of an individual's potential general abilities is to identify, usually by his external appearance, his 'racial' membership, and this will at once tell one what the limits of that individual's capacities are, what he is likely to be able to accomplish, and, furthermore, what his particular 'race' will be able to achieve. These three phenomena, it is commonly believed, physical appearance, individual ability, and group achievement, are taken to be inseparably linked with each other by heredity."

Well it is obvious to anyone who accurately reads the above statement that it is a lie.  I have worked in multiculturalist environments of the extreme, and have been exposed to liberals and bigots alike, and I have NEVER met a person that didn't generalize about other groups of people --- whether cultural, religious, or racial --- and yet understand the difference between groups and individuals.  The most extremist and uneducated amongst us understands that individuals are just that.  They may hate certain groups, but always understand that there are exceptions. They understand that any member of their own group can be as vile as anyone could be, while members of other groups are decent, hard working individuals.  We all understand these differences quite well.  And we observe readily how someone who hates a particular group will make exceptions for the individual.  From my experience, even though I am White and a professional, I will be treated with disrespect by Blacks, Cajun rednecks, or an Asian until they get to know me.  And usually, because of my unbiased personality we will become if not friends, at least highly respectful of each other.  We have all seen this behavior, so obviously Montagu would be hard pressed to show any evidence that humans do not understand the difference between group classifications and individuals.  We clearly understand that Toyotas are well built cars and that one can get a lemon.  Or that Fiats are pieces of junk ordinarily, but some of them serve their drivers well.  These classifications are built in to human behavior, and are now well understood by neo-Darwinists who have been studying these innate human mechanisms of classification.  They are part of human nature as well as part of most mammalian brain mechanisms.  You can call them racist, or what they really are, fundamental mechanisms of nature's classification system to judge the other quickly and efficiently until more data can be gathered.

These methods of classification are part of our evolutionary development. In order for the brain to be able to function efficiently humans as well as primates must be able to classify other creatures and things and put them into categories as to the potential harm they can cause.  Studies of very young children have shown that they are more frightened of men and especially men with beards (Hrdy, 1999).  And there is good reason, males are prone to kill the young, especially the young of other males.  So we humans, like all creatures, must have in our repertoire of behavioral tools, means of dealing with members of other groups who could cause us harm. This is how the brain developed thousands of years ago when we were small bands of hunter-gatherers, and before civilization came along to change all the rules.

So is Ashley Montagu just completely ignorant of our evolutionary past and also, soberly ignorant of human behavior in the work place?  Well it seems to be he is highly reactionary and not very in touch with the real world.  But then as a Marxist and an academic he is not inclined to mix it up with the common man as I have.  My background as a petrochemical chemist allowed me to work with all kinds of people all over the world. And Montagu's perspective with regards to race is unrealistic.  He shows the same pattern of egalitarian paranoia that flows from those academics that abhor the prospect that we humans will not fit into the mold that they have developed for us.  Marxism is all about rejecting human nature for elitist totalitarian control of the masses.  Montagu shows his own racism in this misguided attack on Western culture.

Montagu goes on to state that, "It is the popular, or social, conception of 'race,' and is not to be confused with the biological concept of 'race' --- held in a variety of different forms --- in which no linkage is implied between physical appearance, individual abilities, and group achievement."  He is trying to state here that people "link" in some genetic way a person's physical appearance with their individual capabilities --- and that a group's achievement is based on this physical appearance.  But nothing could be further from reality.  I have never met a person who does not understand that even though Blacks and Asian Indians can be very dark skinned, there is no connection between color (physical appearance) and behavioral traits.  Likewise, East Asians and South Asians can look a lot alike, and yet they are very different in behavioral traits, especially intelligence.  And then there are Whites in Appalachia and Whites in Oregon.  How often has Hollywood stereotyped the intellectual differences between these two groups of Whites while not relying on physical appearance but strictly on geographic location and accents?

We could go on and on with these differences.  Where I work, I come into contact routinely with Puerto Rican dislike for Blacks. They seem to be far more intolerant of Blacks than Whites ever were, and are very vocal about it. And yet, they tend to be dark skinned like Blacks and in fact have a lot of Black blood.  Does this correlate with what Montagu implies, that we judge people on the basis of physical characteristics like skin color? Not at all. But we do know that humans are able to make classifications based on distinctions.

So what do we make classifications on? Well, we look at people and based on what group they appear to belong to, how they are dressed, and how they behave we try to discern how they will act towards us.  That is, it is a natural evolutionary trait to try and summarize quickly the status of "the other."  For example, most White people could not identify an Ashkenazi Jew on appearance and yet Ashkenazi Jews state that they can pick out a fellow Jew easily. Why is this?  Well, Jews have lived amongst Whites for thousands of years, have been persecuted by Whites and they need to know who is a danger.  I would submit that this is what makes Montagu so paranoid about race, because as a Jew he himself is constantly discerning "the other," whereas most people just are not that aware of the finer distinctions required spotting a Jewish person. That is, Montagu rails against racism because he himself is so conscious of race, and is so aware of the success that Jews have had in relation to all other races.  So to deter any criticism, he and his Marxist friends try to link individuals to race, something that people just do not do.  We all know very well that people of different races have different appearances and behavioral traits that may differ on average, but that when dealing with individuals we need to withhold judgment until we get to know them personally.  There is a big difference between the average of a race, and the behavior of the individual.

To highlight this fact some more, in Chicago a Black alderman tried to pass a bill that would require owners of Rottweilers and Pit Bulls to register their dogs because they are dangerous.  Here is a Black man, classifying all members of a canine race based on a stereotype.  I am also a dog owner and I spend a lot of time in the parks with my dogs, and one thing I have noticed is how much breeds of dogs follow the races of humans.  Each breed has definite behavioral traits that are recognizable but not absolute. That is, we can recognize that behavior "A" is typical for breed "A" but is not assured. Individual dogs can deviate from the typical.  The same is true of Pit Bulls; they are a dangerous dog because of their powerful jaws, tolerance of pain and love of grabbing with their jaws. But they are also one of the most lovable dogs I have come across.  And I have often bent down to pet a Pit Bull who was with owners and off leash, based on behavioral information of not only the dog but also the owners.  And I have never been bit.  Montagu is wrong: humans and dogs both size up "the other" based on numerous clues.

Montagu then goes on to assert that one cannot judge a people based on their accomplishments.  He states, "There is, in fact, no possible basis on which such comparisons can be made, since the principal necessary condition that would make such a comparison possible is missing, namely, a history of novel complex cultural experiences which lead to the development of technological abilities and group achievement."  Here he asserts that no group can achieve technological advancement without being around other groups that are technologically advanced.  Of course this is a circular argument because someone had to start the whole process.  That is, who was technologically advanced to teach the first humans to be technologically advanced?  But of course this argument is absurd because for the most part, we do not judge other cultures based on their technological advancement alone.

For example, China has not progressed technologically even though researchers have claimed that the Chinese are more intelligent than Whites and have had a rich culture that is thousands of years old. What went wrong?  No one knows for sure, but I have not seen anyone claim that they are stupid.  And likewise, the Middle East has had a rich cultural exchange of ideas and peoples, and yet they are today backward and poor.  Egypt for example was once thriving and advanced and then it was lost.  Greek civilization likewise.  But are they the same people as in the past?  Certainly they have been in the midst of "novel complex cultural experiences" as Montagu says is so important. So what went wrong?  This argument goes no where, and its latest reincarnation has been updated by Jared Diamond, another Marxist, who wrote Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, 1997 (see http://www.neoeugenics.net/Guns.htm).

Montagu then turns his attention to Blacks, where he states that they cannot be judged by tests devised by Whites.  The problem here is that this book was released in 1999, but after the release of The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association convened a task force of experts to address the realities of intelligence, culminating in a publication of a consensus report in 1995 entitled Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns (available at my web site http://www.neoeugenics.net/apa.htm).  They determined, as a collective of experts, that Blacks are in fact less intelligent than Whites, and that the tests are not biased.  And yet, Montagu has the temerity to publish in 1999 the statement that, "The tests for these writers have come to represent a measure of innate intelligence.  This is usually a biased view which is demonstrably unsound and is one that most authorities reject."  Montagu is a liar and suffers from an innate inability to tell the truth.  Nowhere in this book is there any mention of the APA report or subsequent reports I shall discuss later. They are just ignored.  Of course, the whole purpose of Marxists like Montagu, Gould, Lewontin, Kamin, Rose et al. is to spread lies and misinformation because they desire a world that is controlled and manipulated by them so that an egalitarian ethos can be forced upon our way of thinking.  Unfortunately, this will only lead us down the road to totalitarianism, the suppression of free speech, and the ultimate slaughter again of millions of people who are designated by them as "class enemies."  The suppression of science is the suppression of humanity.

Then Montagu tries to put forth a tired argument that intelligence testing, "is a betrayal of the purpose of the Binet-Simon test. Binet and Simon always considered their test an 'intelligence scale,' something that might give one an idea of the general intelligence of a child, but never a precise measure of specific abilities."  This theme is repeated several times in the book and the absurdity should be recognized by anyone, but apparently the need to believe and to belittle all those they disagree with makes such deception seem plausible to them.  Where is it written that a scientific tool or discovery shall never change from its intended purpose by the first person that used it?  How about the atomic bomb's nuclear energy now producing power and curing cancer?  Is that a "betrayal" of the atomic bomb's intended original use?  One could go on and on about science, its early discoveries and how they changed, expanded and were used in numerous new and exciting ways.  To assert that a science method belongs to only one specific niche, and can never expand and be used elsewhere must seem obviously bizarre, paranoid or conspiratorial by anyone witnessing such an accusation.  And yet, it is one repeated by these Marxists again and again.  Have they not admitted that they have no more good arguments against the easily observable differences in the average intelligence of different races?  Well science and intelligence testing has come a long way in 100 years, and everything Montagu claims is incorrect and quite the opposite is the accepted position by the experts.  Intelligence testing is not biased, it is informative with regards to one's educational abilities and work abilities as well as numerous other life outcomes like health and propensity to have accidents, and it is now accepted that it is primarily genetic and unalterable in any specific way by the environment.  It is what we are born with aside from some genetic disease, some cranial catastrophe or some pathogen attack that can hit anyone rendering them damaged.  But for the rest of us, intelligence is what our genes have provided for us in varying levels of ability.  And if Montagu wants to, " protest and act against this brutal pessimism," I should ask him to do it through scientific research, not preaching his Communism from an irresponsible bully pulpit that knows no bounds of indecency and deception.

Montagu states, "The great appeal of heritability to racialist writers like Murray and Herrnstein is their erroneous belief that it means unchangeability. . . . There have been other criticisms of this heritability estimate.  The truth is that the nature of the genetic contribution to intelligence as 'measured' by intelligence tests is unknown both for individuals and for populations, and therefore, on this ground alone, heritability estimates constitute, as one critic has put it, 'little more than a hollow quantification.'"  This is just plain wrong.  Trying to understand the heritable component of intelligence and numerous other behavioral traits has been very successful and is progressing at a rapid rate due to increased research and more sophisticated mathematical tools, including meta-analysis that combines numerous studies rather than using just one to prove or disprove a hypothesis.  And what do we get from this data?  Well for one, it allows us to stop deceiving ourselves about our own behaviors as well as trying to mold children into what we want through sheer domination of their personalities and training.

That is, understanding that a child comes equipped with its own genetic preferences, agendas and abilities gives that child freedom from societal and parental oppression.  This is not determinism but freedom.  Understanding our genetic uniqueness will allow us to not only eliminate debilitating disease, but will allow us to understand and to accept a child for what he is, and not hold him responsible for his shortcomings.  I know people who have children with different abilities.  How cruel it is to try and compare the gifted with the handicapped, as if they could both be the same star performers if only the "dumb" one would try harder. How cruel and intolerant!  Knowing how much we are what our genes make us can liberate us.  Shy people can take comfort in knowing that evolution has a place for them, as well as the risk taker. Not everyone has to be the same.  Marxists like Montagu have it exactly wrong, they are the ones who want to shackle everyone to a single concept of the equalized human, no differences allowed in outcome or the luck of the draw as nature intended.  But there does not need to be a moral value put on any particular person or genome.  We need to understand some have just lucked out, and that differences are all right as long as society can just accept that some will not do well, and others will excel.  Cruel determinism is when these outcomes are blamed on classes of people or the inequality of classes that follows from egalitarian totalitarianism.

Montagu quotes an old argument by Simpson, "There are biological reasons why significant racial differences in intelligence, which have not been found [wrong --- see the APA report], would not be expected. In a polytypic species, races adapt to differing local conditions but the species as a whole evolves adaptations advantageous to all its races, and spreading among them all under the influence of natural selection and by means of interbreeding. When human races were evolving it is certain that increase in mental ability was advantageous to all of them. It would, then, have tended over the generations to have spread among all of them in approximately equal degrees. For any one race to lag definitely behind another in over-all genetic adaptation, the two would have to be genetically isolated over a very large number of generations. They would, in fact, have to become distinct species; but human races are all interlocking parts of just one species." 

If Montagu actually believes the above quote, and it is hard to believe that it is actually reproduced in this volume with its obvious flaws, it means that if there are genetic differences in intelligence between races, then these races are actually different species and we owe them no moral consideration!!  That is, it is as reasonable for an Ashkenazi Jew to use sub-Saharan Blacks for medical research as it is for them to use monkeys, because they are two different species as they differ in average IQ by over three standard deviations:  an IQ of 117 versus and IQ of 70.  This clearly makes these two racial groups separate species according to Montagu/Simpson. 

What is so ironic is that Montagu seems to be totally ignorant of evolution and racial clines.  The average IQs of Blacks developed over tens of thousands of years, as they were isolated in sub-Saharan Africa. There was extremely little mixing with other races outside of this region.  At the same time, Caucasians and Eastern Asians were according to most researchers, evolving higher intelligences because of the extremes of glaciation occurring to them.  That is, it was be smart or perish.  There is no evidence or even a theoretical basis for speculating that intelligence or behavioral traits would have evolved along similar vectors under these extremely differing ecologies.  Evolution would predict quite the opposite.  Montagu states, "[W]hile physical environments may have differed in the extreme, the conditions of selection under which humankind's mental evolution occurred were everywhere alike. The cultural differences between a Congo Pygmy and an Eskimo of the Far North are only superficially different."

Of course there is no evidence that evolution would operate on sub-species' physical traits while not altering or changing in perfect lock step the behavioral traits of all of the sub-species no matter how diverse the ecology.  Such a statement is so absurd that it is very surprising he would use it.  But what is even more insightful is that the Boasian school of anthropology took just the opposite approach in trying to prove its Marxist environmental determinism.  That is, they tried to show how diverse cultures were and totally free of any common traits, that we now know is totally false.  What duplicity.  Montagu claims both that cultures are all very different because genes don't matter, and that we all have the same intelligence and behavioral traits because our cultures are so much alike!  They can't have it both ways!  Obviously, they have run out of excuses and just keep recycling these old and useless arguments because they have little to show for their objection to genetic heritability in behavioral traits and intelligence.  That is, they have nothing new to say so they just repeat the tired old arguments for consumption by the uninformed.

Montagu then restates the old folk psychology clichés about how we can raise scholastic achievement scores by improving a child's environment, a concept that is now completely overturned by new data on child rearing.  If this were true, children in the same family would be more alike, but they aren't because they vary genetically.  Aside from vaccinations and the reduction in childhood diseases, no other early intervention has shown itself to have lasting effects on any child's intelligence. And note that I say intelligence, not achievement.  If you dump tons of money on a few children's education, you will raise their test scores.  Too bad they are such ephemeral gains, and lost once the constant rote training stops --- what is known as "teaching to the test" --- that does not have long-term benefits.

He then makes the old and time worn statement about how we can't really define intelligence, or it doesn't really matter, etc.  Well, we can't really define gravity either, and it has not to date been mathematically integrated into the other three forces.  That doesn't make gravity any less real. And everyone knows --- what is called construct validity --- that intelligence is real and it is important.  It is why we pay so much attention to it.

Chapter 4 --- The Debate Over Race by Leonard Lieberman.
Lieberman gives a rather bland history of some of the concepts of race, along with the occasional jibe at his enemies.  But overall he is less obtuse than Montagu who makes egregious logical errors in his arguments.  But what is interesting in Lieberman's story is that it could easily be rewritten in slight ways to show Marxists and egalitarians are now the ones that are using pseudoscientific arguments and that the concept of race and biological differences have finally won the day.  It is really hard to believe that this chapter was written circa 1995 rather than say 1960 when the Boasian school of cultural anthropology had "won the day," only to be once again overturned over the next forty years.

Lieberman states, "In the first decade of the twentieth century, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists took up the issue of inequality, debated it, and with the aid of a changing social structure succeeded in shifting the majority opinion of scientists and educated persons from racism to egalitarianism. Having helped persuade many that races are not unequal, some anthropologists then began to argue that races do not exist. They argued that race is a fiction or a myth which must be exorcised like ghosts, the humors, instincts, and phlogiston."  Here Lieberman admits that people have always believed in racial differences, and it was only through ideology that Marxism displaced empiricism after the Second World War.  There was a linkage made by these Marxists who dominated academia that Nazism was the same as even thinking in terms of racial differences, and through sheer force of intimidation they were able to mute racial concepts until about 1970.

So contrary to what these Marxists claim, people the world over have always had an innate sense about racial differences, and it was only between about 1950 and 1970 that the pendulum had swung completely towards egalitarianism, which is not universally embraced by people and is an anomaly at best.  Lieberman goes on to define racism as, "an ideological conviction and set of practices. As an ideology it involves the belief that the world is divided into distinct biological races, that biological race and cultural attributes are linked in heredity, that races have a hierarchical order ranging from superior to inferior, and that races are unchanging or slow to change. An ideology is defined as a cluster of ideas that is widely shared and emotionally defended by the members of a society as a justification for their activities. The ideology of racism is used to justify institutionalized behavior patterns and processes that maintain domination of one group over others."

By this definition it is clear that racism does not exist. But let's take each point separately:  First, not one reputable scientist or person that I know believes that there are distinct biological races.  Races interbreed, there are differences within races, and whether one is a lumper or a splitter determines how many races there are under an arbitrary taxonomic system. A good analogy is how many colors are there?  To a primitive tribe there may be only a few, to an interior designer there may be thousands.  Just like the spectrum of visible light, color is real and can be divided into many different colors.  Second, race and cultural attributes must be linked or monkeys could have advanced civilizations. Third, only a few ignorant bigots believe in the superiority/inferiority dichotomy. No one in the sciences uses such a term or stacking of human traits.  And fourth, of course races change slowly, just like breeds of dogs.  But so what?  It has nothing to do with racism.  So I would have to submit that if the above is what makes a racist, racism is no longer a factor in society if it ever was of any significance in the overall lives of people.  Talk is cheap. Action is what makes a society and our actions are telling.  There are plenty of Black mayors in cities that are not Black majorities. So much for racism!

One could go on an on about society bending over backwards to give Blacks more than what their average IQ warrants, and this effort is promoted primarily by Whites --- not other minorities.  So it is obvious that if anything, not only is racism as an institution not present in America (institutional or systemic racism), it has reverted to minority race advocacy, where there is a tremendous transfer of wealth from Whites to Blacks.  If anything, racism today is directed at Whites by other minorities, and especially by Marxist/egalitarian activists --- in the media, academia, and politics.

The rest of the article is an affirmation that Marxist/egalitarians basically browbeat the scientific community to reject any investigation into racial differences for many decades, including restricting funding for such research.  But not every scientist would be silenced, and starting with renewed interest in intelligence, sociobiology, and genetic engineering circa 1970, these egalitarians are now howling even louder for censorship.  But now they have no arguments except hatred for those who would flush them out and expose their lies.  Race is real, people are different, and our genes do count for much more than these universalists would like.  Lieberman and his kind are racist anti-racists.  That is, they hate White Western culture, and they want it changed to their liking at any cost.

For an excellent treatment of Franz Boas and his dominance of social anthropology in academics, including the Boasian school's reinvention of cultural determinism and its subsequent exposure as a fraud, see my review of MacDonald's The Culture of Critique at http://www.neoeugenics.net/mac.htm.  Boas was primarily more interested in attacking Western White culture because as a Jew, he hated gentiles and considered them all to be anti-Semitic. "By 1915 The Boasians controlled the American Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds majority on its Executive Board. . . .By 1926 every major department of anthropology was headed by Boas's students, the majority of whom were Jewish." (MacDonald 1998b.) So much for objective science!

Chapter 11 --- Intelligence, IQ and Race by Ashley Montagu.
In this chapter, Monatgu takes on intelligence with all the same biases and ignorance he has discussed with regards to race in Chapter three.  Montagu states that, "The cumulative research during the last sixty years suggests that it would be a good working hypothesis to regard intelligence as constituted of a large assembly of highly varied, overlapping adaptive abilities or skills, rather than as a single faculty; that it is, indeed, largely the summation of the learning experiences of the individual."  Absolutely wrong according to the 1995 APA report and subsequent text books on intelligence and psychometrics.  The consensus among researchers has been leading inexorably to the Spearman g model of intelligence using factor analysis.  That is, it is primarily a singular factor that positively correlates across a broad range of verbal, spacial and performance skills. And, it cannot be learned but is innate. All attempts to increase a person's general intelligence have failed.  If the genetic potential is not there, you will not be smart. You can be trained!  But so can a dog to do tricks as long as it is repeated often enough and reinforced, but quickly forgotten if not reinforced.  Innate intelligence is not the same as training or rote learning.  To conflate the two is disingenuous and the authors in this book know it.  But for Marxists, propaganda is all about convincing the little people, not gathering empirical facts. In fact the criticisms that Montagu and the other authors use to try and attack The Bell Curve are rebutted in an article published in Scientific American titled "The General Intelligence Factor." What is so surprising is that Scientific American has always been a Marxist slanted magazine and for years pandered to the left. But even they were losing credibility and had to finally print a truthful article with regards to intelligence. (See Appendix A for the complete article)

And again Montagu puts his foot in his mouth by claiming, "As for the relation of the brain to intelligence, many a scientific reputation has been compromised when unsupportable racial differences were claimed to have been found in weight, size, convolutions, and other structures of the brain, and which were held sufficient to account for differences in racial intelligence. Though such claims have repeatedly been shown to be wholly unsound and have been thoroughly discredited over the last hundred years, they still go on."  How wrong he is. It is hard to believe that he could publish a book in 1999 with such lies and distortions.  But he is just like Gould in denying their earlier errors when criticizing the correlation between brain size and intelligence.  Research over the last ten years using extremely sophisticated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and other brain scanning techniques has shown conclusively that the correlation between brain size and intelligence is about 0.4 when adjusted for the difference in body stature.  And likewise, Gould has refused to admit that his earlier criticisms of brain size/intelligence studies have now turned out to be true. That is, the estimates made over 100 years ago using very crude methods were surprisingly accurate. The latest IQ/brain size studies produced by a group of researchers in Ankara Turkey has shown that the correlations can even be shown to be higher when men and women are measured separately, as there are real differences between the sex's brain anatomy.

Now let's take a look at what is really happening with research within the social sciences.  Many authors have discussed the problem that social scientists never consider innate intelligence as an independent variable when they perform their studies. That is, class, socio economic status, and all kinds of class differences are included but not innate genetic differences in intelligence or even behavioral traits, and especially differences between racial groups.  Now let's see what Montagu has to say about such deceptive research, "Their obvious bias, their general insensitivity, their closed-mindedness, their failure to consider the evidence opposing their views, their citation of views, though long discredited, favorable to their kinds of arguments, their abysmal ignorance of biological and cultural anthropology, and worst of all, their ignorance of genetics, has evoked innumerable rejections of both their methods and their conclusions."  Guess what? He was talking about psychometricians and Jensenists, not social scientists.  That is the stove is calling the kettle black.  Over the last decade or so it is the egalitarians that will not consider all of the evidence.  This pseudoscience has escalated to such a level as I discussed at the beginning of this review that cultural anthropologists and social scientists are now being isolated by other scientific disciplines as being too biased to be taken seriously.  That is, there is a fissure between empiricists and ideological egalitarians because the latter has become totally political and biased.  How things have swung back towards race realism in the last thirty years with no end in sight, including finding the genetic smart genes within a decade!

Montagu then asks, "One wonders why these so-called scientists have never tried standing the argument on its head and considered the possibility that, far from being due to natural differences, the differences are largely due to social and political inequalities. And why they refuse to consider that 'race' is a product of history, not of nature.  One wonders why these so-called scientists never seemed to have regarded it as possibly irresponsible to publish views in the name of science which have repeatedly been shown to be unsound, and disastrous for millions of people. Why is it that in the face of the Holocaust, 'ethnic cleansing,' and the endemic social and political inequalities that exist in the United States between whites and blacks, they have persisted in perpetuating demonstrably unsound views as an explanation for those inequalities and the evils to which they lead?"  But of course they have considered all of these things, and they have concluded that truth must prevail over Marxist ideology.  What Montagu and his kind really want remember is safe passage to go anywhere and do anything without ever again having to fear that the people they are amongst will single them out for consideration. That is, Marxism for them is really just social manipulation or manipulation by them of the population groups they live amongst (see my article on host/parasite social relationships at http://www.neoeugenics.net/host.htm).

As to research causing inequalities of course that is nonsense.  It is in fact quite the opposite.  Remember, Whites stand accused (next it will be some other group) of oppressing basically all people of color.  But the fact is, learning about innate abilities does not cause inequality, it merely helps to explain it.  And as Whites we have an obligation, having been accused of systemic or institutional racism, of declaring our innocence in the face of the attacks we have had to endure by the left.  We are not to blame. If Whites had this control to manipulate and oppress, why is it that the 2.6% of Ashkenazi Jews in the United States have ten times the wealth of the average American?  If inequality ipso facto translates into oppression, then the only real oppressor in the United States must be the Jews! (see http://www.neoeugenics.net/poj.htm for the actual statistics of Jewish power in the United States.)

Montagu continues, "It is not a blindness of some sort from which these enemies of humanity suffer, but an attitude of mind, however acquired, which causes them to perceive members of 'other' groups, identifiable as of different 'race,' as inferior, and therefore a threat to the continued integrity and welfare of society. I have called this viewpoint 'man's most dangerous myth.' Hitler, by organizing the murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and other targeted victims in the name of 'race,' proved indeed that the belief in 'race' is man's most dangerous myth."  Wrong again Ashley!  The most dangerous myth is Marxism. It has caused the death of over 100 million people in the last sixty years.  THAT is the most dangerous myth, that there is such a thing as class struggle, oppression by certain classes over others, and that these classes must be suppressed or eliminated by any means possible.  Understanding racial differences and that there is a great deal of racial diversity DOES NOT lead to the excesses of the Holocaust. Hitler's racialism like his imperialism and expansionism for the German people along with an unstoppable militarist momentum caused the massive destruction.  Hitler needed no racial doctrine to slaughter his enemies any more than Marxists needed a racial policy to slaughter many more millions than Hitler.  So if we go by the sheer number of people massacred, then Marxism is man's most dangerous myth!

Finally, Montagu argues, "It is generally held that anyone who cries 'Fire' in a crowded theatre should be held responsible for the consequences of his conduct. The same rule should apply to anyone who, motivated by racism, publishes or utters inflammatory falsehoods concerning others, whether they be individuals, groups, or populations; they should by law be held responsible for their conduct."  Simply stated, the left fully intends to eliminate freedom of speech as their first step towards returning the to world to Communist totalitarianism. In most European countries freedom of speech does not exist, and the left has dictated how people are to feel and act towards others. Whites can be castigated, humiliated, oppressed, and forced to accept egalitarian mandates at will. (For an excellent article on how the left is pursuing a policy of restricting free speech see Jared Taylor's recent article in American Renaissance available at http://www.neoeugenics.net/Jared.htm.)

Chapter 18 --- Bad Science, Worse Politics by Alan Ryan.
Ryan tries to place doubt on the validity of the best selling 1995 book The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray.  The problem is, we are long past that book's publication, and since then the data used in that book has been reanalyzed and gone over in great detail by a number of researchers and the data is solid and beyond reproach: intelligence matters greatly in how well one does in society.  In fact several reports and other statements from academics including the above APA report vindicates the data and in fact reconfirms it.  But Ryan does not attack the main tenets of the book but actually chews at it from the edges.  He attacks motives, interpretations and policy.  Fair enough.  I also don't agree with many of the policy issues in The Bell Curve.  But of course it was not attacked because of policy, but because it proved once again that races differ in average intelligence, and intelligence counts.  These facts are now beyond dispute as the American Psychological Association officially accepts them.  But in trying to trash The Bell Curve, Ryan makes several sophomoric mistakes and inferences.

For example he writes, "The Bell Curve is the product of an obsession, or, more exactly, of two different obsessions. Richard Herrnstein --- who died on September 24, 1994 --- was obsessed with the heritability of intelligence, the view that much the largest factor in our intellectual abilities comes in our genes. He was also convinced that there had been a liberal conspiracy to obscure the significance of genetically based differences in the intelligence of different races, social classes, and ethnic groups, and that all manner of educational and economic follies were being perpetrated in consequence."  How strange that Herrnstein believed what Lieberman described in Chapter four of this very book as a conspiracy by Marxists like Boas to use science for an egalitarian agenda based on ideology?  So apparently Herrnstein, according to this very book Race & IQ, was absolutely correct.  There in fact was a liberal conspiracy against empirical science.  They boasted about it in Chapter four!  I guess these are the hazards of throwing together a book where many of the chapters contradict each other because the left has run out of valid arguments against the heritability of intelligence.

Later Ryan states, "Again, all readers will grasp the authors' insistence that Head Start programs haven't worked; fewer will notice that those failures are more partial than the authors say, and that the failures provide a better argument for seeking programs that work than they do for The Bell Curve's conclusion that we should abandon the attempt to raise the IQs of the disadvantaged and devote virtually all our attention to the highly intelligent. The fashion in which such programs have failed is not analyzed with the scrupulousness one might wish. In essence, The Bell Curve's data suggest that Head Start and other preschool programs can raise children's IQs quite sharply for a short period; once the children are in a regular school, their IQ scores drift back to something like the level they began at. For a believer in g, this is evidence that in the long run the quantum of cognitive ability, whatever it might be, simply reveals itself."

Very wrong indeed. Ryan should know what other psychometricians now know.  The heritability of intelligence goes up as people age, and the so-called IQ gains of children are not increases in intelligence but a result of gains from teaching-to-the-test.  That is, children who are artificially boosted to perform well on tests are not really getting smarter, they are just being trained to do well on tests and the efforts will eventually wane as they get older and become less subject to simplistic brain washing, as that is what these demanding intervention programs are doing. Trying to prove a point at the expense of both the children and society --- pumping millions of dollars into programs to try and prove intelligence is not innate. They have failed.

But the other assertion, that we should stop spending money on other children and throw more money at the less intelligent, is the most dangerous proposal.  To be fair, why not merely spend the same amount of money on every child, no matter how gifted or how slow they are. No other formula is fair, in fact one could argue that the gifted should get more money for education because they will be the future leaders and not hamburger flippers.  But I am willing to concede that these arguments are not debatable, and fairness demands a simple formula of equal assets going to each individual.

Ryan later goes on to argue that we should spend more money on affirmative action in order to equalize everyone in the next generation. The problem with this is two-fold.  First, jobs and pay are a zero-sum game in the market and any benefits given to Blacks takes away from Whites.  There has to be a transfer of benefits when one group is artificially raised up in relation to others.  The second problem is that Whites can make the same claim against Jews and East Asians who now have on average more money and income.  That is, if it is unfair for Whites to be better off than Blacks, then it is also unfair for Asians and Jews to be better off than Whites.  There must be according to these Marxists some 'systemic racism' being practiced against Whites by Asians or Jews otherwise there would not be the standard deviation in intelligence and the differential in incomes and wealth that exists now.

In fact, Ryan admits that, "The most familiar will be the fairly well-confirmed discovery that, just as African Americans are one 'standard deviation,' i.e., 15 percent, less good than white Americans at tests of analytical and spatial intelligence, so East Asians --- especially the Hong Kong Chinese --- are anything up to one standard deviation better. If the white American average is set at 100, the black American average is 84, and the East Asian average is 111-115. Ashkenazi Jews have similar scores to East Asians, but the scores of Oriental Jews in Israel show an embarrassing contrast."  Ryan seems to making the argument here that intelligence matters and races do in fact differ in average intelligence, and it is significant.  Notice also that he equates average intelligence with "good," "less good" or "an embarrassing contrast."  So he seems to be promoting the ideology that intelligence somehow is equated with superiority, which it is not in nature. Throughout this book, it seems many of these authors insert these seemingly odd arguments that support the empirical view that races do differ.  But in fact, Ryan was merely making the comparison as a way of taking a jab at Whites, calling them "dumb niggers" if you will.  Being filled with hate himself, he couldn't help but get a dig in at Whites.  He is a bigot against Whites like some White bigots are against Blacks.  Ryan is trying to be hurtful because his comments are contrary to his earlier argument.

But let me elaborate further on these differences.  East Asians do have a higher average IQ than Whites, especially in the analytical/spatial intelligence of a few IQ points.  But probably because of selective migration, the Hong Kong Chinese are even higher. We see this in the US where selective migration of the more ambitious and more intelligent of the farmers' children headed for the big city, while the less intelligent, on average, stayed behind and took over the family farm.  There are numerous examples of this type of selective migration that alter the average intelligence of different groups of people within the same race.

Likewise, in the case of the Ashkenazi Jews there are two significant findings that indicate they are genetically endowed with the highest recorded IQ of any identifiable racial group.  Though they have an extremely high average IQ of 117, their average verbal IQ is 127!  This has occurred because of two thousand plus years of selective breeding.  Young scholars who were skilled in the verbal understanding and interpretation of the Jewish holy books were selected for marriage to the daughters of the wealthiest Jews (MacDonald, 1995). The whole process is more involved than this, but this eugenic breeding program has given the Ashkenazi Jews (the dominant Jewish group in the West) a powerful tool for dominating politics, the media, academics, etc.  Their verbal skills are unmatched by any other group.

As for the Oriental Jews, they did not follow the same eugenic breeding to the extent that the Ashkenazi Jews did.  For one, many of the Ashkenazi Jews, who lived amongst Whites in Europe, lost many of their less intelligent members during pogroms and persecutions (they defected to White society).  The Oriental Jews stayed together more as a group, keeping far more of there less intelligent members within the community, driving down the average IQ.  And today, one will find the same tensions between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Oriental Jews in Israel where the Ashkenazi dominate. Is it racism or genetics?  It seems to me the evidence is clear, in every society from Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Israel, Northern Ireland, and everywhere else where different identifiable ethnic or racial groups live together and one group is more intelligent than the other, tensions will exist.  All racial groups compete for resources and advantages.

Chapter 19 --- Behind the Curve by Leon J. Kamin.
Kamin has been one of the most outspoken critics of sociobiology and intelligence studies along with Rose, Lewontin, and Gould; all avowed Jewish Marxists.  Their agenda is fairly transparent: make the world safe for Jews to act indiscriminately wherever they live.  This is the driving force behind their attacks on Whites and right wing Jews alike.  But let me explain that I have no problem with the "Ben Stein" Jew who gleefully proclaims that "Jews are smarter, wealthier, and run America."  My objection to these Marxist Jews is that they spend all of their time attacking Whites and Western culture, trying desperately to make us out to be some type of pathological species separate from everyone else.  It is Malcolm X's expose of the "White Devil" cloaked in academic terms.

Kamin attacks The Bell Curve in a most unusual way but one that makes sense given his agenda.  First he attacks the research of Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster in Ireland.  Lynn's specialty has been in the field of trying to determine the intelligence of different racial groups around the world.  For example, he has attempted to determine the intelligence of Blacks in sub-Saharan Africa by using available data and extrapolating as best he can their average intelligence quotient.  In diverse disciplines such as sociology, behavior genetics, and population studies, this is done all the time.  There is not enough funding to go everywhere and administer the perfect test, if there was such a thing.  So what does Kamin do?  He criticizes Lynn's methods that are common among researchers, because The Bell Curve used Lynn's data several times.

I am not that familiar with Lynn's research or him personally, but I do know that he was one of the contributors to the American Psychological Association's 1998 book The Rising Curve: Long-Term Gains in IQ and Related Measures.  Curiously Lynn argues in that book that nutrition may be a significant factor in increasing one's intelligence and he was the most forceful academic in that book in showing how intelligence could be improved (but of course only slightly --- none of the other contributors could show that IQ could be raised more than a few points by improving the environment).  So apparently other academics respect Lynn's work and invited him to participate in this major publication (see my review of the book at http://www.neoeugenics.net/TRC.htm).  Kamin claims, "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity."  Well, other researchers don't seem to agree.  Kamin is unabashed in pillorying anyone who does not accept the Marxist dogma as he sees it. And again, this book shows that is all these people have left to hold back the juggernaut of sociobiology, genetic engineering and all the related fields that they cannot tolerate.

Chapter 20 --- The Tainted Sources of The Bell Curve by Charles Lane.
Lane takes a similar path to that of Kamin. He attacks the anthropological journal Mankind Quarterly publishing and then later The Pioneer Fund for funding some of the researchers cited in The Bell Curve.  His main objection to these two organizations?  They were against his preferred vision of a Marxist/egalitarian science that promoted radical environmentalism or environmental determinism --- concepts we now know are totally without merit and were only considered as viable because of the distortions and lies put forth by the Boasian school of anthropology.  So as it turns out,  he is attacking the main institutions that refused to submit to the Marxist demands to pursue science not empirically, but ideologically as they demanded.  I trust these authors see nothing ironic or bizarre in this assertion, so indoctrinated they are in Marxist conformity to established dogmas.  So let's take a look at these organizations and their supposed crimes.

Lane writes, "Surely the most curious of the sources he and Herrnstein consulted is Mankind Quarterly --- a journal of 'anthropology' founded in Edinburgh in 1960. Five articles from the journal are actually cited in The Bell Curve's bibliography.  But the influence on the book of scholars linked to Mankind Quarterly is more significant. No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly. Ten are present or former editors, or members of its editorial advisory board. This is interesting because Mankind Quarterly is a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race. Mankind Quarterly was established during decolonization and the U.S. civil rights movement. Defenders of the old order were eager to brush a patina of science on their efforts. Thus Mankind Quarterly's avowed purpose was to counter the 'Communist' and 'egalitarian' influences that were allegedly causing anthropology to neglect the fact of racial differences. 'The crimes of the Nazis,' wrote Robert Gayre, Mankind Quarterly's founder and editor-in-chief until 1978, 'did not, however, justify the enthronement of a doctrine of a-racialism as fact, nor of egalitarianism as ethnically and ethically demonstrable.'"

So let's look at the crimes committed by Mankind Quarterly.  When the Marxists had totally taken over most anthropology departments it attempted to give those few scholars who refused to submit to the status quo a place to publish their research --- research that now turns out to be more factual than that produced by the Boasian anthropologists.  So this is Mankind Quarterly's crime.  Providing a forum for researchers who have now been vindicated with regards to differences between races.  If anything, we should now turn tables and discount any researcher like Kamin, Rose, Lewontin and Gould who are admitted Marxists because their objectivity has obviously been tainted.

Second, if the originators believed in the genetic superiority of the White race, how is this different from Orthodox Jews belief in the moral and intellectual superiority of Jews and the need to keep the Jewish bloodline pure?  This is the official doctrine of Israel and their 'law of return' based on the blood purity of race.  Understand, you can be an atheist Jew and go to Israel. It has nothing to do with religion but with race.  So why are Jews allowed to feel good about themselves, but not Gentile Whites?

Lane then attacks the fact that many researchers get support from The Pioneer Fund.  He writes, "[The Pioneer Fund's] current agenda remains true to the purpose set forth in its charter of 1937: 'race betterment, with special reference to the people of the United States.' In a letter in 1989, the fund proposed that America abandon integration, on the grounds that 'raising the intelligence of blacks or others still remains beyond our capabilities.'  [This is strange, since at the Pioneer Fund's website at the url of http://www.pioneerfund.org/about.html it says the following: "To insure the impartiality of the research, the Fund does not request reports about the research, and it often does not know the results except from public information. The Fund does not disseminate any results which come to its attention, makes no recommendations based on any such research, and remains strictly inactive and neutral on all political and social issues."] The fund not only underwrites Mankind Quarterly and many other Pearson publications, but has also provided millions of dollars in research grants to sustain the 'scholars' who write for it and serve on its editorial board."  And I for one am damn glad that one man foresaw the need to set up independent funding to continue needed research in eugenics and racial differences. That funding has meant the difference between the totalitarianism of Communism and the freedom of science to pursue empirical research.  Remember, in this very book, they bragged how they suppressed genetic research.  Now they in the same journal lament that some would not submit to their oppression.  And that is all they have left now, to call anyone who wants to know the truth a 'racist' because they have no scientific alternatives to genetic enhancement.  The fact that people are smart because of their genes, not their environment, is now beyond dispute because these Marxists have admitted they do not know what environmental interventions might work.  All they have left are these genteel ways of calling anyone who disagrees with them a 'nigger.'  Because when you call someone a racist, it is just another term for a White nigger (used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people).  And truly, censorship of research by one group over another is deprivation of the worst kind. (For a rebuttal to the Marxist criticism of The Pioneer Fund published in the academic journal INTELLIGENCE see http://www.neoeugenics.net/pioneer.htm.)

A final note on Lane's hate speech and research.  It does not matter what a researcher's agenda is, their personal philosophy, their religion or anything else that is peripheral to the research itself.  Only the research can be flawed not the researcher.  Academic research is academically reviewed and debated over and over again, hypotheses tested and retested.  Attacks on funding, motives, or personal flaws in character are irrelevant unless they are woven into a theory of group evolutionary strategies -- that is, made a part of the research. Research always stands on its own data and methods and should be judged likewise, on the data alone.

Chapter 21 --- "Science" in the Service of Racism by C. Loring Brace.
But "science" in the service of Marxism is apparently all right?  But again, empirical science is not about being in the service of anything.  How knowledge is used is not based on correctness but on motives.  And if the races differ in intelligence, and this is a fact and based on genetics, how can science hide from this fact?  To hide what is true is tantamount to censorship and a short stop away from totalitarianism.

Brace tries to make the case against the following six assertions made in The Bell Curve:

1.) Human cognitive ability is a single general entity --- Spearman's "g" --- in which there are individual and group differences;
2.) IQ tests measure this accurately;
3.) IQ tests measure how "smart" or "intelligent" people are;
4.) IQ scores are fixed for much of a life span;
5.) IQ tests are not biased in regard to "race," ethnic group, or social or economic status;
6.) Cognitive ability has a heritability of between forty and eighty percent.

Brace claims, "Since their first assumption concerning the reality and importance of "g" has no scientific basis, assumptions two, three, and four become irrelevant. Assumptions five and six are both demonstrably false --- points I shall return to later --- which means that there is in fact no scientific justification for the book as a whole."

To show just how absurd this statement is, I just finished reading the recently published academic book Who Is Rational?: Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning by Stanovich.  He states that, "Surely we would want to avoid the conclusion that individuals with more computational power are systematically computing the non-normative response. Such an outcome would be an absolute first in a psychometric field that is 100 years and thousands of studies old. It would mean that Spearman's "g" (1904) positive manifold for cognitive tasks --- virtually unchallenged for 100 years --- had finally broken down. Obviously, parsimony dictates that positive manifold remains a fact of life for cognitive tasks and that the response originally thought to be normative, normatives, actually is."  What he is saying here is that Spearman's "g" is no longer even questioned, much less challenged or false.  This book, unlike Race and IQ, was written for other academics, in the related field of "Heuristics and Bias," and has no political interest in intelligence as it relates to different races.  It is purely empirical.  Brace therefore is lying outright about Spearman's "g" not being the foundation of psychometrics and the basis of intelligence testing (and you will find the same conclusions in any textbook directed at psychologists that are going into intelligence testing --- Spearman's "g" is in fact the accepted paradigm).

But of course, I again only have to refer to the above APA report where the majority of professionals in the field in fact accept the six points stated above, and this was in 1995.  Since then, more research has shown not only that intelligence is primarily inherited, but also that the average difference in intelligence between races is primarily genetic (See Chapter 12 of The g Factor available at http://www.neoeugenics.net/jen12.htm).  The reason for this is simple, the environmental determinists have not been able to come up with an environmental cause that can explain the 15 point gap between Blacks and Whites, much less the 32 point gap between Ashkenazi Jews and Blacks.  To overturn the genetic basis for the difference in intelligence, there is a very easy test that could be done but the left has failed to apply it.  Test adult White children who have been adopted by Ashkenazi Jews and see if they have the same intelligence as the average Jew or the average White.  A White child in a Jewish home adopted at birth should not be in any way discernibly different from a Jewish child, so the problem of bias against Black children adopted by Whites would be obviated.  Why hasn't this simple study been done?

Brace, like his cohorts, constantly speculate about alternative reasons for the Black/White difference in intelligence.  He states, "The correlations are real enough, but it is just possible that the reasons may be precisely the opposite of those favored by the authors; that is, high socioeconomic status may actually be part of the circumstances that create high IQ scores in the offspring raised by those who have been born to privilege."  The problem with statements like this one is that the social scientists have every opportunity to put forth such a hypothesis and then try to prove it.  But they won't, can't or fail at every attempt.  New environmental excuses keep popping up, and then never materialize into a workable explanatory theory.  While the genetic connection just keeps getting stronger and stronger as more data is compiled.  In fact, their only offense is now defense.  They attack racialist research for not being perfectly to their liking, but they fail to present their own research.  That is, they keep claiming there is no "proof" that gravity exists because it cannot be mathematically resolved with the other three forces.  But still they cannot fly without an airplane.  This is hypocrisy of the meanest type; complaining about other's research while not producing any of your own as an alternative.

To show how badly the egalitarians are losing the war against Jensenists, Brace writes, "Here is where a bit of anthropological perspective is sorely needed. In fact no present human population is living under the circumstances that served to shape the human condition in the past. Even the often-maligned Australian aborigines were pursuing an extraordinarily sophisticated post-Pleistocene form of Mesolithic subsistence strategy with all kinds of complicated resource extraction techniques that allowed them to take advantage of a spectrum and quantity of plant foods not available for human use throughout the span of the Pleistocene when human cognitive capabilities were being evolved. From two million to ten thousand years ago, whether people lived in the tropics or the temperate zone, the problems that had to be overcome by human ingenuity were essentially the same from one end of the inhabited world to the other."

Oops, Brace spoke too soon.  Recent studies of the Australian aborigine brain show that it is structurally different from other races and is molded by the unique environment they evolved in:

"Australian Aborigines have long been famous for their ability to navigate the trackless wastes, to find water holes and locate animal lairs. Modern testing has shown that this is because they excel in what is called 'visual memory.' On average, they perform about 50 percent better than whites when asked to recall what they saw in a room or picture. For 4,000 generations --- about 80,000 years --- Aborigines were hunter-gatherers in the harsh Australian interior, an environment that put a strong premium on remembering landmarks that could mean the differences between death and survival.

"Now Clive Harper, a professor of pathology in Sidney, Australia, reports that the visual cortex, which processes visual information, is about 25 percent larger in Aborigines than in whites and has more nerve cells. He points out that no one really knows how the visual cortex works, but the difference in size suggests inherently superior spatial ability. However, racial differences in brain structure are a very unfashionable area of study, and Prof. Harper has been unable to publish his work in any scientific journal. Editors are 'anxious that this was going to be seen as some form of discrimination,' says Prof Harper. The organizers of a conference in the United States also refused to let him present his work." [Alasdair Palmer, The Difference, Sunday Telegraph (London), Nov. 19, 2000.]

Brace states that, "The high IQ scores achieved by East Asians and Jews are much more likely to be because those two groups represent the bearers of the two oldest traditions of unbroken literate continuity in the world than because there is anything inherently biological in the literary achievements of their representatives. In each of those traditions, the stress on intellectual achievement is valued both for the family honor and for the individual satisfaction to be gained. Both of those examples illustrate what has been called 'behavioral Lamarckism', where maternal investment in the shaping of behavioral styles and the transmission of social learning can continue for generations in the absence of selecting control by any genetic aspect of variation."

First of all, this assertion is as false as that for Black failure.  The left has never been able to show that there is such a thing as "behavioral Lamarckism."  The research just does not exist. Secondly, both East Asian and Jewish superiority and Black inferiority in terms of intelligence then is vested in the family --- not the society.  If one race does better than another, and it is not genetic, then why are Whites responsible for the low status of Blacks everywhere in the world?  The Marxists can't have it both ways --- they praise the family for East Asian/Jewish advancement but blame all Whites for Black failure. What is it --- society or the family?  Well what it is is just another way of calling Whites niggers, as I have stated before.  Whites have become the new oppressed group, blamed for other's failures but not for other's accomplishments.  Brace is following in the tradition of Freud, The Frankfurt School, Boas, and the New Left in attacking Whites for their own elitist advantage.  The more Whites can be pathologized and kept on the defensive, the more we can be kept in check and controlled by guilt.  The new genetics however makes that program increasingly more difficult to sustain.

To show how this game of guilt is played, read carefully Brace's failed syllogism when he confuses racism with practicality: "I began this review with the claim that, in essence, The Bell Curve is a manifestation of 'racism.' In saying this, I have used the word in Todorov's sense as an 'ubiquitous form of behavior' directed towards representatives of a perceived 'race.' This is in contradistinction to his use of the word 'racialism' as merely indicating the assumption that particular physical and behavioral characteristics are associated with each supposed 'race'. Gates has complained that the racist's 'error' is also one of 'thought' as well as of behavior, and it is a legitimate issue. Not to make too fine a point of it, however, the real manifestation of damage comes with action, and it is useful to have a definition of 'racism' that can be specifically measured in terms of its tangible consequences.  Elsewhere Murray has declared that 'there is no such thing as an undeserving five-year-old.' However, one of the main points of The Bell Curve is that such programs as welfare and Head Start should be abolished. Evidently the five-year-olds who will be affected deserve the consequences of the poverty of their parents who in turn are poor because they are considered to be stupid and, in large numbers, presumed to be stupid because of their African heritage. At bottom, then, those five-year-olds presumably deserve the consequences of their position because of their perceived 'race.' By the definitions I have adopted above, it is clear that those who would devise and implement such policies are 'racists,' which is why The Bell Curve is 'a manifestation' of 'racism.'"

Let my simplify Brace's syllogism:

1.) Racism is when one race tries to harm another race; [Brace]
2.) All children are deserving of an education; [H&M]
3). Money that belongs to tax payers should not be wasted on education programs that don't work; [H&M]
4.) Black children have low IQs because of the poverty of their parents; [Brace]
5.) The poverty of Blacks is solely due to the fact that Whites think they are stupid; [Brace]
6.) Anyone who challenges items four and five are racists whether or not the statements are true; [Brace]
7.) Herrnstein and Murray are racists because they have questioned the validity of the radical environmentalist's moribund position! [Brace]

Now let's look at this in a simpler way.  You accuse me of burning a cross on my neighbor's lawn.  I admit that I don't much care for Catholics and my neighbor is Catholic.  But I was in another state at the time and could not have done the crime.  You try to reinforce to the jury what a racist I am because I am trying to defend myself rather than say nothing.  So I should be sent to prison anyway because if nothing else, I should not dislike Catholics.  And that is how Stalin began his purges and sent millions of people to die in the gulags.  Guilt was based on presumed intentionality of a persons actions by the state.  And that is why Brace, like the other authors in this book, are dangerous totalitarians.

I will end with Brace by a syllogism by Michael Levin from Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean, 1997: "Calling claims of genetic race differences 'racist,' in particular, begs not one but four questions: (1) Are race differences in themselves bad? (2) Is believing in race differences bad? (3) Is saying there are race differences bad? (4) Is studying race differences bad? Once it is realized that an affirmative answer to each of these questions must be established before the charge of racism can be made to stick, the charge itself collapses."

Chapter 22 --- How Heritability Misleads About Race by Ned Block.
Block ends this book with a somewhat more rational tone.  He states, "To take a real example, the heritability of IQ increases throughout childhood into adulthood. Plomin gives heritability figures of under twenty percent in infancy, about thirty percent in childhood, fifty percent in adolescence, and a bit higher in adult life. (Plomin notes that the results are not a consequence of increasing reliability of IQ tests.) Studies of older twins in Sweden report an eighty percent heritability figure for adults by age fifty as compared to a fifty percent heritability for children."

So at least Block does not fall into the trap of radical environmentalism.  He at least tries to make a rational case for why Blacks cannot be included in heritability studies, even if it does lack construct validity.  That is, why are Blacks so different from others?  And again, he still has the problem of admitting that Whites in Europe may have high heritability in IQ, but fails to mention the equal disparity in Europe between Whites and Jews of 17 IQ points.

Block's main argument against Jensenism is what is called the Flynn effect.  That is, IQ scores have been rising universally for the last few decades, and it is unexplainable.  But does that mean that intelligence can be increased through environmental improvements, even when we don't know what those improvements are?  Not necessarily.  See my above review of the book The Rising Curve earlier in this article for a discussion of the Flynn effect.  It is a puzzle, but it will not lead to an environmental solution for closing the gap between Blacks and Whites any more than it will lead to a solution to closing the gap between Whites and Ashkenazi Jews.

But there is an interesting twist to this whole issue touched on in the book Who Is Rational, mentioned above.  Apparently, intelligent people tend to be more rational but not necessarily so. That is, some intelligent people are irrational in some areas and it seems this aspect of human nature, just now being explored, is not part of Spearman's "g."  Rationality, unlike raw intelligence, is more malleable.  That is, with the right training and environment some people are capable of "critical thinking."  If this is the case, and if irrationality is caused by old modules or behavioral algorithms left over from our hunter-gatherer past, then the Flynn effect may be a reflection of this new way of thinking, and unrelated to intelligence.  That is, by being more open because we are more and more exposed to different ways of thinking, humans can score higher on some intelligence tests.  I plan to discuss this issue in an upcoming review, because it holds important clues not only for intelligence, but also for neoeugenics.  For example, what if the irrationality of Marxists like Montagu, Gould, Lewontin, Kamin and Rose is due to their eugenic practices and the asymmetry of their intelligence --- that is a high verbal IQ of 127 but a normal performance IQ.  Could this cause their irrational need for Marxist dogma?

Lastly, Block writes, "I would like to end with a brief comment on affirmative action. Herrnstein and Murray suppose that affirmative-action policies depend on an assumption of genetic equality. But the main justifications for affirmative action do not so depend. Affirmative action is justified as a remedy for current discrimination, to make up for past discrimination and for the provision of role models. Issues about a genetic involvement in race differences have no relevance to these justifications."

Well, if this were the case, then affirmative action would only apply to Blacks and Native Americans. But the fact is, quotas, set-asides, target markets, etc. include everyone but Whites and Jews!  A wealthy East Asian can get special treatment by government agencies just as easily as a Black.  For example, in many municipal set-aside program for minority participation, a certain percent of contracts have to go to minorities and any minority can qualify except Whites and Jews.  So what this in fact does is allow wealthy East Asians, Asian Indians, White Hispanics, or any other race to compete against Blacks and American Indians!

No, immigration and affirmative action have always been an attack on Whites.  Blacks have not advocated restrictions on immigration nor have they requested that affirmative action apply only to Blacks (and Native Americans).  To do so would make perfect sense if those running these programs really wanted to help the average Black. But they don't.  But that's a whole 'nother story that Kevin MacDonald has covered quite adequately in The Culture of Critique.

Conclusion.
The nature-nurture debate has been settled for the most part, except for the realization of genetic racial differences in behavior and intelligence as well as appearance. Race and IQ  highlights this continuing tension being played out by elitist factions that belong to specific groups, mostly racial but also ideological.  The relatively new discipline of evolutionary group strategies deals with this phenomenon, and we must therefore look beneath the arguments themselves at the intentions of the players.

On the left are the Jews and their gentile allies who have been attempting to promote a Marxist/egalitarian Western ethos so that they can hide.  They fear a resurgence of anti-Semitism and find that to prevent them from being noticed, they want a universalist world which Marxism struggles to bring about.  Jews have an incredible amount of power and wealth, and along with their genetically innate differences that include high intelligence and extreme ethnocentrism, they are an easy target of envy that can lead to oppression.  To neutralize this threat, they have tried to pathologize White society, promote immigration to dilute the White majority, and promote affirmative action while accusing Western culture of racism and impugning them with guilt.  That is, the whole program is about racial dilution, White subjugation, and suppression of any racialist ideas or research.

On the right are primarily non-Jewish Whites along with their Jewish allies.  They make up the empiricists, the conservatives, non-Marxist liberal academics, and iconoclastic intellectuals that like to challenge any standing moral order.  This group was for the most part silenced because of the Second World War.  After all, the West had opposed Hitler and everyone was indoctrinated into believing that Nazism was all about race (Gregor, 2000).  So the right had to stand-down and capitulate to a new egalitarian ethos aside from opposing Communism, and yield to the moral intimidation of the left.

But circa 1970, new discoveries brought about new fields of research such as neo-Darwinism, sociobiology, behavior genetics, psychometrics, and advancements in research methods and mathematical tools like meta-analysis and factor analysis to name just a couple.  The existing paradigm of environmentalist determinist dogma was starting to be challenged and is now all but dead.  The juggernaut continues now with the Human Genome Project and there is no end in sight for the new order of racialist discoveries and neoeugenics. It is here again, and the Marxists are struggling to silence the new order but it cannot be stopped.  And thanks to their oppressive programs of deception and manipulation, they have sparked a new wave of anti-Semitism as people in Western countries come to realize who has been behind immigration and the attack on Western culture.

Neither side is right or wrong of course. It is merely the evolutionary battle that occurs between genetically different groups of people. There is no morally correct stance or position.  But the consequences of this battle must be exposed if we hope to head off another major catastrophe between groups in conflict.  In summation then, the book Race & IQ was a hastily produced and extremely disingenuous attempt to censor racialist research.  It was lame, untimely, and extremely flawed.  But its most important message is that the Marxists have lost the battle. The book is an admission of defeat.  Eugenics and racial hygiene are back with refined tools and a more robust vision of what the new human species can become through genetic engineering.

And at some point, we must ask the Marxists to support their charges of racism with the same empirical data that they have demanded from the Jensenists and sociobiologists that has now been abundantly supplied to them.  That is, what is racism, how does one define it, and how does a particular population come about enforcing policies outside of the sphere of political policy, freedom of speech and a free society.

The charge of racism has one purpose only, to suppress eventually freedom of speech and freedom of thought, because research is thought provoking and can only be suppressed by draconian totalitarian measures.  That is, suspicion of "racism" is enough to make you an enemy of the people.  So let's look at what this means.

The field of psychometrics deals with intelligence, behavioral traits, ethical behavior and perhaps soon even rationality itself as a separate set of evolutionary modules.  While writing this review, I am also reading Modern Psychometrics: The Science of Psychological Assessment, 1999 by Rust and Golombok.  This is an introductory textbook for psychology students and they state:

Stability of the big-five model
While considerable evidence has accumulated to show the five-factor solution is more stable than any other number of factors, it should always be remembered that this is essentially a consensus. A minority of studies, which may be under different circumstances with different items and different populations, find other solutions provide a better fit, so it is not the case that for every data set the five-factor solution will always emerge. Rather, the five-factor solution is merely the most frequent and ubiquitous. Although it represents the highest level of agreement among experts, there is considerable scope for differing minority views, particularly in populations where special circumstances may apply.  Similarly, the intrinsic nature of each of the big-five traits also represents a consensus. Again there is wide agreement concerning the general area covered by each trait. But the specific names given to each trait, and the particular slant placed on them by the researcher, varies from study to study.

Table 10.1 Domains and trait specification for the five Orpheus major scales

Domain

Orpheus

Big-five trait

Social

Fellowship

Extraversion vs. introversion

Organizational

Authority

Tough-mindedness vs. agreeableness

Intellectual

Conformity

Conventionality vs. openness-to-experience

Emotional

Emotion

Neuroticism vs. confidence

Perceptual

Detail

Conscientiousness

As I look over these traits, and the pages of behavioral descriptions that are subsumed into the big-five traits, I see nothing about racism.  So it is not a behavioral trait and therefore does not make up a person's personality. So what is it?  I contend that as a behavior, it does not exist.  It only exists as a natural occurrence or set of feelings that arise from group cohesion from our evolutionary past, and should more appropriately be labeled as ethnocentrism.  But as a proximate feeling of caution towards the "other," ethnocentrism is a natural part of human behavior, and is triggered by the social milieu, and not from within the individual.  One group may attempt to manipulate another group to their own advantage, but that is an innate characteristic in all humans to varying degrees.

Research has shown that Europeans, and especially Western Europeans, are far less ethnocentric than say Middle Eastern populations, Africans or Asians.  The reason is probably due to the fact that Whites evolved in a hostile glaciated ecosystem that was sparsely populated, and there was more advantage to having some neighbors nearby than killing one's neighbor.  But the accusations have been, that Western culture (that is Whites in general) tends to be racist. Or at least this is what is implied.  Well, where is the proof?  Egalitarians have had decades now to use the same tools used in psychometrics such as factor analysis, meta-analysis, and numerous other tools to show that there is such a thing as racist behavior and that this or that group is racist and others are not.  But I have not seen any data or research that meets the rigors of mathematical analyses.  All that has been provided are anecdotal stories and folk psychology underpinned by spreading fear of another Holocaust because we dare discuss issues of race.

So I must conclude that the only objective of the egalitarian/Marxist left is to undermine democracy and freedom once again, only this time using the language of racism instead of the horrors of bourgeois capitalism and worker exploitation.  The objectives are the same, a return to Communism or universalism where people will act according to social planning or be exterminated.  Their objectives are clear, but the Internet has unleashed another obstacle to their attempt to suppress free speech.  Race and IQ is just another book that tries to validate this program of intimidation and ad hominem attacks to silence free scientific inquiry into human behavior.


APPENDIX A

Scientific American, November 1998: [The following article is important not because of its author but because of the popular magazine it appeared in.  Scientific American has always been a Marxist leaning publication that promoted an egalitarian/radical environmentalism when it came to differences in intelligence.  The only thing left is for Gould, Montagu, Kamin, Rose and Lewontin et al. to admit that they wrong all along, and driven an ideological agenda—a return to Communism and universalism.  That is, as neo-Leninists, neo-totalitarianism for the liberation of the oppressed under their guiding hands.  And anyone who dared to challenge them was labeled as racist in order to shut them up. Matt Nuenke]

The General Intelligence Factor
Despite some popular assertions, a single factor for intelligence, called g, can be measured with IQ tests and does predict success in life—Linda S. Gottfredson.

No subject in psychology has provoked more intense public controversy than the study of human intelligence. From its beginning, research on how and why people differ in overall mental ability has fallen prey to political and social agendas that obscure or distort even the most well-established scientific findings. Journalists, too, often present a view of intelligence research that is exactly the opposite of what most intelligence experts believe. For these and other reasons, public understanding of intelligence falls far short of public concern about it. The IQ experts discussing their work in the public arena can feel as though they have fallen down the rabbit hole into Alice's Wonderland.

The debate over intelligence and intelligence testing focuses on the question of whether it is useful or meaningful to evaluate people according to a single major dimension of cognitive competence. Is there indeed a general mental ability we commonly call "intelligence," and is it important in the practical affairs of life? The answer, based on decades of intelligence research, is an unequivocal yes. No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition. And this factor seems to have considerable influence on a person's practical quality of life. Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being, including a person's chances of divorcing, dropping out of high school, being unemployed or having illegitimate children.

By now the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential—and they are born that way, just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess and other traits. Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent mental aptitudes into intellectual equals.

Of course, there are many kinds of talent, many kinds of mental ability and many other aspects of personality and character that influence a person's chances of happiness and success. The functional importance of general mental ability in everyday life, however, means that without onerous restrictions on individual liberty, differences in mental competence are likely to result in social inequality. This gulf between equal opportunity and equal outcomes is perhaps what pains Americans most about the subject of intelligence. The public intuitively knows what is at stake: when asked to rank personal qualities in order of desirability, people put intelligence second only to good health. But with a more realistic approach to the intellectual differences between people, society could better accommodate these differences and minimize the inequalities they create.

Extracting g
Early in the century-old study of intelligence, researchers discovered that all tests of mental ability ranked individuals in about the same way. Although mental tests are often designed to measure specific domains of cognition—verbal fluency, say, or mathematical skill, spatial visualization or memory—people who do well on one kind of test tend to do well on the others, and people who do poorly generally do so across the board. This overlap, or intercorrelation, suggests that all such tests measure some global element of intellectual ability as well as specific cognitive skills. In recent decades, psychologists have devoted much effort to isolating that general factor, which is abbreviated g, from the other aspects of cognitive ability gauged in mental tests.

 The statistical extraction of g is performed by a technique called factor analysis. Introduced at the turn of the century by British psychologist Charles Spearman, factor analysis determines the minimum number of underlying dimensions necessary to explain a pattern of correlations among measurements. A general factor suffusing all tests is not, as is sometimes argued, a necessary outcome of factor analysis. No general factor has been found in the analysis of personality tests, for example; instead the method usually yields at least five dimensions (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to ideas), each relating to different subsets of tests. But, as Spearman observed, a general factor does emerge from analysis of mental ability tests, and leading psychologists, such as Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley and John B. Carroll of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, have confirmed his findings in the decades since. Partly because of this research, most intelligence experts now use g as the working definition of intelligence.

The general factor explains most differences among individuals in performance on diverse mental tests. This is true regardless of what specific ability a test is meant to assess, regardless of the test's manifest content (whether words, numbers or figures) and regardless of the way the test is administered (in written or oral form, to an individual or to a group). Tests of specific mental abilities do measure those abilities, but they all reflect g to varying degrees as well. Hence, the g factor can be extracted from scores on any diverse battery of tests.

Conversely, because every mental test is "contaminated" by the effects of specific mental skills, no single test measures only g. Even the scores from IQ tests—which usually combine about a dozen subtests of specific cognitive skills—contain some "impurities" that reflect those narrower skills. For most purposes, these impurities make no practical difference, and g and IQ can be used interchangeably. But if they need to, intelligence researchers can statistically separate the g component of IQ. The ability to isolate g has revolutionized research on general intelligence, because it has allowed investigators to show that the predictive value of mental tests derives almost entirely from this global factor rather than from the more specific aptitudes measured by intelligence tests.

In addition to quantifying individual differences, tests of mental abilities have also offered insight into the meaning of intelligence in everyday life. Some tests and test items are known to correlate better with g than others do. In these items the "active ingredient" that demands the exercise of g seems to be complexity. More complex tasks require more mental manipulation, and this manipulation of information—discerning similarities and inconsistencies, drawing inferences, grasping new concepts and so on—constitutes intelligence in action. Indeed, intelligence can best be described as the ability to deal with cognitive complexity.

This description coincides well with lay perceptions of intelligence. The g factor is especially important in just the kind of behaviors that people usually associate with "smarts": reasoning, problem solving, abstract thinking, quick learning. And whereas g itself describes mental aptitude rather than accumulated knowledge, a person's store of knowledge tends to correspond with his or her g level, probably because that accumulation represents a previous adeptness in learning and in understanding new information. The g factor is also the one attribute that best distinguishes among persons considered gifted, average or retarded.

Several decades of factor-analytic research on mental tests have confirmed a hierarchical model of mental abilities.  The evidence, summarized most effectively in Carroll's 1993 book, Human Cognitive Abilities, puts g at the apex in this model, with more specific aptitudes arrayed at successively lower levels:  the so-called group factors, such as verbal ability, mathematical reasoning, spatial visualization and memory, are just below g, and below these are skills that are more dependent on knowledge or experience, such as the principles and practices of a particular job or profession.

Some researchers use the term "multiple intelligences" to label these sets of narrow capabilities and achievements. Psychologist Howard Gardner of Harvard University, for example, has postulated that eight relatively autonomous "intelligences" are exhibited in different domains of achievement. He does not dispute the existence of g but treats it as a specific factor relevant chiefly to academic achievement and to situations that resemble those of school. Gardner does not believe that tests can fruitfully measure his proposed intelligences; without tests, no one can at present determine whether the intelligences are indeed independent of g (or each other). Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent Gardner's intelligences tap personality traits or motor skills rather than mental aptitudes.

Other forms of intelligence have been proposed; among them, emotional intelligence and practical intelligence are perhaps the best known. They are probably amalgams either of intellect and personality or of intellect and informal experience in specific job or life settings, respectively. Practical intelligence like "street smarts," for example, seems to consist of the localized knowledge and know-how developed with untutored experience in particular everyday settings and activities—the so-called school of hard knocks. In contrast, general intelligence is not a form of achievement, whether local or renowned. Instead the g factor regulates the rate of learning: it greatly affects the rate of return in knowledge to instruction and experience but cannot substitute for either.

The Biology of g
Some critics of intelligence research maintain that the notion of general intelligence is illusory: that no such global mental capacity exists and that apparent "intelligence" is really just a by-product of one's opportunities to learn skills and information valued in a particular cultural context. True, the concept of intelligence and the way in which individuals are ranked according to this criterion could be social artifacts. But the fact that g is not specific to any particular domain of knowledge or mental skill suggests that g is independent of cultural content, including beliefs about what intelligence is. And tests of different social groups reveal the same continuum of general intelligence. This observation suggests either that cultures do not construct g or that they construct the same g. Both conclusions undercut the social artifact theory of intelligence. [The above has been labeled behavioral Lamarckism, where maternal investment in the shaping of behavioral styles and the transmission of social learning can continue for generations in the absence of selecting control by any genetic aspect of variation. Those groups who want to deny their own high genetic intelligence promote social Lamarckism.  They claim that they have high intelligence because of maternal care and/or just trying harder, while those with low intelligence suffer from systemic- or institutional-racism.  But there is no scientific basis for such a hypothesis and genetic differences must remain the most parsimonious factor in group differences—unless one want to infer that Whites have low IQs in relation to East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews because we are like Blacks—oppressed in our own societies. Matt Nuenke]

Moreover, research on the physiology and genetics of g has uncovered biological correlates of this psychological phenomenon. In the past decade, studies by teams of researchers in North America and Europe have linked several attributes of the brain to general intelligence. After taking into account gender and physical stature, brain size as determined by magnetic resonance imaging is moderately correlated with IQ (about 0.4 on a scale of 0 to 1). So is the speed of nerve conduction. The brains of bright people also use less energy during problem solving than do those of their less able peers. And various qualities of brain waves correlate strongly (about 0.5 to 0.7) with IQ: the brain waves of individuals with higher IQs, for example, respond more promptly and consistently to simple sensory stimuli such as audible clicks. These observations have led some investigators to posit that differences in g result from differences in the speed and efficiency of neural processing. If this theory is true, environmental conditions could influence g by modifying brain physiology in some manner.

Studies of so-called elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs), conducted by Jensen and others, are bridging the gap between the psychological and the physiological aspects of g. These mental tasks have no obvious intellectual content and are so simple that adults and most children can do them accurately in less than a second. In the most basic reaction-time tests, for example, the subject must react when a light goes on by lifting her index finger off a home button and immediately depressing a response button. Two measurements are taken: the number of milliseconds between the illumination of the light and the subject's release of the home button, which is called decision time, and the number of milliseconds between the subject's release of the home button and pressing of the response button, which is called movement time.

In this task, movement time seems independent of intelligence, but the decision times of higher-IQ subjects are slightly faster than those of people with lower IQs. As the tasks are made more complex, correlations between average decision times and IQ increase. These results further support the notion that intelligence equips individuals to deal with complexity and that its influence is greater in complex tasks than in simple ones.

The ECT-IQ correlations are comparable for all IQ levels, ages, genders and racial-ethnic groups tested. Moreover, studies by Philip A. Vernon of the University of Western Ontario and others have shown that the ECT-IQ overlap results almost entirely from the common g factor in both measures. Reaction times do not reflect differences in motivation or strategy or the tendency of some individuals to rush through tests and daily tasks—that penchant is a personality trait. They actually seem to measure the speed with which the brain apprehends, integrates and evaluates information. Research on ECTs and brain physiology has not yet identified the biological determinants of this processing speed. These studies do suggest, however, that g is as reliable and global a phenomenon at the neural level as it is at the level of the complex information processing required by IQ tests and everyday life.

The existence of biological correlates of intelligence does not necessarily mean that intelligence is dictated by genes. Decades of genetics research have shown, however, that people are born with different hereditary potentials for intelligence and that these genetic endowments are responsible for much of the variation in mental ability among individuals. Last spring an international team of scientists headed by Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London announced the discovery of the first gene linked to intelligence. Of course, genes have their effects only in interaction with environments, partly by enhancing an individual's exposure or sensitivity to formative experiences. Differences in general intelligence, whether measured as IQ or, more accurately, as g are both genetic and environmental in origin—just as are all other psychological traits and attitudes studied so far, including personality, vocational interests and societal attitudes. This is old news among the experts. The experts have, however, been startled by more recent discoveries.

One is that the heritability of IQ rises with age—that is to say, the extent to which genetics accounts for differences in IQ among individuals increases as people get older. Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins, published in the past decade by a group led by Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., of the University of Minnesota and other scholars, show that about 40 percent of IQ differences among preschoolers stems from genetic differences but that heritability rises to 60 percent by adolescence and to 80 percent by late adulthood. With age, differences among individuals in their developed intelligence come to mirror more closely their genetic differences. It appears that the effects of environment on intelligence fade rather than grow with time. In hindsight, perhaps this should have come as no surprise. Young children have the circumstances of their lives imposed on them by parents, schools and other agents of society, but as people get older they become more independent and tend to seek out the life niches that are most congenial to their genetic proclivities.

A second big surprise for intelligence experts was the discovery that environments shared by siblings have little to do with IQ. Many people still mistakenly believe that social, psychological and economic differences among families create lasting and marked differences in IQ. Behavioral geneticists refer to such environmental effects as "shared" because they are common to siblings who grow up together. Research has shown that although shared environments do have a modest influence on IQ in childhood, their effects dissipate by adolescence. The IQs of adopted children, for example, lose all resemblance to those of their adoptive family members and become more like the IQs of the biological parents they have never known. Such findings suggest that siblings either do not share influential aspects of the rearing environment or do not experience them in the same way. Much behavioral genetics research currently focuses on the still mysterious processes by which environments make members of a household less alike.

g on the Job
Although the evidence of genetic and physiological correlates of g argues powerfully for the existence of global intelligence, it has not quelled the critics of intelligence testing. These skeptics argue that even if such a global entity exists, it has no intrinsic functional value and becomes important only to the extent that people treat it as such: for example, by using IQ scores to sort, label and assign students and employees. Such concerns over the proper use of mental tests have prompted a great deal of research in recent decades. This research shows that although IQ tests can indeed be misused, they measure a capability that does in fact affect many kinds of performance and many life outcomes, independent of the tests' interpretations or applications. Moreover, the research shows that intelligence tests measure the capability equally well for all native-born English-speaking groups in the U.S.

If we consider that intelligence manifests itself in everyday life as the ability to deal with complexity, then it is easy to see why it has great functional or practical importance. Children, for example, are regularly exposed to complex tasks once they begin school. Schooling requires above all that students learn, solve problems and think abstractly. That IQ is quite a good predictor of differences in educational achievement is therefore not surprising. When scores on both IQ and standardized achievement tests in different subjects are averaged over several years, the two averages correlate as highly as different IQ tests from the same individual do. High-ability students also master material at many times the rate of their low-ability peers. Many investigations have helped quantify this discrepancy. For example, a 1969 study done for the U.S. Army by the Human Resources Research Office found that enlistees in the bottom fifth of the ability distribution required two to six times as many teaching trials and prompts as did their higher-ability peers to attain minimal proficiency in rifle assembly, monitoring signals, combat plotting and other basic military tasks. Similarly, in school settings the ratio of learning rates between "fast" and "slow" students is typically five to one.

The scholarly content of many IQ tests and their strong correlations with educational success can give the impression that g is only a narrow academic ability. But general mental ability also predicts job performance, and in more complex jobs it does so better than any other single personal trait, including education and experience. The army's Project A, a seven-year study conducted in the 1980s to improve the recruitment and training process, found that general mental ability correlated strongly with both technical proficiency and soldiering in the nine specialties studied, among them infantry, military police and medical specialist. Research in the civilian sector has revealed the same pattern. Furthermore, although the addition of personality traits such as conscientiousness can help hone the prediction of job performance, the inclusion of specific mental aptitudes such as verbal fluency or mathematical skill rarely does. The predictive value of mental tests in the work arena stems almost entirely from their measurement of g, and that value rises with the complexity and prestige level of the job.

Half a century of military and civilian research has converged to draw a portrait of occupational opportunity along the IQ continuum. Individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult IQ distribution (above IQ 125) can essentially train themselves, and few occupations are beyond their reach mentally. Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 110) are not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy. In contrast, adults in the bottom 5 percent of the IQ distribution (below 75) are very difficult to train and are not competitive for any occupation on the basis of ability. Serious problems in training low-IQ military recruits during World War II led Congress to ban enlistment from the lowest 10 percent (below 80) of the population, and no civilian occupation in modern economies routinely recruits its workers from that range. Current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85. [This means that only about one-half of all Blacks can enter the military service, which makes the military the only organization in the U.S. that is allowed to discriminate based on intelligence.  All others are forced to hire in one way or another by quotas rather than merit. In addition, testing of applicants is banned for all practical purposes except by the military.  Apparently affirmative action is too important when it comes to national defense. Matt Nuenke]

The importance of g in job performance, as in schooling, is related to complexity. Occupations differ considerably in the complexity of their demands, and as that complexity rises, higher g levels become a bigger asset and lower g levels a bigger handicap. Similarly, everyday tasks and environments also differ significantly in their cognitive complexity. The degree to which a person's g level will come to bear on daily life depends on how much novelty and ambiguity that person's everyday tasks and surroundings present and how much continual learning, judgment and decision making they require. As gamblers, employers and bankers know, even marginal differences in rates of return will yield big gains—or losses—over time. Hence, even small differences in g among people can exert large, cumulative influences across social and economic life.

In my own work, I have tried to synthesize the many lines of research that document the influence of IQ on life outcomes. As the illustration shows, the odds of various kinds of achievement and social pathology change systematically across the IQ continuum, from borderline mentally retarded (below 70) to intellectually gifted (above 130). Even in comparisons of those of somewhat below average (between 76 and 90) and somewhat above average (between 111 and 125) IQs, the odds for outcomes having social consequence are stacked against the less able. Young men somewhat below average in general mental ability, for example, are more likely to be unemployed than men somewhat above average. The lower-IQ woman is four times more likely to bear illegitimate children than the higher-IQ woman; among mothers, she is eight times more likely to become a chronic welfare recipient. People somewhat below average are 88 times more likely to drop out of high school, seven times more likely to be jailed and five times more likely as adults to live in poverty than people of somewhat above-average IQ. Below-average individuals are 50 percent more likely to be divorced than those in the above-average category. 

These odds diverge even more sharply for people with bigger gaps in IQ, and the mechanisms by which IQ creates this divergence are not yet clearly understood. But no other single trait or circumstance yet studied is so deeply implicated in the nexus of bad social outcomes—poverty, welfare, illegitimacy and educational failure—that entraps many low-IQ individuals and families. Even the effects of family background pale in comparison with the influence of IQ. As shown most recently by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., the divergence in many outcomes associated with IQ level is almost as wide among siblings from the same household as it is for strangers of comparable IQ levels. And siblings differ a lot in IQ—on average, by 12 points, compared with 17 for random strangers. 

An IQ of 75 is perhaps the most important threshold in modern life. At that level, a person's chances of mastering the elementary school curriculum are only 50-50, and he or she will have a hard time functioning independently without considerable social support. Individuals and families who are only somewhat below average in IQ face risks of social pathology that, while lower, are still significant enough to jeopardize their well-being. High-IQ individuals may lack the resolve, character or good fortune to capitalize on their intellectual capabilities, but socioeconomic success in the postindustrial information age is theirs to lose.

What Is versus What Could Be
The foregoing findings on g's effects have been drawn from studies conducted under a limited range of circumstances—namely, the social, economic and political conditions prevailing now and in recent decades in developed countries that allow considerable personal freedom. It is not clear whether these findings apply to populations around the world, to the extremely advantaged and disadvantaged in the developing world or, for that matter, to people living under restrictive political regimes. No one knows what research under different circumstances, in different eras or with different populations might reveal.

But we do know that, wherever freedom and technology advance, life is an uphill battle for people who are below average in proficiency at learning, solving problems and mastering complexity. We also know that the trajectories of mental development are not easily deflected. Individual IQ levels tend to remain unchanged from adolescence onward, and despite strenuous efforts over the past half a century, attempts to raise g permanently through adoption or educational means have failed. If there is a reliable, ethical way to raise or equalize levels of g, no one has found it.

Some investigators have suggested that biological interventions, such as dietary supplements of vitamins, may be more effective than educational ones in raising g levels. This approach is based in part on the assumption that improved nutrition has caused the puzzling rise in average levels of both IQ and height in the developed world during this century. Scientists are still hotly debating whether the gains in IQ actually reflect a rise in g or are caused instead by changes in less critical, specific mental skills. Whatever the truth may be, the differences in mental ability among individuals remain, and the conflict between equal opportunity and equal outcome persists. Only by accepting these hard truths about intelligence will society find humane solutions to the problems posed by the variations in general mental ability.

The Author

LINDA S. GOTTFREDSON is professor of educational studies at the University of Delaware, where she has been since 1986, and co-directs the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society. She trained as a sociologist, and her earliest work focused on career development. "I wasn't interested in intelligence per se," Gottfredson says. "But it suffused everything I was studying in my attempts to understand who was getting ahead." This "discovery of the obvious," as she puts it, became the focus of her research. In the mid-1980s, while at Johns Hopkins University, she published several influential articles describing how intelligence shapes vocational choice and self-perception. Gottfredson also organized the 1994 treatise "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," an editorial with more than 50 signatories that first appeared in the Wall Street Journal in response to the controversy surrounding publication of The Bell Curve. Gottfredson is the mother of identical twins—a "mere coincidence," she says, "that's always made me think more about the nature and nurture of intelligence." The girls, now 16, follow Gottfredson's Peace Corps experience of the 1970s by joining her each summer for volunteer construction work in the villages of Nicaragua.


Index to Race and IQ:

1.  Introduction by Ashley Montagu (1) 1995. {info@montagu.org}

2.  Natural Selection and the Mental Capacities of Mankind by Th. Dobzhansky and Ashley Montagu (19) 1947. {Dobzhansky died in 1975}

3.  The IQ Mythology by Ashley Montagu (29) 1995.

4.  The Debate Over Race: Thirty Years and Two Centuries Later by Leonard Lieberman, with Alice Littlefield and Larry T. Reynolds (46) 1995.

5.  What Can Biologists Solve? By S.E. Luria (91) 1974.

6.  The Magical Aura of the IQ by Jerome Kagan (101) 1971.

7.  An Examination of Jensen's Theory Concerning Educability, Heritability, and Population Differences by S. Biesheuvel (108) 1972.

8.  An Affluent Society's Excuses for Inequality: Developmental, Economic, and Educational by Edmund W. Gordon with Derek Green (122) 1974.

9.  Nature with Nurture; A Reinterpretation of the Evidence by Urie Bronfenbrenner (153) 1972.

10.  Racist Arguments and IQ by Stephen Jay Gould  (184) 1974.

11.  Intelligence, IQ, and Race by Ashley Montagu (190) 1995.

12.  On Creeping Jensenism by C. Loring Brace and Frank B. Livingstone (207) 1971.

13.  Race and Intelligence by Richard C. Lewontin (230) 1970.

14.  Heritability Analyses of IQ Scores: Science or Numerology? By David Layzer (248) 1974.

15.  On the Causes of IQ Differences Between Groups and Implications for Social Policy by Peggy R. Sanday (276) 1972.

16.  Race and IQ: The Genetic Background W.F. Bodmer (308) 1972.

17.  Is Early Intervention Effective? Some Studies of Early Education in Familial and Extra-Familial Settings by Urie Bronfenbrenner (343) 1974.

18.  Bad Science, Worse Politics by Alan Ryan (379) 1995.

19.  Behind the Curve by Leon J. Kamin (397) 1995.

20.  The Tainted Sources of The Bell Curve by Charles Lane (408) 1995.

21.  "Science" in the Service of Racism by C. Loring Brace (425) 1995.

22.  How Heritability Misleads About Race by Ned Block (444) 1995.


Bibliography: http://www.neoeugenics.net/bib.htm


This review was written by Matthew Nuenke in March of 2001.  None of this material is copyrighted and may be used in any fashion deemed necessary or desirable to stop the recurrence of Marxist totalitarianism. Any errors or omissions you find can be sent to me at nuenke@comcast.net and will be greatly appreciated.